Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 October	8 October >

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I understand the nomination, it is suggesting a selective incorporation of limited details of each game into the main article Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. That seems fine to me, since the individual games aren't notable enough to overcome our usual presumption against articles about regular season games. However, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and the edit attribution requirements of Wikipedia's copyright policy, this means the can't be deleted, because the edit histories of the individual game articles need to be preserved, so all these articles need to be redirected and (selectively) merged rather than deleted. (This same point applies to the other similar opening-week series that have been nominated at AfD.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: Your point is well taken. I have already incorporated basic information from each of the individual games into the parent article, but if others want to include greater detail, including recycled language from the existing single-game articles, then REDIRECTS (which preserve the editing history) to the parent article would be a sensible outcome. I would support this, depending on how much actual material from the single-game articles is incorporated into the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is ridiculous. Too many nominations separately that should be logically bundled, and most if not all are games that have coverage far beyond routine listings anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling multiple AfDs often leads to no-consensus outcomes, and every game should be treated on its own merits. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football, NFL, NBA and MLB regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted, and that's not what was intended. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "lasting" is not in WP:ROUTINE. Don't make the guideline say more than it does.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Paul, NOTNEWS does not use the word "lasting"; it uses the words "enduring notability" instead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments on point, Paul, and then I am happy to leave these AfD discussions to our fellow editors . . . .

I have a suggested reading assignment of the notability guidelines for you:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.)

Bottom line: there is an existing consensus that stand-alone articles should only be created for exceptional regular season games, that content should usually be incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles, and that regular season games should be of some greater significance if they are to have stand-alone articles rather than being incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles. This consensus is borne out by the very limited number of stand-alone article for regular season games (about 98 in 145 years) that presently exist. And many regular editors want this material reincorporated into their rivalry articles (see 2001 Florida vs Tennessee football game) -- it's an entirely reasonable position, as well as the examples provided by SPORTSEVENT. It's perfectly clear from other references in WP:NSPORTS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS that regular season sports events are held to a different standard, that the definition of "routine" goes beyond "sports scores," and from WP:GNG that significant coverage is no guaranty of inclusion as a stand-alone article.
As other editors have already pointed out to you in other pending AfD discussions, what constitutes "routine coverage" of CFB games when the ESPN and AP recaps of virtually every Division I FBS game equal or exceed the coverage of the subject of this particular AfD, it's apparent to most folks that that becomes the standard of ROUTINE coverage for CFB games. Otherwise, every regular season game is notable, every regular season game is suitable for a stand-alone article, and we have a real problem with the notability standards that needs to be addressed. I don't believe that's what it says, and I don't believe that's what was intended, and if we need to clarify this at the talk pages for GNG, NSPORTS and ROUTINE, I am confident that a strong majority of !voters will agree. That probably needs to happen in any event to put a stop to the argument in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator, I object to the proposal, however well intended, to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly muddled when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game and/or the specific 2012 Tennessee/NC State/Auburn/Clemson season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. WP:ROUTINE etc. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 00:57, 10 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only if all the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game articles are deleted. If only this one is deleted then it would be strange to have one for every year but not 2011. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsuorangecrush: We have nominated all but the last two (2013, 2014) editions of the Chick-fil-A Kickoff for AfD, and if someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll nominate them, too, when I have some time tonight. All pending college football AfDs are listed on the WP:CFB talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like it got some good coverage here, that's far beyond routine scores and listings.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFB has had these debates many times before. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football, NFL, NBA and MLB regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted, and that's not what was intended. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Many times before" ?? "More than typical post-game coverage"?? What is typical post-game coverage? I'm curious about that because [{WP:ROUTINE]] defines it as "sports scores" -- if your definition is different, what is that? Where is it published? By what measure do we use?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you are misreading ROUTINE. A lot more is included in the definition of "routine" than sports scores; that's an example, not a limitation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I object to the proposal, however well intended, to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly muddled when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game and/or the specific 2011 Georgia/Boise State season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. WP:ROUTINE etc. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 01:00, 10 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is ridiculous. Too many nominations separately that should be logically bundled, and most if not all are games that have coverage far beyond routine listings anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling multiple AfDs often leads to no-consensus outcomes, and every individual game should be treated on its own merits. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football, NFL, NBA and MLB regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted, and that's not what was intended. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons that bundling AFDs often leads to no-consensus (and I'm curious how you came to that conclusion--is it fact or opinion) is likely because all the discussion takes place in one spot and a more clear discussion is formed. If that makes it tough on one side or the other, so be it. We're not looking for the easy way here--we're looking for the right answer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every article deserves to be considered on its individual merits, Paul. If some of these topics are more suitable for inclusion than others, I urge you to make those arguments regarding the particular subject games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator, I object to the proposal, however well intended, to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly muddled when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game and/or the specific 2010 LSU/North Carolina season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. WP:ROUTINE etc. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is ridiculous. Too many nominations separately that should be logically bundled, and most if not all are games that have coverage far beyond routine listings anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling AfDs often leads to non-consensus outcomes. We've had these debates many times before, Paul. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would "Division I college football games" have a tougher standard for "routine" than other events? There is nothing in that guideline that singles out Division I College Football, College Football, or even football. "Sports" is addressed, and "sports scores" is the standard that it gives.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herring Alert: Nothing singles out Division I football games, Paul. The applicable policies apply to all sports events. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, it's more than a little bit ironic to object to "cut-and-paste" responses with . . . a cut-and-paste response. As the nominator, I object to any attempt to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically inconsistent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections and demands. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of hits, so I am also in ~~support~~ of ~~combining~~ these articles. Noteswork (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Noteswork: A parent article (Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game) already exists for the seven individual articles for the regular season games in the Chick-fil-A Kickoff series. This AfD and four related AfDs are arguing about the notability and suitability for inclusion of the articles about the individual games, not the parent article. If you are arguing for the combination of the individual game articles into the parent article, then we are arguing for similar positions. Please clarify. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken my vote back. As these games are not notable, they can be deleted as per WP:ROUTINE. Now if they should be combined or not, it will be decided only between the editors who are interested in this subject. Noteswork (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game and/or the specific 2009 Alabama/Virginia Tech season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. WP:ROUTINE etc. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff

