Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 January	29 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The only keep argument cited User:Bearian/Standards#Law_firms, which as a user essay, bears little weight, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birkett Long LLP

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

Not notable. Advertising. Awards are very weak. On the other hand they sometimes donate to charity. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Law_firms. This firm is fairly large, and has been around for almost 200 years. Their charitable work is a trival non sequitur. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see sufficient independent sources that indicate notability. Obviously their charitable giving is of no consequence here. Shadowjams (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably very good at what they do, but I'm not seeing the sort of substantial third-party coverage that would indicate they meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Wemyss Solicitors

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

Not notable. Sources are either weak local ones or dead national ones. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails all of my standards, as well as WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Law firms are supposed to represent defendants, and often get in local newspapers for such. The firm is very new, as law firms go; I've been admitted to practice since 1992. I can't see how this is anything more than run of the mill. The article is written as an advert, not an encyclopedia article - to get there we'd have to blow it up and start from scratch. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unremarkable law firm. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages.TheLongTone (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work Stress Claims

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

Advertising and not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes for disambiguation pages. Now, Its clean from disambiguation pages with links I think, I would advice to keep this article on Wki. It's useful for wiki Max.Mellor (talk) 16.42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Neutral point of view that's not right to be revomed.. S.Salman89 (talk) 15.00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This is neutral point of view article. It must not be deleted.. Sam.Leach (talk) 21.52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am well-familiar about Work stress claims firm. They are the Social worker in the United Kingdom. This page must be on wiki. Isaac.Perkins (talk) 14.44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know this page indicate about how they can help people to manage their stress at work. According to me, This type of page should be there--Sajid.mumbai ♥ (talk) 13.11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks NPOV article. It should not be deleted CarlA.Rodgers (talk) 11.44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Sajid.mumbai deleted my comment. This AfD may be subject to a sockpuppet attack. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11 as unambiguous advertising. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's obvious what type of article this is from the reaction to the nomination, isn't it? Pure unadulterated advertising with not a smidgeon of notability. They are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Perhaps we could get their input on this sort of marketing activity? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Road Injury Experts is also connected. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are no significant third-party sources that confirm the notability of this law firm. A couple of business listing do not prove notability and I am sure these are not the only firm dealing with Work Stress Claims. So, what is special about them; NOTHING. ww2censor (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Take away the bullet list of wikilinks (added as promotionalising list) – take away the See Also section (which does nothing to illuminate this as a company) – take away the 'References' which show the company exists but provide no reliable and useful independent information – take away unreliable Facebook and LinkedIn from Ext Links – take away the promotional second sentence in the lede, and what is left as an article ? — "Work Stress Claims is the United Kingdom based leading Law firm in Leeds which have been acquired in December 2012 and launched on June 2013." — this is all we have, and nothing significant seems forthcoming from the 'find sources' above. Not notable per WP:ORGSIG - see note: 'No inherent notability'. Acabashi (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I have made necessary changes. I removed promotional link like Facebook and twitter. Now it's looking clean. Please have a look again S.Salman89 (talk) 23.00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Those were not necessary changes and clean does not mean notable. What Acabashi described was by way of illustration to show how little would be left but even then it is still not notable and never will be. ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional comments on my talk page. I have asked for further comments to be added here. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, ww2censor and Acabashi. Unambiguous advertising. No real claim to notability compared to umpteen dozens of similar firms in Leeds. Definitely a case of single purpose accounts. Is there anybody else in this firm that would like to create an account? Perhaps we could hear from the cleaners or maybe the manager of the supermarket up the road? Gotta give Tykes credit for trying. Green Giant (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per my opinion, this article must be on wiki. Ricky.symond (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Opinion is not enough, do you have a reason to suggest it is notable plus source to back it up? ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this stub badly fails standards for law firms, as well as standards for businesses. This is a faily new firm, and works in a common enough area of law, viz., torts. While stress is a well-accepted concept, as is Occupational stress; however, the quasi-tort of a legal work stess claim is not well esablished. Just because something exists in the world, does not mean it "must" be on our Wiki. For the users advocating that this is neutral, please read WP:NPOV. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the obvious WP:MEATPUPPETS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barney, that is not a valid rationale for deletion. The correct response is to suggest that the closing admin accord less weight, or no weight, to those !votes. James500 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damita Jo

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

Per WP:TWODABS. Damita Jo DeBlanc is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so the page is not needed to be a DAB page. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, how do you figure the Damita Jo DeBlanc is the primary topic? Looking at pageviews, there is no contest, in the last 90 days, the album has 12330 vs. 1745 for the person. Results for Google and Google Books are a little more mixed. Without any further evidence, I'm inclined to leave the disambiguation page where it is. older ≠ wiser 02:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 valid entries. This is not the forum to discuss whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I would suggest WP:RM. Boleyn (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid dab page, discuss page move elsewhere. PamD 19:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seeing as how there's multiple articles that it easily points to, it is a valid DAB page. I don't see a compelling reason to remove, or move for that matter. Shadowjams (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of statistically superlative objects by country

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN. Random collection, including some really weird stuff. If this is to be kept it'll need a proper inclusion criteria. Bazonka (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest, most powerful delete. Potentially a very, very long list of just about anything extreme - the criterion is much too broad. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a list that includes the largest mangrove forest in the world along with the longest beard, the largest collection of jewelry, the largest frying pan, and the largest waterfall known to have ever existed (no longer existing) is truly indiscriminate. There is no rhyme or reason to what should or shouldn't be included here other than it has to be the Nth something of something, past or present, natural or manmade, fixed or moveable. (Though it's too bad we don't maintain WP:BJAODN any longer...the randomness of this list makes it a fun read.) postdlf (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too indiscriminate. Needs better evidence that it passed WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am having trouble getting my head around exactly what this article is supposed to be. The biggest frying pan, the strongest man, the oldest tree (debatable), the highest railway tunnel, the biggest natural logarithm, the largest tin soldier. It just seems to be an exercise in willy waving, and the list is potentially endless. With loose criteria we could include things like Mouse Boulder or the largest chocolate teapot. Martin451 21:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although my evil twin brother maintains this should be kept as the Silliest Wikipedia Article Ever. I'm just going to add the World's Tallest Dwarf to the article.TheLongTone (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash

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

Tragic but not notable cargo plane crash. Cargo plane crashes happen much more regularly than commercial flights. ...William 13:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions ...William 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions....William 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions ...William 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has some 3rd party sources to prove notability Such as BBC news and Yahoo news. So the artical meets WP:GNG and WP:NNEWS.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real rationale presented for deletion. Easily meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned above, easily meets WP:GNG. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The trouble with running up the flag of "passes GNG" on incidents like this is that they will, in fact, get a spurt of news coverage immediately after the event - but then nothing more beyond the initial surge of news-agency-release-based articles. There is nothing notable about this accident; it's tragic, but six months from now it'll be like the other thousands of cargo-plane crashes: a line of statistics, and nothing more. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - where is it written that cargo aircraft are less notable than passenger aircraft? I see no evidence that accident rates are significantly higher for them per million flight hours. It's a hull loss of a large commercial aircraft. Accident reports often taake years before they are published, so claims of failing persistence are premature. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Through editing convention, scheduled passenger airline accidents are considered more notable than unscheduled, charter, or cargo flights, and this has long been used, without much dissent, at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly, all aircraft crashes generate an investigation report, so the (forthcoming) existence of a report does not of itself confer notability. Secondly and more importantly, as The Bushranger says, after a brief flurry of news reports there has been...nothing. Many aircraft crashes generate coverage years after the event - the Tenerife collision, the Air France Concorde, the Aloha Boeing 737, Sullenberger's ride into the Hudson, the DC-10 at Sioux City, Auburn Calloway's in-flight hammer attack on the Fedex crew, the Air France A320 at Habsheim, the de Havilland Comet crashes - I could go on; this is not one of those crashes. News reports do not automatically mean their subject will meet the GNG; if they did I could write an article on every single fatal car crash, aircraft crash and murder; and many of the accidental deaths; in Australia, secure in the knowledge such articles would not be deleted - because they all generate news reports "independent of the subject". YSSYguy (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. From my reading of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, this appears to qualify for inclusion into an article about the airport or company, but not as a separate article. Your reading may differ. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. No lasting notability. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'"Keep"'. Large hull loss incidents almost always notableHiobazard (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it notable? As The Bushranger and I said above, news stories do not equate to passing the GNG. If that were the case, I could write 2014 Bondi Beach car crash about this accident; after all I have seen the story on the internet (including coverage from Africa [1] [2] and the USA [3]), heard about it on two different radio stations (one of which is national) and seen it reported on three different national television stations' news programs - and I am not in the city where it happened. I could also write an article about this death, which is also receiving news coverage here in Australia. YSSYguy (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(comment by article creator) The car crash and heart attack examples would indeed seem to meet the general notability guideline, as does this topic. However, just meeting the GNG isn't enough: topics that come under the "What Wikipedia is not" policy aren't considered suitable—for example, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". I'm not an aviation buff so I wasn't aware that fatal plane crashes with an unknown cause are as commonplace as cricket matches and Hollywood parties. With odds like that, is it unusual that this aircraft lasted 50 years? —rybec 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rafaelgriffin (talk · contribs), who recommended keeping the article, was blocked as a sock-puppet on 23 January. —rybec 00:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Phil Robertson. Since nobody else is closing this... most of the !votes are for delete, but realistically should be merge back to the appropriate article(s) simply because of the realistic reason of why it exists in the first place: WP:SPINOFF (whether or not it's believed to be a pov fork or news or whatever, it's still obviously massive and a lot of the content can be scraped back into wherever it came from).

