Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 January	6 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to American Bulldog. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Later deleted without merge taking place per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 25#Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog. WJBscribe (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog

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

Delete and/or merge with American Bulldog - Nominated for similar reasons as several other articles - namely Tamaskan Dog and Utonagan. Crossbred type/breed of dog that is recognized by no group besides its own breed club and has little secondary information to go by. It has only one mention as a variety of bulldog in a French publication where it is described as a variety of bulldog, not necessarily its own breed; and passing mentions in a handful of local news articles (they look like local free papers). TKK ^{bark !} 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. TKK ^{bark !} 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. TKK ^{bark !} 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:45, 31 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of the content to American Bulldog. It doesn't appear to be notable (significant coverage) on its own. James086 ^Talk 14:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (2013)

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

No reliable sources. No confirmation of the album release even if it's currently being recorded. WP:HAMMER. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as quite evidently non-notable and WP:TOOSOON, cited as it is to social networking mentions. Sionk (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more reliable sources are presented. –BuickCentury Driver 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this title as a probable target of so many TBA albums and other media. Nobody's going to name an album TBA and article reads as a blog and the usual WP:HAMMER-ish content. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. It is simply too soon to have an article on this topic; it does not have a name yet, so that is something to take into consideration. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Anthony Bradbury per G3. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ocular citrosis

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

I think this article is a 'joke'. No disease by this name has ever existed. It's true that putting acid in your eye can blind you but that's true of most things and we don't have a disease name for every object small enough to poke someone in the eye with. Acid injuries to the eyes come under 'ocular burns' or 'chemical eye injury' Aspheric (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This smells rather like a hoax, although the article's creator appears to have a history of constructive edits. Googling ("ocular citrosis") yields only pages with text identical to material in this article. The article asserts that the malady was studied by one Alfred T. Murrough at the Sanford-Burnham Institute; but Googling ("murrough" "sanford burnham") again yielded only material apparently taken from this article. Googling ("alfred t murrough") and ("alfred murrough") likewise produced no useful results: the latter, in fact, produced almost nothing but blogs containing misspellings of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. I'm inclined to recommend db-hoax, but since the creator's apparently done useful work (on carnivorous plants), I'll extend him/her the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, in the absence of sources, delete. Ammodramus (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found mentions of the term ocular citrosis in the following references: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. In them, citrosis seems to be used a generic term for acid burn. These references, if legit, would indicate verifiability of the term, but are not enough for notability, If not (e.g., rephrasings of the Wikipedia article), then this article is likely a hoax. The article was created on 1 April 2010. Mark viking (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've repaired User:Mark viking's links: the cite-web template doesn't work in this situation. Ammodramus (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know--thanks for the correction! Mark viking (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In view of these links, I'm less inclined to call this a hoax. I suspect that the creator used the Health Status page (Mark Viking's first link) as a source, and threw in a certain amount of OR—the references to the condition as an "infection" suggest a weak background in medical terminology.

I've just searched JSTOR for (ocular citrosis) and got zero results. Using JSTOR's "Advanced search" feature, I checked for (murrough) from 1990-1993, which should have covered the purported 1991 study; I found no results that related to ocular medicine. Using JSTOR's "Citation locator" with "murrough" as the author produced three results, none connected to ocular medicine.

I'm standing by my "Delete" !vote. There seems to be an absence of in-depth coverage, and the article appears to contain some highly dubious material. Ammodramus (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange that acid burns would be discussed in the same context as cataract when they are very different disorders. On it's own, ocular citrosis was unlikely to attract much attention so a month after it was created, a link and description was inserted in to the article on cataract [5]. It is possible that from there a number of blogs simply cut and pasted wikipedia's entry, giving the hoax a limited spread. It seems everyone's instincts are right but I'd still give the joker an 'A' for effort and innovationAspheric (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Imo the reference to Homer gives this away as a hoax.TheLongTone (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax, and an obvious one. A trout slap to the whole community for letting this sit around for 3 years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious hoax (as noted above). Pubmed search yields nothing at all for "citrosis", and the links found above are almost certainly derivatives of the same hoax (perhaps arising from our too-long-standing article). The article is a mashup of quasi-medical ideas. -- Scray (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWBALL delete.. Hoax or not, it lacks any referencess. - Altenmann >t 20:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to FOREVER_(American_group)#Former_members. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Parales

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO in all regards. Passed WP:HOTTIE MJH (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least a borderline pass of WP:ENT for a recurring character role in a network TV show; member/performer in multiple notable groups, therefore no suitable primary redirect target. The lousiness of the article in its current form cannot justify deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability just isn't there. Procedural keep for WP:HOTTIE though :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FOREVER_(American_group)#Former_members as it seems she has received the most attention for this. Google News archives provided results that are mostly unsuitable for Wikipedia but there are some reliable sources such as Boston Globe. Aside from the many dance groups she has participated with, she has not established herself as a notable performer, acting or dancing. Her Everybody Hates Chris role was short therefore not enough to sustain the article. Additionally, like most child stars, they start to fade away as they become of age unless they become serious performers. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SwisterTwister. –BuickCentury Driver 23:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to have had some very minor roles on TV and been a member of several non-notable dance groups, fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Sionk (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to FOREVER (American group) as suggested above. Just not enough here for an individual article at this time, though who knows what the future may or may not bring. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails a number or criteria. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Article style and tone less a concern than the possibility of this person meeting WP:ENT. Offering AKAs and relisting to seek more input

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Week Delete and Redirect without prejudice to someplace appropriate. While it might be considered "too soon" by some, we should keep in mind that she has not been without recognition in media. Asian Journal made note of her in their 2010 list "FPAC’s top five performances". When discussing a 2003 past performance, she was referred to as (then) "9-year-old dance sensation Monica Parales". He name pops up repeatedly in reviews of School Gyrls (film), filmed when she was 16. Her work as a young dancer and in film and television, while not as extensive as someone who's been doing so for decades, could be seen as verifiable and just bumping up against WP:ENT. We can allow this article to return when her work and coverage grows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Bei Lao Shi

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

No reliable sources are given in the article, while a search using both its Chinese name and its romanization is inconclusive. I can only see Facebook and Blogspot links. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the article's creator appears to be the book's author. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a promotion of something others have not bothered to write about. Notability, therefore, does not appear to be present. Anastasia Bykova (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No holdings in WorldCat, or references to the author's name, no significant third-party coverage; fails WP:NBOOK. COI aside, I don't think this gets past WP:GNG. Of course, language barriers being what they are this might be massively popular in Malaysia, but who knows. Maybe a Malaysian Wikipedian might stop by and help us. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-English sources are found. I haven't found any English sources despite multiple detailed searches including Google News so it must've been primarily published in Asia. However, one final search provided this (second result from the top) but when clicked, it says "error occurred". Using the Chinese name, I searched Chinese Wikipedia but didn't find a relevant article. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
english sources are unnecessary; it needs to be searched for Chinese sources by someone familiar with the language. wikipedia is not at that state where it can be concluded that anything not listed there is non-notable, DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't search Chinese Wikipedia to see if it was notable there, I actually searched to see if there was an article that could help this one. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources isn't actually very relevant here as the article doesn't actually claim notability at all, which is unsuprising for a book released in the last few months that apparently wasn't a hit. Looks like the article is self-promotional as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jamie DeWolf. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMOKED. The Movie

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

Article about non-notable film, lacking references. No sources could be found on Google news, Google books, NewsBank and HighBeam. Seems to fail WP:NF notability guidelines. - Mr X 13:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reason I didn't have this speedy-deleted is because it seemed to have a source going with The Straight. In the end though, it just does not cut our notability guidelines. FallingGravity (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and found only one other source other than The Straight. The press page for the movie site showed an article in "Nug Magazine", but even if we were to consider that to be a RS (it doesn't exactly look to be as in high regards or as known a quantity as High Times) it still wouldn't be enough to show notability. I'd recommend redirecting this to the director's page since he seems to have notability, but with the period in the article title I don't know that this would really be a proper redirect title.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. I have no issues with this being incubated.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to directorJamie DeWolf and/or Incubate for a short time. Despite IMDB'd stating the project is still "in production" it has completed and is currently making the festival circuit.[6] Allow back once WP:NF can be met. P.S. Beyond Nug magazine, the official website also quotes East Bay Express. Also, if later returned, the article title should be moved to Smoked. (film) per sources, rather than "SMOKED. The Movie". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and inadequitely sourced to say the least. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per significant coverage. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jamie DeWolf per MichaelQSchmidt's reasoning. While this may just about bump up against separate notability, it's certainly appropriate for adding more detail to the article about DeWolf.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be notable someday, but that day pretty clearly isn't today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oak Bay, British Columbia. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Bay Sea Rescue

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

Delete other then one event this is a non notable base of a larger organization. Perhaps merge into the overall article but not seeing how this merits a standalone at this point Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Bay Sea Rescue is very separate from the Royal Canadian Marine Search and own's the vessels and it can separate if it wants to, it is more of a funding agreement between the two. There has been a long been a problem of this misconception. The Oak Bay Sea Rescue it is very important to this area. Do not delete this article!--Oaktreebay (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable org. reddogsix (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~ - I have updated the article, and should clear up the misconception. Please remove the banner. --Oaktreebay (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to demonstrate the notability of this local organization. There's a one-event issue, also—though can a rescue organization really be notable for having one of its vessels sink? —C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does say alot about the risks they take. It a is what happened so it should be told... --Oaktreebay (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking risks does not make them a notable organization, though. That's the issue: there is no evidence that this organization meets the guidelines for having an article on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having one of its vessels sink does not alone make it notable, but there is much more in this article then jest that. I have done some more updating. It meets the guidelines. If you still think it's not notable can you tell me more why? --Oaktreebay (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – at least for now. Nominating an article for deletion 4-minutes after it was created hardly gives it a chance to get it's first breath. No need to bite the relatively new editor. Let Editor Oaktreebay and others have a go at it. The world will not collapse in upon itself if this article remains for a month or two. –Trappist the monk (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing out where nominating a article for deletion on a new editor is biting? I keep asking the people who say this and no one seems to be able to answer it...Or maybe just the policy that has different standards for new editors article notability standards as compares to experienced editors? Looking forward to an answer! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean beyond manners and common courtesy? Aren't those enough? Simply reading the article makes it clear that it was written by someone who doesn't have a lot of experience at Wikipedia – a fact easily confirmed by looking at the article and author histories. A new Wikipedia editor has a lot to learn. To learn and become a productive contributor, new editors need time and practice. If they feel comfortable here they'll get that practice. If they don't they leave with a bad taste in their mouths.

I suggest that a more appropriate action on your part (aside from waiting more than 4-minutes after the article was created to take any action) would have been to make a post to the author so that the two of you could discuss your concerns. Consider it your embasage to pass on what you have learned.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you would consider good manners letting them waste their time on an article that won't be here anyways? And we do leave messages, they are called templates. Not everything has to be custom written, it links them to the appropriate policy (Which is still something you haven't addressed from my question)and it should be read, then if there is still questions ask! I believe the templates direct them to the users talkpage too, if at that point in time the person is a dick then absolutely it's biting! If not it's just regular site maintenance. I give you an example, you move to a new town and you start building a home, now you can't build how you want to build so you're ordered to stop, isn't kinder to stop it before the building is done? Why allow that person to sink their time and resources into something, isn't that far more cruel? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it poor manners for an experienced person in any field to abruptly declare a neophyte's work to be worthless. Perhaps it is, but what does the novice learn from the experience? We don't punish children when they fail to march across the room when they first attempt to walk. We let them fall; we hold their hands; we encourage them. Time spent learning is not time wasted.

I did answer your question about policy; perhaps too obliquely. Manners and common courtesy. If Wikipedia needs to codify every nuance of editor interaction, then Wikipolicy will dwarf Wikipedia. If such codification is required, human society at large is in deep trouble.

Templates are good. I use them all the time. Templates are not a substitute for common courtesy, nor do they relieve experienced editors of their obligation to help newbies get a foothold in the large and complex world of Wikipedia. In place of the abrupt nomination for deletion template, for novice writers {{notability}} is a better choice. Hold off for a fortnight and then consider nominating the article for deletion.

Your home-building metaphor is a bit of a stretch. No one here is going to die if an article doesn't meet code.

We must invest time and resources. Without that we can't try and fail. Without we try and fail, we cannot learn and succeed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: "Don't bite the newcomers" is the (emphasized) first bullet at ~~Wikipedia:New pages~~ Special:NewPages. PK T(alk) 13:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant Special:NewPages?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed......thx, PK T(alk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has answered how allowing an article that shouldn't be here to is allowed and where the lower standards of quality for shorter term editors? And with respect to your school analogy maybe that's why the U.S. has the crappy schools and education that we do. Life isn't all fluff and candy. If you define deletion nomination as biting, which I note the WP:BITE page does not (Only csd within 60 secs, not AFD within four) I will apply WP:IAR and continue to mantain the pedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I've written again. I have stated why the work of novice editors should receive the benefit of relaxed standards. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone made a school analogy. Where did that come from? If I understand what you've written, you seem to want codified policy that explicitly grants novice editors certain relief from established standards and treatment; but, if such policies existed, you would then claim WP:IAR. Have I got that right?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Hell in a Bucket, do you still think it's not notable? I have done lots more updating. If you still think it's not notable can you tell me more in detail why? I still feel it very much so that it meets the guidelines. --Oaktreebay (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, I'm sorry but a primary requirement for this project is WP:RS, sources that are separate from the source we are writing about. Right now the current incarnation shows only sources from their own website. I do sympathize in the fact that I like to write about local things and people where I'm from too. I would say if there was anything that makes it notable that's nontrivial as far as sourcing should be added but right now I feel that it fails WP:ORGDEPTH, if there are sources that can help alleviate those concerns I'd happily support inclusion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other notability concern I see is with WP:NGO. Either this is a local organization which does not have activities at national scope, or it is a local chapter of the national rescue society. Either way, I don't see the organization is notable, regardless of the number of sources that are provided. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C.Fred, the Oak Bay Sea Rescue is a independent society who own's the vessels, equipment and funding. I still feel that it meets the notability guidelines with the organization’s longevity, it's major achievements (and some failures), the fact it operates internationally as need in the USA, the fact life would be lost if this society was not in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I feel that it would be inappropriate to merge with any other article.--96.54.214.9 (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Oaktreebay[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although paywalled, I've accessed three articles from the Victoria Times-Colonist that discuss this group significantly. Two are cited in the article, this is the third: Bell, Jeff. "Community Backing Vital to Heroes Who Save Lives at Sea - by Jeff Bell - Times Colonist Staff." Times - Colonist: 1. Jun 01 1995. Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies. Web. 5 Jan. 2013. As the Victoria T.C. is the "newspaper of record" for the Island region, I'm inclined to keep this article per the GNG. (Article text available by email on request) The Interior (Talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the town, including the references. I think there is general acceptance that these type of organizations are rarely notable, and that local coverage of this nature is routine and not sufficient. The reason it is not sufficient is that local papers write about essentially any organization in their community, not discriminating the ones which would be of importance outside it.

Local articles are a problem. These are good topics for beginners, and a properly done local article can appear as /encyclopedic as any other article. What I suggest is a Wikipedia Two - an encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring WP:Verifiability, and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of barely notable articles in Wikipedia, and the upper levels of a good deal of what we do not let in. Newcomers would have an open and accepting place for a initial experience.