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

The single source, which is boilerplate WP:ROUTINE coverage, fails to establish any significance of this game per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Everything here that's worth including should be summarized at Texas Kickoff instead. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the AdvoCare Texas Kickoff should also have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 23:39 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game articles for the 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 editions of the game have also been nominated for AfD. These similar articles are not being treated any differently than the individual Texas Kickoff games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable regular season college football game. Individual regular season CFB kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discourged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Texas Kickoff. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even the one source in the article is far beyond the definition set forth in WP:ROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN published recaps of similar length and depth for the thirteen Oklahoma State games (click on any result), and the thirteen Mississippi State games (ditto) in 2013. Does every one of these 25 games deserve an article? If this isn't routine, what on Earth is? Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, I'm sure that several 500 to 1,000-word post-game recaps of this game can be found on ESPN, etc. Most of them will be based on the AP wire recap article that is written for most Division I games. Nevertheless, that is typical coverage for Division I college football games and constitutes the very definition of WP:ROUTINE coverage for Division I college football. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, we should delete the article Barack Obama because all coverage is "routine" for any US President. Fortunately, that is not what "Routine" actually says and in the case of sporting events, "sports scores" is the standard. Not every game gets premiere coverage like is shown, therefore it is not "routine" at all. Personally, I don't like all the individual game articles. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that ROUTINE defines "sports matches" as "routine events," Paul. Are you aware of a similar provision that defines the elections and administrations of U.S. Presidents as "routine events"? The better analogy is that we don't include stand-alone articles about presidential press releases, presidential interviews, or presidential press conferences -- because they are routine events (with very few exceptions). IDONTLIKEIT has precious little to do with it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also defines "routine coverage" as "sports scores" which this subject clearly exceeds.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the proposal to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly muddled when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I can absolutely see some logic in combining, but in the end, it seems like a waste of time. If we combine them it will generate more confusion, and failure to reach consensus seems much more likely. If that happens, the next step would be to nominate them all individually again anyway. Since that's how we started, that seems like bureaucratic nonsense. We're here now, let's just finish it. I get why it may be a bit of a hassle to deal with multiple discussions covering similar issues, but it's also a hassle to have to deal with all of the very similar, minimally-sourced articles. Since notability is not inherited, it needs to be established separately for each game. For that reason I don't think these AFDs should be combined. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether individual games are notable. The process of individual assessment isn't simplified but is instead muddled by wrapping all the games into a single AfD. JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1 with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Texas Kickoff and/or the specific 2013 Mississippi State/Oklahoma State season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. WP:ROUTINE etc. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 11 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff

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

The single source (a press release) fails to establish any significance of this routine game per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Everything here that's worth including can be (and already is) mentioned in Texas Kickoff. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the AdvoCare Texas Kickoff should also have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:06 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Why is this article worth keeping? Grayfell (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable regular season college football game. Individual regular season CFB kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discourged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Texas Kickoff. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really? Wisconsin vs LSU got "routine" coverage? Clearly passes WP:GNG with flaming colors.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two sources, one is a press release of no value, and the other is a recap from ESPN. ESPN publishes recaps of similar length and depth for pretty much every college game. The coverage does not in any way indicate this event is notable. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, I'm sure that several 500 to 1,000-word post-game recaps of this game can be found on ESPN, etc. Most of them will be based on the AP wire recap article that is written for most Division I games. Nevertheless, that is typical coverage for Division I college football games and constitutes the very definition of WP:ROUTINE coverage for Division I college football. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two references in the article is not the same as two references exist. If we stuff the article with sources, that would lead to other issues. This game got loads of coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot more at play here than the number of references. Please see below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I object to the proposal, however well intended, to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly muddled when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1 with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Texas Kickoff and/or the specific 2014 LSU/Wisconsin season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dagan Harris

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

Fictional character from non-notable self-published books. GILO A&E⇑ 22:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dark Matters (graphic novel) or delete if that does not survive. Artw (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's fairly unlikely that the graphic novel will survive AfD, so my vote is for deletion. I can't find anything to show that this character is notable enough for its own entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 8 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Matters (graphic novel)