Some points raised include: WP:EVENT (counter: might have lasting effects) (counter-counter: but not clearly demonstrated yet); WP:NOT#NEWS (counter: technically contains multiple news stories and analysis) (counter-counter:...but realistically only two main "parents": 1. criticisms and approvals, 2. the reinstatement by A&E); WP:BLP1E (counter: irrelevant; individual is independently notable outside this event); WP:POVFORK (counter: WP:SPINOFF applies—it's pretty huge) (counter-counter: can realistically be trimmed down, the article's tiny without it anyway, and realistically this is a substantial portion of the individual's actual coverage in secondary sources, so splitting is still a pov issue); WP:UNDUE if merged (counter: this is, quite duly, a large portion of—but obviously not the only reason for—his fame and notability thus far in secondary sources) Misc: A lot of the article's content exists, already, as of this close, at Duck Dynasty. slakr^\ talk / 11:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Robertson GQ interview controversy

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

This article is an attempted WP:POVFORK from a section of an existing article. Creation of a separate article was already discussed and rejected by the community. Editors should note that the article's creator is a textbook WP:SPA who has persistently sought to expand the original article section, in some cases repeatedly inserting material that has been removed by several other editors. Creating this article appears to be his way of circumventing the community's consensus. Roccodrift (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been indef blocked as a WP:SOCK, but see others endorse his view, so this AfD should probably continue. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, despite obvious personal attacks. Several SPA's have indeed been trying to "cleanse" the main article, Duck Dynasty, of anything that doesn't fit in with their POV, all those efforts have been rebuffed until now. There has been no discussion except a few comments that a separate article is called for so the main article is not undue. This is the latest effort by a SPA to remove content on subjects they do not approve. I also think this entire process should be halted if Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire is closed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is not a POV fork because it contains essentially the same POV as the section in the main article that people were complaining was WP:UNDUE. There was no "community consensus"; there were three users who thought the article was not warranted. Even if there was consensus, local consensus cannot override the larger purpose of improving the encyclopedia with notable content. Our inclusion criteria is based on NOTABILITY, which this subject has in spades. WP:CFORK, and specifically WP:SPINOFF provide guidance that strongly supports keeping this article.- Mr X 21:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete. User:Roccodrift has a very good point here that something is amiss. The material remaining in Duck_Dynasty#Phil_Robertson.27s_GQ_Interview ought to be substantially reduced in size; it's currently over a thousand words. Per WP:Summary style, the details can be covered (neutrally) ~~here in this article rather than that one~~ elsewhere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Carrite, there is a BLP for Phil Robertson, and there is space there for this subject to be covered. As I said above, the material about this subject in Duck_Dynasty#Phil_Robertson.27s_GQ_Interview ought to be substantially reduced in size; it's currently over a thousand words. The controversy about Robertson's interview is much more related to him than to his show; he did not make any comments about the sex lives of ducks, for example. So the logical primary place for this stuff is in the article about Robertson, with a much briefer summary in the article about the TV show than exists there now, and no separate article. I consider the present article to be a POV fork not of the article about Duck Dynasty, but rather of the Robertson BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As much information as possible has been scrubbed from the BLP article rendering it afoul of NPOV, the BLP is not a good measure of what content is relevant here, unfortunately. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like what's happening at the Robertson BLP, then you can start an RFC there, or go to a Noticeboard, et cetera. What you can't do is go create another article that says what you wish the BLP said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A "spin-off" of this type is simply a WP:BLP violation ab initio -- and that is a policy issue and not one of "whitewashing" anything. Collect (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a spin-off like this is entirely appropriate per WP:SUMMARY in order not to overload the main articles(s) with WP:UNDUE stuff. Compare with Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a mess of a WP:ONEEVENT that has too many BLP issues to detail (especially using cable news pundits and assertions to make said points) and unsourced observations using reports of Facebook likes and using obvious culture points to take the article in a certain direction. Four paragraphs at most is what this can be compacted to. Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson is notable for more than one event. After all, he had a TV show prior to this interview.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean the show or the subject, I meant the interview itself. Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the guideline section that you linked to is titled "People notable for only one event". Robertson is not notable for only one event.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"do over" I don't know about delete..is there a do over option?... I think a need for an article about the controversy exists.. but this one is contains contradicting sources and missing information in the sources... like in the first paragraph it shows three sources that stated Phil's comments were labeled as anti gay and bigoted.. I did not notice the word bigoted in the sources..correction the third article does use the word bigot.. but mainly to described Robertson and anyone who defended his statements didn't see that word used to characterize his actual remarks... . ah blogs... also the contention that Phil is four years older than Kay is contradicted in one sources via a tweet from her daughter in law that had Kay at one year younger than Phil.. 65 in Dec 2012... the article seems to gloss over the fact that the controversy was instigated by GLAAD.. and lots of other things that make this seem not an attempt to report on the controversy but to black wash it rather than White wash... and as a point of clarity.. in the duck dynasty proposal for a condensing and moving to separate article.. only two opposed.. Mrx and sportfan5000 Nickmxp (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are errors in the article, they should be fixed, especially if they are potentially harmful toward the Phil Robertson. Please provide sources for the novel idea that "the controversy was instigated by GLAAD". As mentioned above, discussion on one article talk page does not limit the creation of new articles, or even the content in other articles.- Mr X 01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources say racist, some say bigoted. Kay's age is a point of some contention but no one is disputing that it was covered as part of the story - that they married when she was young, which is exactly what Phil was advising others to do.

[User:Sportfan5000|Sportfan5000]] (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Phil's being 4 years her elder made that controversy... he made the exact same statement in his own book.... and in a recent viral video called I am second... Nickmxp (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Source number 34 in this very article states GLAAD 'S condemnation while awaiting response from a&e... http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-anti-gay/ Nickmxp (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That proves that GLAAD was quick to respond, not they they orchestrated anything, we have to shelve all the conspiracy theories, including that this was all a ratings ploy to ensure this reality show would have a strong showing for it's January debut. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Conspiracy theory? GLAAD plainly stated "A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” Nickmxp (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Which brings up another point...the timeline of this article is wrong... it reads A&E Suspended Phil, Phil then responds and then GLAAD Issued a statement.. which is completely backwords.. First GLAAD made thier statement then A&E released Phil's statements and at the end of the day A&E released the decision to suspend phil... like i said.. numerous issues in this article ... a do over would be better... Nickmxp (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--also it is a bit contientious to claim a recording of a sermon where phil basically quoted the end of the first chapter of the book of romans is a controversial past homophobic statement... 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Nickmxp (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bible lesson aside, and by the wy the bible has been used to discriminate and kill many people, Phil's quotes or statements are still his. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I finally got around to reading the BLP section... it reads Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:Neutral point of view (NPOV)Verifiability (V)No original research (NOR)We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may beblocked from editing.Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material