With respect to new editors, I have never been reluctant to nominate for speedy or AfD if the articles are truly hopeless, but when the articles are merely of borderline notability,sometime should be allowed before nominating, and the new editor just reminded about what is needed. Although AfD and PROD allow 7 days to do this, the initial notices are so hostile that the process does lose us editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inappropriate to merge with any other article, the choice should be to delete or not to delete only. --Oaktreebay (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus will decide if that is the case, you've stated your rationale very well to this point. best to wait out the rest of the discussion to finish the where or what of things. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I'm not at all convinved this is a notable organisation, and the fact that there's pretty obvious COI/self-promotion going on isn't good either. If it must be kept, merge to the town article as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ---- As the editor of 99.99% of the content and the one who start the article, i want deletion of this article. --Oaktreebay (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that consensus to delete has been reached. And it is time to close this page. --Oaktreebay (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let you know, generally these are closed by unconnected editors, we know you want the article deleted you've made that abundantly clear however there's still a very good chance it will be merged to the overall parent article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 08:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus types used in London

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

Not been sourced at all since it was tagged in 2007. No encyclopedic value. Can't see any notability. This is just a list of the types of buses used in London, lots of details missing. Seems more like a bus spotters site. JetBlast (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep London buses have been extensively documented in works such as Buses of London: An Illustrated Review, with Specifications and Brief History, of Every London Bus Type Purchased by London Transport Or Its Predecessors Since 1908. The topic therefore satisfies WP:LISTN. I have added some reputable reference works of this sort to the article. Warden (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has no longer unsourced so, if anything, this AfD has prompted someone to significantly improve it. The sources indicate London buses are of notable interest. Sionk (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Warden. Doncsecz^talk 14:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a list article, providing a useful index. Provided the referenced subject articles are properly sourced, the lack of sources for the list entries is unimportant. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 23:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprisingly sourcable--in addition to the book Warden found there's also a book called London Buses: A Brief History. A merge would also be okay, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like many other "List of Rolling Stock" articles, this has the potential to reach Featured status and I would imagine that since buses are iconic in London there are many sources covering the topic. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 00:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid list article, showing things of common on a list, and ample blue links. Dream Focus 17:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swags Galore

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

Promotional article on non-notable company. Every one of the references is either their PR, or based on it. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the references to their own website "Company Overview" do not seem to be supported by that 3 sentence summary. Aside from that, the 3rd party references are mainly about the firm as a stock-pick; I'm not seeing demonstration of notability here. AllyD (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for ("swags galore") turned up the company's own sites and a hatful of directories and review websites, but nothing suggestive of in-depth coverage by independent sources. Searching Google News and Google News Archives likewise yielded nothing useful. The investment-advice pieces cited in the article suggested another search line: I tried combining the name with various terms likely to occur in financial journalism, e.g. ("swags galore" "earnings"), ("swags galore" "debt"), ("swags galore" "revenue"), to see if I could find business-oriented coverage. Got nothing more than the pieces already cited in the article; to my eye, they don't reach the level of in-depth coverage called for by WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article avoids any obvious "CLICK HERE FOR SAVINGS!!" type advertising language but still reads way more like a brochure than an encyclopedia article: "unique products", "liberal return policy", etc. Alexa rank well over 100,000 doesn't suggest this could be saved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty spammy. Seems to have some press, but not exactly notable 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references never indicate any notability and say the same thing which talks about their services and nothing else... thus promotional. Additionally, the website's "overview" page and the references never mention anything of the company's history. Multiple detailed searches through Google News provided nothing. I'm voting delete with no prejudice for a future notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

László Kovács (writer)

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

Insufficient evidence of notability, recreated by original creator after deletion via prod Yworo (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - a difficult one, considering the sources (if they exist) are likely to be in Slovenian or Hungarian! There are several other notable people called László Kovács (making a search for information difficult) and, what's more, Kovács is known by a number of other names!! However, the article currently makes no great claims to notability and has no independent, reliable sources to prove otherwise. Authors and/or local politicians are not automatically notable. I can't find a mention online about the alleged A Nemzetiségi Hagyományok Átörökítéséért prize. Overall the article serves no useful purpose unless it can be adequately sourced and the notability explained. Sionk (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the prizes at ARCUSFEST (a yearly event for minority theatres in Hungary). There a number of mentions in Hungarian, though I didn't find any after 2009. The prize is received by a theater, not by a specific person, though. --Tgr (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. How can we delete an article if we can't read/search the sources in the appropriate language? 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a selfishness againts the Europeans. Sionk, you unable accordingly to serch in the internet. The Porabje tidings is a independent source. By the Hungarian National Bibliothek Széchenyi including the Slovene Theather is prized with this award. László Kovács is frequent name in Hungary, but important is the proper search: Kovács László AND magyarországi szlovén/Hungarian Slovene (396 results) or Kovács László AND Vidám barátok (917 results) Doncsecz^talk 12:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For ethnic Slovenians living in Hungary the development of their literature is important. He is one of the few authors using their dialect. Borsoka (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Borsoka artived here because of WP:CANVASSING. He was asked for help by User:Doncsecz, the creator of this article [7]. User:Doncsecz also asked other users for help: [8] [9] Transerd (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter how Borsoka found this discussion? I never get it why some people think it's such a crime to invite people who are actually capable of reading the sources and decide whether the subject is notable or not. Also, it's kind of rude to insinuate that Hungarians will automatically vote "keep" in every Hungary-related AfD without thinking. – Alensha ^talk 07:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transerd is not a sockpuppet of a user? Borsoka, Norden, etc. is not my friends but Hungarian users, ergo parties at any time, i only draw your attention, as the Englis wiki very-very great. Doncsecz^talk 13:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

László Kovács (writer) is a Hungarian writer. Borsoka, Norden, etc are Hungarian users. Their vote for keeping the article is expected Transerd (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the arguments for the deletions is nonsense, only the humiliation of the Hungarians or Europeans. Doncsecz^talk 13:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning! Transerd is the sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi. Doncsecz^talk 08:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is actually related to the fact that there are inadequate sources showing. The way to defend against a notability challenge isn't to wail and moan and get mad, it's to find two or three legitimate sources of information and to cite them in this thread, or to demonstrate how the subject passes one or another of the special notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He served as mayor of Apátistvánfalva, so he meets the criterias of Wikipedia:Notability. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POLITICIAN - local politicians aren't automatically notable enough for Wikipedia, otherwise we'd have articles on all mayors! Sionk (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kovács have important role in the political and cultural live of the Slovene minority in Hungary. This person is recognized, and famous. Outside here is the evidences from televiosions and tidings. This sources is independent sources, as the Porabje is not newspaper of a party, but a minority. Doncsecz^talk 14:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep according to this search in the Hungarian Audiovisual Archives, he has been interviewed several times (in lots of differet roles - author, teacher, camp organizer, beekeeper, mayor) in the minority programme of Hungarian Television. --Tgr (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a Hungarian who speaks the Slovenian language I think that it is an important article, not only, but especially for the Slovenian minority living in Hungary. Please consider the good sources and disregard the sometimes inappropriately ardent arguments of the author.--Szilas (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he does not look notable enough Transerd (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not have 50 contributions and you is a new user. This vote is invalid. Doncsecz^talk 09:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Nyar94 (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What we really need are some people from Slovenian Wikipedia to lend advice, since Slovenian and Hungarian are about as linguistically similar as grapefruit and albatross... Carrite (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything for László Kovács or Kovács László on Slovene WP, for what it's worth. Several people by this name makes it hard to isolate the writer with random Googling. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's the problem... The Slovenian rendition of the name is Laci Kovač, short for Ladislav Kovač... Please Google search accordingly... Carrite (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh, that was in the lead... I need to go do something productive... Carrite (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Slovene WP. Even less to go on than the English article. Sionk (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well sourced article which is definitely notable enough. Laci.d (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete We need far more sources to prove this gentleman is noteworthy enough. The present sourcing is at best weak. No sources of him being a mayor (what could make him qualify), no information about the theatre group (important or just a local group), no info about the status of the prize, missing a list of publications. And I have no clue what the beekeeping has to do with it or why that is important. Some work on the language is also a good idea. The Banner talk 20:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, see the previous link from the Hungarian National Bibliothek (Bibliothek Széchenyi): the Széchenyi is prominent organization and justify the importance. Doncsecz^talk 08:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a convincing link. It is a description from the festival, more than likely based on information supplied by the company itself. Any newspaper articles? The Banner talk 13:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We need to see an independent reliable source clearly stating that Kovács is important, or at least talk a lot about him. If one of his books has been widely reviewed, he might pass WP:AUTHOR. Sionk (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a recent Hungarian expat I am certain this is clearly a notable subject. Also slovene WP seems to contain additional sources.BO | Talk 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Count of banhous de Caeser

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

Unreferenced article about a supposed French noble family. While some of the names and terms used there, such Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici and Bagnols-sur-Cèze check out, I could not find a single reference to Portelli-Banhous in either the English or French versions of Google or Google Books. No prejudice to withdrawing the AFD if sources for this are found, but as positively biased as I am toward historical topics, I think this might be a hoax or something the author (whose sole contribution is this article) simply made up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As probable OR. Mifsud is apparently a very common name in Malta, but searching Google Books does bring up some references to a mid-18th century Giuseppe Mifsud. Likewise, Banhous is the Occitan name of Bagnols. It looks like personal genealogical research to me, especially with the lack of references, but I don't think it is a hoax. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Google search doesn't show up much. 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a hoax or serious verifiability problems. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It could likely never be supported by reliable sources. If someone does find reliable sources, they can add the information to Wikipedia. James086 ^Talk 14:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Frank Cohen (Entrepreneur). MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PushToTest

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

Corporate puff piece, inflated by passing mentions and directory listings. And how is "finalist" for a Top 100 listing is supposed to be meaningful? Ultimately, seems to be part of a walled garden of corporate puff-pieces which have the smell of paid editing about them. Calton | Talk 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all the awards mentioned are for the principals in other contexts, or for their career generally. The author seems to specialize in creating articles about both companies and their principals, thus attempting to get multiple articles out of the same material. In this particular case, the two principals seem to be in fact notable--from their work elsewhere. The awards for the product itself are insignificant. (I am checking their other articles; I have just nominated one for afd, and expect to nominate a few others--though not all. If this is paid editing, some of the clients are notable. )

I have learned to be very skeptical about articles which use "nominations" as the basis for notability--except for a few very major awards where the nomination itself is highly selective, such as the Academy Awards, or the Man Booker. I am also skeptical about awards such as the Red Herring for companies that show promise or are positioned to grow or are notable among new companies--this normally means not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There isn't much for this article, the "awards and recognitions" section only mentions the finalist for Red Herring and Kevin Surace's awards (which may be somewhat relevant but not exactly to the company). Google News archives provided results here, here, here (DEMO Conference 2002), here (2001 comment from Frank Cohen through an article, not really useful), here (brief mention), here (not really useful either as it is written by Frank Cohen), here (announcement for TestMaker) and press releases here with two more here and here. It seems the press releases, as usual sometimes, outweigh the non-PR. Additional searches did not provide anything else. I think it's probably too soon so I have no prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A 10 year open-source project (assuming the popularity/usage is true) should be listed, though the article could be shortened to focus mostly on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.59.129 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no substantial 3rd party reliable source coverage. Mcewan (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is very similar to other open source companies and projects which are listed on Wikipedia such as smartbear, soapui, joomla, red hat, Selenium (software) etc. 3 million downloads make this noteworthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.217.162 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Frank Cohen (Entrepreneur). Google, Google News and Google News Archive searches for ("pushtotest") yield nothing in the way of in-depth coverage: lots of the company's own websites and press releases, some passing mentions in articles on other subjects, but nothing detailed enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Searches combining the company's name with various terms likely to occur in financial journalism, e.g. ("pushtotest" "earnings") also yield nothing in-depth (though note that the company isn't public, so there probably won't be much investor-oriented press). Much of the current article is about Cohen and CEO Kevin Surace, possibly reflecting the paucity of sources on the company itself. A redirect would allow expansion of the section and ultimately separation of a free-standing article if better coverage were later found. Ammodramus (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Surace

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

Corporate puff-piece. A listing on CNBC and giving a TED talk isn't sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Calton | Talk 17:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While a TED talk is not sufficient alone, Entrepreneur of the Year (Inc Magazine) is more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.59.129 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 January 2013‎
Keep. I think he does satisfy WP:GNG. He turns up quite a few Google hits, plus the 2009 Inc Entrepreneur of the Year award. Not sure how a TED Talk plays into notability honestly, but it seems like someone that is asked to speak at TED is in some way notable? Do we have a consensus on TED Talk speakers? 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree. Google search for "Kevin Surace" turns up 23,400 hits. USPTO search (just to verify the claims) turns up 20 patents issued. The TED talk is an interesting and probably useful side note, but not the meat here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.217.162 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could be much better written; but Surace's notability doesn't seem to be in question: the Inc. article alone seems to establish that. Note also that there's been considerable coverage of Serious Materials/Serious Energy (e.g. John Stossel's criticism, Barack Obama's plaudits); since there's no separate article on SM/SE, this coverage could be regarded as adding to Surace's notability. Ammodramus (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close. Some fairly noteworthy awards in addition to his work. Mkdw ^talk 08:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Island of the Druids

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

It deals with material best placed in Anglesey (and in fact already there, much more accurate and better expressed), with material on real Druids (mostly derived from Caesar's account of the Gaulish priesthood and of very dubious relevance to the British Isles let alone Anglesey) best placed in Druids, and, mostly, with Neo-Druidism fantasy (irrelevant to Anglesey and with minimal relevance to real life) referenced to a self-published page. It seems absolutely valueless to an encyclopedia and the subject does not offer scope for improvement to a worthwhile article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There do not seem to be any references to the central topic of the COATRACK article: that Mona/Anglesey was an especially important island for the druids. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 01:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The basis for this page is that the Roman governor of Britiannia was dealing with the Druids in Anglesey at the time of Boudicca's rebellion, but there is very litle fact to make an article from. Rivet & Smith, Placenames of Roman Britain (1981 edn), pp. 417-8 gives a derivation for the name as related to "mountain". It has nothing to do with the Latin "moneo" - learn. At best this is WP:ESSAY, but some of it seems to be WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star

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

Wikipedia is not a fan wiki, and it does not need to cover every single facet of fictional universes. Anything relevant in this article can be covered in either the main Fist of the North Star article, the episodes or the character pages. This page does not cite any sources or establish notability, and the page itself is going into too much detail about a series than is warranted. This is fairly common and is part of a broader problem on Wikipedia.

Some of the arguments for inclusion in previous debates are wrong. One editor cited other pages, which is an irrelevant argument. The page itself needs to establish notability. Further, in previous debates editors have cited the Japanese version as evidence that this page should exist. I'm going to cite WP:OTHERLANGS. We can't use other WP pages in other languages as evidence for a page to exist on WP. They have different criteria for inclusion, and the page may even fail notability guidelines themselves. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you want to nominate Nanto Seiken as well? If that particular fictional style is notable, it would strongly suggest this topic is notable, and vice versa. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hokuto Seiken might work as a redirect. I'm not sure. I don't think it's notable. I recently turned Hokuto Shinken because I believe it is an alternate name for the series itself. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator's rationale is spot-on. The article is completely unsourced, violates WP:NOTPLOT, fails our notability guideline for lists. The previous AfD discussions are a nice collection of arguments to avoid in AfD, but that was 5 years ago and fortunately our notability policies have grown stronger since.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world notability to be found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete huge, unreferenced pile of unnecessary trivia. Wikipedia isn't a fansite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, unnecessary detail. Is there a fan wiki this can be transwikied to? Jenphalian (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by User:MilborneOne (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Britten-Norman Islander disappearance

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

Private plane crash. Fails WP:AIRCRASH

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kopaonik

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

Proposing deletion per Peacemaker67's arguments at the talkpage which were that "This article does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria, although some basic content might be merged into the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen article. The reasons are: 1. it lacks significant coverage except in a primary source (Kumm); 2. the only source for the actual operation is Otto Kumm's Vorwärts Prinz Eugen! Geschichte der 7.SS-Freiwilligen Gebirgs Division „Prinz Eugen”. Kumm was a divisional commander of the 7th SS, and cannot be considered a reliable or secondary source. 3. As far as reliable sources are concerned, a search for Operation Kopaonik on Google Books shows no hits other than self-references to this article- [10]" ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge into 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen then Delete. I note that Karchmar mentions it in passing, and I have since been convinced (Talk:Operation Rösselsprung (1944)/GA1) that Kumm (despite his limitations as a non-third party source) may be a WP:RS for bare facts related to this operation, but it really belongs in the 7th SS article (which as it happens I am currently working on, and will be using Kumm for). I am happy to transfer useable material from this article to that one IOT facilitate this deletion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient reliable sources found to verify operation exist, or if it does exist whether the operation itself is notable per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep. There's some talk about a move, but something of that kind can be discussed further at the talk page. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integrism

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

Article completely uncited. Appears restricted to one country. Importance not established. Alternative, more widely used name is available. Suggest merging or deleting. Student7 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is about the specific French phenomena. This should be a merge discussion anyway. Citations will follow. JASpencer (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now with at least one citation. Looking at the history there were other citations but they were deleted as off topic. JASpencer (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is frequently mentioned in books, etc., though it is indeed apparently a France-specific term. Not opposed to merger if one makes sense, though. The French Wikipedia seems to have substantial separate articles on both fr:Intégrisme and fr:Catholicisme traditionaliste—although a good portion of the latter talks about intégrisme anyway. --Delirium (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica translates it as integralism. So too does John A. Coleman, Charles Casassa professor of social values at Loyola Marymount University, in Coleman 1992 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFColeman1992 (help). So too does Peter J. Bernardi (department of Theology, Loyola University Chicago) in Bernadi 2009, pp. 65–67 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBernadi2009 (help). For Émile Poulat's view, see Poulat 1969 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPoulat1969 (help).
Student7, the professors and historians greatly outnumber you.
- Poulat, Émile (1969). Intégrisme et catholicisme intégral. Un réseau secret international antimoderniste La " Sapinière " (1909–1921) (in French). Casterman.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Coleman, John A. (1992). "Catholic Integralism as a Fundamentalism". In Kaplan, Lawrence (ed.). Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective. University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 9780870237980.
- Bernardi, Peter J. (2009). "The "Testis" Series". Maurice Blondel, Social Catholicism, and Action Française: The Clash Over the Church's Role in Society During the Modernist Era. CUA Press. ISBN 9780813215426.
Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, a move to intégrisme with a redirect from integralism (or vice-versa) is in order. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is currently a poor article and needs to be tagged for improvement but is a much more substantial (and well-referenced) article, which could easily be used to imporve the English one. POssibly renmae to Integralism, which seems to be the English-language term. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audio matrix barcode

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

Unsourced article about a technology that may not exist. No sources found in Google news and Google books. May be a hoax. - Mr X 14:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept of audio barcodes does exist; NTT in Japan has a plan to use OFDM in the high audio frequencies to transmit information without degrading perceptual audio quality too much. Fax headers and modem protocols could be considered to use kinds of audio barcodes as well. But there is nothing on the Internet that I could find regarding QuQu or KyuKyu (a possible Japanese romanization) related to an audio barcode. The article itself has no explanation of the structure or how it works: "Bionics" and "geometric" are nonsense in this context. Even assuming good faith, there are apparently no primary or secondary sources available, so this article should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references found. - Altenmann >t 20:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next German presidential election

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

An election taking place in 2017 is simply pure crystalball Shadowjams (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not being neutral as the author, I do think that "the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I do not really understand why the very crystalball guidelines state that the inclusion of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is appropriate (I do agree with that assessment) while an election which is scheduled to take place two and a half months later is not. --EBB (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. seems premature as well, but that's not my focus atm. Shadowjams (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Compare with this article, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete This isn't actually an article about any specific election; it's just talking about the presidential election process. As such it simply duplicates information in the main article on the German federal presidency. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite it in a more relevant manner at German presidential election, 2017. I agree with Mangoe's assessment on the current article. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is better covered at Elections in Germany and/or Electoral system of Germany; the article runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. It would be very different if the title was 2014 German Federal Elections or something like that, but not being very familiar with the system over there I can't say if that's even practical for the topic. No prejudice against a move to a more appropriate title. Yes we do have an article about the 2016 US Presidential Elections, and as far as I'm concerned that's just a bunch of smoke and mirrors too, but the likelihood that the election will take place is high enough. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL...and named badly. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So many problems with the article title to subject matter. Way too early and context is too ambiguous. Mkdw ^talk 04:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical joke

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

Sorry for bringing this up a second time. I know the last nomination was a speedy keep, but I propose that this article be deleted (once more for a number of reasons):

Per WP:GNG, the topic must have significant coverage. However many ghits there are for the topic, nearly all of them are simply collections of maths jokes. These would be considered primary sources. True, there are a couple that are actually about maths jokes, but there aren't enough to satisfy the GNG.
A Google Book search shows that most of the books are books with maths jokes rather than books ABOUT maths jokes.
Unlike knock-knock joke, maths jokes are a THEME of jokes, not a FORM of jokes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but joke themes are not very researchable topics per se. (Nothing on Google Scholar)
Since our major sources here (BOOKS, INTERNET (incl. NEWSPAPERS), JOURNALS) all lack information on this topic, WP:V will be hard to meet.
Joke collections are unencyclopaedic.

Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Allen Paulos, among others, would disagree that this is not a legitimate topic: "Mathematics and Humor" ... guess I should have put something about this book in the article (oops). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know, a few sources are not sufficient to establish notability. Scholars write books on all sorts of weird things... I've searced for 'mathematical humour' in Google Books and this is the only book on mathematical humour that came up (the rest are collections of jokes, etc.)Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - More than enough to keep this article, however: A single notable source is certainly enough to establish notability. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - This guy has made a career out of math & humor [11] ... and he should be in the article, which (you're right) does need improving. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's another one: http://hudsonvalleygeologist.blogspot.com/2011/05/dave-gorman-math-stand-up-comedy.html ... heck, and another [12] I'll be darned! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gorman is not purely a mathematical comedian. As for Parker, he does not appear to be a very notable guy (Matt Parker is a redirect to a fictional character); there are lots of weird jobs in the world and not all merit an article. Mathematics and Humour does not appear to be a notable source. I haven't watch Briain yet, but according to the WP article, his show does not appear to consist only of maths jokes. Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews of collections suffice as secondary reliable sources, and are easy to add. Boas's book on Mathematical lion hunting would be significant, like Paulos, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some googling around and honestly I'm not sure what the book is about, exactly. *blush* However, according to the Amazon description, it doesn't seem to be about maths jokes. Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete People are seriously defending a list of jokes as an article?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? At the very least if it is to survive, it should be renamed List of mathematics jokes. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Go and read Elephant joke (AfD discussion), Shaggy dog story (AfD discussion), Newspaper riddle (AfD discussion), and User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is generally not a good argument in an AfD. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep this second AFD is a waste of time the claims made by the nominator indicate not only a lake of WP:Before but willful disregard for the very poliy cited. The following sources alone establish WP:N according to WP:GNG
1. Maitre, Michelle (October 16, 2005). "'Simpsons,' 'Futurama' writers to share math jokes". Oakland Tribune. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
2. Stewart, Stewart (September 30, 2010). "Professor Stewart's Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities.(Entertainment)". The Star (South Africa). Retrieved 5 January 2013.
3. "Formula for perfect joke". Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales). June 14, 2004. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
4. Caroline Gammell, Caroline Gammell (June 14, 2004). "Why c (m+n0)/p is guaranteed to get you rolling in the aisles.(News)". The Birmingham Post (England). Retrieved 5 January 2013.
5. and there are at least a thousand more where these came from. BO | Talk 14:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When this is over, perhaps we should discuss on the article talk page whether Mathematical humor would be a better article title, to include discussion about math-related comedians as well on analysis of why math and humor overlap in interesting ways ... "jokes" is kind of limiting. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Mathematical humor already exists - as a redirect from this article! hmmm ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are apparently excellent sources. FWIW, the earlier AfD was closed as speedy keep. I suggest the same here DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first discussion was closed as speedy keep because it became apparent that the nominator wasn't being genuine. Xe turned out to be a single-purpose account. The same cannot be said of Special:Contributions/Kayau. Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - notable, verifiable topic. - Altenmann >t 18:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kayau, the technical name is a joke cycle, and joke cycles very much are studied by folklorists and are researchable. Not all of them are. Aviation joke (AfD discussion), Drummer jokes (AfD discussion), Geography joke (AfD discussion), and Grape joke (AfD discussion) apparently weren't. The question is whether folklorists and others have studied this joke cycle. Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lambert (restaurant)

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

Local business that appears to fail notability standards. Sources cited in article are local (Hartlepool Mail), or not independent of subject (two client profiles in small trade journals). A Google search turns up the founder's obituary in the Mail, the restaurant's own website, some Facebook pages, and lots of directory entries, but nothing suggestive of in-depth coverage by independent sources outside of Hartlepool. Searches on Google News and Google News Archives yield no evidence of such coverage. Ammodramus (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination, unremarkable business, no significant non-local coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems this restaurant is very well known in Hartlepool but I haven't found any national or international coverage and that's fine, not all restaurants receive the best coverage. However, I found some other local coverage here (minor mention through a health incident), here (minor mention through employee), here (regarding the restaurant's smoking policy) and here (minor mention for taxes). I'm sure this is a good restaurant but it is not notable for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be a decent local restaurant but no evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I know there is no recommended notability guideline for restaurants. By default WP:GNG, I would say the independent and widespread coverage of this business does not seem enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mkdw ^talk 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- merely a NN restaurant or bakery. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inappropriate advert for a non-notable local cafe. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Hyo-Jun

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

Article originally PRODed because the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested by User:Debarghya89 with no reason saying why. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hasn't played at professional level or for a senior national team, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't been covered in reliable sources enough to meet the general notability guideline. C 679 11:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fail WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's not a pro! No way he meets WP:GNG :) 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a case of not meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Mkdw ^talk 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 10:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Schools Debating

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

No reliable, independent sources. No evidence of notability or existence of such sources from a Google search. delldot ∇. 00:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 17:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 31 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, Mkdw ^talk 09:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching Google News and Google News Archives for ("junior schools debating") turns up nothing. A Google Web search had to be refined, since it produced lots of spurious hits; searching for ("junior schools debating" dublin) turned up lots of Facebook pages, Wikis, and a number of passing mentions in articles on people who had participated or were going to participate in the event, but no real coverage of the event itself. The closest thing that I found to in-depth coverage was a Drogheda Independent piece (already cited in the article), which included a brief paragraph about the event in a longer story about two local teams that were participating. Appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. Ammodramus (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had similar findings to Ammodramus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nandavarta. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nandavart

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

One statement article with no references. This article had multiple issues since years and is unlikely to be corrected. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 18. Snotbot t • c » 16:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 16:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 31 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, Mkdw ^talk 09:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nandavarta - the same word in Sanskrit, short 'a's being implied rather than written. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Chiswick Chap's argument; incorporate Sanskrit spelling into Nandavarta article. Ammodramus (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT specifically not a dictionary. BO | Talk 14:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Nandavarta, to the editor ignorant of the subject they seem to describe the same thing. BO: see the Nandavarta article, it is hardly a dictionary definition; it is an article albeit poorly sourced (though that could be improved). הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language Connections

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

No indication of notability per WP:CORP. Company website is currently laden with spam for Viagra on every sub-page, though obviously that alone isn't grounds for deletion, and their site may have been hijacked. No evidence given for claims for customer list, and can't find any online. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 31 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, Mkdw ^talk 09:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just can't see how this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are a combination of directory listings and pages from the company's own website (which seems to be working again now). The last half of the sources relate to the paragraph about a single employee. Having done a search, I can't find any coverage that would be considered "significant" in any way. But I'd be happy to consider anything anyone else can find. Stalwart111 12:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find one States News Service piece from July 2012, but it is basically a press release on work done by the firm for USRCCNE, with whom the article says they are associated, so cant be considered a WP:RS. Too little there for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. No reliable sources. Barely meets WP:GNG. Delete per Stalwart173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Ayala

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

I'm lumping this together with the article Planet Random Creative as they were both created and edited by Ayala himself and both suffer from the same issue: no coverage in reliable sources and appear to be an attempt at self-promotion by Ayala. I did a search and apart from some false positives showing up from a musician with a similar name, there is no coverage of Ayala, his comics, or his company. I can't verify any of the claims in the article. I did remove some links, which were links to his Kickstarter pages, his Amazon author entry (which is always written by the author or publicist representing them), and a non-usable blog entry. Even when it comes to blogs, there just isn't much talk about this guy at all. Article was previously PRODed, but was removed by the author with the rationale of "The page is inline with other independent comic publishers and related articles that are not in question" and an argument that can be summed up as "obviously notable". It doesn't help that the article has a huge amount of WP:PUFFERY going on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because there is a complete lack of coverage for this company in any RS:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete both I'm just not finding anything on either of these other than the company web page. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Clearly promotional, and I am not able to find any reliable secondary sources (or really anything independent of the subject) to indicate notability. Spencer^T♦C 17:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empire United Fencing

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

Contested PROD : This appears to be a non Non Notable club fails WP:CLUB only clam to significance is via association with some notable founders. ✍ Mtking ✉ 22:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Empire is one of the most notable clubs in fencing, at least as prominent as Fencers Club. Both have had members attend the Olympic Games and others represent them at the World Championships and in Division 1 of the NCAA. This club is at least as prominent as those in other sports which produce top athletes, such as Rockville-Montgomery Swim Club.

yoman82 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 09:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ORGDEPTH, which the subject would seem to fail. WP:OTHERCLUBSEXIST arguments aren't helpful. Stalwart111 12:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A club does not equal notabillity even if some pepole are well know in the subject of which the club is founded on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.170.145 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highest English football stadiums by altitude

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

Inappropriate over-categorisation. Redundant to the List of football stadiums in England. May also qualify as original research, as this topic has not been covered in any reliable sources; English football stadia are not generally discussed in this way. C 679 07:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:OR, WP:V, etc. Plus, frankly, who really cares..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyStarks (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of football stadiums in England BO | Talk 14:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic has not been covered in reliable sources, and fails the notability guideline for lists. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Zelina

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

Being notable on Youtube is not enough - article needs more reliable sources. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further information is being provided on Arlene Zelina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckenn18 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 5 January 2013‎

Delete. I did a search and there's just not enough out there for her to pass WP:BIO, let alone WP:MUSBIO. She's signed, but has yet to release anything and while she seems to be mildly popular on YouTube, she's not so overwhelmingly popular that I'd suggest adding her to List of YouTube personalities. She seems to have only gotten a brief bit of coverage recently and all by local press. She's just not notable enough at this time to be added to Wikipedia. If she gets this coverage then I have no problem with her being re-added.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff has been added since I first posted this so I've taken another look, but offhand everything is comprised of trivial mentions and such. She might and I stress might be redirectable to the list of YT personalities, but I'm still not seeing much individual notability. It also doesn't help that the page right now reads like a fan page. I'll try to edit down the promotional tone.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hold by my delete decision, although I suppose that a redirect might not be a terrible thing. Here's the thing: she has been signed and is mildly popular, but has yet to make any big splashes. Of the sources that were on the page previously, most of them were non-usable for various reasons. Here is a rundown of the original sources:

[13] Totally usable news article. This one I kept.
[14] Routine listing of an event. This isn't usable as a source, as routine performance listings are unusable as even trivial sources.
[15] This is just a posting of a video, something that isn't really usable as a reliable source at all, especially not in this aspect.
[16] Another routine listing of a performance.
[17] This is on Seacrest's site, but was not actually posted by Seacrest himself. It's really not in-depth enough to show notability, but it does sort of work as a trivial source so I left it.
[18] This is just her YouTube channel. Not usable as a RS.
[19] This is a posting of a YT video. Unusable as a RS.
[20], [21] She's very, very briefly mentioned in these two Yahoo articles in relation to something else. Maybe usable as a trivial source, but it really only mentions that she was signed and we already have a good reference for that already, so it's unnecessary.
[22] Very, very brief article on a radio website that's a rehash of her getting signed. Trivial and unnecessary for the above reasons.
[23] Another trivial mention, but this one I think I left. Still not enough to show notability but could be used as a trivial source.
[24] Usable enough, I added this one. However with just news reports of her getting signed, this in itself is not really enough.
[25] This is just a posting of a video. It's not usable as a RS.
[26] This is a tweet and would be seen as a WP:PRIMARY source since it's by someone involved with her career. It's also unnecessary as we have plenty of confirmation from other sources that she was signed.
[27] I kept this one since it confirmed that she performed at a concert, but I'm not sure that it was really a big enough one to really count towards much. As far as being a YT partner goes, that's not exactly hard to do. From what I can see, it's something that anyone can really do.
[28] This is an uploaded video of her performance. Not usable as a RS.
[29], [30] These are facebook photos. Facebook is not usable as a reliable source to show notability.
[31] This is just a routine notification of a performance.

The thing is, she isn't notable yet. Will she be? Maybe. She's certainly more promising than most. But here's the deal: She's performed at concerts but hasn't gotten any notice from anyone other than the people putting on the concerts. Of the press she has gotten, it's all talking about the same thing: that she's been signed and that she was somewhat popular on YT. Being popular on YT doesn't really mean much on here if you haven't gotten good coverage in RS to show that they're overwhelmingly notable. She's popular, having over 5 million views, but she's not at the ZOMG level of popularity that someone of say, Harry Partridge is at where you've gotten over 90,000,000 views. She's mildly popular and that's pretty much about it right now. Will it change? Maybe. We'll have to wait until she releases her first album and gets more publicity. For right now she just isn't notable enough to merit her own article. I did edit the article somewhat heavily, as the previous version not only sounded like a fan page, but also put in a lot of content that wasn't even in most of the sources. Be aware that oversourcing with unusable sources and being overly promotional can often work against showing notability for a subject. As far as stuff like performance circuits and associations go, notability is not inherited by Zelina having played in someplace that someone famous has been in, performing their songs, or even being compared to them.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the above comments, she might be on the borderline of achieving notability, and I therefore might be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, but the article is very heavily promotional, and would need to be started over. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per others. United States Man (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the information and citations provided in the article I believe it should be kept: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katierachelle (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none of the sources in the article argue for notability, as I've stated above. Also, please stop edit warring. The version you keep reverting to does more to harm the article's chance of being kept than help.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: one mention in a reliable source, and the story indicates she might become notable some day. But not yet. (If she was from a larger country, the coverage might be there, but that's a hypothetical.) I completely agree with Tokyogirl79's thorough, excellent analysis of sources cited.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely per Tokyogirl79's anyalysis of the sources. Doesn't pass our music guidelines at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Tokyogirl79's 'You Tube', 'FaceBook' & 'Twitter' does not make you noteable! • deengun (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangunn (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of books by Jacob Neusner

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

A list of books by an academic who is not particularly notable. There is no annotation and no attempt at sorting. This sort of thing can be found in a library catalogue. Note that it has been through two VfDs. Gee, that brings back memories! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep We keep bibliographies and discographies when they are too extensive to be included in the article. We've kept many that were much smaller. As the author who has written and edited this astounding number of books about the topic, and is generally regarded as the leading figure on the Talmudic period, (for evidence of which, see the article on him. though of course I can find quotations) I would consider him not just particularly notable, but exceptionally notable, and to anyone interested in the subject, even famous. The article on him, and this list, need considerable improvement. For the list, some degree of classification would help, not just a chronological listing. (neither of them make clear the extent to which his views have changed during his career) AfD is not for dealing with articles that need improvement.I'd suggest a speedy keep for lack of a valid deletion rationale. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have to keep all the entries on this list. An expert could cull out all the notable works and have a "Selected bibliography" in the Jacob Neusner article. A list of this type is next to useless for readers. It lists all the volumes of a series and it's got books where Neusner is only the editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the list could be better organised (e.g. listing books where he was the editor separately), and perhaps better named Jacob Neusner bibliography (under which it was AfD'd and kept three times), but I don't see a reason to delete. There would also be problems with trimming the list to 'notable' ones as it would be very much a matter of opinion as to which were kept. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for the reasons stated by DGG. Needs organization, but not culling and certainly not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs formatting per WP:MOS-BIBLIO, but I see no reason to delete it as Neuser is obviously notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is our invariable practice on separate bibliography pages to list all the books; that's the very purpose of them. Normally, in fact, we list all the articles and book chapters as well. I have sometimes suggested not including book reviews the subject has written and other equally minor publications, but I've usually lost those arguments. Selected bibliographies have been challenged as NOR. On the other hand, when for an ordinarily notable academic we place a bibliographic section in an article, we are more selective: we still always include all the books, listing separately the ones where the person is an editor, but only selected articles (usually selected objectively, as the ones with the highest number of citations--or sometimes the most recent), and none of the minor material. "Editor" can mean a variety of things--all the way from editor of a text with very elaborate commentary on the one hand, to editor of a collection who has selected the contributors and written an extensive forward & some of the articles, all the way down to someone who has just written a small amount of introductory material for a publisher's collection, or even just assembled it for the publisher. In a detailed scholarly bibliography, the exact amount of the person's contributions will be specified; library catalogers often just take it as presented.