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

Non-notable self-published book GILO A&E⇑ 22:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this series is ultimately notable. It doesn't seem to have received any coverage from anyone, as a search only really brings up various WP:PRIMARY sources. At best this is just WP:TOOSOON for an entry, but I'll be honest: so far the complete and total lack of coverage kind of gives me the impression that this will likely never pass notability guidelines. That could change, but right now this just isn't something that should be on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not really finding anything either. Artw (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unsourced article with potential COI issues. Alexius08 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 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 via WP:G3. It probably also could have qualified as an attack page, given the "source" at the bottom of the page and the feeling that this was about someone that the editor knows IRL. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Oberg

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

Sadly, no evidence of notabilty.subject of the Article fails WP:GNG as a result of lack of significant coverages to reliable sources. In addition, no correlation with the bulk of references supplied with the subject of the article. Wikicology (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The article is an obvious hoax if you look up "Justin Oberg" and "Provo" in Google. I put it up for a speedy delete. - Takeaway (talk) 03:48, 8 October 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. Secret ^account 16:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Tennessee vs. Florida football game

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

Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2001 Florida Gators football team and 2001 Tennessee Volunteers football team). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historic Game. Final time Steve Spurrier and Phillip Fulmer faced each other as the head coaches for Florida and Tennessee respectively. It also had an exciting finish with Florida missing a late 2-point conversion which would have sent the game to overtime. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:23 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep widespread coverage clearly surpasses WP:GNG. Sources are in the article already, it's well written and cited. Each source surpasses basic "routine" coverage of sports scores and listings. Nominator has overstepped bounds by stating that "Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged" and that just isn't the case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged": Actually, Paul, that's been the position of WikiProject College football for at least five years, with ample deletions and merges at AfD made in support of that position. I think it's you who has changed your position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it has not. The closest is that an unlogged editor deleted "Varsity regular season" from WP:CFBN back in 2010-, citing "deleted regular varsity games, no consensus on that, discuss on talk page" -- there wasn't much discussion on the talk page, but clearly no consensus even at the project level was reached. Certainly not "discouraged" or "disfavored" at all. And yes, I have changed my position (since 2008 probably) because I used to argue that all games are notable and worthy of inclusion. That was incorrect, I now hold that WP:GNG should be the standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Delete It's "memorable" enough for a listing in the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry article, but not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The "widespread coverage" was about the same for a couple dozen more of Florida's big conference games in the 90s, including every meeting with Tennessee during that period - that's just how it was in the Spurrier era. However, as WP College football guidelines explain, that doesn't mean that each of those regular season games deserves its own article. As per the nominator, any worthwhile info should be added to the team's season articles and the stand-alone article deleted. --Zeng8r (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over. Even the nomination is cut and pasted, and so are many of the entries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, routine game and merely one of hundreds played in college football every year. If the contest was notable to the careers of the coaches, it warrants mention in those coaches' articles, but does not justify a standalone. Reso lute 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, it's more than a little bit ironic to object to "cut-and-paste" responses with . . . a cut-and-paste response. As the nominator, I object to any attempt to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically inconsistent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections and demands. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are different but the "deletion" positions are the same--continually saying ROUTINE is something that the guideline itself says it is not. 17 AFDs with basically the same thought process is a valid reason to combine into one location to firm up the discussion. Thinking that combining the discussion makes your position weaker is not. Wikipedia is not about winning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to the specific 2001 Tennessee/Florida season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:59, 9 October 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. Even ignoring some SPA !votes, it seems that there are sufficient sources to meet GNG. If URC is fringe science, that should be covered in the article, but is not a reason to delete. The article will need some page watchers, given the obvious COI issues. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universal rotation curve

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

Delete This idea is constantly being promoted by Salucci who is the likely author of this article. However, the mainstream academic community has not accepted his ideas. Wikipedia should not be the thing promoting this. jps (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1600+ hits on Scholar, 100+ on Books, 34 on ADS. Didn't look too closely, but I get the impression that there is sufficient independent coverage. The sources provided in the article are generally reputable mainstream astrophysics journals. The article can stand improvement, but this doesn't relate to notability of the topic. The same goes for possible problems with user behavior. Paradoctor (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check citations? The idea that there is a "universal rotation curve" has not been adopted nor considered notable by the experts in the field. The fact that there are 34 citations on ADS is the most telling point here. That's a paltry number for a standalone topic in astronomy. Compare to redshift or large scale structure. jps (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says "multiple" sources. From what I've seen in notability arguments, a handful of solid, independent sources is usually considered sufficient to establish notability. If there is a specific guideline for astronomy topics, could you please point me to it? Paradoctor (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRIND is the relevant guideline here. "Multiple" sources that are serious and independent are needed. The problem here is a lack of serious consideration by the incidental citations in independent sources.