I don't think this article in general meet those guidelines... Nickmxp (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually, we use the sources to state what what Phil said and sources to demonstrate the reactions of his comments. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear BLP violation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so it's clear to everyone else, what BLP violation, specifically is present? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I too am wondering how an entire article can be a "clear BLP violation". Usually, content that is unsourced, especially if it is contentious, can violate the BLP policy, but an entire article? How is that possible? Are there even any BLP violations in the article.- Mr X 01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork. This should be, and is, part of the individual's biography. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, it's a fork not of the Duck Dynasty article, but rather of the Robertson BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a fork of either, it's an article about a nationally, and internationally reported on controversy, It's a spin-out article from Duck Dynasty to avoid this content from being undue there. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator of this AfD was blocked as a sockpuppet. I recommend a procedural close per WP:DISCUSSAFD: "Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely." The discussion should be re-opened legitimately if one of the legitimate participants or another legitimate user desires. - tucoxn\^talk 03:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A procedural close would be poor, as several non-sockpuppets have expressed opinions. Strike the socks and move on. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the appropriate solution would be to discount the nominator's !vote, if there is some indication of "multiple recommendations" here at this AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider there are concerns raised here by different editors other than ones raised by the initial poster... BTW according to that discussafd page, it should be noted that I have made contributions to the GQ section on the duck dynasty page... Nickmxp (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Nickmxp (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRT "sock" - the evidence for the block was "thin" to put it charitably, and so the nom's vote is not just to be tossed out but weighed by any closer on the strength of the arguments presented. Just as the argument that the bible has been used to discriminate and kill many people should get weighed as a policy-based argument. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my recommendation was on the strict side but if the editors who !voted against the article desire an AfD that holds up to scrutiny, I still believe that it should be re-opened by someone with a legitimate account. WRT "sock", evidence for or against the nominator's block is not the issue in this discussion; the legitimacy of the article and the AfD procedure is. It would be easy for editors to reiterate their support or propose statements in a new, clean AfD. However, it's understandable if this slightly longer but more legitimate solution does not achieve a consensus of the involved discussants. - tucoxn\^talk 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally eliminating the OP, we have, at this point, 2 clear Keep !votes, and 5 clear Delete !votes. One of the Keeps is based on a belief that deletion is akin to whitewashing material, but the topic is already covered in other articles, making that a weak policy argument. The second Keep is based on a claim that a subarticle with the "same POV" as another article can not be a "POV fork". Unfortunately, no policy makes a claim of that nature. WP:Content forking does not refer to a "POV fork" as being the sole improper fork. One delete states that the material ought to be covered in the main BLP, which is a reasonable policy argument. The second delete cites WP:BLP as indicating that POV spin-offs violate that policy. The third delete states that the material if given undue weight, and that in four paragraphs in the main article it could be fully treated. This is a content view based on policy. The fourth delete states it is a BLP violation, which is a policy based argument, and in line with other Delete votes. The fifth delete states it is a "fork" which if the meaning is "WP:Content forking" is a guideline based argument. The guideline states Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors. I believe this is a fair reading of the !votes thus far. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I trust your reading as much as Roccodrift's, or whoever they are. There has been a nearly coordinated effort to remove this very embarrassing information from the biography as to render it a NPOV violation. What remains is flailing to get rid of this article by any rational possible but unfortunately it it is a well-covered aspect of American culture, embarrassing as it may be for the Duck Dynasty millionaires. Sorry, Phil"s public comments were not little slip-ups that will simply be forgotten. They were repeated and commented on themselves and had real world consequences. The Wikipedia:POV railroad is what it is. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this article reads it would seem one of those real world consequences is that he caught the ire of Wikipedia... Nickmxp (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are reduced to an ad hom argument or you have one specific !vote you question -- which !vote do I inaptly depict? Accusations that there is a "cabal" of some sort are not only ill-founded, they are generally interpreted as indicating bad faith on the part of the accuser. And the essay you cite is ... an essay, and one which demonstrates a particularly strong POV that "evil cabals exist on Wikipedia and anyone who disagrees with that is part of an evil cabal." Cheers -- and steer clear of ad hom attacks on AfD pages - it is not given any weight whatsoever by any closer. And may even reduce the weight given your position. Collect (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To be quite honest, I'm not surprised to see sportfan5000 here. I'm glad this discussion has steered clear of any attempt to derail the negators as having a bone to push against equality rights. However, when the discussion at Talk:Duck Dynasty seemed to tread towards condensing the recent event, which still occupies more space in the article than info on the show itself, this article was spun out in an attempt to retain the info. I personally feel this is a BLP violation, as it goes a long way to condemning Phil for his opinions. This also falls under WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, as the coverage of this rather trivial event on here is overblown. Finally, WP:POVFORK lightly applies, as evidenced by the title alone. In this article, I see no evidence of viewpoints that support Phil's comments, however intolerant they may be to some. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was specifically created to relieve the main 'Duck Dynasty' article from having too much information. However that doesn't mean we violate NPOV by eliminating the content that we don't like. The sources are in the hundreds here, across the world. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of every source out there. Summarize the content in the Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson article. There is no reason a one-off event like this needs as much coverage as you've given it. Even if this article is kept, it needs to be trimmed severely, and it needs some counter opinions to balance it instead of the abundant trove of condemnation from the LGBT community. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reporting and commentary is still coming in, so essentially everything has to be looked at again. Fresh opinions are easily available and likely will offer more neutral opinions on the matter and how it has had effect. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - BLP violation.Flat Out let's discuss it 04:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- No BLP violations have been found despite requests. If there are any please point them out so they can be addressed immediately, which is true for any article. And is not a reason to remove the entire article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - actually there were blp violations in the original version and pov violations..especially the other controversies section.. even you agreed miss Kay's age was contentious... and considering there is strong evidence that the couple is only one year apart rather than four. It was potentially libelous.. the listing of petitioners as anti gay without having a source noting them as anti gay in reference to the topic at hand is a violation of npov... in the lead it stated many sources widely regarded his comments as bigoted but had no source that called his comments bigoted. The original article read more like a critique of Phil Robertson rather than an encyclopedic reference about a controversy Nickmxp (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually no has proven any BLP violations despite repeated conversations about Kay's age. In short there is disagreement how to use available sources, not that it's a point of whether to talk about the issue or not. It wouldn't be an issue with us reporting what reliable sources state. And NPOV goes both ways. It;s not NPOV to pretend all the criticism was only about his comments were anti-gay, most may have been but not all, how to reflect that is open to improvement. And those anti-gay hate groups are documented for being exactly that. Certainly on a controversy subject that centers on anti-gay comments it would be relevant that some of the supporters were, in fact, anti-gay hate groups. Again these are decisions up for discussion on the most NPOV the address the concerns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a source that contradicts other reliable sources is not a reliable source.. as for the anti gay label.. there is no consensus that his comments were anti gay..there is a wide consensus that his comments had been labeled as anti gay.. there are also many reports on the petitions that don't label the group as anti gay.. the use of the label here would imply a motive behind Phil's support that was not widely reported on.. that is not a neutral point of view..it would be like noting Dan savage had recently came under controversy for bullying students for their religious beliefs when referencing him as a critic of Phil's statements... although there are plenty of sources to back it up.. the usage here would be to imply a motive for his criticism..... Nickmxp (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's save the minutia discussion for when it's most relevant. Arguing theoretical points isn't helping this discussion. When the time comes to specific phrases and sources then those can be entertained. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the time comes? These things were already referenced in the original article. As noted here I edited them out to make the article more neutral..and I notified you about those edits... . if you feel that edit was in error then what are you waiting for? Nickmxp (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save those detailed arguments for when those details are the focus of discussion please. This page is not about delving into Kay's actual age or if she married below the age of consent. That discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Right here and right now is just not the best time as that is not the primary focus nor does that content greatly influence if the article exists or not. We both agree it should be included in some form, the finer points of how it can be included are best left for the article talk page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being proposed for deletion.. it would seem that now would be the best time possible to improve it.... Nickmxp (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We will always be improving it, this page is not for delving into specific nuances of what needs to be improved and how. Please use the article talk page for those discussions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per recentism and undue weight. The controversy has two paragraphs in Phil Robertson, which seems about right. StAnselm (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- These concerns have already been addressed. These events are still generating media coverage and are being used to compare to the new season of the show which just started this week. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently informed that editing articles proposed for deletion is kosher... if the main premise is content based ...cant we just edit it to make it better? I got bold and made an attempt.. of course if this action is not warranted .. please feel free to revert... I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be with wikipedia norms...Nickmxp (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Miniapolis 23:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the notability section, one could argue this controversy had an impact on the media practice of reprimanding popular figures that advocacy groups condemn.... the reversal of the decision in my humble opinion is pretty unprecedented...Nickmxp (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I feel the article fails the above guideline and policy is that there hasn't (yet, and while I have no crystal ball I don't think there will be) been the duration of coverage required by both. Miniapolis 14:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the general standard of duration? A month after the suspension and articles are still being written... right now they are determining what impact the controversy had on the show.. apparently some say negative because the season premire didn't match the last season and some say positive considering the shows ratings where higher than before the controversy started... I was looking at this controversy on the same lines as the chic fil a controversy..my frame of thinking was if I was to write an essay on say conservative buycotts... this controversy would be referenced in that essay.. I could be wrong about it being notable enough for Wikipedia but thought I should at least explain my rationale in order to find the flaw for future reference with other articles..but if anything I would say this article and the section in the duck dynasty article has been a pretty good learning experience for me and I'd like to thank everyone for their patience. Nickmxp (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be UNDUE to merge this to the Duck Dynasty or Phil Robertson articles. This article easily meets WP:GNG through extensive national and international coverage. Every major news outlet in the U.S. covered this. It should be noted that the scope of the article is not just about the interview, but Robertson's suspension from Duck Dynasty, the campaign by fans to restore him, and his ultimate vindication when he was returned to the show. Both his anti-gay and his racial segregation comments earned distinct coverage. This series of events is the subject of a lengthy section on the Duck Dynasty page and a discussion on the talk page over trimming that section is ongoing (Talk:Duck Dynasty#GQ section needs condensing). If that section is trimmed, the most sensible route will be to provide a summary there linking to this full article. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here, as this is hardly routine coverage. A close reading of WP:EVENT actually supports keeping this article. The interview and its fallout received coverage that was both WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Individual news sources have covered many of the various facets of this, including the threatened boycott of Cracker Barrel after they pulled DD products from their shelves. The Governor of Louisiana has weighed in on this and a politician even proposed a resolution supporting Robertson. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is evident as a continual stream of media has addressed this since the interview came out (just a few days ago there was another Fox News article). Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 16:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per continued media coverage and apparently some longer term impact [4] [5]. Can be revisited a year from now, but it seems to pass WP:EVENT and whatever NPOV/BLP violations some saw can be fixed through editing (and let's be frank some complaints above were stated in such vague terms that are probably just WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The large amount of politicization surrounding the incident, with numerous political figures commenting on it, certainly makes it non-routine [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and too unwieldy for the parent article(s) alone. And you can't say Robertson is an unfortunate victim of this politicization, because Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson personally has overtly involved itself in the political battle well before this incident [11][12]. The man story/controversy has generated a couple of "spin-offs" of its own, too: one about Robertson's comments about teenage marriage [13] and another about Liam Panyne's #lazyjournos [14]. Also according to [15] Robertson is now envisaging creating his own media company. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Robertson's own article. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving content disputes and additionally Wikipedia isn't the news. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid being undue in the main article this is from, Duck Dynasty, this is a WP:SPINOFF article in an effort to replace that long section with a summary developed here. This is a common practice. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I originally thought a spin off article was a good idea but given that I've already made a mass edit with no reversion and an insistance that I use the talk page to discuss the details of revisions that have yet to happen... I'm inclined to believe this article will become a point of view fork in a very short amount of time.. Nickmxp (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — Nickmxp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This isn't the only topic my account is for... it's just the one that tends to have the most responses too...Nickmxp (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- That's not a fair representation of the conversation we had. I said any interested editors can discuss issues with the article but it was better to do so on the article talk page. That is reason to clean-up an article, not to delete it. And any article can potentially become problematic, you seem concerned that no one is questioning your edits right now? That just doesn't make sense. All articles are continually updated. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My concern is that you mentioned problems with the article... made most of the edits before my edit and then stopped editing...that even after a 3 day page lock for edit warring have been still trying to include an SPLC label in the Duck Dynasty article that has been the subject of mass debate, that has been removed here without any question...as it seems you have taken to viewing my contributions and oddly deducting that I have a single purpose account... I took the liberty of checking yours and it seems like you have made few or no edits outside of LBGT topics... I initiated our conversation to eleviate concerns that after this discussion was closed the article wouldn't go back to the state that raised initial concerns...and I will gladly change my vote with your assurance that any challenged reversions or additions you may make on the article be undone until a consensus regarding the challenge is reached in the talk section... I think you made some great additions to the topic but the nuetrality of some of those additions have become a center of beauracratic endeavours... some of which have yet been resolved since i started my wikipedia experience..