But Alan is correct that it could be condensed a little: in addition to the factors specified by others, many of his works are works in series , translating and analyzing the successive parts of a major work like the Jerusalem Talmud, and they can be grouped. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per DGG. This is a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the Jacob Neusner article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per all of the above (save the nomination). Is it SNOWing yet? This isn't worth any further waste of the time of the editors on the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per DGG and Northamerica. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Buckner

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

MMA fighter with none of the 3 top tier fights required for notability by WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I could only find trivial references to her. Although to her credit she gets a nod in a NY Times article PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NMMA. Poison Whiskey 01:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:NMMA, WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and I couldn't find sources other than the usual fighter records/profiles, thus fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA Luchuslu (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of meeting notability guidelines. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Now that WP:NMMA has been fitted we'll see a lot more of these articles come up. Mkdw ^talk 08:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NMMA and lacks coverage required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ebañez

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jake the snake perhaps? Anyway Ross passes WP:V and WP:GNG with non-trivial refs here (SI/CNN), here, here, here, and especially here PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are either the routine reporting of sports results or promotional press releases about upcoming fights. Jakejr (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal-Also has refs here (USA Today), here (good read), and fighting on Showtime also helps. I'd say that definitely affirms his notability using WP:SOURCES, and he is generally notable as per the WP:GNG PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and this article fails especially the "significant coverage" criterion of WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 01:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He passes every criterion. Also consider the criterion you pointed out "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". He, in fact, has that in spades as is evidenced by my numerous refs where he is either mentioned significnalty within the ref, or is the subject of the ref PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the least he meets the bare minimum for WP:GNG. He now meest WP:V as per his new WP:SOURCES I added. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Also sourcing appears to be a couple mentions in MMA media, nothing significant enough to meet WP:GNG IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal As well As USAtoday and Sb nation which can pass WP:SOURCES as per WP:NEWSBLOG He also fought on Showtime PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I really dislike ~~arguing~~ debating issues in AfD, so I'll provide only this last response. The USA Today source cited above in this AfD links to a deleted video ("Sorry, this episode is no longer available" to be more accurate) and there appears to be no text discussing Ebañez other than to say he was in the video. I don't see an SBNation source cited in the article or in this AfD. Fighting on Showtime (or any TV channel) is not sufficient in of itself to establish notability, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
mmamania is apart of SBnation. as it says at the top. In regards to the video being missing at the MMAjunkie/USAtoday ref I would advise you to read WP:NOTTEMPORARY PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE... --LlamaAl (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage does not provide strong arguments against WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 08:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:NMMA and coverage appears to be simply routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Non-notable, BLP problems Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine veevee

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

WP:NOTABILITY, and unsourced content. There are also some important bits missing from the article. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 04:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 04:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, as the claims are incredible. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 04:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and noting DGG's offer to take the article under his wing. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate Student Government at Stony Brook University

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

Run of the mill university student government. Nothing particularly important, or interesting about it. An unbelievable amount of detail, and yet, nothing of interest to anyone who isn't an active member. In sum: sources are insufficient to establish notability, per WP:GNG. (Also, it's apparently become one young man's online resume, which explains a lot of the content.) GrapedApe (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Your opinion on the university is not enough for deletion. This is a detailed article with many references related to a notable university. I'd like to note that many articles related to science & technology are nothing of interest to those not already familiar with the subject. This is an encyclopedia for many different articles. Run of the mill is not a good enough reason to delete an article.--Joey (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article clearly meets the criteria for notability. Not being special is your opinion.--173.168.99.186 (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know why this was relisted but anyways as said your opinions do not justify why this article should be deleted. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to attack the straw man. Please, all !keeps, explain how this this article satisfies WP:GNG. And, be specific.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote quite a bit of this article primarily because I find the concept of student government rather interesting. The student government at Stony Brook University has been a very notable student government within the SUNY system and was fairly influential in the development of student life at Stony Brook University. For example, the disbanding/re-establishment of the student government was covered in the New York Times. The events sponsored by the student government have had a fairly large impact on the surrounding area of Stony Brook/Long Island as well. Another example, was a concert sponsored by the student government was released as a CD by the Allman Brothers. The contract between the student government and Allman Brothers was printed as part of the CD booklet. Also, during the Vietnam years, Stony Brook was a stronghold for the anti-war resistance with the student government leading the way on this effort. It has been my intention to further expand upon many of these stories in the Wiki article but I haven't been able to get around to it. Hope this helps. Moizk (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a "very notable student government within the SUNY system," meaning that the organization is only important to the university, not "the world at large" as described by Wikipedia:Notability policy.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Things that logically fall within a subset category can still be notable to the world at large. Moizk (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. But then why focus on the mico-notability of the subject in defending the macro-notability of this subject?--GrapedApe (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sigificant coverage in reliable sources that would indicate notability. The large number of references in the articel are primarily to the campus newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Students are a major part of universities. I've normally !voted delete for articles on individual student organizations, even for universities of the great importance of Stony Brook, but an article on the overall organization is a good idea. It provides a place to redirect/merge those articles, for one thing. I deplore the multiplication of articles of minor parts of universities, or second and third and fourth order parts, like a program in a department of a college of a university, but this is a first order part. I agree there is a good deal too much detail. if kept, I volunteer to deal with that, as I have with many similar articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is particularly notable apart from student government at other universities. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Stony Brook University this is an unduly long article on a subject an org that is directly related to the university and could not exist without it. BO | Talk 15:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or [very] selectively merge. Grotesquely, almost absurdly detailed article on a student group at a single school. Despite the almost comical level of detail (and a flowchart!!), not a word of it asserts how it is in any way different from the exact same group at nearly every other school in the world. No objection to a very selective merge into a student life section of the school's article, though whoever takes that on has my pity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to A.L. Kroeber. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tribelet

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

dictionary definition of a word whose meaning is easily deduced from context. the fact that its only used for California native peoples does not make it particularly notable. could exist at Wiktionary. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree about WP:DICTDEF but I think it would be a valid redirect to A.L. Kroeber since it's a plausible search term. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per freerangefrog, good call, no need for deletion for a real term, this from nominator.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Greetings all. In this case I’d argue for keeping the stub: while it is true that the concept was very strongly associated with Kroeber early on, and it is also true that it often considered offensive or derogatory, it is not true that the term should be seen in a purely lexicographical light. Its use extended far beyond Krober, and it continues to appear (often with considerable historiographical context explaining its negative connotations) in recent publications by highly reputable scholars, e.g., Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages, page 2 et seq. The term captures a fairly unique sociopolitical grouping in the area which is now California: the point Kroeber (and later others) was trying to pin down was that in this area linguistic and sociopolitical groupings diverged in distinct ways. (That said, the article certainly needs improvement!) babbage (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but would support a redirect. Based upon the article and its citations, this seems to be a neologism that has not been used by many other than its creator. Agent 86 (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:DICTDEF and WP:NEO. GregJackP Boomer! 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per WP:DICTDEF. That article info could be included on A.L. Kroeber like freerangefrog said. CrimsonBlue (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per freerangefrog. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soma (song)

Delete and redirect - Look, "Cherub Rock", "Today", "Rocket", and "Disarm" were all charting singles with music videos, "Geek USA" had critical acclaim for having one of the greatest drum performances of all time and has been covered on a notable artist's album, and "Mayonaise" has not only been covered on a notable artist's album, but also has had frequent airplay and numerous versions all with notable reviews. What does "Soma" have that's notable? I think they only way to get rid of this unimportant song article is AfD since it doesn't qualify for speedy. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Siamese Dream, as a plausible search term. The nominator is right in that this song received no substantial coverage and did not chart, so it does not meet WP:NSONGS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to album article. An important song on a massively successful album, often highlighted in the album reviews. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course the album is massively successful, but if you read the top paragraph I just made an argument on why it wasn't an important song while you did not. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Hobbes Goodyear is right. This is a track from a huge album in rock music history, and indeed multiple reviews from that era have commentary about the track. A quick search turns up:
- SMASHING PUMPKINS ENERGIZE HARA: [CITY EDITION] Dave Larsen POP MUSIC CRITIC. Dayton Daily News [Dayton, Ohio] 26 Apr 1994: 3C.
- Smashing Pumpkins Pomp It Up: BY DAVID SPRAGUE. Newsday [Long Island, N.Y] 01 Aug 1993: 19.
- The sound of Smashing: Smashing Pumpkins' unpredictablity helps the band avoid sophmore slump: Kula, Geoffrey. The Province [Vancouver, B.C] 10 Aug 1993: B3.
- SMASHING PUMPKINS, SWERVEDRIVER PLAY TO SELLOUT BOATHOUSE CROWD THE PUMPKINS SHOW THE BEST ELEMENTS OF A ``MOODY SOUND.: Wright, Rickey. Virginian - Pilot [Norfolk, Va] 21 Nov 1993: B3.
- SIGNAL TO NOISE: The Sonic Diary of the Smashing Pumpkins. Thomas, Richard. EQ 19. 10 (Oct 2008): 14-18,20-22,24-26,28.
That's just a small sampling. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly all of the information about "Soma" in this article could easily fit into the Siamese Dream article and would look much better there. Although I'm stilling going with delete and redirect, I wouldn't mind if it were to be merged. The song itself still doesn't deserve its own article. The citation and resource section (which isn't that large) is longer than the article content. With the exception of being #24 out of 25 on a list of "coolest guitar solos" and #41 out of 50 out of "greatest guitar solos" all of the citations are more about ALL of Siamese Dream and do not really focus on "Soma" as an individual song, this is why they citation section is larger than the actual content. This is also points to almost all of this information clearly diserving to be in the Siamese Dream article, but not warranting that "Soma" should have its own article. The worst part is that most of the article is about Billy Corgan's personal life, which is not information that makes a song notable. According to the Siamese Dream article "Today" and "Geek U.S.A." tend to be the songs that get highlighted when talking about the album so I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "Soma" is usually one of the most highlighted songs. So maybe merge the information if you think its really that notable, but surely DO NOT KEEP THIS ARTICLE. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment I just scrolled through all the songs listed as "other" on the Smashing Pumpkins navbox...perhaps it's just that "Soma" as an article is more poorly written and could use a spitshine. I see "Superchrist" is wearing a questionable notability tag from July 2011 and "FOL", although not article tagged, looks the least notable of any to me. I personally elect "FOL" to leave. Gee, "Soma" even has Mike Mills on piano....and it's actually an interestingly written article I would hate to see disappear. I nominate "FOL" instead. Fylbecatulous talk 16:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really concern myself with post-Adore Pumpkins, but "FOL" was at the Superbowl and in a commercial and a highly notable wrestling team's theme song. "Superchrist" was a single so I don't know what its even doing in the "other" section. Yet again "Soma" had no independent release advertisement, or extensive coverage, and asserts little to no notability. Mike Mills being on paino is like Matt Cameron of Soundgarden being on drums for "For Martha", in other words not something that makes a song article worthy. Like i said earlier, merge if you must, but this does not deserve its own article. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

World Vision in Progress

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

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

Delete I can't find sources that would establish notability for this per WP:ORG so my recommendation would be to delete and merge that single paragraph into the blasphemy case article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere and redirect - Google News found results for another organization with the same name and Christian affiliaton, World Vision, this confirms they are not related, unsurprisingly (this is a rather short and common name for an organization). However, I did find some relevant results for World Vision in Progress here and here (both Italian) and a different search provided additional links relevant to the Rimsha Masih case here and other results here and here (both Pakistan Christian Post). Considering they are based in Lahore, I searched and found this news article from Lahore which mentions a "World Vision" but I don't know if this is relevant. It seems they also gained attention for helping a man, Amanat Masih, who is the father of the girl in the first Pakistan Christian Post article, also accused of blasphemy, with news articles here, here and others. So far, I don't think I have found any evidence when this group was founded or its founder, although I have found an executive director and spokesman but I would assume the foundation is recent (ten years or less). A slightly better article could be written with these cases above but it wouldn't be sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Hardly any content. LK (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, hardly even any mergeable content. Hairhorn (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, with a possible aim at merging. This is a very long discussion that has been through two relists, and while it still remains a difficult one to close, it cannot linger on in the AFD process forever. The discussion contains a number of valid and invalid arguments. If we look at the valid arguments, the argument for deletion is that the article is largely based on a FRINGE source, and that the incident is otherwise non-notable as a news event. The argument for keeping is that the incident was covered internationally in the press, that other sources do exist.

First a meta-note on how AFD closers set about to weigh the arguments and determine consensus. Many AFD closers discard votes that have been given without any valid reason entirely, and base the decision on what is remaining. My approach is similar, however I assume that those who gave bad or no reasons for their vote will endorse the good reasons that support their position.

Early on in the discussion, there is a long and needless discussion about the motives of the nomination, with WP:IDONTLIKEIT being cited often, this countered by accusations of such a reference being a personal attack on the nominator. To this, I think the nomination statement provided a relevant rationale with persuasive arguments based on many of the sources in the article being of WP:FRINGE quality. Since reliability of the sources is a highly pertinent issue to the verifiability of the article, and its suitability for inclusion, I cannot see anything in the nomination statement that comes close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will also point out that IDONTLIKEIT is a very commonly used link to the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay. Sometimes, this reference is overused, as I think is the case here. But while I think criticizing the nomination for being "IDONTLIKEIT" misfires, it is a criticism of the statement, and I don't think it qualifies as a personal attack either.

Joshu Sasori referenced IDONTLIKEIT extensively; BabbaQ relied on it exclusively and didn't even provide a rationale for why the article should be kept. Neither of those arguments carry any weight, but as I said in the second paragraph, I will nonetheless assume that they endorse the valid reasons for keeping. (Another admin may well have ignored them completely.)

In the discussion there was also the issue of English v. Japanese or Chinese sources. The WP:NONENG section of the verifiability policy encourages English sourcing when that is available as they are presumed to be more accessible and thus more useful for the average reader. However, if that isn't possible, foreign language sources may be used, and the mere fact that they are in other languages does not make them inferior to English sources when it comes to fulfilling verifiability requirements. Arguments for deletion based on the lack of English sourcing carry no weight. (In this case, no one relied on this argument exclusively though.) However, a FRINGE source in a foreign language will be evaluated the same way as a FRINGE source in the English language.

After looking at the article and the comments in the latter course of this debate, I see that the Shōichi Watanabe's sources has been the cause of legitimate concern due to that author's apparent nationalism and far-right leanings, and that the article as a result may overstate the importance of the incident. However, the argument that the remaining coverage in newspapers is lacking in detail, and that WP:NOTNEWS applies is less persuasive. 2000 troops were deployed into the streets as a response to the incident (a fact referenced to numerous American newspapers), and I find it hard to call such an event a routine news story. As such the references that Phoenix7777 and Curtis Naito bring up in their keep votes have plenty of merit in them.

With meritorious arguments on both side of the debate, and neither side having overwhelming support (The "delete" side has a reasonably clear majority, but not something that I would call a consensus), "no consensus" becomes the default outcome. Note that the concerns of FRINGE sources being used in the "background" section still have validity and that parts of the article's content may be inappropriate because of that. A serious proposal was made during this discussion to merge this article together with other similar incidents into a more comprehensive article about the events in China during the 1930s prior to the war. Discussion of the merge option can be done on the talkpage, and does not require the continuation of this AFD discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato

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

Article is apparently a propaganda piece. There was a discussion going on about it being "POV". But it is a straight translation of the Japanese article, which was principally written by one editor[32]. This editor admitted[33] that the article was based primarily on the writings of Shōichi Watanabe, a far-right, anti-Chinese pseudo-historian whose major is English. Google Books search brings up no results for the "Japanese name" of this incident[34]. A Google Books search for the name of the sailor brought up more hits,[35], but apart from contemporary news sources (WP:NOTNEWS) the majority of coverage of this incident appears to be in Japanese far-right publications. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the incident appears to be notable, judging from the references supplied in the nomination for deletion. The article seems a bit creepy in its tone, but certainly not more than the many other POV articles which are so furiously defended by POV-pushers on Wikipedia. POV isn't a ground for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable sources that refer to the incident. "田港朝光"[36], "上海田港事件"[37] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed my response to JoshuSasori and his further responses to me. This discussion is not about me, or whether I like the article or not (or whether JoshuSasori likes the article or not). Can we please focus on the issues here? elvenscout742 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:JoshuSasori -- POV is not in itself reason to delete the article, but my point was that the incident appears to be only discussed in news sources of the time and unreliable right-wing propaganda pieces. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a personal attack, because if I have a personal bias either way it is in favour of Japan. Arguments were being made over how the article could be improved with reference to reliable, less-biased sources, but it seems none are likely to show up, and even if they do they do not lend notability to the topic. Merging may be a feasible option, but if we put it into Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) we would face massive issues with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE because any reference to it would imply that it was one of the contributing causes of the war.

Re:Phoenix7777 -- I noticed those earlier, but several of them seem to be the far-right propaganda pieces I was talking about. The kyūjitai used in several of them makes them difficult to read, as well, but most of them do not give significant coverage to the incident. No one is actually arguing that there was no shooting or that someone named Tomomitsu Taminato was killed, but the article being based entirely on far-right propaganda is and will remain problematic.