This "lack of consideration" has not been established so far. I suggest we talk about evidence presented, rather than so far unsubstantiated claims, would that be acceptable? Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but no one has shown any independent sources that treat this specific topic in a serious way. jps (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fringe theory, no mainstream acceptance. Wikipedia is not the place to push your, as yet, unaccepted theory. (Paradoctor, I took the liberty of altering your comment to "keep", since "oppose" doesn't really mean much here, and I assumed that was what you meant. I hope that was ok.) Begoon ^talk 12:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Begoon Perfectly fine with me, thanks. In "revenge", I edited your edit. ;) BTW, no need to ping me, I watch where I edit.) Paradoctor (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe theory, no mainstream acceptance" is not a deletion argument, see Timecube for a rather extreme example. Paradoctor (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reread WP:FRINGE. Timecube has an article because of the third-party coverage which is lacking here. jps (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, this is not been established so far. I'm withholding judgment on this until I've seen more hard facts. Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sources is prima facie evidence for a lack of notability. jps (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. If the concept has some non-negligible support it makes sense to describe it in Wikipedia, for those who wish to understand the big picture. We could put in the lede a sentence/paragraph noting that the concept is not universally accepted. Leegrc (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you might be unsure, on the face of it, but read WP:GEVAL, please. This is a big, seemingly authoritative article on a fringe, unaccepted theory. We must not skew the balance, and appearance of the encyclopedia that way. It is not responsible, and is a disservice to our readers, and contrary to our purpose, irrespective of any suggested little "rider" clauses. Begoon ^talk 12:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a big misunderstanding. The Universal Rotation Curve is a mainstram comcept Just one exemple The paper Persic, M. Salucci, P. Stel, F. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 27 The universal rotation curve of spiral galaxies - I. The dark matter connection is one of the papers with more citations ever (854 from google Scholar) in the literature. ! I am not a fringe sciantist (I would like though!) I have h=41 and 7070 citetion on Google Scholar .I published more rotation curve than anybody (more than 1050) I published a least 40 papers with several collaborators in which the URC has played a role, including a Nature one : Gentile, G; Famaey, B., Zhao, H.; Salucci, P. 2009. Nature, 461, 627. My papers on URC got about 2000 references, and other people's work at least other 1000; Moreover, there are 2 big misunderstandings 1) I did not invented the concept of URC. It was Rubin's (who discovered dark matter in Spirals) who did it in works from 1980 -1985 . I just perfected and interpreted it. All thiis written in the wikipedia article under analysis (not written by me) 2) my group is known for other things than the URC in particular on the nature of Dark matter (this is where go the other 5000 citations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolosalucci (talk • contribs)

Paolo, we aren't saying your idea is not "mainstream" in the sense of it being promoted by a fringe scientist, we're saying it hasn't received the independent notice that is required by this website for inclusion here. I know that you are very adamant that your idea is an extension of the normal galaxy rotation curve work done by Rubin & Ford, for example. Adding some of this background material to that other article may make some sense if we didn't have it already included (which we do). Basically, the problem here is you attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. jps (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jps Please, keep the tone down. Accusing a new contributor of soapboxing sounds rather bitey. Mr. Palucci is new to Wikipedia, and so far, I've seen no reason to believe that he is not willing to contribute in accord with our policies. Paradoctor (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith here. As a profession, I know how Palucci has been promoting his ideas and it is clear that Wikipedia is just the next frontier. jps (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGF: I did and I do, otherwise I'd probably have reported you by now.

"I know" Good, then please produce evidence for this claim. Not here, please, my talkpage will suffice. Or ping me from somewhere else. Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Report me?" I think you are the one who is escalating matters here, and I'm not sure why. As to whether I will "ping" you evidence I'm not sure what you want. Try googling around and seeing for yourself. That's beyond the scope of our conversation. Suffice to say it is the reason this article exists. jps (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

paolopalucci You are probably best qualified to help establishing whether the topic meets WP:GNG. It would be very helpful if you could provide a few sources that function as WP:SECONDARY sources here. I think a handful papers discussing URCs like this one would be sufficient to establish notability of the topic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That paper does not take the concept of a "universal rotation curve" seriously. jps (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you jest?!? The title of the paper is "An analysis of 900 optical rotation curves: the universal rotation curve as a power-law and the development of a theory-independent dark-matter modeller". URC is a central topic of the paper. Paradoctor (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I was referring to a different paper being referred to below. However, David Roscoe's monograph is not a very good source for WP:FRIND purposes as it doesn't establish the subject independent of Salucci's group for Wikipedia purposes. His A&A paper that adopts Salucci's approach to prop up his own non-standard cosmology does not support the contention that this is a topic that is taken seriously. jps (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand why I have not seen many collegues of mine writing page for wikipedia in Cosmology ! I encouraged to write this page not for publicity, (I will get more pubblicity when I will reveal that the URC has been rejected by wikipedia because fringe work, as people have said just above) but as one the some are lacking in physical cosmology. There is something quite offensive in your point. Wikipedia will not bring a citation or a invitation or a collaboration more than those I alrady have . I aimed to use wikipedia to get the people interested but that are outside academy . This aggression to me is not understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolosalucci (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, at its core has a principle of no original research. What you are essentially asking us to do is to report on your original research. What we would need before we write such an article are sources that show there has been serious and extensive notice by your professional colleagues who are independent of your work and can speak to its notability. jps (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be overlooking that his research has been peer-reviewed and published in several of astronomy's Big Five journals. You also seem to ignore that Mr. Palucci has claimed several thousand citations to his papers. Currently, I see no reason to disbelieve that. The purpose of this discussion is to discuss notability, not to alienate a new user, who is also an expert by all appearences, ok? Paradoctor (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The publication record is not dealing with the subject at hand; we're not talking about establishing Dr. Salucci as an expert (he is, of course, though it is unclear whether there should be a WP:BLP about him). What we are pointing out is that the citations to Dr. Salucci's papers do not in any way indicate that this particular idea (that there exists a "universal galactic rotation curve") has ever been taken seriously by anyone except Dr. Salucci and those who work closely with him. Indeed, in my professional opinion I see no evidence that the idea has been treated seriously outside of Dr. Salucci's sponsored work. Since Wikipedia is a non-innovative reference work, this is WP:NOT the place for this article. What's more, it is no secret that there is a lot of promotion going on by Dr. Salucci about these ideas. jps (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"no secret" As I said above, show the evidence. Furthermore, please stop bringing this up here, this is not the appropriate forum for discussing user conduct. Editor behavior is completely irrelevant to notability. Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely appropriate to point out that this article violates our WP:SOAP and WP:NOR requirements. jps (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a promotion of Paolo Salucci. about the concept of URC I think there are enough peer review, quotes and anything else to be able to introduce the concept of universal rotation curve as he had already understood vera rubin! I think wikipedia should ensure correct information! This attitude is very offensive Stefania.deluca (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that our core principle is verifiability. This means that we need citations to reliable sources for each and every disputed claim. In this particular discussion, we need proof that URC meets our general notability guidelines. Basically, we need several mutually independent sources that discuss the concept, and which can be generally be trusted to know what they talk about. This one is an example, though general review articles rotation curve statistics and modelling would be eeven better. Expositions in popular science texts also contribute to notability, though this seems a rather specialist topic. Paradoctor (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are the citations of the papers involved according to NASA and google. [number 1] and [number 2] and [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolosalucci (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, 854 citations to a single paper? Now, user jps has, in effect, claimed that none of these hundreds of papers contains significant coverage of the topic of universal rotation curves. I doubt that. E. g., arXiv:astro-ph/0010594 contains