Nickmxp (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Update: Another page protection has been put into place over the GQ section in the Duck Dynasty article...sigh... Nickmxp (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, that is a regular editing decision, not a reason to delete an entire article. Please use the talk page of the appropriate article to register your concerns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly the kind of disproportionate spin-off article that NOT NEWS is designed to eliminate. WP is not a tabloid--this is straight tabloid contents, and not encyclopedic. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little encyclopedic value here. This is a bloated tabloid piece that moves further and further away from being an encyclopedia article everyday. -- John Reaves 20:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You and DGG (right above) may be right that there is no longer any great distinction between US politics topics and tabloid topics, but that's not Wikipedia's fault. The large amount of political commentary and involvement of political figures in aforementioned commentary surely make this incident a political football, but that's not the same as tabloid topics about boobs flashing or women hiding/showing their "bump". I can even find sources (on both sides of the debate!) explicitly calling it political football [16] [17] [18], if you don't want to take my word for it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: at this point there are 4 Keeps and 12 Delete !votes. Collect (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin note: AFD discussions are not closed based on a numerical tally, but are closed based on the strength of arguments. Given that there were very strong arguments on both sides, the only reasonable course of action was to relist this debate to allow more members of the community to voice their concerns. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is too much of this in the main article, it needs to be put somewhere. There is no way to get rid of it, and it doesn't fit in the main article, so best to have it somewhere else. Massive amounts of long term coverage of it, with lasting effects, so it passes GNG just fine on its own. Dream Focus 23:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Phil Robertson~~. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would create an Undue issue at that article, that's the reason to spin this off the main Duck Dynasty article is to avoid being Undue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources that has occurred over a period of time, which transcends WP:BLP1E, and as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT of the Phil Robertson article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fork, BLP, media feeding frenzy of the week (not news). One "keep" voter said "There has been a nearly coordinated effort to remove this very embarrassing information from the biography", which suggests that editor wishes to keep embarrassing information in Wikipedia about a living person. I won't hazard a guess as to why someone would want to do that, but besides being a dickhead thing to do, it completly contravenes the BLP policy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
December 18, 2013 is when it all started, and Google news search shows the coverage continued for over a month. So its a legitimate controversy to cover. Category:2013 controversies Dream Focus 10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not a free pass to rewrite history, Phil's biography rises to the mythological in recounting these same events. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're list as the creator of this page I suggest you read WP:POVFORK and re-evaluate your statement...Nickmxp (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is reported in the Phil Robertson article violates NPOV, it's as if he wrote it himself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- the coverage in reliable sources has been more than sufficient to justify a conclusion of notability. The other arguments about "embarrassing" or "POV" are neither here nor there in the discussions we're meant to be having at AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few quotes arguing why the story is important (on a political level):
- [19] "Phil Robertson’s comments about gay and black people and social welfare — and the way they pierced public consciousness — explain more about our country’s political culture than almost anything else that happened all year."
- [20] "Some prominent conservatives rushed to Robertson's defense Thursday -- not to vouch for the substance of his statement, but for his right to free speech, illustrating how the debate has become a focal point in the political realm, too."
- [21] "his remarks reflect the views of an American cultural subset the GOP depends on for its survival. His suspension made him a tribune of modern conservatism."
These are obviously from opinion pieces because the ethics of news reporting prevent such commentary in news pieces, but they can't be simply dismissed because of that. You can bet such commentary on the event will make it into the academic political science publications, but those have a longer publication cycle (one month is too short to expect such coverage already.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, from a different angle, no short quote from [22] would do it justice, but the whole piece argues that the event should be a wake-up call for the entertainment biz targeting a faith-based audience. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I tend to be cautions of violating NOTNEWS, but this seems well referenced. Incident appears notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (recentidism). Fails WP:EVENT. Some reality show brouhahah that is well enough covered within the Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson articles. No need for a third separate article to cover the story. Iselilja (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The event has already been white-washed in the biography article, Phil comes off as a preaching hero, and efforts have been underway by the nominator and SPAs to do the same on the show article. There eis plenty here to justify a stand alone article without the content being undue in either of the others. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'keep I usuall y avoid this type of article, but given the impasse, I took a look. Somewhat to my surprise, the incident does in fact seem notable enough for its own article; the current version is NPOV, and indicate s the general cultural impact. This is more than transient news.

I say delete. It wasn't culturally relevent - it only got attention because it was a top-rated show. The article also fails to include support for Phil from the gay community. Sparking the debate that some gay activists were intolerant of opposing views. This entire incident was nothing put POV. Nothing relevent came from it and no changes to anything were made. Making it completely irrelevant except for agenda driven reporting.[It didn't even capture the top story of the networks.[Special:Contributions/76.4.110.65|76.4.110.65]] (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2014#Declared Democratic primary candidates. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maxey Scherr

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

I have concerns about notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2014#Declared Democratic primary candidates WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her opponents have articles on wikipedia, it is not right for her not to have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tx20CharlieG (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that other candidates in this race have articles on Wikipedia. If the concern is that she is not noteworthy enough I would have to say that she has at least as much notoriety as her opponent and has received more attention for her position in the race. This sites goal is to provide encyclopedic content and if you are only allowing one candidate in this race to have a article then it is more political advertising than informational. TX20CharlieG —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several of her opponents do have Wikipedia pages, others do not. Of those who do, some are merited, and some are not. That is a discussion for a different venue. Wikipedia is not a venue that must offer political candidates equal time. It is not a venue where political candidates should be expected to expound their own positions at all (see WP:SOAP). It is an encyclopedia that covers notable topics based on the verifiable information available from reliable sources. When that verifiable information is insufficient to build a significant article (anything beyond "Maxey Scherr is a candidate for election"), then we generally don't retain the article. When (if) Scherr moves further in her political career, more significant sources will likely become available and we can revisit the question then. For now, I do not believe she meets the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for WP:Before mainly, I think a basic search shows she meets GNG, even if she doesn't meet the politician requirement. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please give us some examples of the coverage you think brings her up to GNG? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is your life, John Cornyn: Maxey Scherr shares, as Steve Stockman slips into the Senate race
  - TX-SEN: Democratic Candidate Maxey Scherr Holding Campaign Rally Dec 9 in Austin, TX (Video)
  - Interview with Maxey Scherr
  - Candidate fo US Senate, Maxey Scherr Visits with Lubbock Residents
  - BOR Elections Weekly Round Up, Oct. 29 - Nov. 11: Maxey Scherr (D) Files for US Senate
  - Political blog: El Paso attorney may seek to oust Sen. Cornyn next year
  - U.S. Senate hopeful Maxey Scherr stops by Bryan to rally Democratic voters
  - Statement by U.S. Senate candidate Maxey Scherr on Steve Stockman’s candidacy
  - El Paso's Maxey Scherr To Announce Candidacy For U.S. Senate
  - These are just from the first page of 19,000 Google hits. Obviously they will not all be that helpful but we also don't need hundreds to write good basic article. Any politician article will include basic history, biographical data, and notes on the candidacy and political positions. I think there are enough sources to report all that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see that this list of links goes beyond the normal coverage that one might expect of any candidate in a statewide election. WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls", which is what I suggested above. If Scherr wins the election and takes the Senate seat (or even if she wins the primary and goes on to run in the main election), her notability might change. But for now, I don't see that she has significantly differentiated herself from the rest of the pack to merit a standalone article yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the sensible thing would be to leave the article and let it develop naturally as the election nears, and consider merging it if she does not win and it still seems to not meet GNG. If she drops out sooner than make the decision then. It's not like we need the paper for something else. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2014#Declared Democratic primary candidates. A redirect retains the information that currently exists if the subject's notability changes, and is the usual outcome for national-level candidates. Enos733 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2014#Declared Democratic primary candidates as not yet notable. Obviously, if she wins a seat, she will certainly deserve a stand alone article. I think we need to strongly reject the equal time argument, per WP:NOTADVOCATE. (In any case, not all candidates have their own articles - Michael Fjetland, for example, does not.) I can see a case for waiting until the election per WP:IAR, and I would support that if the election was next week, but I don't think it's worth waiting until November. St Anselm (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Oliver

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

If you take away the name-dropping and puffery you end up with very little other than an abbreviated CV for this costume designer. I can indeed see he gets metioned briefly in some newspaper articles, but that's it. Fails WP:GNG, though he's been active since the 1990's so maybe someone else knows something I don't... Sionk (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely promotional, and appears to be a copyvio as well. See [23], and [24]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 28bytes (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Wilson (ice hockey)

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources which do not fail WP:ROUTINE, WP:GEOSCOPE or WP:IRS attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 20:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search turns up no sources that meet GNG and they don't meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ravenswing and Djsasso. Reso lute 16:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 28bytes (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Fields