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? It seems all the "reliable sources" at [38] are contemporary news sources, and don't lend legitimacy to the subject as a topic of historical research. I am not sure why [39] claims about 307 results, because only 25 results are actually accessible. Of these, several are contemporary news sources. And again, no one is actually arguing over whether the event took place; the argument is over whether it has been covered in enough reliable, impartial sources to be justified as an independent article. No serious historian claims this incident as a significant contributing factor to the breakout of war between Japan and China, but the article was clearly created with that intent; it is also based principally on the far-right ramblings of Mr. Watanabe. POV-pushers may defend this and similar articles, but why is that a reason for us to keep them? WP:SOAPBOX is pretty clear that Wikipedia cannot be used for the promotion of a particular point of view. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing whatsoever in the above statement by me which is a personal attack, on you or anyone else. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read your above comment. You ignored my argument for deletion and speculated on my motives by insinuating that I want to see the article deleted just because I don't like what it says. This article's problem is a lack of reliable sources that give it significant, impartial coverage in Japanese, Chinese or English. In this context, linking to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is clearly a personal attack. It's not like I am trying to get Wikipedia policy changed in order to ban all articles on the Sino-Japanese War that are written from a Japanese point of view -- this is in fact the only time in recent memory I have touched such an article. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, linking to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a pointer to an argument which is better not to use in "Articles for Deletion". See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions It's a common shorthand on these discussions and I use it regularly in "Articles for Deletion" discussions. I invite you to read the document rather than deciding on its contents based solely on its name. I would also like to extend the same invitation to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, two more documents you don't seem to have read, but merely guessed at their contents from the names alone. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Let's calm down here guys. This is not Call of Duty. We need to focus on whether or not this topic id notable enough. Although the article does seemed to be biased, that's not a good enough reason for deletion. However, the lack of English sources covering this is indeed bothering me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did I say something wrong? I am trying to be as reasonable as I can about this. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You completely ignored my arguments and made a personal attack against me. Accusing me of making a bad argument when I made no such argument (I never said anything about whether I like this article or not). Please stop and try to focus on whether or not there are enough reliable sources to justify this page's existence as an independent article. The problem is that all of the sources currently cited, and apparently all the sources in existence that give significant coverage to the topic, are blatant propaganda/fringe. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you gain by repeatedly stating that I am making personal attacks on you, on this and various other pages. It is entirely obvious to anyone with the stamina to read these discussions that I have not made a personal attack on you, anywhere, on any page on Wikipedia, let alone in the above. Further, having read all of your arguments, my response was to point out that you seem to have misunderstood what "reliable sources" means in the context of a Wikipedia discussion. Coincidentally, you seem to have misunderstood or not actually read a multitude of other writings which I have endeavoured to direct you towards. If it is not too great a burden on your schedule, could I make so bold as to request that you make a further attempt to read these various documents, and if you do have any trouble understanding them, then please ask on the appropriate Wikipedia forum where I am sure that a kind volunteer will explain matters. Very regretfully, my attempt to help you by pointing at and quoting from these documents has failed to assist. It pains me greatly that I cannot suggest anything else for you to do, because I am certain that your refusal to read these documents is the cause of your multitudinous calamities, and I do not see how I can be of any service to you unless you yourself choose to enlighten yourself more exhaustively through a more exacting and rigorous perusal. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the issue at hand and stop tying to bring in outside disputes. The extreme lack of any kind of significant coverage of this event in any sources outside of Japanese far-right propaganda is troubling. (Would I be right in guessing that you don't read Japanese and therefore can't successfully analyze Japanese sources?) Both WP:RS and WP:V specify that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. WP:NOTNEWS also specifies that a single event that was covered (no matter how widely) in news media at the time but that had no broader historical significance is inappropriate for an independent article. (Although I actually really like FutureTrillionaire's suggestion of creating a list of some kind and mentioning this event there.) All ten of the "English sources" mentioned below are contemporary news reports. Most of them, though in English, appear to still just be Japanese propaganda -- Manchuria Daily News and Tokyo Gazette are the most obvious examples. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to know how to reply to you, since you seem to think that it is OK to ignore what I say, and what the documents say, and just go on spouting words like "reliable sources" and "exceptional claims" as if you are waving a magic wand around, or perhaps simply throwing out as much jargon as possible in the hope of confusing people. JoshuSasori (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inclining delete If this were important, it shouldn't be hard to find English language secondary sources which testify to that, given that Japan's path to WW II has been the subject of a lot of American scrutiny. The fact that the sources are all primary Japanese documents tends to support the implication given in the conclusion that this event didn't have significant consequences of itself, though a later similar incident did. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. end of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the arguments I provided above. This has nothing to do with my likes and dislikes. If I had a personal bias, it would be in favour of this article, since Japan is my second home and has been very nice to me for the last several years; I have never been to China. This article only exists to support a POV/fringe theory, and no reliable sources can be found that cover the topic. (Far-right propaganda that push this as an excuse to blame China for the war are not reliable sources.) elvenscout742 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a great time-saver for all of us, if you would go and read what is meant by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps you did not notice that this is a wikilink to a document which explains in detail. Here is the information from that page:

This is the converse to I like it directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.) In fact, by the Law of Chance, everything will have likes and dislikes.

JoshuSasori (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete, if merge is not possible - WP:IDONTLIKEIT and propaganda are not the problems here. Murders happen all the time and many are covered by news and other sources. Obviously, Wikipedia can't cover every murder case that has been mentioned by sources. Right now I'm not entirely convinced that this incident is notable, compared with other murder cases. The fact that there's no English sources mentioning this incident makes me question its notability. Is it possible to merge this somewhere? Maybe create a new article for a list of Japanese sailors murdered in China/abroad? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of English sources is because the topic is only discussed by far-right, anti-Chinese "scholars" in Japan. The current English article is a straight translation of the Japanese one, which was written primarily based on a single source (Mr. Watanabe), entirely by one user, who seems to largely limit himself to posting anti-Chinese and anti-Korean POV to various articles. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although your suggestion of a list of Japanese sailors murdered abroad seems interesting... elvenscout742 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "lack of English sources" is a ground for deletion. Wikipedia articles can be sourced to foreign language materials. Deleting articles just because there is no English-language information about them will result in systematic bias. The proposer says that the Japanese-language materials don't meet reliable source criteria, but he/she has not made clear to me at least, why he/she thinks so, it just seems to be a hand-waving argument. The reliable source criteria don't discriminate on the grounds of politics of the author. The factual accuracy of the sources doesn't seem to be in debate. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several English sources covering this incident. See "taminato" shanghai 1936. The word "Taminato incident" is used.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Several" is a bit too strong a word for these: all but one of those is a contemporary news source from 1936-7. The two "Japanese Propaganda"s[40][41] from 2004 are just reprints of 1930s news/propaganda sources; three[42][43][44] also seem to be the same source. ("English" is also a bit of a stretch for [45] -- it's almost unintelligible.)

Basically, no one here is arguing that the event didn't happen, and I have already admitted that it received coverage in Japanese (and probably Chinese) news sources at the time. But Wikipedia is not news, and if we are going to include a full historical retrospective we need reliable sources... elvenscout742 (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Forgot this one.) [46], although I can't see much of it, also appears to be nothing more than a collection of reprints of reports of contemporary goings-on in Shanghai. (The snippet I can read is written in the present tense.) This means that all ten (really eight, since three are duplicates) sources linked to above are contemporary news sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idea - Thanks for the English sources Phoenix7777. It looks like the incident described in the article was not the only murder of a Japanese in Shanghai prior to the war. A lot of these sources list several similar incidents. Something we could do is make a new article that lists these incidents, and the Taminato incident can be included as one of them. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like this solution, although given that the English sources are all still propaganda I wonder about the notability of the other incidents as well. Can we get input from a Chinese Wikipedian with a knowledge of this area? Even if we make a list, we still face the problem that the only sources still basically say Those dastardly Chinese killing our boys in blue, we really should teach them a lesson... Any attempt to write a historical-critical analysis of these events would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR, but including the stories as is would be a violation of WP:NPOV.

Although, this might be my misinterpretation of "list". Are you suggesting we make this page into a redirect to, say, List of Japanese military personnel killed in pre-War China, and just list off all their names? Because that seems reasonable enough.

(By the way, your previous suggestion included the word "murdered" -- this seems problematic and I think would be better changed to "killed".)

Anyway, all-in-all good idea! :D elvenscout742 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on Phoenix7777 and Elvenscout742's research, it seems like the only way this topic could be made into an article would be in an article about killings of Japanese military personnel before 1937, but it seems that that article would only be notable because of the way such killings are cited by writers of certain political persuasions as causes of the outbreak of the war - and such an article can only be made into an encyclopaedic one if there are neutral sources that give a fair assessment of such arguments. If such arguments are simply ignored by the mainstream, then it would be difficult to see how they are sufficiently notable for any article. In any case, that is already straying far from the current article, and it is difficult to see based on Phoenix7777 and Elvenscout742's research how the current article can be researched - hence my "delete" vote. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's only one original secondary source that we can use for this incident, and that's a extremist revisionist. Other scholars of the period seem to ignore this incident, so there aren't enough resources to build a neutral article. Shrigley (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that my above comment was not to change my vote from delete to merge, but to show my approval for FutureTrillionaire's attempt to find a middle ground. My stance that this article is entirely propagandistic/not-backable-up by reliable sources has not changed, and I still think this article should be deleted. If reliable sources can be found for other shootings at a later date, then maybe Taminato can be mentioned, but keeping this page for the content is pointless, since almost none of it could be salvaged and it is all on Japanese Wikipedia anyway (and I don't want to get into a deletion debate over there). elvenscout742 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some English sources do mention this incident along with other similar ones. But they don't go into detail, so it would be difficult to make that new list article I suggested. At this point, delete is probably the easiest option.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a standalone article. The topic is relatively close to absent from reliable secondary sources to make it into a proper-established and notable subject for a neutral article (in contrast to pushing some view). --Cold Season (talk) 17:24, 27 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, Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find myself in agreement with editors such as User:PalaceGuard008's thinking on this matter. The killing of Japanese personnel in the run up to the Sino-Japanese war may be notable material within an article on the causes of the war, and views on the personnel may be notable material within an article on the modern perspective of the relations between the countries, but I don't see the evidence that this single incident is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Nobody is suggesting deleting Florence Owens Thompson. The people suggesting this should be deleted are basing their arguments merely on the right-wing nature of the sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeating the same tired arguments that I have already refuted. I and numerous other users have demonstrated that this article should be deleted because no reliable sources exist. Right-wing or left-wing, we need reliable sources written by reputable historians that give significant coverage to this event. None can be found. Your Thompson argument is a clear-cut case of WP:OSE. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. In the long run, the best solution probably is an article on the serial murders of Japanese officials, civilians, and military personnel that took place in China mostly in 1935 and 1936. I've seen the assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato mentioned specifically in a number of history books that qualify as secondary sources, including by mainstream historians like Usui Kasumi and Kojima Noboru. However, the incident is always put in the context of the spree murders that took place during this period, which were orchestrated by Chinese "patriots" who were taking matters into their own hands due to their government's inaction towards Japanese encroachments. Among them were "the king of assassins" Wang Yaqiao who was behind this particular event among others. However, as Kojima Noboru notes, the Chinese government did take the assassination seriously and their army was put on a war footing in case the incident were to escalate.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the idea I had in mind. If I had some good English sources, I would make the article my self. I'm guessing the article would be in list format. The title would probably be something like Killings of Japanese nationals in China (1935–1936). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This incident was very widely reported in media at the time, not just in Japanese but in English as well (for instance, " SHANGHAI AREA OCCUPIED BY JAPANESE NAVAL FORCE AFTER KILLING OF A SAILOR" in the New York Times, "Japanese Declare Martial Law Over Big Shanghai Area" in the Christian Science Monitor, and " MARTIAL LAW IN SHANGHAI" in the Daily Boston Globe, plus at least a half dozen articles in the English-language China Monthly Review and articles in the Far Eastern Review). A number of previous commentators mentioned that the incident is poorly attested in English secondary sources, but that is only true of the historical literature, not in the media of the time which treated the incident very seriously. (Note, however, that many sources either didn't name the sailor killed or else erroneously called him Asamitsu Taminato) Regarding the historical literature though, it is true that most of the accounts mentioning this event have been written in Japanese. This is actually all the more reason why this article or a merged version of it should remain. Although well attested in Japanese secondary sources, people who can't read Japanese should also have the benefit of being able to learn about this event. Unfortunately, I'm not in Japan right now and I myself won't have access to the secondary source literature required to expand this article for at least several months. The university where I am at the moment doesn't carry the China Monthly Review either so I'm limited in what I can do at this precise moment. What I propose is that we either keep this article as it is for now, or else we simply re-juggle the information already within this article in order to create the new article.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are several American newspapers that picked up on this story:[47]. However, these news articles provide very little details, making me more convinced that an article about the series of incidents is more appropriate.

On a separate note, none of the news reports use the term "assassination". They seem to just use generic term "killing". Per WP:commonname I think we should move this article to Killing of Tomomitsu Taminato or Death of Tomomitsu Taminato.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with the proposed move. Japanese sources just refer to it as an "incident" and rarely use the word "暗殺"(assassination). Of course that is typical in the well-attested Japanese tradition of excessive vagueness. As noted in the article, this killing, just like all similar killings of the period, was a targeted assassination. This one being a hit ordered by professional assassin Wang Yaqiao.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is still irrelevant whether American news sources reported on this event when it first happened, since Wikipedia is not a news outlet. It is also worth noting that all comments made here before CurtisNaito's above mention of the New York Times (etc.) were referring to "English-language" "news" sources printed in Japan or Manchukuo. The historical significance of this event has clearly been blown completely out of proportion by modern Japanese rightists (I can't tell exactly, but I'd be willing to bet this all occurred in the last 20 years). This Wikipedia article therefore can only possibly be based on very old news sources, mostly from publications that are no longer in print, and on extreme right-wing propaganda that is only available in Japanese. I understand that a lack of reliable sources in English is almost a given for most topics of Japanese and/or Chinese interest, and have voted in favour of keeping articles that relied on non-English sources in the past, but this is about reliability more than anything else. No significant changes have been made to either the English or Japanese versions of this page since ja:User:Chichiii wrote it "based principally on the writings of Mr. Shōichi Watanabe". elvenscout742 (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is NOT based principally on the writings of Shoichi Watanabe. Watanabe is only cited twice, and both of those citations are within the "Background" section and thus not directly related to the assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato. If necessary, we could remove Watanabe from the article entirely and it would not change much. The two secondary sources which actually are consulted regarding the assassination were written by Noboru Kojima and Frederic Wakeman, who are not extreme rightists. The only real problem with the article is its over-reliance on documents instead of secondary sources, but that can be changed in time. Unfortunately I only have a few books and newspaper records on hand right now, but I'll do what I can today with what is available to me to tidy up the article and replace the primary sources. This assassination was clearly notable because, as the article mentions, it caused an international crisis and war scare.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is about as good as I can do with what I had on hand. The sources are newspaper articles, but it seems to me that this does not fall within the "Wikipedia is not a news outlet" clause. This clause was intended to prevent the creation of articles relating to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which would not include an event like this involving an assassination, a massive troop deployment, and the military occupation of a city. Even so, there's still a lot more that can be added to the article but I'll need to get to the University of Washington sometime later this year and consult their library in order to fill in the gaps. As stated earlier though, I'm open to merging this information at a later date into a broader article, but to write it decently will require more data than what I have at the moment. Most of the assassinations that took place during this period have their own articles on Japanese Wikipedia and I had been considering translating all of them sometime in the future, but to avoid future disputes over notability it might be better to merge them all into a single article for English Wikipedia. At any rate, for the time being I think it is clear that this assassination is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia in some form.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page comment by the article's author to which I linked above. He/she clearly stated that the article is based principally on Watanabe's writings. It is possible that he/she found other sources after the fact and WP:SYNTHesized them to say the same things as Watanabe does. Or maybe they already do, in which case they probably are a bit too far over the extreme fringe edge to count as reliable sources. If the reason this event has been covered in sources (which ones written after 1937, though?) is that it was a direct cause of a large buildup of Japanese troops in the area, shouldn't the troop surge be the subject of the article, with the fact that a few Japanese sailors were murdered being mentioned as background? elvenscout742 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could call it the "Taminato Incident", which was one of a few names the Japanese government used to describe it, a characterisically vague name similar to Manchurian Incident or February 26 Incident. I will change the article to mention the troop deployment in the introduction of the article, but I think the organization is okay as it is. As it stands, the background of the article refers to the string of attacks that led up to the fateful assassination, the assassination itself, and the ensuing occupation of Shanghai and war scare. One could compare it to the article entitled Berlin Blockade, which mentions the division of post-war Germany, and then the blockade which subsequently sparked the Berlin Airlift. Furthemore, I doubt it was ever true that Shoichi Watanabe was the principal source of the article's information, and I suspect the author's article only said that to add legitimacy to his collection of primary source documents. At any rate, other secondary sources like Kojima Noboru's well-regarded multi-volume history of the Sino-Japanese conflict describe the assassination itself. I did get a hold this book recently and it appears that the article's description of its content is generally accurate, though next week I'll make some minor changes to the assassination section based off it.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Microsoft Windows. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedows OS

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

90'es vaporware with no impact on anything and no development for 10 years Ysangkok (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks notability and significance per WP:NSOFT. - Mr X 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember this from back in the day on Slashdot. It never amounted to anything, and I can't find anything that could establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^A stronger/clearer consensus would be nice given this survived AFD before. Courcelles 03:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and to incrementally reduce the systemic bias in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, vaguely notable for the drama that happened around it and for being vapourware. It had some coverage in the Chronicle of Higher Education, too (copied here). Not sure that I care about the "systemic bias" above; this is not a zero-sum game wherein every article on a minor computer subject necessarily results in the death of an article about something else. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Microsoft Windows. There's already a (slightly misnamed) section Microsoft Windows#Emulation software that discusses the similar ReactOS and other products like Wine (software) (which isn't an emulator either). --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Freedows deserves a brief mention, but not its own article. Andrew³²⁷ 07:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pojman

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

WP:GNG - References are for his obituary, which appears to be his one source of notability (his death).