Universal rotation curves reveal the following characteristics. Most luminous galaxies show a slightly declining rotation curves in the outer part, following a broad maximum in the disk. Intermediate galaxies have nearly flat rotation from across the disk. Less luminous galaxies have monotonically increasing rotation velocities across the optical disk. While Persic et al. conclude that the dark-to-luminous mass ratio increases with decreasing luminosity, mass deconvolutions are far from unique.

I'd say that clearly crosses the trivial coverage-threshold. Maybe you know more papers with more coverage? A review article an the topic would be perfect. Paradoctor (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're now using a quote out of context. "Universal rotation curves" in that review article is merely a synonym for a statistical average. Note that there is no citation to Salucci's article in those paragraphs. If we think that the synonym is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, we should just redirect to galaxy rotation curve, which is still simply a delete in all but name only. jps (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order (if that is the right phrase and its usage is appropriate here): I am trying to understand the relevant Wikipedia standards as they apply to the present discussion. Q1: is it that citations in the popular press and/or in mainstream textbooks are what would make this topic relevant enough for Wikipedia, and that citations by other scholarly articles (read "obscure citations") are not as valuable? Q2: is it the case that the most valuable steps are for those who would keep the article to list the citations to the topic and for those who would delete the article to critique the quantity or quality of the supplied citations? Leegrc (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: "The point of order calls upon the chair to make a ruling. The motion is sometimes erroneously used to ask a question of information or a question of parliamentary procedure."

Q1: Popular press not here, textbook normally yes. Other scholarly articles: If the authors are in the same field, they can certainly serve as secondary sources. The bone of contention here is whether the article coverage is significant. Saying "URCs are used to model rotation curve statistics" is trivial. Stating that URCs have flat rotation for intermediate galxies is not. You might want to read WP:GNG and WP:RS/WP:SECONDARY.