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. No sources which do not fail WP:ROUTINE, WP:GEOSCOPE or WP:IRS attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. The previous AfD closed with two Keep proponents incorrectly asserting that the subject met the requirements of NHOCKEY, which was not the case even before the criteria were tightened up. Ravenswing 20:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search still turns up no sources that pass GNG and they still fail NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ravenswing and Djsasso. Reso lute 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gore (ice hockey)

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

One of a string of articles on non-notable British hockey players who played on amateur teams in the community of Milton Keynes, whose sole claims to fame seemed to have been to each have had played a handful of games in the British minor leagues. The creation was by an SPA whose overwhelming Wikipedia activity, several years ago, seemed to have been to promote Milton Keynes hockey and sports. Overwhelming failure of WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Ravenswing 19:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete None of the nominated subjects pass GNG from what searching I did and none meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Ravenswing and Djsasso. Reso lute 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Non-notable players who played solely in the lower-level British leagues. All fail GNG and NHOCKEY. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 02:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Sol Kwon

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights--fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saudi Aramco#Associated companies/subsidiaries. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aramco Associated Company

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saudi Aramco#Associated companies/subsidiaries Seems to solely exist as an aircraft leasing LLC for the company. Nate • (chatter) 03:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A fleet can be found for the company, but their company is not just an air charter for Saudi Aramco. Also, their fleet is small, and they have nothing about them which is notable, and wikipedia is not a directory. Suggest redirect as per Mrschimpf. Hjay50 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidetaka Monma

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

~~Fails to meet WP:NMMA and~~ lacks the coverage need to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does meet WP:NMMA--I missed his fight for Dream.Mdtemp (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please confirm - I see two fights for RINGS in Japan and one for Dream. That looks like three top tier fights for WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vote changed thanks to Peter Rehse catching something I missed, passes WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Winter Music Conference. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WMC 2009

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

This material is covered in Winter Music Conference, the article for the series of conferences under their present name. Separate articles for individual meets of an annual convention are not appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Campbeltown. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Askomill

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

I live here. The picture is of the streets High Askomil and Low Askomil in Campbeltown. No resident of Campbeltown has ever alluded to these being a separate settlement. Letters to my house are addressed with "High Askomil, Campbeltown". I can find no reliable source that refers to Askomill as being a separate settlement.

This council webpage explicity refers to High Askomil as a street within Campbeltown. Armarosi (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Campbeltown. Sources suggest its not a distinctly separate place. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no sign of any independent existence. Failing that, redirect to Campbeltown. Ben Mac Dui 19:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 04:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Campbeltown per nom. (Looks like a lovely place, BTW). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin and Child of St Andrew's Fulham

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

Contested PROD, no reason given for removal of tag. This painting is not notable. Article creator may be the painter himself. TheLongTone (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure promotion...Modernist (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G12) - non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African Policy Centre

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

COI article with without independent sources. Google search does not even return their website in the first page of results (when searched without quotes). All sources are the writing of the only editor, who removed PROD tag, so here we are. Alexf^(talk) 18:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too new an org, too early for an article. As nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was brought to my attention that the article is a clear copyvio, word-by-word from http://africanpolicycentre.com/about-us.html which clearly states it is copyrighted. Changed to a CSD:G12 (copyvio). accordingly. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Pensacola, Florida

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

This article has been tagged for lack of any reliable sources since July 2011. I cannot find any mention of a flag on the city's official website, nor any authoritative source anywhere online. Although it would make a nice flag, I suspect this is just someone's fantasy, if not an outright hoax. The article as well as the flag image should be deleted accordingly. Textorus (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable hoax. Even if it were real (hah!), it wouldn't merit an article to itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided to confirm that the flag depicted is the city's actual flag. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as possible hoax.--Charles (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be the imagination of what a flag for the "City of Five Flags" might look like if a pastiche of the five national flags that have flown over the city were to be smooshed together. I cannot find any evidence that this amalgamation has ever been used as a flag for Pensacola. With the understanding that this is not a reliable source, I did find a Pensapedia entry discussing the flags of Pensacola which would seem to indicate that the flag over time has been the Confederate flag in one form or other. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werster

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

Non-notable gamer, reliable sources listed are about an event and do not mention this person. -- JamesMoose (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-non-notable individual.reddogsix (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - not notable recreated page. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem notable. Custom WP:VG/RS Google searches don't turn up anything that looks relevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person. I was intending to A7 it, but the claim of world records it enough that I think we should let the AFD run its course. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and no mention in sources. 7 09:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable person not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. The key point is "in-depth" rather than passing mentions in other content. Although I am familiar with their work and the importance in the niche field of video game speedrunning, there is no GNG-worthy coverage that I can find. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As an avid follower of many speedrunners and GDQ, I can't find this speedrunner to be notable enough to have an article; one of the only ones that has received enough significant media coverage would be Cosmo Wright. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject does not fall within Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nick Pascal (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no real coverage about Werster appearing in any reliable sources.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/suggestion: Perhaps a "list of notable speedrunners" (or livestreamers in general) should be made, similar to List of YouTube personalities. I'm not sure if there are any other speedrunner stubs/deleted articles that could be added to it, but it might be worth having as there are quite a few notable figures in the speedrunning community, and the community in general has been growing a lot in the past year or so. EvilHom3r (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted per A7 and salted Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of Interest (SCP Foundation)

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

Unsourced article about a fictional organisation of dubious notability. TheLongTone (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Also, with same rationale, nominating[reply]

SCP Foundation (Organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TheLongTone (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this

The Wanderer's Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TheLongTone (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was created after the information was removed from the SCP Foundation page.--Auric talk 18:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this site has already been up for deletion in 2012 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The SCP Foundation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I'm not sure if everything on here can be speedied as a recreation of content at the prior AfD, but the lack of notability is fairly clear. I did find an article by the Daily Dot and some by io9, there really isn't enough out there to show a depth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged them all as a speedy for nn webcontent. The problem here is that the website failed an AfD in 2012 and none of the new content shows how it passes notability guidelines. On top of that, all of this is content pertaining to the website- which failed notability guidelines. Hopefully we can just speedy this and get it out of the way without having to go through a week long AfD process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also recommend salting these, since re-creation is so likely. I've salted the one I personally speedied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 28bytes (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infornography

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

Per WP:NEO, article does not have any references...valid ones in the EL section do not mention the actual term. It probably is from a particular anime series. Basic search yields nothing, except a few passing mentions which only prove it's a barely notable web neologism. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not sufficiently notable. I found three publications using the word: two articles including lists of neologisms, and a poem. The name could be redirected to List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes, which features an episode with that title. Cnilep (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the above sources, the term is used in some books, one of which bothers to explain it [25], but the coverage does not pass WP:GNG. So this article is basically going to be just a WP:DICTDEF in the foreseeable future. Might be worth transwiking to wikt:infornography, assuming they accept neologisms with only a few uses. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, lack of secondary coverage would indicate it is not widely adopted yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as withdrawn by nominator. Andrew (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sycophant

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

Sycophancy, flattery that is very obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree, is the concept which is broader and incorporates the term sycophant. It is a powerful social psychological academic concept which fully deserves its own Wikipedia page and should expand in time. I restored it as a redirect, but it was reverted twice. As such, I think it should be either deleted, merged or changed to a redirect. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I realized that that it was a bit inappropriate on my part to nominate it for AFD as what Timtrent pointed out to me. As such, I'm now withdrawing this nomination and proposing a merge at WP:PM. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could close this as speedy keep then, an appropriate grounds for non-admin closure. I'd do it myself but am reluctant when involved.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Looking at sycophancy it is on a quite different topic, much shorter and narrower, at least in its current form, and so not a good redirect target. This article has some issues – WP is not a dictionary so the article should not be about the word, but a clear concept is being described - but that's not a grounds for deletion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there was a discussion about sycophancy at Talk:Sycophancy#Move_to_Wiktionary a couple of years back. I will expand my rationale. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is reasonably well written and referenced. The topic is clearly notable, and is a different and distinct topic from sycophancy. There is a significant etymology behind the word. The sycophancy article to which the proposer wants to redirect it is little more than a Wictionary page. Banks Irk (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sycophant ≠ Sycophancy qua articles. The latter reads more like a wiktionary definition than anything, but that is besides the point. AGK [•] 20:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sycophancy and place the resultant article in Sycophancy. The latter article is woefully incomplete, the former is fully fleshed out. There has been some discussion elsewhere of removing the edits of a blocked editor (a policy issue), but we are way past that, I think. Stepping back from that and looking at the encyclopaedia as a whole, it will be better for the combined article, and worse from the deletion of one or other of them. I have not inspected Sycophant to determine its absolute quality. I am relying on a relativey cursory read. Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already notified WP:PSYCH about this deletion here, since sycophancy not only encompasses history, but is an important psychological academic concept regardless of whether the topic is different. The best bet, in my opinion, is to simply merge it with the incomplete sycophancy article and expand on it, especially on its psychological views and standpoint. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to with Sycophancy per WP:NOTDIC. The etymology of the word itself and the history of its use in classical oratory, while relevant and interesting, are only part of the 'sycophant' story. The section 'Shift in meaning in modern English' partially treats the subject of the 'Sycophancy' article. Cnilep (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the wonderfully wise and perceptive first few lvoters. The Ancient Greek meaning is separate and distinct from the modern one. The fact that Sycophancy is underdeveloped is a red herring. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DUH. Even a "cursory" read of the article will show that this is not especially related to sycophancy, although even if it were this subject in itself would be notable. There's no reason for me to provide a list of bunches more sources than are already in the article. One can not only surmise that the nominator hasn't done the duties required in WP:BEFORE, but speculate that perhaps they didn't even really read the article before nominating for deletion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I didn't do either of those requirements, but I did read the article beforehand. I only thought that Sycophancy was related to Sycophant, since it covers a broader topic in psychology, classics and linguistics in general. Unfortunately though, the shift in meaning partially treats the subject of the Sycophancy article. As such, I think a requested merge should be more appropriate in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to with Sycophancy per WP:NOTDIC. as per Cnilep Lotje (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yorgelis Delgado