He should not be confused with his father Louis Pojman who is might be notable. His father kicked him some editing on his book... which editing a later version of his father's book should be be seen as notability. PeterWesco (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I strongly feel that the article should stay up. Pojman was not only notable for co-editing Environmental Ethics with his father, but also as sole editor of Food Ethics. (He also has a byline in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) He was also extremely unique as a professor and activist in Baltimore. This fact is reflected in multiple secondary sources. Some of these come from the occasion of his death—others don't. (By the way, Peter Wesco, the page for his father has virtually no references, so if you did some research to confirm his notability it would be great if you would add it there. Based on your recent claims at the page on Riki Ott I can't help but feel as though you may be targeting pages I've worked on. Please forgive me if this is just paranoia on my part.) Ok, peace & blessings y'all. groupuscule (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like a nice guy, but there are basically no grounds for passing WP:PROF, when you consider the special circumstance that it's inherited, and people are really citing his dad, with him just editing a later edition of the work (aside from that, his citations are completely unremarkable). Similarly, I question whether there is enough significant coverage to pass the GNG: the obituaries cited in the article (insert: the single Baltimore Sun piece aside) are from the campus newspaper, and the website of a local coffeeshop he frequented; neither of these are independent of him in any real sense. Ray^Talk 00:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But... he is the sole editor of Food Ethics and has made other contributions. Furthermore, you can say what you will about the Baltimore Sun but it's the biggest newspaper in town... groupuscule (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is a Baltimore sun obituary, but I thought the nominator already noted that. I was pointing out that the other ones are unremarkable. I've edited my original remark to make that clear. Ray^Talk 22:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pojman's connection, as a professor, to Occupy Baltimore and other local activist causes—as described in the Baltimore Sun—is already enough to demonstrate notability. His unique work on anarchist education, as described in the Towerlight and in Baltimore Magazine, also makes him notable. Substantial arguments have not been addressed by those who would delete, this edit notwithstanding. I would add that the primary argument given, that notability comes only from his death, is specious—even in obituaries his death was much less remarkable than his life. I recommend that we keep the article. If others are still not sure, we can solicit discussion from relevant WikiProjects. groupuscule (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment 1. Being a local activist, or an activist in general, does not grant notability. Thus, your comment "is already enough to demonstrate notability" is incorrect. One article in the Baltimore sun also does not bestow notability nor does being associated with a group - Notability is not inherited. 2. Watch closely what you do in regards to: "If others are still not sure, we can solicit discussion from relevant WikiProjects" <- This would be considered: Wikipedia:Canvassing PeterWesco (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would not be canvassing. Posting notifications on WikiProject talk pages saying that "a deletion dicussion on article X that is within the scope of this project is underway, you might want to look" is in no means or any way canvassing at all. Saying "article X is being deleted, come vote and keep" would. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you have have described... I agree. As I interpreted the original comment, "If others are still not sure, we can solicit discussion from relevant WikiProjects"... I do not agree. I interpreted it as, "Let me find some people by canvassing". If my interpretation was incorrect, I sincerely apologize. PeterWesco (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't investigated any further claims of notability, but must point out that the Baltimore Sun obituary is about Pojman's life, not his death as claimed by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, and most English speaking nations, an obituary is about a person's life... a narrative. As described here [48]: notice of the death of a person, often with a biographical sketch, as in a newspaper. PeterWesco (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sort of obituary that is not a RS is that written by the family. Editorial obituaries written by the editorial staff of a reliable paper are as significant as their news reporting. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm actually not all that impressed by the material in that obit, which is about his personal life, not his work. The significance is with respect to the GNG, that they thought he was worth a full editorial obit. With respect to WP:PROF, although he was as associate professor, and only some of them are considered notable here, I think he meets the requirement as an expert on Kant. Being selected to write the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia is significant evidence of that, besides his publications. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thank you for: 1. The clarification on editorial obits. Noted for future concerns. 2. His GNG in re: Stanford Encyclopedia. PeterWesco (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --do ncr am 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think that a long obit in a relatively well-known newspaper should at least make someone somewhat notable. 173.13.150.22 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Please relist individually; it might lead to a clear conclusion about at least some of them DGG' ( talk ) 21:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stone marimba

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

Next bunch of a spam cluster. Previous group deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscount Bells.

No real claim to notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Mix of bad sources, original research, linkspamming and promotion. Refs used are not independent reliable sources and include multiple links to article creators business. These are not really articles about the instrument but are coatracks to talk about "Percussion legend Emil Richards" duffbeerforme (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Maybe look for better citations. An instrument is worth covering. If you can't find these resources I'd gladly change my vote to merge into the Marimba article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmoustache14 (talk • contribs)
Delete As with the other referenced AFD, these are essentially advertisements for the guy's business. If they had some historical or musicological value then sure, maybe even a merge or two. But they are instruments that have been created to generate special effects once or twice; beyond that they have no standalone notability. The articles look interesting and I appreciate that the creator has licensed the images and all, but Wikipedia is not a collection of discriminate one-time use custom instruments offered for rent by a shop in L.A. Since they have fairly uncommon names it's easy to see how notable they aren't. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, delete others. I think these need to be considered individually, rather than as a batch. Those that have been invented by or for Emil Richards should probably be deleted or merged into the Emil Richards article, but at least one, Lujon (musical instrument), has a reasonably well-established history, not least through its use in the score of Luciano Berio's Circles (1960), and its earlier use in jazz by John Lewis and Shelley Manne. Admittedly none of this is mentioned in the article, so it needs a major re-write, with the Emil Richards promotional stuff removed or toned down. --Deskford (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Song bells were also manufactured long before Emil Richards was born, so I think that article is probably worth saving / re-writing. Not sure about the rest. --Deskford (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Lock (River Shannon)

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

There are several locks on the River Shannon, they do not (and probably should not) have their own articles. There is no reason why this particular lock is notable and deserves its own article. Op47 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's an engineering structure of some significance. As articles on structures go, it is at least referenced. Should perhaps be expanded by renaming to include other locks on the river. No reason to delete. RashersTierney (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the subject of this article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. If you or anyone else can show that I am mistaken then I will be as happy as the original author to see the article kept. If the article had been a list of locks with dimensions and such like then that would probably have been ok. Op47 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOFEAT appears to indicate a redirect, if anything, certainly not deletion. This lock is no Falkirk Wheel, but is arguably no less notable than the Hanham Lock. RashersTierney (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Other stuff exists is not an argument for keep.

2) The article on Hanham Lock shows how it is notable, the lock keepers house is a listed building.

3) A redirect would be fine by me, howeve a redirect is tantamount to deletion hence I brought it before this forum. Op47 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a feature on the River Shannon navigation, it is of architectural interest and is a 19th century structure still in use for its original purpose. The Shannon navigation is a major tourist draw in Ireland. Perhaps the article may be more notable to Irish users. Belmonter (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the River shannon navigation is a major tourist draw then perhaps there ought to be an article on that. I tried to find it but only found a section in the river Shannon article. This situation implies the navigation is not separately notable but the lock is. I cannot see any justification for that. In addition, ff this lock is a feature on the navigation then I cannot see why the other locks are not a feature. If it is any help, I would be happy for this article to become an article on the navigation in general. Op47 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, and for the many others who use the navigation, as is the Albert Lock (River Shannon). RashersTierney (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to say why the lock is notable. per WP:GNG the criteria for being notable is the subject of the article must be the subject of multiple non trivial references independent of the subject. That seems to me to be an objective measurement of its notability. As I said above, if you can show that then I am more than happy for the article to stay. Op47 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- There is a section of the canalised section of the river in the article River Shannon. I would suggest that be used as a starting point for an article on the navigation, inot which the articles on indiviual locks can be merged. I do not think we need an article on every lock. It we had one for every lock on every British canal, we would be creating hundreds of unnecessary articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is a significant part of a large navigable river system, there is not the slightest case for deletion as the worse case is that we'd merge per WP:PRESERVE. As the feature is noted for both its architectural significance and as a beauty spot, there seems to be ample reason to develop this further. Warden (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than 1 person has stated that the lock has architectural merit without presenting any evidence or stating how its architectural has merit. When I have looked at pictures, all I have seen is a perfectly ordinary lock.

WP:PRESERVE does not apply here, this is a discussion as to whether the subject of this article should have its own article. No-one has suggested destroying the information within this article, rather what has been suggested is in someway expand the scope of the article. As far as I can tell the only questions are whether:

1) The content of this article is merged into the River Shannon article 2) A new article on the River Shannon Navigation is created 3) This article is renamed to be the River Shannon Navigation article.

In none of the above does it imply that the information in this artcle is destroyed. I think the purposes of Wikipedia would be better served if one of the above options were taken rather than keeping the article as it is. Op47 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Op47 has suggested destroying the information within this article by proposing that it be deleted. If this is not his intention then the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK, "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, nobody is suggesting "destroying" information; please avoid such inflammatory language. Secondly, Warden, you've been told this before, multiple times, WP:PRESERVE is editing policy, not deletion policy, and is irrelevant to AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion and so the primary issue is the destruction of this article and its edit history. WP:PRESERVE is entirely consistent with our deletion policy which lists many alternatives to deletion in much the same way and for the same reason — that we prefer to keep content which has some merit. Warden (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that calling it "destruction" is loaded language that can easily be interpreted as an attempt to emotionally prejustice opinions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tending towards options 2) or 3) above. It is pretty extraordinary that a dedicated article on the Shanon navigation doesn't exist. There is plenty of source material, if eds are prepared to get 'stuck in'. It would also situate this structure in a meaningful context. RashersTierney (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following to the article:

Protected Status

The Record of Protected Structures^[1] lists both the lock and the lock keepers cottage as protected structures (ref 38-05 & 38-04).^[2]

The lock is listed by the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (a service provided by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht) as being of special interest in the architectural and technical interest categories in addition to being significant for its size.^[3] The Lock keepers house is similarly listed as being of special interest in the architectural and technical interest categories.^[4] Belmonter (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which now means the lock satisfies WP:GEOFEAT. Thankyou Belmonter. I am happy to withdraw the nomination on the grounds that the article has been altered to satisfy my original concerns. In light of the comments about the River Shannon Navigation, I will place a split tag on River Shannon so that may be discused in its rightful place. Op47 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close - Notability established and nomination withdrawn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Spies

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO no claims to notability other than he is a working lawyer and started a PAC. -MJH (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellows. I just started this article, as the name of this person seems to be involved in several affairs behind Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign (as further described in Restore Our Future and its press links). But, as I just don't know the topic with the necessary depth, I just left the article as a stub, for other better-informed persons to add more information. Best regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he has received a number of mentions for his association with Mitt Romney's presidential bid, there doesn't seem to be much press about him personally - nothing that goes beyond the trivial mentions that will give us a reason to allow his bio to stick. Sorry mate! Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would it be appropriate for some of the info to be merged into the Restore Our Future article and have this redirect there? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the source on which the entire article relies is from the subject's current employer - clearly not independent. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect if others believe there is some value in that. Stalwart111 12:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda (magazine)

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

Tagged since 2009 as unsourced. An early WP:PROD was contested on the grounds that it was a real magazine. Now it's just a non-notable website. The only coverage in Google books was "I ran into Julie at a party thrown by Barracuda Magazine, which is run by a friend of mine" – which I suggest is direct evidence of non-notability. – Fayenatic London 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've flagged the WP:COI given the substantial proportion of the text contributed by User:Barracudamag. I'm not finding anything beyond passing mention in a Mercury News article on Paget Brewster. Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article was mostly contributed by the same accounts that wrote Jeff Fox which has just been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Fox (2nd nomination)), namely Special:Contributions/Barracudamag, Special:Contributions/JonKF and Special:Contributions/DeeBozzer. These accounts have made no other contributions. – Fayenatic London 15:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It would qualify for A7 if it were just the website but since it was a print magazine before it doesn't. The only third-party "source" I could find was someone who was selling a pile of old issues. James086 ^Talk 14:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani Youth Organization of Russia (AYOR)

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

I see much promotion, and not much independent coverage here. Yes, there are a couple of stories from the Azerbaijani press. But keep in mind that the country ranks 162nd of 179 in the Press Freedom Index, and that of course newspapers in a dictatorship will give glowing coverage to an initiative by the dictator's own daughter (Leyla Aliyeva being another rather dubious article). I'm not saying these should be entirely discounted, just that they don't deserve much credence. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be much genuinely independent coverage. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like promotional, at best can be mentioned in Leyla Aliyeva.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ymblanter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. KTC (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Faires

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

Effectively unsourced BLP-article. Advertisement and blatant selfpromo. Fails WP:GNG The Banner _talk 14:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what appear to be references are peppered throughout the text as inline links. The one I checked seems not to refer to what it purports to cite, though, and was just a general link to a named web site. More work is needed to determine the (lack of) notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk Junya

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Reading all 15 references, not one says more than two words about this artist (generally first and last name). Certainly no repeated substantial editorial discussion. The single reference with a bio takes the article text from WP! Otherwise each ref is a link to his own video, performance dates or track listings. Sorry, WP:TOOSOON -MJH (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of the authours contributions have the same problem. References thrown in to give an appearence of notability. References that are unrelated, very other things related but not about him, passing mentions. They add up to deceptive article creation that is approaching being a hoax. Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references used in this article amount to nothing more than self-submissions, or self-submissions that have been automatically duplicated to generate website content. This is the lowest and weakest type of reference. Even if there was editorial from niche or self-published blogs within his genre it would still not meet notability guidelines. And yet, for this artist, not even this level of recognition has been achieved. Wikipedia is for those individuals who have ascended to the higher rungs on the ladder of notability. This artist has not even reached the first. 64Winters (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable, apparently unsigned ("independent artist" as the article amusingly puts it). Though not a hoax in the sense of something totally made up, it's definitely aggrandisement that crosses the border into deception--for example, the reference given for "known for his lyrical ability" is a link to a mixtape site that says nothing at all of the kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, it seems he has not established notability at this time. None of the references are significant or actually talk about him. Multiple Google News searches including his albums offered nothing useful. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bruno

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA because he's had no fights for a top tier organization. His other claims to notability seem to be as a successful high school wrestler (but fails WP:NSPORTS#Amateur sports persons) and as a no-gi wrestler in NAGA. However, the article lists only 1 appearance at an advanced level and no appearances at the NAGA world championships. His "World Cup" first place finish was in a division with only 1 other competitor. There's nothing here that shows notability. Jakejr (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and his grappling accomplishments don't appear to be significant per WP:ATHLETE. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His accomplishments at the world largest grappling events world championship are enough. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that a New York state wrestling tournament shows his notability? That's hardly the highest level of competition for NAGA, much less for a grappler (consider ADCC). There's no evidence he even competed in that tournament and, if he did, he's not listed among the medalists. There's also no evidence he competed at the NAGA world championships (world cup is a much different event). Jakejr (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No silly. I put that link so the uninitiated can read a third party description of NAGA as a whole( Hint, It is towards the bottom, and describing how immense it is. And it is Mike Bruno being the champion of this organization that drastically increases his notability as per wikipedia athlete requirements.

Evidence of his champion status click on no-gi and do a search. You will see Mike Bruno is the men's lightweight champion in the toughest divisionPortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think I know the division he won had only 2 entrants? There's nothing to support your claim it was the toughest division (smallest perhaps) and, as I said, it's not the NAGA world championships as you keep claiming (or at least implying). He's nowhere to be found for that tournament. Jakejr (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per PortlandOregon97217 comment. Sepulwiki (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning an un-notable (and quite trivial) trophy does not warrant a wikipedia article. This is not notable. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an accomplished enough grappler or mixed martial artist to pass WP:GNG Luchuslu (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and there's nothing in his wrestling career to support claims of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fights for a top tier MMA organization, thus failing WP:NMMA. There's no evidence he competed at the highest level of grappling, either. In fact, he doesn't appear to have competed at the highest levels of NAGA--Pan-American, North American, or World championships. The World Cup event is not a major event, even for NAGA. Papaursa (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Chicago Maroons football team

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

Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In the modern era, the University of Chicago has played football at too low a level to warrant having separate articles for its football seasons. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally don't have a problem with it, and I think the subject matter clears WP:GNG. The "level" of play does not matter. It might be better to create an article for the season of the entire conference and integrate the information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm still a "keep" but not enough to fight for it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we have now reached and exceeded the outer limits of notability for a single season of an individual college football team per the guidance of WP:CFBSEASON and WP:ROUTINE. WP:CFBSEASON states in pertinent part, "Single seasons (e.g. 2005 USC Trojans football team) can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine coverage (see WP:ROUTINE). In general, seasons that culminate in a bowl game will likely be notable. However, not all seasons by teams that participate in college football are inherently notable." (emphasis mine) For inclusion in Wikipedia as stand-alone articles, it would appear that single seasons must not only satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but also the conditions of WP:CFBSEASON, which is a policy of WikiProject College Football. WP:CFBSEASON even offers a policy alternative to marginally notable and non-notable single seasons—combining such seasons into decade-season articles or other multi-season clusters.

I am going to withhold my final !vote until I hear some additional arguments of other CFB editors who are well-versed in the applicable notability guidelines and WP:CFB policies. However, I must say that my initial reaction is (a) the 2012 Chicago Maroons football season is not notable, and (b) such CFB seasons as this one would be better served by consolidating it into a decade-season article or similar cluster.