Q2: Mostly yes. We do not judge the "quality" of sources, we need to know about their reliability for the statements they are intended to support. Quantity is certainly not a problem here, neither is reliability. As I said above, there is no consensus yet about the kind of coverage contained in the citing papers. Paradoctor (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections Very often I am asked from important journals and editors to write a review of my work done so far and so it happens to a many number of collegues of mine, leaders of some research field. I usually turn these proposals down since I have not time, but self reviews are common in science, actually they count more than "anonymous review" !. I never never thought that they were a mortal sin as it seems wikipidia rules imply! The crucial point for me when writing a review is whether the content represents well the literature, if it has been impartial. The absolute importance of the issue under review is, in my opinion relative , since one can write down a short article or it could be asked to be merge it in another page/article. Now the last question: why in wiki the URC did not come out earlier? This seems a crucial question, but it is not! I started to help stefania to write this page only when I realized that many cosmological entries were missing or unbalanced against the main stream in Wikipedia I can provide evidence entry by entry. So Cosmology in WP needs some action, and I started on the things I was better used and aknowledged but of course I will stop for the strict "conflict of interest"that WP has. (by P. Salucci) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolosalucci (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but the problem here is that we have no way of verifying credentials. What we are left with is a model of consensus building that we need to work with to change articles. If you find errors in cosmology articles, I think it more than appropriate for you to bring them up on various talkpages. What we don't want to do is to create new parallel articles that have the same content. Galaxy rotation curve is a good place to start. jps (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and where, above, I use the term "fringe", please don't be offended, but rather read WP:FRINGE. I do recognise that we use these terms sometimes too freely here, and new users may not understand the context. I apologise for that. Nobody is calling your work, or professionalism, into question, merely the significance, at present, of this topic, under our guidelines, for inclusion as an article. Begoon ^talk 13:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient independent (i.e. not by Salucci) coverage, as Gscholar shows. Yes, it might be a fringe/minoritary/controversial theory, but it is notable in the WP:GNG sense: we have multiple independent academic sources covering it. Salucci seems a respectable academic too, he has a paper in Nature where he references his concept as well. This (even if it isn't an independent source) strengthens the case for academic respectability/notability. I want to refer Paolosalucci to this paper which can help him understand better how Wikipedia works for scientists.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now - this is so far out of the mainstream as to be a fringe theory, although the way that science changes is through different paradigms. I'm not sure this even counts as a fringe theory as we know it; it's more of a synthesis of primary sources. While it has some sources, I'd like to see more secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for more sources This was our first WP article. We were about to include more independent citations, more references and several somebody else results, when the trial started and we stopped all! I think that there is a difference between writing WG page and a fair scientific review of a important issue. In the last case what is is important is the content, that must be correct and the priorities of discoveries and aknowldgements that must be attributed fairly and Paolosalucci (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC) accurately. In the issue " Phenomenology of the rotation curve of spirals", that it is very important because it is generally agreed that it hides the very nature of the dark matter, I (+ collaborators) contributed since 1986 to half of the results obtained in literature so far, to be on the shy side. Thus Stefania and I started writing the page on WP with the results that I knew better. Of course and I was proceeding to cover completely the issue (estimated 20% in lenght more, 15 references more and bibliography 20% larger with secondary sources) by referring to other somebody else work when the process started and I stopped allPaolosalucci (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC) It is obvious to me that a seriuos revision of this page is necessary!Paolosalucci (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask the admins first of all if it is possible that I can start working on the page urc and begin to make the changes indicated by you, in which case, if you will take into account the cancellation of the procedure of deletion?Stefania.deluca (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Somebody should perhaps read WP:COI and WP:YOURSELF. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you. Also read WP:BITE and, just on the off-chance it became relevant, avail yourself to WP:HARASS. WP:YOURSELF is completely irrelevant here, and there is null evidence that the two are not willing to respect our policies. Lastly, this is a deletion discussion, not the appropriate forum to discuss purported problems with user behavior. If you have evidence, present it in the appropriate forum. Paradoctor (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Question to WP experts One moment! I am realising that WP may have a big bug inside!. In many SPECIALIZED fields of science, that are booming with continous and frequent successes, basically, everyone who works in the field reaches important goals. Anyone who reports the main results of this entire field must report (also ) about his/her results! On the other hand, let suppose that some one else "alien" to the emerging research of this field , as WP would like, would write the same report. The fact itself that he has nothing to bring forward of his work in this specialized field, where many get success means that he is a second class scientist. Do WP want tha the science article get written by journalists , students , ect or by whom ha descovered the reality which is profiling NOW under our eyes? To make me cristal clear I make a full Example. WP PAGE TOPIC : Computer simulations of galaxy formation in the hystory of Universe INTEREST BY SCIENTISTS: A LOT! INTEREST BY general public STILL a LOT ! REsults obtained in the field : Very very many ! Group of People in the world that work in this field < 15. Number of people that realistically can write this page without being ridicolusly unapt: about 10-15. All these 15 have done something of importance for the topic that must be told to WP user? YES ! Moreover, How many references the page Computer simulations of galaxy formation in the hystory of Universe should have: AT LEAST 25 , better 40. If the writer of the page is not in any of the: the page is ridicoulus !!( In effect I realized , after I made such example, the the WP page on cosmological simulation and similiaria is a weak one ! And we are discussing of a main issue of cosmology and where the financing often go ! So, what happens for the big specilized fast-booming issues that can be usefully told to users only by leading scientist? Paolosalucci (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep WP:GNG is passed. To the degree that this is WP:FRINGE it is passed too (multiple sources discussing it other than its promoter). The level of acceptance or not of the theory should be correctly described in the article, but that a topic is debated does not mean it should not be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - passes GNG. If it's fringe, then it should be treated as such, but that's a separate matter. If there are WP:COI or WP:NPOV problems, those should obviously be addressed (via noticeboards if they can't be resolved at the article) but deletion isn't the way to go.

Weak keep. Probably passes WP:GNG. There are very severe WP:COI and WP:NPOV problems, but probably not quite enough for a WP:TNT solution. -- 120.23.23.27 (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple scholarly articles (specifically) on this subject have 100+ citations according to Web of Science. Pass of WP:GNG is obvious. It also shows that WP:FRINGE is not applicable. AfD is not the correct method to deal with any other serious issues (such as WP:COI and WP:NPOV) that the article may have.T R 11:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources proposed in support of keep

As far as ``external and independent`` sources, I wanted to point to these links and I would understand if they can be useful to conclude this motion of deletion. Notice that these sources are only those in printed ``BOOKS`` or ``Lectures`` or in PhD ``Thesis` that refer/use/comment the results of the Universal Rotation Curve of Persic , Salucci and Stel 1996. Notices that in Physics, sometimes a) BOOK is it a Proceeding of a Conference, that has many editors and several contributors, each one with a different review paper.