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

Contested prod. Was prodded again with "Apparently not notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing found via Google", so here is a proper deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought WP:BLPPROD to be orthogonal to the normal WP:PROD process. A more thorough search for sources should not hurt, though. Keφr 18:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. I didn't really understand to begin with why it's called "proposed". A BLP must be resolved by addition of at least one reliable source as a reference. I don't understand it to be optional. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Orthogonal", splendid word. ... You are both right in the sense that while PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or discussed on AfD, a BLP from which a WP:STICKY has been removed after a source was added may be prodded. In this case the {{Prod blp}} added here was misplaced, and the allowed application of {{Proposed deletion}} here was removed in error. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 00:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insofar as back when I was looking for info on her, there was nothing on her specifically from back when she was on the old Venezuelan children's shows, she was only included in cast lists. Later there were a few websites with look-at-her-now sexy adult poses, but I don't know if I would call that nontrivial coverage. I didn't find one piece of information about her other than her inclusion in the TV casts. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my own searches also failed to find individual coverage beyond the trivial. No indication of notability. Huon (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as sources for establishing notability per WP:BIO has not been found. Sam Sailor ^Sing 00:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could save everyone some trouble and delete this per WP:CSD#G5, but for the moment I'll let the discussion play out. Indeed, the removal of the prod was most probably done by the blocked sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 28bytes (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Markku Laakso

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

This article have no other sources other then its external link. Suggest deletion.--Mishae (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article offers only a link to subject's website. Looking at various sources online, I am satisfied that this person has an active career as a conductor, but I don't see any real evidence of notability. Subject is still very young by conducting standards. If substantial evidence of notability from reliable sources can be found, now or in the future, then we should have this article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this article is not up to much (and is effectively an unsourced BLP), the corresponding article on Finnish Wikipedia looks substantial and seems to have several reliable sources, including at least two of Finland's main newspapers - note, though, that I can't speak Finnish. Unless the Finnish article is substantially worse than it looks, it establishes notability for the subject. Perhaps a Finnish-speaking Wikipedian could confirm one way or the other. PWilkinson (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding article in Finnish is to an article on a 1949-born physician and researcher of the same name, not this 1978-born conductor. I have removed the bad interwiki link. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ugh, uncited BLP article of a person who does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MahiFX

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

I cannot find multiple examples of independent, significant coverage about this company in reliable sources - appears to be non-notable. _nonsense ferret 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like spam and contains nothing to make me think that this firm is notable Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with above, appears to be advertising copy rather than an encyclopædia article. Sources in the article are either press releases, blog entries, or do not mention the company. Even if the company were notable we'd need some WP:TNT to bring the article up to scratch. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John III Sobieski. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Teresa Sobieska

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

Notability is not inheritied, right? Otherwise I think this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Royalty, yes, but she died at the age of 2, and her death was of little interest to anyone outside immediate family, and later genealogists. She has never been a subject of any dedicated scholarly work, through of course she is mentioned in passing in a number of works about her notable family or parents. Pl wiki deletion discussion at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2014:01:25:Maria Teresa Sobieska will probably end in keep, but pl wiki is less strict than en wiki. I'd be interested in hearing opinions about whether we should keep this article or not in our project. Thoughts? Pinging User:Sobiepan who removed notability tag a while back. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of deleting this article. I would go so far as to question whether she was royalty at all: correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Henrician Articles (signed by her father, among others) denied her the title of princess of Poland or any constitutional status derived from her father's kingship. In any case, she is certainly not notable. An infant who died centuries ago might pass the notability test if he or she was heir apparent or heir presumptive, but this child was neither. Surtsicna (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's a valid point, as far as I know she was not the heir to anything extraordinary; I made a similar point in the pl wiki discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to father John III Sobieski who's notable, because she isn't. Cited sources seem to be about her father or mother. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.TheLongTone (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - king's daughter. She is notable enough, on polish Wikipedia the same Wikipedian made the same request -> [26] with claim that Maria Teresa wasnt described in newspaper. Andrzej19 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not make her notable, since she had no hereditary claim to her father's throne. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of the University of Oregon

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

Local college organization, limited to a single university. No evidence of notability outside that university. No coverage in reliable sources outside University of Oregon media. Article is mostly a directory of students holding the many minor positions available within this student organization. The notability on this article has been questioned since December 2008. Any relevant, encyclopedic material is already covered at University of Oregon#Representation GrapedApe (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Few details could be merged to the University's page, the article could be transwikied to the university (or town) wikia, if eitherexits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) due to lack of non-trivial/non-incidental coverage. Using a WP:Questia search, which provides access to the The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR), the articles do not show anything more than a passing mention of the organization. - tucoxn\^talk 21:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to University of Oregon, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious about what content you think should be merged that isn't already covered at University of Oregon#Representation.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No outside coverage that I can see, only some routine directory listings at the college and links to their own website. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Boughton

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - single top tier fight a few years ago and that was a loss. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One top tier fight (a loss) is not enough to meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failes as MMArtist and as kickboxer. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No policy-based reason for deletion, would probably be Snow kept anyway due to notability of event. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 1982 Korean Air Force C-123 accident

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

Military accidents are generally not notable in their own right Petebutt (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep over 50 fatalities is notable in its own right, meets WP:GNG. Suggest nominator uses policy to argue for deletion rather than vague hand-waving. See the precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Over 50 fatalities" does not = "meets GNG"; not does the existence of a list for which the article would qualify for inclusion, as lists can and are suitable for containing subject and items that are, when it comes to having their own articles, entirely non-notable. However the policy concern re: the nominator is relevant. Pete, you really should know better than this by now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't equate 50 fatalities with GNG, there was a comma, not an equals sign. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it is true that most military accidents are not notable we still have some exceptions and the high number of fatalities in this accident would make the accident generally notable military or not. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator does not articulate a policy-based reason for deletion, or even indicate a specific issue with this article to be grounds for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 53 fatalities is clearly notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - no policy-based reason for deletion. 53 losses in a military accident is actually far more unusual than the equivalent loss in a civilian crash, due to the rarer occurrences of these bigger military planes going down. It also meets GNG, as evidenced in the article. Why does this WikiProject insist on trying to delete anything that doesn't agree with its fairly narrow-minded guideline, regardless of if it is actually notable or not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shannen Macleason

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The info provided, and anything I can find (=almost nothing) fails WP:NMUSIC at this time. Add the probable WP:COI editing makes is possible self-promotion. This was an undeleted PROD that should have stayed deleted, except the subject requested undeletion - my apologies that they will take offense to this AFD process ES &L 11:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I dePRODded this article in response to a request at WP:REFUND from an IP claiming to be the subject. I advised her not to edit the article directly but to add any relevant material to the talk page. Instead, an IP posted material on my user talk page, which I have now copied to Talk:Shannen Macleason. JohnCD (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shannen Macleason My first time doing this, didn't quite understand where to post the info. Editor fails to understand that not all musicians want net exposure and net careers mainly in 2006, and failed to past all info i posted to him in here. Im completing it. Editor also fails to see that deleting this entry will make no offense at all, as it only contains a birthday and a info of 2006. I don't think a selfpromotion would do that...That's because truly in 2006 net weren't used for everytyhing, editor believes i claim to be a star, though i never said that im just a musician who had a wikipedia entrance back then. What bothers me is not the deletion as it has been deleted for 2 years, its the lack of awereness of the Editor and his ways of research. Im sure he is making his work, i even believe he's great at it, but i want him to be awere of the lot of info that are out of the net, and that a fast google search can't give you all facts. I really don't want a fight, just more awereness. Kind regards to everyone. SM

2004 Agency in canada was http://www.daniecorteseent.com/MusicianClients4.html with credits in http://www.daniecorteseent.com/credits1.html.