I remind everyone who supports keeping this subject as a stand-alone article that the burden rests on them to demonstrate the notability of the single season with specific examples (preferably linked) of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Otherwise, the closing administrator may disregard such "keep" !votes as unsupported. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In going through the history of WP:CFBSEASON, this policy actually read quite differently before it was edited by an anonymous IP (67.255.21.196) on June 27, 2010 (see here and here for examples of what the policy looked like before and after the IP's edits). For the past 2-3 years editors have been creating articles for every single Division I FBS & FCS team season, regardless of the relative success of the season. As you yourself, Dirtlawyer, noted in the recent Manual of Style debate, when a policy is out of touch with the "facts on the ground" of the actual usage on Wikipedia, it may be the policy itself that is in need of revision. As far as this article goes, I would recommend possibly combining it into some sort of list article, or possibly moving it into the main Chicago Maroons football article, before the article is deleted, and the information is lost forever. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CFBSEASON. Division II would be a stretch, but III? Not a chance. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it is "Division III" does not automatically disqualify from notability, and stating so shows prejudice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Riiight. I'm a "III" hater from way back. I have to restrain myself from nominating Robert Griffin III for deletion. Of course a team with a 4-6 record in a conference I've never heard of gets tons of media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you disagree, scratch out the comments about how any division III program would not have a chance of notability. That would be a start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why? Many Division I teams don't have (or deserve) season articles. The only non-local press coverage I can recall seeing for Division III is when the national champion is crowned. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the past seven days, no one has provided any reliable, independent sources to demonstrate the notability of the 2012 Chicago Maroons football season, nor any other rationale to support a stand-alone article regarding the subject. Per my comments above, I believe the subject fails to satisfy either the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG or the specific requirements of WP:CFBSEASON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pending the outcome of this Afd, I'd recommend nominating most or all of the articles in Category:NCAA Division III football seasons. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity, I am supporting the deletion of this article because it fails to satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG and the additional requirements of WP:CFBSEASON. If you propose to nominate multiple CFB season articles for AfD, I would suggest that you review those provisions first, as well as the WP:BEFORE subsection of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion policy. Your comment above suggest that your don't fully understand the Wikipedia concept of "notability" per WP:N and its various AfD policy implications. There is nothing inherently notable in any college football season, Division III, Division II or Division I FBS; all of them must satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CFBSEASON to be included as stand-alone Wikipedia articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that being a Division III school does not automatically disqualify the article from being notable. Indeed, one could argue that a championship or a similar achievement would bring notability. However, I do think that football season articles associated with a Division III school tend to lack the sources and coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Most of the articles in Category:NCAA Division III football seasons could be candidates not because they're associated with Division III, but rather because they share a lack of notability. Edge3 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's analogous to baseball. The major leagues (like Division I) get a lot of press, Triple A (II) not much, and Double A (III) barely a peep, doubly so for teams with middling records or worse (1-9?). Possibly a case could be made for the participants in the NCAA Division III National Football Championships (none of which have season articles), but I doubt the rest qualify (with the odd exception). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazwasteonline

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

Non-notable website (unfortunately). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete Masquerading as some sort of regulation compliance listing is not enough to get this past WP:GNG. Ultimately it is a non-notable product, or is too niche to be of encyclopedic value. §FreeRangeFrog^croak

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. KTC (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Down Low

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

Delete - there are not independent reliable sources that indicate that this particular episode is independently notable. PROD removed with the claim that redirection is always preferred to deletion, which is patently false, and in this case is untenable because of the article title's ambiguity. Buck Winston (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while not always done, I think redirect is often valid. No opinion on this case. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus appears to be that each House episode merits its own article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Many major television shows have individual articles for episodes, and House shouldn't be an exception. While this article doesn't have a Production or Reception section, improvement could be made to include those sections. In my opinion, this article needs work, but does not need to be deleted. I can see how the title may be an issue. Perhaps the article could be moved to The Down Low (House) or something? Greengreengreen red 09:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to MECON Limited. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MECON Tower

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

The article do not meet WP:NOTABLE criteria. Do not have wide usage in RS. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find only a passing mention in a newspaper about the tower. Looks like non-notable. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 20:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into MECON Limited. It shouldn't be a stand-alone article, but merging it into the MECON Limited article, with a cite request tag, would give someone who speaks the language time find ~~an srticle~~ a news article about the building being owned by current and former employees. If true, that's a notable fact. And given that that there IS a Mecon Limited page, that gives us a place to put this while the references are looked for, without leaving an out-of-policy, free-standing article out there to be mirrored and to become a faux fact. David in DC (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and above. Blue Riband► 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Any potential merger can be proposed per the instruction at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. KTC (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor spread in social network

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Interesting theory sourced by two books that were printed before the topic even existed, and one that doesn't cover it in a significant way. I'm not sure this can be "fixed" and the subject matter itself is too vague. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article has several significant flaws (in fact, I would guess that it was worked up by an undergraduate student from lecture notes) but, although this is not a topic with which I am very familiar, I suspect that, while the nomination bas been made completely in good faith, it is factually wrong in several respects. The origins of the theory of social networks go back to at least the 1950s, and I am entirely unsurprised to find that David George Kendall, one of the authors of the earliest paper cited, was a pioneer in this area (among many others). In network theory generally, the topic being discussed is at least very closely related to percolation theory, and I would definitely expect social network theorists to be interested in it. (Hmm, let's try this out - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - about 2,540 GScholar results.) In fact, I would expect it to be possible to write at least a GA status article on the topic - though probably under a different name and with the current contents of this article edited down to a relatively small part of that article (and, if it turns out that the article has been written already and I have missed it, my !vote here can be regarded as withdrawn). PWilkinson (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This should be relisted as a science-related AfD. I do not see a compelling argument to delete. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic is quite notable but the treatment here seems quite limited and it's not clear why it shouldn't be handled in the main article, rumour. There's a lot more to be said now on the effect of new mechanisms such as Twitter and Wikipedia itself. Warden (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Diffusions of rumors (or other behaviors) is a standard topic in collective behavior and mathematical sociology. Much of this is related to the huge literature in mathematical epidemiology, which has been invigorated lately by network/graphical modeling and massive data-sets. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there some confusion about whether this relates to social networks in the Facebook sense or in the general sense of who you know? The article should be clarified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Moran

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

Effectively unsourced BLP and promo The Banner _talk 18:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly there are problems with the article's tone/POV, but the article indicates his long and important career: although much of it is in the pre-internet era, that shouldn't count against him. Google Books shows literally dozens of mentions in Billboard including an article on him in 11 Oct 1997[49] There's also extensive coverage in a Spin article on the Miami scene from Apr 1988[50]. More recently he's often featured in gay interest and sometimes in the entertainment press[51][52][53][54][55] Notable via WP:GNG regardless of chart placings under his own name[56] and involvement in hit records. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in agreement with Colapeninsula; just because an article has been missing references for years doesn't instantly force it to be deleted. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Two Grammy nominations is enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DailyFlag for DailyBread

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

A project restricted to just two roads, 32 homes; no evidence of coverage beyond local media; A charity with revenue of <C$8,000 pa is not notable. Vast majority of substance of article is from an editor who has no other edits, leading to suspicion of COI and vanity. Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - This topic ~~meets WP:GNG and~~ has received significant coverage in reliable sources with regional coverage. Source examples include:

Advent flags make $2,500 for the Daily Bread Food Bank. East York Mirror.
Flags For Charity. (Audio interview, runs 6:02). CBC Toronto.

There's also these sources, which are more local in their coverage

Waving flags for Christmas in the Beach. Beach Mirror. ("...distributed every Thursday to over 21,200 households in The Beach and Riverdale areas in eastern Toronto..." – see [57])
Daily Flag project back on Leuty and Violet. Beach Metro. (Distribution map).

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East York Mirror link: page carries "Community Contributions" tag, and highlights that source became aware through an e-mail from the organiser. Current main news story on that site is "Local scouts fundraising for trip to Jamboree". This is not an indication of wider notability. East York directly neighbours the Beach area according to Google Maps, still very local coverage.

CBC Toronto: local interest snippet on local radio.

Millions of small local initiatives take place every year. Wikipedia is not the place to list every local charity and community cohesion effort. Kevin McE (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I changed my !vote above to a comment. The geographic depth of coverage appears to be insufficient, per this discussion. While the topic may just meet WP:N per a strict interpretation of the guideline page, the consensus here is to delete the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organisation is very local in nature, and the coverage reflcts that. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the coverage all seems very local and the arguments I could come up would all be very WP:ILIKEIT in nature. I would like to think this might be WP:TOOSOON but none of that helps the subject meet WP:ORGDEPTH right now. Stalwart111 12:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've had difficulty with community art before. I think any kind of non-trivial notice from reliable sources that deal with this sort of subject from a social or artistic perspective would show notability --the standard here is the same sort of critical notice that would apply to any form of art. And I think significant attention from regional and national sources ok, as usual with the GNG. But local newspapers will cover anything, and are not discriminating. This applies to the local affiliates of national broadcasters also--we need to look behind the name of the publication. In the past, the NYTimes published regional editions for the different NYC suburbs I think we've been very reluctant to accept articles there at any more value than a local paper as the consensus (though I seem to remember myself having sometimes but not always said otherwise). In practice, we seem to have sensibly modified the GNG as if it said, If we thing it ought to be considered notable, borderline substantial sources are sufficient; if we think it unimportant, they aren't. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hyperlocal, no evidence of interest or impact outside of the immediate community. Kudos to these folks for raising money in a fun way, but it's not an encyclopedia topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan in 2010

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

This article is totally unnecessary. It is far too large and solely focuses on public opinion TWO YEARS ago for a current event. We already have a public opinion subsection of Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). The subsection does need updating though. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge into "Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" or delete without remerging - This article, in addition to the other corresponding articles for 2007-2011 are size splits. If we are going to delete these five articles, they should not be merged back into International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan. Also, why are the other four articles not listed in this AfD?--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the other four, I came across these two when reviewing new pages. We should definitely delete without remerging, and update the relevant section. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And with what exactly will we update the relevant section?--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well the section says "recent" and refers to polls from 2009, so I'm sure more recent polls can be found. A brief summary of public opinion from Afg-Pak, USA, Europe et al would be fine. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Go for it. Also, don't forget to include the other years in this nomination before we get too far down the line. I am including a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan in 2009 for convenience.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a month by month dump of opinion polls. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Shabani

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

Subject fails WP:NBOX since he was never ranked in the world top 10 or fought for a major world championship. Article describes him as a "promising fighter" who has "retired". Jakejr (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:NBOX. I did a search and even when he was 17-0, he was unranked. Although he fought (and lost to) the #3 middleweight, notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan in 2009

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

See reasons per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan in 2010 Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge into "Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" or delete without remerging - This article, in addition to the other corresponding articles for 2007-2011 are size splits. If we are going to delete these five articles, they should not be merged back into International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan. Also, why are the other four articles not listed in this AfD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is a month by month dump of opinion poll stats. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. I highly suggest that User:The Interior find some sources verifying that this subject is notable. Keep in mind that blogs are very rarely reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EAT! Vancouver

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

Unreferenced. No evidence of any notability . Fails WP:CORP. Looks like WP:ARTSPAM. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After a quick search, there looks to be substantial local coverage: Georgia Straight. If it is indeed the "largest consumer food fair" in Canada, that's evidence of notability right there. (I know it's just Canada, but give us some credit, eh. ;) The Interior (Talk) 22:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Interior. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomfield Homes

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

This article is about a home building company which appears to be run of the mill; I haven't been able to find significant coverage of it in multiple, reliable sources to meet WP:N. The statistics given in the article (10th largest builder in Dallas metro area, 87th largest in the US) are not significant enough in my eyes to meet WP:ORG. Them From Space 23:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability has been demonstrated in the article, the run-of-the-mill case indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A normal firm going about its business - fine for a business directory, not for an encyclopaedia. Rankings cited in the article do not demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability and I'm not seeing anything else. AllyD (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. as per the discussion has no participants at all for the last 3 relistings except for the commenter. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then You Left Me

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

Fails WP:NSONG I find tons of lyrics pages, but no editorial discussion of this particular song. There are no references supporting independent notability. All the content here is already in I.O.I.O. -MJH (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I presume this was actually realised as a single (record), and is by a notable band, but the lack of comment makes me woinder whether the song was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Krekshino

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO no references included or found to support claims to notability. A working priest who converted and wrote some articles. Single blog ref is the complete source of this article. -MJH (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :All I could find on google were other Wikipedia pages. For the most part. I guess he existed. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability has been demonstrated in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to be notable.--Staberinde (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Royal Arena

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

New MMA organization that has only held 2 events (a third is scheduled). The creator is the organization's president so there's a blatant COI. I found nothing to show this organization has received any significant independent coverage. Its events were deleted at an earlier AFD. Jakejr (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TOOSOON; article seems to fail WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organization with no fighters signed that pass WP:NMMA Luchuslu (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to support any claims of notability for this organization. There is a lack of any independent coverage of it. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vineet Saini

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Maybe too early to be on Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to meet WP:MUSICBIO and the many references are either irrelevant to the article or not reliable sources (there is one Times of Indiavlink that's 404 but it does not appear to have been an article about the subject anyway) so WP:GNG is also not met. --bonadea contributions talk 08:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Dear Bonadea Please check Articles Source .I corrected them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musichimachal (talk • contribs) 11:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't make the decision on whether the article is kept or deleted - I can only weigh in in the discussion, like everybody else. There is still no claim to notability in the article, and the new source added is a blog, which does not qualify as a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now Source are mentioned and links are claim to notability.It is proven that article information is true thank you. musichimachal 13:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musichimachal (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria at this point in his careeer. AllyD (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Wrap

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

No indication of notability, quick check for sources leads me to believe this does not meet GNG. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 02:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable, independent sources available with which to verify notability. - Mr X 03:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commentary of a popular reality show, since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. A short mention on the American Idol article should be enough. 31.220.250.56 (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Vinci Game

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD removed per WP:PROD (previous AfD). Reason given for PROD was: This is a re-creation of a deleted article, still lacking evidence of notability. It advertises a commercial product (a board game) and makes unsourced assertions evidently based on fringe theories. Illia Connell (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable board game. A mention at the Da Vinci Code article will suffice. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only is it not notable, it's not even the "official" game of the book/movie (see here). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see it being all that notable from its BoardGameGeek entry. 31.220.250.56 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The "delete" arguments are particularly weak. Calling an article a POVFORK is not helpful unless one also explains what particular (non-neutral) POV this article is supposed to further. The substantial question is whether this topic should be the subject of a spin-off subarticle, and none of the "delete" opinions cite a policy or guideline (such as original research, notability or verifiability) to explain why it should not. Absent an understandable argument for deletion, the article is not deleted. That's without prejudice to any editorial action such as rename, restructure or merge as editorial consensus may deem proper. Sandstein 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse cases

Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases (current title)

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

Article is based on a word-for-word copy of Scouting_sex_abuse_cases#United_States, thus amounts to a POVFORK. New material should be merged with pre-existing article on the same subject. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic but Scouting_sex_abuse_cases#United_States should be reduced to a summary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Now done - again, but with a more severe cull.~~ -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm familiar with this. Part of an hour-by-hour frenzy of creating new articles that duplicate existing ones, attempts to gut the article that it duplicated to try to make the fork fly and rename the new one to try to make the fork fly etc. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the inevitable growth of WP that large articles are eventually split into smaller new ones. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North, the new subarticle was renamed because you said you wanted it renamed. Don't suggest something, have us say okay, and then turn around and cite that agreement as a sign that we're acting in bad faith. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name changes about once per hour. As of my writing the title was problematic....with the "and" in it) it is about (implies) the connection between the national organization and sex abuse cases or the national organization in conjunction with those cases. This has immense lack-of-scope, POV, and wp:notability problems. The title that I suggested had none of those problems. Then it went through two more changes and the version of the minute "Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases" looks good. But lets wait 5 minutes and see if it changes again. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scouting has 30 million kids in 161 different nations, yet the Scouting_sex_abuse_cases page spends 10,000 characters (more than half of article) focused on just one single scouting organization out of thousands: the Boy Scouts of America. Either we split that BSA-stuff off into a subarticle, per WP:SUMMARY, or we risk sending the message that 50% of the world's scouting-related sex abuse is caused by just one organization, the BSA-- an implication that is patently false and is, to my eyes, the definition of UNDUE weight. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the perverse insistence on covering each and every case of abuse that creates undue weight in the original article. Observers should note that this editor's initial move was to expand the section Boy_Scouts_of_America#Sex_abuse_cases, despite the existence of Scouting sex abuse cases, and didn't try to create the nominated article until his changes there were rejected by the community. Again... a classic POVFORK. ► Belchfire-TALK 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should not cover each and every case but it is a notable topic therefore it warrans its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belchfire, you're criticizing me for listening to your advice. I added it to the top level, you felt it was UNDUE, and I listened and agreed. Perhaps you have some WP:COI/WP:OWN issues going here, but demonizing me for trying to help doesn't help us improve the wiki. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could just cut it back in the original article. --No unique names 05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pov fork --No unique names 05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:SPLIT rather than a WP:CFORK. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a split when it is done specifically in response to content being rejected. Read the description here, which outlines exactly what happened in this case. The editor who created this article couldn't get his material inserted where he wanted it, so he started a new article just to highlight his POV-cruft. Trouble is, the new article duplicates the scope of an existing article. That's a POVFORK no matter how you spin it. ► Belchfire-TALK 08:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very negative reading of motives, Belchfire. I added some things to the main page, someone rved it as UNDUE weight on the main page, so I went to work on the subarticle. The first thing I noticed was that the sub-article needed a split because 1 nation took up half the article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPADE. Oh, and WP:DUCK, too. ► Belchfire-TALK 09:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Now look here dragon breath! (just wanted to say that...) For fear of invoking the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument we often split articles of this type. We have got categories full of the stuff. See Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal by country. It is inevitable that we have ones for scouting as well. I have yet to go through to see how this whole thing erupted but any POV material can be sorted out even with two separate articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-merge. Seems to be a subarticle of two different articles; Boy Scouts of America and Scouting sex abuse cases. Normally, it would be a good thing to split out a common section; but this case is anything but normal. It does seem to be a consequence of an attempt to include the list of all such cases in Wikipedia, making the section too large to be included in either parent article. My suggestion would be to restore the original material back into whichever parent it was started from, and create a new article List of Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases. It shouldn't be precisely this one, but I'm not sure delete would really be appropriate. Re-merge and Rename? In any case, I don't think it's a WP:POVFORK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with subarticles. Given that thare are at least two articles - Boy Scouts of America and Scouting sex abuse cases - that are related is another reason to take the intersecting info off to another page. And don't get me started on a "List of ..." article. We need prose - not endless lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is as yours-- put the prose in the prose BSA article, put the list in the generic scouting abuse list. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we are on the same page (or the same paragraph). What I want is that the Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse cases (which I want to have named as Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse) is everything about the topic, including the stats, the preventaive measures and the notable individual cases. Boy Scouts of America and Scouting sex abuse cases have a WP:SUMMARY. That is how is done with these situations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you. Scouting sex abuse cases is just so awkward at present, when all the nations have no prose and the US has so much. It screams for a split. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is often the case that the US stuff overwhelms an article and is the first that needs splitting. Part of the systemic bias in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content in this article is long enough and notable enough to justify a different article. I don't see how it's a POVFORK. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title of the minute (Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases) is much improved but no longer matches the title above. The title with the "and" in it is worded to be about / imply the/a connection between the national organization and sex abuse cases or the national organization in conjunction with those cases. This has immense lack-of-scope, POV, and wp:notability and POV fork problems. The current title without the "and" solves those problems. I am going to strike my "delete" recommendation and go into a "wait and see" mode to see if it changes again. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant degree of secondary source coverage, not to mention noteworthy, educational, and encyclopedic value is quite high. — Cirt (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (See my posts above) The less problematic title (which no longer matches the title of this AFD) seems to have stabilized and is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO AND A CONDITION OF MY RECOMMENDATION With the "and" in there my recommendation would be a strong "delete". I have a feeling that this article would go badly if kept, becoming a POV coatrack. But I think that it's existence (only under the amended title as it is right now) is logical and correct in all respects. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked and it's already going badly. A single-editor article being spun in a POV direction. But I still stay with my "week keep".