``Not shown here`` the 850 citations that PSS has in refereed journals of this paper and the several thousands citations in referreed papers that these 850 papers have for their use of the URC.Paolosalucci (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first book I clicked on turned out to be a research article within a book of research articles. If someone could highlight which of the English citations below are mainstream textbooks, that would be very helpful to me! I think the strongest support for this Wikipedia article would be non-trivial mentions of universal rotation curves in mainstream textbooks. Leegrc (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are wrong. Sometime publishers of scientific journals make a whole issue on a single argument and a single authors. But this one, from Matteucci is just one proofs. If you do no like it take another. The point being that in addition to 1500 citations that papers on the URC has , there are many tenths of citations in books, phd thesis and on web pages. Paolosalucci (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Paolosalucci (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my sloppy choice of words. Matteucci is not what I was talking about. I clicked on one in the list randomly, "Properties of dark matter haloes F Combes - New Astronomy Reviews, 2002 - Elsevier", and that one was the one that was a book of research articles. I was hoping for something less like a journal. Are any of these a textbook? Are any of these a popular read? Leegrc (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no problem ! almost all of these are textbooks or invited reviews of important scintists published somewhere, that students, but also colleagues, read to learn a particular issue. Of course this is a specialized issue when interviewed by popular prees I and other may hint to the rotation curves (crime scene), but often the interest of people is on the dark matter (the culprit)!!Paolosalucci (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books

Paolosalucci (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F Matteucci 2003 The chemical evolution of the Galaxy
The enigma of the dark matter Shaaban Khalil, C Munoz - Contemporary physics, 2002 - Taylor & Francis
Properties of dark matter haloes F Combes - New Astronomy Reviews, 2002 - Elsevier
TASI lectures: Cosmology for string theorists SM Carroll Strings, Branes and Gravity TASI 99, 2001
Dark Matter M Srednicki - The European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields, 2000 - Springer
Nuclear-to-disk rotation curves and mass-to-luminosity ratio in galaxies Y Sofue - Advances in Space Research, 1999 - Elsevier
An introduction to cosmology MHG Tytgat - 2008 European School of High-Energy Physics, 2009
(Russian, English version) Идеи ЯБ Зельдовича и современная космология Бранса—Дикке ИД Новиков, АА Шацкий, СО Алексеев… - Успехи физических …, 2014, doi:10.3367/UFNr.0184.201404c.0379
On the Generation of the Hubble Sequence Through an Internal Secular Dynamical Process X Zhang - 2004 - Springer
arXiv:030150500 KA Olive 2003 TASI lectures on dark matter
Colliders and cosmology - KA Olive - The European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields 59: 269–295, 2009 - Springer; doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0738-8; Expanded version: arXiv:0806.1208; Cited by 6 Web of Science: 3
Dark matter and dark matter candidates; KA Olive - Advances in Space Research, 2008 - Elsevier
Concluding Remarks for Dark 2000 KA Olive - Dark Matter in Astro-and Particle Physics, 2001
The violent Universe: the Big Bang KA Olive - arXiv:1005.3955 2010

Non-English sources

(Chinese) Tully-Fisher 关系之研究进展赵君亮 - 天文学进展 Progress in Astronomy volume 28 issue 2 June 2010

Tully-Fisher 关系(TF 关系) 对于宇宙距离尺度和星系演化研究具有重要意义. 对TF

关系的发现史和嗣后的研究进展做了简要的评述, 包括红外波段的TF 关系, 星系倾角问题,

影响TF 关系的若干因素, 透镜星系的TF 关系, 重子TF 关系, TF 关系的宇宙学演化等.

(Chinese) 星系自转曲线之观测研究进展 Progress in Astronomy volume 31 issue 2 May 2013; doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-8349.2013.02.01

赵君亮 - 天文学进展, 2013

系自转曲线测定对星系天文学研究有着重要的意义. 现己发现, 除旋涡星系外,

其他类别的河外星系也有自转运动, 但自转曲线的特征有所不同. 自转曲线研究的内容颇为丰富,

如是否存在普适自转曲线, 星系团环境对成员星系运动特征的可能影响, 星系物质转动速度的*...*

(French) RAPPORT DE STAGE La rotation des galaxies spirales et le probl eme de la masse manquante M el BOURGOIN - 1997
(German) Über den Ursprung des Universums: das Problem der Singularität W Priester - 1995 - Springer
(Portuguese) Evolução de estruturas primordiais HTCM Souza - 2007
(Russian) И ЭЛЕМЕНТАРНЫЕ ЧАСТИЦЫ, ИЛИ НЕБЕСНЫЕ ТАЙНЫ

AД Долгов - Физика элементарных частиц и атомного ядра, 2012 - n3w4lit.jinr.ru

За последние 30 лет прошлого века были установлены две великих фундаментальных

теории, которые находятся в блестящем согласии с экспериментом и

астрономическими наблюдениями, за исключением нескольких «небольших *...*

(Russian) Поверхностная фотометрия галактик ВП Решетников - СПб.: СПбГУ, 2003
(Russian) Рецензенты: д-р физ.-мат. наук, проф. ВА Гаген-Торн (С.-Петерб. гос. ун-т), д-р физ.-мат. наук ОК Сильченко (Моск. гос. ун-т) ВП Решетников