2006 I released the EP L.A. Highway at FNAC STores showcases(can provide digital scans). though TAB site has some things they put themselves: http://pegacifras.uol.com.br/video/astronaut-%28rewind%29-shannen-macleason-%282009%29/RszQlDMkinE http://www.sonorika.es/shannenmacleason http://www.muziekjes.nl/astronaut-rewind-shannen-macleason-2009-8157068-song.html

2007 I quit, to became a full time teacher, nevertheless: . one of the 3 semifinalist of RFM/Pedro Abrunhosa contest (Portugal) ::http://pedro_abrunhosa.blogs.sapo.pt/60897.html (the blog is from the oficial artist and universal) . mention by Michael Cretu(Enigma) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUQKlq42GdM 1:33 his favourite 3 voices for the social song. . At Berklee Valencia open night, with Sally Taylor and Livingstone Taylor, with my true name http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AczFUcjh7CU

2008 became a vocal teacher: Have several students, at idols contests etc.Became a vocal teacher of some children and teenagers who entered in tv contests similar to idols http://morangoscomacucar.org/rouxinois-ja-sao-moranguitos/ (BC) can give the scans on newspapers and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.6.142 (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

´´´Shannen Macleason´´´

Some extra links http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/RszQlDMkinE (video only) http://euromusica.org/2010/01/19/astronaut-rewind-la-classe-di-shannon-macleason-ma-solo-in-digitale/ (Italy) http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/85T1orzR9EQ (video only) by 2009 i took down myspace, and all related sites, and ordered other sites with information to delete what they had. I've became a teacher and head of voice department. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKqfDdcQIFM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.233.245 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to be included in Wikipedia, musicians should meet any one of the notability criteria listed at WP:MUSIC. Unfortunately, I don't see that the subject of the article meets any of these at this time. Article can be recreated if this ever changes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC. ~KvnG 17:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Myerscough

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

Not convinced this person is notable. 4/5 references pertain to an arrest and legal conviction, so i'm not sure to what extent he would otherwise be considered notable enough for inclusion Flaming Ferrari (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside WP:BLP1E. Has turned into an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Definite WP:BLP1E and not enough coverage to keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Xxan and MSC. I don't think we can have a BLP such as this where the majority of the text focuses on an arrest. Agricola44 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PERP. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close. Previous AfD is still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S5 Martin451 15:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S5

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

Product not yet released, source and links unreliable as they are just rumors JialeAven9erEX Talk:(JialeAven9erEX) 10:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - A previous AfD is still open. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Mayaram

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

This biographical article does not pass notability and biography guidelines. Also lacks reliable sources. Jethwarp (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is obvious that some editors get some popularity when they write for a newspaper, but notability needs much more. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, maybe there are sources in Hindi that I cannot read, but I can't find anything to indicate this person meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While sources are presented, there seems to be agreement amongst those participating that they are not reliable secondary sources, or that they do not refer to the same concept as the one described in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Social capitalism

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

unsourced original thought RadEconomics (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this article for deletion because Social Capitalism does not appear to be a valid sociopolitical term and does not meet wikipedia's requirements for notability or for credible sources. Blog entries and opinion pieces in financial magazines are not valid sources. Given that "social capitalism" supposedly refers to an economic system, you would expect it to have origins in the social sciences. However, I couldn't find a single scholarly article or valid academic reference on the subject of "social capitalism".

The term "social capitalism" was used in opinion pieces by only a handful of people. In those cases, the term is clearly being used in reference to a capitalist economy that is regulated by the government and augmented by social programs aimed at keeping people out of poverty, with direct comparisons to European countries. The proper name for such a system is a Social Market Economy. A well-written article for Social Market Economies already exists.

So few people have used the term "social capitalism" that I don't think it justifies redirecting this article to the article for Social Market Economy. A few people coining a phrase does not warrant an encyclopedia entry.

Beyond the overlap with the term Social Market Economy, this article is unsourced original thought, which is inappropriate for wikipedia.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be synthesis - as though somebody just googled for mentions of "Social capitalism" even though most results weren't actually treating it as a formal term. bobrayner (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be a shitty article, but I didn't have to search hard to find entire books written on the subject. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you didn't look at those books hard at all. Even assuming the present content can be sourced based on those books (which is a BIG if), we'd still have the problem that those two books are wp:primary sources for the theories they advance (they aren't the kind of books that review the work of others) besides that fact that based on their blurbs they don't seem to agree much what "social capitalism" might be about. "The author of this book points the blame on the failure to politicise the significant issues of our time. Party politics is ideologically trapped in the past, and is unable to grasp the realities of the present. Worse still, political systems throughout the democratic world are probably incapable of addressing the real threats which confront us. In this major 3-volume work, Robert Corfe argues that we need to politicise those issues raised by our financial-industrial system, and for this purpose he creates a new political vocabulary, and identifies the actual realities of politico-economic life today." WHEREAS "Peter Flaschel and Sigrid Luchtenberg consider roads to a type of capitalism that could eventually be considered as 'social' in nature. The authors underpin their study with theory, empirical evidence, and policy from a positive as well as a normative perspective. As points of departure for their concept of social capitalism, the theoretical framework provides a synthesis of the work of Marx, Keynes, and Schumpeter on ruthless capitalism, regulated capitalism, and competitive socialism." Articles aren't written by string matching primary sources; that only works for wp:dabs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a poor quality WP:CFORK of social market economy. Bobrayner has deleted much of the WP:OR content after the AfD started, but I'm not convinced that what's left justifies an article. The article is presently based on {{one source}} that is a paper written by a law prof who seems to have little economics education, so he coins his own terms; the paper was published in a US law journal. WP:FRINGE applies here. The slightly more clear paper from the Int. J. of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation (wanna bet on the impact factor of this journal?) is making some pretty bold and simmulateneously wierd claims "A new economic paradigm has emerged over the last 30 years, mainly in a few European countries, especially the Nordic countries over the last ten years, some states within the USA and the People's Republic of China: social capitalism." Yeah, the US is like China now and both are like Norway in terms of socioeconomic system. Ok, it's a new theory that got published in some obscure journal, but it would need WP:SECONDARY coverage to consider including in Wikipedia. (Did I mention that this 2004 paper has the astounding number of 3 citations in GS?) Oh, and most of the content still has nothing to do with the sources cited. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially a little-used academic neologism. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should add here that Robert Corfe's theories and books might justify a (biographical/bibliographical) article based on [27] etc., but not this kind of sweeping theorizing article. I'm still rather skeptical that he passes WP:AUTHOR; despite the large number of books he wrote, I can't find much independent coverage of him or his works; that piece in The Guardian is two-paragraphs long, but good enough to give you a general idea as to what Corfe's voluminous tomes propose. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darlene McCoy

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

local South Carolina personality with no real notability per guidelines on musicians/performing artists. has been tagged for refs for two and a half years (the tag says August 2011 but I think this might be a fuckup since this is a new article?). Previous bot-edit added a copyright infringement tag, claiming text taken from http://www.darlenemccoy.com/bio.html.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Article does not meet primary notability guidelines. Fails on WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources for verification. Hitro talk 09:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No available sources to assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article was speedily deleted as a copyvio by me yesterday as it was a cut and paste of the subject's website. I don't see how anyone creating an article and including the sentence "The anticipation for new music from the celebrated vocalist is tremendous" can be considered neutral on the subject. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arekti Jiboner Golpo

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

I'm nominating this for deletion due to it not passing WP:NFILM. I came across it via a speedy nomination, which was removed by the article's creator. It was marked as promotional and while it is to an extent, I don't see it as so overly promotional that it would be speedyable that way. In any case, I can't find anything to show that this film is ultimately notable enough to merit its own article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nomination. When and if notability is established in the future, then I will be fine with it. --BiH (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources provided to meet WP:NFILM. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough dependable references to warrant an article. It does not appear that they exist.Whitescorp34 (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. User:Jimfbleak deleted it under (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Treatment (band)

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

Non-notable per guidelines for musical groups, no sources. Reads like a vanity piece by yet another minor garage band. Quick google search has many other more prominent "the treatment" results. ColonelHenry (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBAND. While they are signed with a borderline notable label, they currently have only one released album, no singles on the chart and no awards. Safiel (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Might just scrape in. There is an allmusic review, another short review in RL (16 September 2011), "The Treatment", The Sun and a >600 word article in Sweeney, Chris (12 August 2011), "Shock treatment; Ones 2 watch", The Sun . Quotes from the later "Alice Cooper has signed them as the opening act for his upcoming European Tour." "Debut album This Might Hurt came out a few months ago, but it has been tweaked and will be re-released on September 5. That's because they've been snapped up by a bigger label attached to record giants Universal." (for anyone interested the article says they play classic rock 'n' roll. Says they are Cambridge-based. The band cites AC/DC, Led Zeppelin and Judas Priest as influences.) A mention in "Vater des Schockrock", Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz, 30 September 2011. "Der Support für Alice Cooper am 22. Oktober kommt von dem jungen englischen Rockquintett The Treatment. Die fünf Teenager aus Cambridge präsentieren ihr Debütalbum "This Might Hurt", das stilistisch an Def Leppard, Thin Lizzy, UFO und Aerosmith erinnert". They did support Motley Crue and Kiss in the US and have played in Australia. FYI, [28] [29]. Does need a major rewrite, I agree that it reads like a vanity piece by yet another minor garage band. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aston villa life

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

Non notable football blog, Also seems most references are just football commentarys & what not. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, not even worth re-directing. Giant Snowman 15:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG failure, inherently promotional in tone to a greater or lesser extent as well. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – is not notable, lacks any kind of significant coverage. Time to close this discussion, too. C 679 12:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Village Mall

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet another mall. Does not meet the notability guidelines for companies, WP:CORP, and its coverage is exclusively local which doesn't comply with the coverage requirements of WP:GNG ColonelHenry (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was tacked on at the end of the previous AfD discussion page; I moved it here. Ansh6 6 6 04:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, malls are almost always considered notable. The coverage is somewhat sparse but still present — the 200th anniversary article repeatedly mentions progress on the mall, and the story of the Sears closure is the kind of WP:SIGCOV that has been accepted in previous shopping mall deletion discussions. Compare Miami Valley Centre Mall, which is nearby and has a similar level of coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Compare ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall at Westlake‬, ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middlesboro Mall (Middlesboro, Kentucky)‬, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staunton Mall, which were all closed as "keep" despite similar levels of coverage. AFDs like that highly suggest that this level of coverage is sufficient to make a shopping mall notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. 05:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES is not policy, just a user essay. WP:CORP is policy and it requires significant coverage. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added Hoover's cite to bring closer to WP:GNG. Agree that WP:OUTCOMES should be considered here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets GNG, it can even be further expanded from what I can find.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this meets GNG. In addition, I think WP:OUTCOMES should be considered. Malls are generally major commercial centers which makes them a notable part of the community. --hmich176 11:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:G12, copyvio, but without prejudice to its recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Frequency Sensor Association