Delete - Severe overweight when random scandals overtke the articles they spawn from. Call for an airstrike, delete all of them and cover it there. The title also is not clear that the Boy Scouts were victims. --DHeyward (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Peter M. Ferreira

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

Vanity/advertising article about apparently non-notable musician. The text is pasted from his official biography, though there is a plausible assertion of permission on the talk page. The violinist has basically no news coverage whatsoever (searched "peter m ferreira", "pedro m ferreira", "pedro ferreira" AND violinista, "peter ferreira" AND violinist). Supposed NYT quotes listed on his website don't check out (no hits when searching NYT archives). I think it's nearly speedy-deletable as an ad, but it's been around for a long time so I thought I'd bring it here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ferreira is a well known violinist in the violin/classical community and has been on Wikipedia for many years! The above accusations are ridiculous! Vanity?? Advertising??? Are you serious?? Do a proper search and you can find his recordings, books (http://www.amazon.com/The-Violin-Companion-Peter-Ferreira/dp/0578011387) The New York Talk is an old article and with enough search can still be found.
No news coverage? Let me know where I can send or post some photos of some of the magazines or news coverage that has him featured, some on the front page, and I'll gladly send them to you! Bionerysuarez (talk, 5 January 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Bionerysuarez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Photographs of newspapers and magazines are not what's needed, and are of no benefit to the encyclopaedia. Citations are. Cite these articles! Uncle G (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I say advertising because, as you can see in the edit history, Ferreira's record company has been maintaining his article, pasting his official (promotional) bio, etc. And you may be a friend or significant other of Ferreira's, judging by my google searches? Very clever that Ferreira's website abbreviates New York Talk (an apparently non-notable publication I can't find any information about) as NYT, implying that the New York Times praised him. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are funny!!And my search on Google also notes and warns of people like YOU who "run" Wikipedia! For example: "people have a strong opinion about a subject, so they will try to control the articles about that subject." EXACTLY what is going on here!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.222.228 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — 71.232.222.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No one person runs Wikipedia. It’s a collective effort based on factual information & a consensus of editors. Anyone checking the page in question now can see your multiple attempts to self-delete the page so I think that answers that. Good luck! --SpyMagician (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... who the hell wants to put up with your BS people! The world doesn't revolve around wikipedia! It seemed interesting, but being its run by people like you it's just a big waist of time and effort! So go ahead delete it. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.222.228 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a huge load of blatant advertising and puffery. ~~It requires a full teardown and rebuild. It's hard to find the wheat from the chaff in it. If the advertising and promotion and puffery is not removed~~ our only recourse is to delete the article with a view to a new article f the same name when emotions have cooled down. The better approach is to rip it apart and cite it. The heat in this deletion discussion suggests to me that the article has been written by those involved with the subject who are distressed that it is being criticised. They need to stand back. If the gentleman is notable he will have his article. If he is not then he will not, but they are not helping it to survive. Only improvement of the article will achieve that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been into the article and removed some of the worst of the puffery, but there is loads more to prune. It can be pruned, but it is quite a task. I've also flagged many points where citations are required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my thoughts to a simple Delete as failing WP:GNG. Searchng for news reveals nothing. Maybe he will be notable one day. He can have an article then. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had another go at editing the article to remove yet more puffery, and have reinforced my opinion that it needs to be torn down in its entirety. The assertion on the talk page that copyright materials may be used is weak. OTRS processes are non negotiable. I have also placed this relevant comment on the article's talk page which I feel has relevance to this discussion: "The article is full of blandishments and quasi-facts. So he performed in a concert at the age of 8. Whoopee. So do pretty much all kids who learn the violin. What is significant is whether the performance was a violin concerto or Twinkle Twinkle Little Star on open strings like most 8 year olds do. As it stands today the article is a load of flannel and puffery. Loads of folk can play the violin. Some can play it reasonably well. A few are great soloists. Nothing in the article, nor in any sources, suggests that the gentleman is anything other than a pretty ordinary bloke sawing a cigar box in half who has enough cash to record and produce his own self-published work." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that File:PeterbythepianoNEW.jpg replicates much of this article in the summary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is substancial information on his site with links and PDF files showing articles about Mr. Ferreira worth looking at here (http://www.peterferreira.com/acclaim.htm)! Because your search on Google didn't show you "much" doesn't mean he is not in the news. Let's be reasonable people!!

On the other hand Fiddle Faddle seems to be the one and ONLY person on this topic who has the right wikipedia approach of at least try to look more into it and try to be positive instead of trashing the article and for that matter a violinist/musician who may not be a "Lady Gaga" of the classical world, but HAS indeed done a lot for himself. He is also a published author and I did find one of his books on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Violin-Companion-Peter-Ferreira/dp/0578011387

I agree that the article needs to be worked onn but don't agree with the way it was "approached" and "trashed" by the earlier so called wikipedia admins whos approach in my opinion was very negative, unconstructive and in my opinion should NOT be "working" for wikipedia. Good luck - Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.70.190 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — 174.63.70.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I fear that self published material that may or may not be a reference is useless when seeking to establish the encyclopaedic notabilty of he gentleman. We are forced to ignore it.

You are doing your cause absolutely no good by being at best venomous towards people here. Most people suspect you of being either Mr Ferreira or at least his publicist, and in this way you are doing him precisely no favours. If you can find real references in reliabel sources then add them to the article. That is the only thing that will save it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not sufficiently notable. No doubt he is very talented, and his book at least is verifiable, but published by Aeminium records, with whom he also records. And only him, as far as I can see. I can find no independent reviews, so certainly there are none for major venues by the mainstream media. Unfortunately at present there is nothing here beyond self-published work and skilful promotion. Perhaps in time there will be. Mcewan (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Mcewan notes, Amazon does have a book by a man of this name -- a text for beginning violinists. Amazon does not have any CDs, MP3s or other music with him in any of the roles mentioned in this article -- violinist, conductor, etc. If all of the claims in the article were true, then perhaps it would meet our standard of notability, but since none of it has citations, it is hard to believe. Both the tone of the responses and tricks such as referring to "NYT" to mean something other than "The New York Times" convince me that this is nothing but puffery. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched extensively under multiple search terms and also have access to Highbeam Research, Questia, and Jstor. The subject comprehensively fails the General notability guideline and fails to meet a single one of the alternate criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. There is no evidence of him having appeared in any major concert halls or as a soloist with notable orchestras. He appears to perform locally in Connecticut in small venues and at private functions, combined working as a violin teacher. The book and CDs are self-published, and I have been unable to find any reviews or even mentions of them in reliable sources. His website has PDF copies of two articles in minor publications aimed at the Portuguese community in the US, neither of which is notable, and one of which is defunct. Both articles are basically interview and press-release based, and the quote "one of the most celebrated Portuguese-born violinist [sic] of the modern era" (or its Portuguese equivalent), does not appear in either of those sources, or anywhere else that I could find. If it were indeed true, there would be significant coverage of this person, at least in specialised music publications. Instead, there's nothing. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. KTC (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolai Frahm

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

The notability of the person has not been established since it was first nominated for deletion in April 2012. Sir Tanx (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Completing nomination on behalf of user:Sir Tanx Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could not find the previous AfD discussion. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Tanx is referring to a nomination for speedy deletion[58], which was declined[59], not a nomination at AfD. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- seems NN to me. I note there is no article for the family foundation (unless that has got missed by the article not beiung wikified. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been interviewed by Forbes and has been quoted as an expert many times by reliable sources, such as The Telegraph (and again, and again, New York magazine and again, ARTnews, salon.com / AP, ArtAsiaPacific, Reuters,Financial Times, and Bloomberg. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has decent coverage in the content above, the article just needs improvement. Seems to be a respected figure in the art sales world (respected doesn't mean notability..but, in this case they seem to garner a lot of attention for their knowledge which appears to be notable based on the media coverage!). SarahStierch (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only trivial mentions as stand-in art expert. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ment to relist this today so that is why the date is wrong JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am to some extent persuded by the citations above. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations

AfDs for this article:

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

An unencyclopedic WP:DICTIONARY list that has already been transfered to wiktionary. The fact that it seems to be transcluded in List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names does not strike me as a good reason for keeping this in mainspace. If possible the article could be transferred to project space at WP:ETHNIC, or it could be renamed to List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been renamed to something more adequate to its contents, which takes care of part of the problem - the part it doesn't solve is that we still have content in article space that is copied in wiktionary and which is transcluded in another article - i.e. it is repeated three times. Nonetheless: I withdraw the nomination for deletion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I oppose the deletion of the article, but I support the renaming of it to "List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations", with the phrase "for countries and nations".

—Wavelength (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a rationale for why you don't think this particular list of words is not an example of WP:NOTDICTIONARY?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction provides non-definitional information, and even more can be provided.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listify. Rename article as List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. I don 't object to deleting the article entirely, but suspect that consensus will clamor for keeping it - so let's make it into a list. Majoreditor (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list already, although it is in the form of a sortable wikitable. Renaming it with the name of an article that transcludes it is somewhat circular, and it is not helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists being with "list" and why is the article transcluded in the list anyway? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply have the list with no transclusion?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Majoreditor (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when we have ever kept things in article space just because it is transcluded in other articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the list article nominated for deletion needs to have a title that begins with "List of", that is a separate issue. This list article (and several other list articles) are now transcluded in the more comprehensive list article, List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. In the beginning, there was only one list article, but transclusion was performed in stages in May and June 2006. As a result, with several shorter list articles transcluded in the more comprehensive list article, there is flexibility, in that a reader can view a smaller list article separately, or view the entire combination together in one comprehensive list article. This list article is an important part of the comprehensive list article.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many wikicode errors in the list article at wikt:Transwiki:Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations (version of 23:20, 11 September 2010).

—Wavelength (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC) and 20:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These 15 list articles are transcluded in the comprehensive list article, List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names (version of 19:57, 23 October 2012). Eight of them are templates.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, per Wavelength. This list is a navigational aid within Wikipedia, and consensus at least usually favours keeping useful lists like this one in mainspace, provided they are clearly labelled as lists. Deleting the content will simply impede navigation, renaming this to the title of an already existing more general article where it is already transcluded, along with several other related but different lists, is not practicable (what happens to the current article at that name?) and, while the content could be moved into the more general article, a list of "forms of place names" is not the first place I would think of looking for such information on countries (though it might be the fifth or sixth). PWilkinson (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Good definitions (version of 12:01, 27 December 2012) says: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions". Wikipedia has many glossaries in Category:Glossaries. A list-of-articles without definitions is still useful as an aid to navigation, but definitions increase its usefulness.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ment to Relist this today so that is why the date is wrong JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Without stating the obvious it is, well, stating the obvious. And it is over at Wiktionary. WP is 'not all things to all men"...-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per Wavelength's comments, but would support a change of name per either of the suggestions above. Just because something is a list does not automatically make it unencyclopedic. This particular list is of a form well covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#General formatting, and as such should not be considered simply "a dictionary definition". The information in the lede alone already takes it beyond disctionary status alone, and the article could be further expanded by explaining the reason for some of the less intuitive demonymic forms (e.g., the reason the Dutch are Dutch, the usage issues with the term Kosovar, the origin of the term Bajan). Some of these (e.g., Scotch/Scots/Scottish) are already covered as notes under the list, but expanding these to an entire section might convince some people who currently think that this list cannot be encyclopedic. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Wavelength and PWilkinson. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (rename to list OK) – it's a list article, that meets WP:LIST and WP:STAND inclusion criteria for the article namespace. This list doesn't qualify for deletion by established criteria, WP:NOTDIC not withstanding. Please note that "unencyclopedic" is just another way of saying "delete it". Quoting Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:

"Unencyclopedic" is an empty argument. It means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how?

I can't think of any good reasons to delete the article. But here are some more reasons it should be kept:

Its links are in Wikipedia context. That is, its entries link to Wikipedia articles, not Wiktionary pages.
It's an excellent navigation tool, like a table of contents, of articles on the countries and corresponding peoples of the world.
Countries are a major type of place, and so this is an integrated component of the more inclusive List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. If it was removed, this would create a gaping hole in that list.
It gets accessed directly over a 1,000 times a month.
It gets accessed indirectly through List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names over 4,000 times a month.

That's over 60,000 hits per year. If we are going to deny these readers a Wikipedia-integrated list, we should have good reasons to do so, based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The Transhumanist 06:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: rename completed. The Transhumanist 07:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A7. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (Dolphin)

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

This article about a dolphin sheltered at a zoo appears to be non-notable. According to an internet search, it does not really pass significant coverage requirements in reliable sources, so I propose deletion at this time. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 00:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to qualify under speedy criterion A7 (which includes animals as well as people). Not every dolphin in every zoo/aquarium/SeaWorld is worthy of an article. Intelligentsium 01:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Economic and Policy Research

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

No claim to notability. Only sources linked to the institute (and one charity audit service, linked at the institute's site) are used. Wikipedia has articles on two notable commentators on political economy, Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, who founded the institue, and presumably on other fellows. It's fine that the institute is mentioned in their articles.

The article and those articles have had many edits by associates of the institute, and despite cleanup the article still suffers from non-encyclopediac prose, reading like promotional material. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE, this one is an easy keep, as both Google News and Google Scholar cite them enough to pass notability, regardless of their politics. It should be noted that the OP is entirely correct about the internal citations within the article. The article itself is dreadful, but the entity is clearly notable, so there's no reason not to have an article about. Cleanup can be done by anyone so interested. --Jayron32 23:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name is a copy of the name of the leading economic and policy think-tank in the UK and the name of an institute at Stanford University. Did you examine the citations to see which was discussed (seriously, rather than incidently)? 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Yes, on the first page of Google News and of Google Scholar searches, most cites of the exact phrase "center for economic and policy research" refers to this organization. It, and its work, seems to be cited repeatedly and frequently. [60] and [61] and [62]. It is clear from these, and numerous others which anyone can find in the links above, that major news organizations consider them worth citing. --Jayron32 01:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first citation seems to be a republication of a news release by a fake journal, rather than by a journalistic publication. The second citation is a short news item, mentioning Dean Baker and incidentally mentioning CERP, so it does not establish notability; the news roundup is a way to fill pages using news releases, of course. Your third article is the intro to a radio interview with 2 persons (one Baker), which again just provides the background on Baker and no discussion of CERP itself; again, an incidental mention does not establish notability. So you have no reliable sources establishing notability, yet. Please find two quality reliable sources that discuss CERP, rather than mention it, when discussing Baker or Weisbrot (or another notable affiliate, who has or deserves an article). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've each said our piece. Other people will come along shortly. There's really no need to get emotionally involved. I've never heard of this organization in my life, but that doesn't mean it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 03:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't personalize the issue. Just find two RSes covering CERP, not mentioning CERP incidentally, per WP policy. The New York Times quotes CERP staff, mentioning CERP only incidentally, in the 34 articles returned by this query; there are exactly two other incidental mentions of CERP, [63] and [64]. Again, it seems that CERP is mentioned via Baker, Weisbrot, or other staff, but never by itself. (C.f., the similarly leftist Institute for Policy Studies, the centrist Brookings Institute, or the right Cato Institute as think tanks that are notable.) Please remove the AGF violation alleging that my concern is politically motivated. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've said nothing of the sort. I've said that I have never heard of the organization before this AFD. --Jayron32 16:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "regardless of their politics", which suggested that politics was a motivation, apparently unintentionally. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't intended that. Re-reading it, I can see, however, that it is certainly easy to read it that way. I apologize for making that statement. --Jayron32 17:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Jayron32. More than sufficient coverage available although the article does need improvement. Nsk92 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the now shortened article. I removed material that I cannot source to reliable sources. It still has no reliable sources cited. Please find reliable sources for any material which is added. It still has no claim to notability. It no longer reads like an advertisement written by CERP staff. This AFD may be closed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XOXOXO (The Black Eyed Peas song)

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

The song has received some minor coverage in reviews of the album a large portion of it is just a synopsis of a music video. Per WP:NSONGS it doesn't really qualify under notability and it is a stub that is unlikely to ever grow. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONGS. Not recommending a redirect because of the title. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A shame but lets move on. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't even able to find a reliable source (that wasn't a Wikipedia copy) for the first quote in the reception area... Also not recommending redirect because of article name. Mkdw ^talk 10:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Lazzaro

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

Non-notable per WP:ENT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep This young actress seems to be building a resume quickly and the page will just get bigger and more notable as she gets older. Consider it a stub. laurap414 (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (I don't really know the proper way to vote so sorry about that)[reply]

Keep meets the multiple significant roles requirement of ENT (Blessed, Tangle-especially with the Logie nomination), and as a basic news search shows, she had sufficient significant coverage for both her acting and now directing a Tropfest short film too, to satisfy WP:GNG. The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Logie nominee. Main subject of articles in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald (refs 1 and 5 in expanded article (at time of writing)). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a young up and coming actress. I believe Non-notable is not an argument in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangunn (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morsay

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

This article is about a non-notable rapper where most of sources are buzz and are blogs or news in brief. It fails WP:MUSIC and WP:IMPORTANCE. --Yann98 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm no judge on the music aspect, but he got a response from Mitterand, and the stunt with Orsenna attracted mainstream media comment (Libération and L'Express). Probably enough for notability. Mcewan (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information French page was AfDed in September by 21 votes to 14 Mcewan (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Morsay has no true purpose in having a Wikipedia article. The article fails WP:Importance in that he his notability is for a small non-notable event that fed the media for a short period of time before being expelled out. What I find most ridiculous is that this article still exists. The article has been deleted multiple times on the French Wikipedia, where the controversy surrounding Morsay took place. Furthermore, referring to him a musician but lacking a discography is confusing and quite simply wrong. I therefore must conclude that I believe this article should be deleted due to the fact that he is not notable enough to require a Wikipedia article. --Cawhee (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cawhee. The presence or absence of an article on another wiki doesn't necessarily confirm notability one way or another, but in this case if france doesn't consider him notable I really don't see why we would. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/building_or_altering_a_home/protected_structures.html

[2] ttp://www.offaly.ie/eng/Services/Heritage/Documents/Offaly_County_RPS.pdf

[3] ttp://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=OF&regno=14929013

[4] ttp://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=OF&regno=14929012

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]