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

Delete, fails org and this article is highly spammy so even if notable which I don't believe it is it would require a fundemental rewrite to be encyclopedic Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12, copyvio. I have just tagged it a such. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Never Take Friendship Personal. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Day Late

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

Does not meet WP:NSONGS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album, Never Take Friendship Personal. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Whpq, why not redirect? Paviliolive (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as vandalism: things get a lot worse as you get farther into the article Acroterion (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Bautiste

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

Unreferenced, poorly formatted article. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor DeMario

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

Doesn't meet the GNG. BLP on a beauty queen whose only coverage has been on facebook, and her alma mater UDelaware. She's not like the last Miss Delaware who was a wannabe internet porn star. ColonelHenry (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor is a notable celebrity throughout the state of Delaware. She has had various interviews with credible news stations and other media outlets. She has also competed in a National Pageant and advocated for the MS Society around the state. A successful beauty queen such as Taylor should be note worthy, even though she did not participate in questionable behavior.If needed, I can source more news articles and other credible references to prove the legitimacy of this page. See Taylor as a contestant in the Miss United States Pageant: http://www.missunitedstates.com/#!find-your-state/c24ns This links to the Delaware Page where you can see she is the current titleholder.johnd88 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not inherently notable as a Miss United States participant; even the winners and "notable past delegates" listed in the main pageant article are mostly redlinks. Volunteer work and some very minor modeling is also not notable. The references in the article do not provide evidence of the non-trivial, independent coverage in reliable sources she would need to meet WP:GNG. The UDaily link comes closest, but is only routine coverage of some non-notable (though undoubtedly admirable) charity work. I tried looking for more sources myself but wasn't able to come up with anything significant. If the page creator has access to additional sources it would be helpful to add them to the article, but please read WP:GNG to understand the kind of sourcing required. Camerafiend (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-reliable references on the page as it is and I can't find non-trivial sources that satisfy WP:GNG. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWS-Cp1WgQY Here is a youtube video of Taylor being interviewed on the News in Delaware. If you view http://www.missunitedstates.com/#!find-your-state/c24ns you can click Delaware where you will see that she is the current title holder and a past contestant in the National Pageant. Also Click this link http://www.goingproentertainment.com/2013/12/going-pro-philadelphia-is-february-1.html to see she will be attending a Going Pro Entertainment event on February 1st. [(User: Johnd88|Johnd88]) 05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnd88 (talk • contribs)
Delete - I can't see anything to convince me that she is notable. Mabalu (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not have dependable sources. They do not appear to exist.Whitescorp34 (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Shapiro

AfDs for this article:

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

Vanity self-publisher who is not notable in any way H6PAYH (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find reliable sourcing. -- GreenC 04:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reliable sources do not seem to be available. It looks like this article was deleted in an AfD in 2004. - tucoxn\^talk 04:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything of note or and/or from a reliable source. CrookedwithaK (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Sunny Patil

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

De-prodded biography on a 7 year old girl who has done well in taekwaodo tournaments, the article tells us. The article now has one ref, but it does not mention subject. Judging from the lack of sources on both "Sarah Patil" and "Sarah Sunny Patil", she neither meets WP:GNG nor WP:NSPORTS. (The WP:FAKEARTICLE User:Sarah Sunny Patil is up for discussion on MfD.) Sam Sailor ^Sing 02:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.) Sam Sailor ^Sing 02:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 02:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fluff piece.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Lacks any significant coverage for WP:GNG and nothing to meet WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just delete it, per above.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Will (novel)

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

Non-notable novel. Sourced primarily to blogs and the author's own site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable book (published by a vanity press) by a non-notable author. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or redirect to Caleb_J._Ross#Bibliography~~~~, assuming his article survives deletion.~~ That's next on my list of places to look. Offhand I'm not predicting that any of this will survive deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While searching for the author in general, I did manage to find this review but this sort of hammers home that neither the guy nor his works are really notable. This was the only one I found and it just isn't enough by itself to keep any of the articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Didn't Mean to be Kevin

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

Non-notable novel. There appear to be no professional reviews, and the article cites nothing but blogs and amazon reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or redirect to Caleb_J._Ross#Bibliography~~ ~~if his article survives deletion.~~ I can't find any coverage for this book in RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to just delete. I couldn't find anything to show notability for the author either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability so far. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even in worldcat, which is a minimum standard. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb J. Ross

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

Extensive resume of a non-notable author. Includes many links to amazon, blogs, and podcasts, but there's nothing that really be called a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial WP:RS coverage, just non-notable blogs and sales links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one sole source that would show notability. ([30]) This just isn't enough to show notability and the links on the article cannot work towards notability either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown - reads like a resume, even includes links to Facebook pages. Nelson50^T 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had a go myself at finding sources establishing notability; came up empty-handed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only book of his in Worldcat is Stranger Will, and it is in only 28 libraries. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting game community

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

I can't find any form of notability for this "group", references are not substantial and most do not even mention them. Fails WP:GNG ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage, and the article's sources are unrelated to the topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of WP:OR, while the community is growing, an article on them is not needed/not workable, it puts undue weight on specific parts of the scene, etc. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 03:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Speedy delete if possible! Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that originally, but it did not seem to fall under any CSD category. Lacking guidance I did AfD.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A7 or A11 may apply. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fighting game community is notable, and the subject of reliable sources such as this and this. But the subject may be better covered at Electronic sports titles by genre#Fighting games or merged to Fighting game. - hahnch e n 18:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yudu Media

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

Not notable. Advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search for Yudu Media and for Digital Alternatives Ltd did not turn up significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Paviliolive (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this company in independent, reliable sources. Gong show 07:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As with others above, I am finding no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catriona Nic Fhearghais

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

Non notable person. Does not show in the first source given ~~so possibly hoax.~~ The Banner talk 00:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the name Christiana Ferguson, she is discussed on page 374 of The beauties of Gaelic poetry, as stated in the footnote. [31] Also mentioned briefly here [32][33][34]. So, not a hoax. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Does not show up in the sources given, although she is there in your version. From you other sources: two of them don't mention her and the other is a passing mention. The Banner talk 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand your comment. She (as Christiana Ferguson) and the ballad are mentioned in all of those sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unless you start searching at "Christiana Ferguson"... The Banner talk 03:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the 1st footnote is linking to a different version of the book "The Beauties of Gaelic Poetry". For the linked version on archive.org, it is page 409. Also note the name "Cairistìona NicFhearghais" is used by some sources. eg [35][36], that seems to be the more common Gaelic name, I would suggest moving the article to that title. --Vclaw (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that. And from those sources I note the variant spelling of her English name as Christiana Fergusson (with a double-S), and that turns up more sources. (I've added more "find sources" links above.)

From all of these, I think it may be fair to conclude that she is widely credited with having written this well-known ballad. So a straight deletion of this page may be inappropriate. The question still presented in this AfD is: Is this enough for an article? Or, consistent with WP:PRESERVE, is there some other place that this information might be better placed? --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references shows that she clearly meets the general notability guidelines, ie "significant coverage in reliable sources". These sources are diverse, spread over several hundred years, showing lasting significance. --Vclaw (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on just one poem? The Banner talk 18:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cædmon is known for a single poem, and is one of the most famous poets in the English language. Not comparing her to Cædmon but just saying, we follow what the sources show per GNG. Are three sources enough? I don't know need to look into it.. -- GreenC 03:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Jacobite poet. Added four more sources for total of 7 across a few hundred years including Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia (2006). The spelling "Christiana Fergusson" seems more popular probably consider rename. -- GreenC 04:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced, but I withdraw the nomination as nominator. The Banner talk 13:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the AfD message can now be removed from the top of the article? Graeme 18:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Arnott (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galore Park

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable coverage in Daily Telegraph; The Bookseller; Journal of Classics Teaching; &c. Andrew (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep manifestly notable publisher of publication which themselves have articles. Award winning. And covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

The Telegraph
The Bookseller
GrowthBusiness. (Note regarding source reliability: Per [37], GrowthBusiness is owned by Vitesse Media plc, a media company quoted on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange).

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was wrong about that one. I withdraw my nomination. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator has withdrawn their nomination in the comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Diamond

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

Copy-paste move of article Joe_diamond, which was G7ed by original creator. Dan653 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update Original article un-G7ed, now there are two exactly the same copy-paste articles. Dan653 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2 Joe diamond deleted under A10. Dan653 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely non notable. I have tagged the copy for CSD A10. Safiel (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Agree on speedy. Entirely not-notable, and no sources for BLP.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Dan653 (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cmment Procedurally striking the above vote. As AfD nominator, you have cast an implied delete vote. Safiel (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a self promotional article of a non-notable individual.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional piece, not notable.LM2000 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP, probably WP:AUTO. Mdtemp (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lapwing Publications

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently important to be cnosidered notable , based on the authors it has published. For publishers, this may be the only really usable criterion-- for them, the GNG works well in neither direction DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, Sadads (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I normally don't post "per nom" types of !votes, but in this case, keep per the rationale presented by User:DGG, which carries more weight than the generic, two-word "not notable" deletion rationale. Additionally, some sources found thus far: Irish Publishing News (unclear about the reliability of the source), and passing mentions in this The Irish Independent article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ged UK per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Me

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as article creator. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete considering that the article creator has voted to delete.LM2000 (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article was a redirect to a WarioWare game and the current version of the article was added later on by a different user. I was going to speedy this, but the changes weren't done by NARH so we can't go that route. However it is very promotional and there isn't a lot of notability established, so we can go a different speedy route. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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