Theses

INDIRECT SEARCH OF DARK MATTER IN THE HALOS OF GALAXIES Erica Bisesi - 2007
Cosmology meets condensed matter Mark N. Brook 2010
Particle Physics and Cosmology in Supersymmetric Models DE Morrissey - 2005
Quintessence Cosmology SG Schäfer - 2004
Probing Bulk Flows with Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curves and the Tully-Fisher Relation Josh Simon - 1998
ブレイン衝突とストリング宇宙論への応用 ("Colliding branes and its application to string cosmology")

高水裕一 - 2007

超新星や宇宙背景輻射などの詳細な観測から, 宇宙年齢, 現在の宇宙のエネルギー密度などが

正確にわかってきた. 驚くべきは, その構成要素として宇宙は我々が通常知っているものでは説明

できないもので満たされていることである. 現在の宇宙は, 一様等方時空の仮定に基づく*...*

(Chinese) 星系大小分布的统计研究

沈世银 - 2003

本文用了Sloan 数天计划(SDSS) 得到的个140,000 个星系的本系统的研了星系的大小分布及其

对光度恒星和星系形态的关系SDSS 的大本数使得本文得到了高度的统计果对于给定形态的

星系在给定光度或恒星处其大小的分布好的遵从对数态函数此可由其 R 和散σlnR 个参数加定

(German) Die Problematik der Bestimmung der Expansionsrate des Kosmos M Soika, E Forschung
(Portuguese) Algebra de Rainich Generalizada e Soluçoes do Tipo Cordas Cósmicas em Teorias Escalares-Tensoriais da Gravitaçao ML Costa - 2006
(Portuguese) Populaçoes e evoluçao do bojo e regiao central da Galáxia OC Moraes

Stefania.deluca (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Paolosalucci (talk) 08:32, 16 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyed Children

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

This article is centred upon a largely unsourced, speculative, irrelevant paranormal myth. It has little encyclopaedic value going for it, its full of original research and it seemingly has little cultural relevance to render any serious notability. TF92 (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably. As it stands, this terribly credulous article is referenced to a pair of British tabloid papers and a decidedly non-serious news.com.au story, plus a handful of non-RS websites. It might—might—be possible to find enough reasonable reliable sources to put together an article on this topic as a local-myth-cum-cultural-phenomenon, but it would look nothing like what we have here, which essentially presents this as legitimate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pretty crappy in its current state, but that can easily be remedied by removal of questionable content. This article is enough to confer notability on the topic. IvoShandor (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what was intended, but that link doesn't take me anywhere relevant to the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy error. It's fixed now. It was supposed to be a link from JREF. IvoShandor (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep. While making improvements to the article I found a couple of objective sources that establish this as an urban legend going back at least a dozen years. It probably deserves a stand alone article, provided that fringe sources or sensational tabloid reports aren't taken at face value. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Delete Currently making the rounds in the pre-Halloween news-of-the-weird slot [2]. It remains to be seen if the concept will have a lasting impact with serious in-depth coverage as a notable urban legend. But it's not there yet. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I admit it's in a pretty crap state but there does seem to be coverage in general [3][4][5][6], Most of what I've found are "cannock chase" related, UFO can be seen as a myth and has its own article so I don't see why this can't (and yes I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The essential question to any debate about a page with questionable factual/verifiable content should surely revolve around why an individual would look for that content - this can be phrased in another way: is the content something which has entered general public awareness or is it a niche topic ? In this case I feel that this test is passed, simply because a national (UK) newspaper has, rightly or wrongly, featured the title on a front page headline; as a consequence members of the public may seek further information and what better source than Wikipedia. If that argument is accepted then the onus is on the community to ensure that the content of the page provides the context for the subject - whilst it may appear whimsical the arguments should be presented. I'm afraid that simply suppressing something, which has been brought to the public consicousness by the press-barons, is short-sighted and weak willed but, more fundamentally, will compromise people's faith in Wikipedia as a source of information which can be used to build their world view.
Please K E E P T H I S E N T R Y...... Black eyed children??? Eigh whats that all about I thought ?... not being familiar with the subject of black eyed children or their origens, I read with interest, In my opinion, I found this entry very informitave, I did not considder it to be biast or leading and felt that it gave me a quick & to the point insight on the subject of Black eyed children with a brief summary of the information available on this subject..... every thing I expect from Wikipedia which I use a great deal kind regards Alan McConnell age 52 from Prestwick in Scotland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.17.240 (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject is likely notable, in its current form the article fails WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. DUE, it should be noted, is policy and trumps WP:N. All of which means that the article does not pass muster as written. I will keep an eye on the discussion and if/when the article is rewritten to resolve these issues I will be happy to reconsider my !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reexamining the article and giving it some thought, I no longer think that FRINGE can be reasonably applied in this case. The article is horribly written but I do think it passes, if barely, GNG. Under the circumstances I'd call this a weak Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:DUE has little to do with inclusion of a topic as an article on Wikipedia; rather, it covers how much weight should be given to various viewpoints within an article (pro and con, and so on). WP:V allows for articles about even fringe topics, if that topic has garnered enough coverage in reliable, third-party sources. WP:N is reliant on WP:V, and if there are enough reliable, third-party sources to verify the topic and establish notability, that is all that is required for the article to exist. 199.38.155.10 (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~When the subject of an article is FRINGE then DUE very definitely comes into play.~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Like every ghost story, its completely silly, but its gotten a wide variety of coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal secondary source coverage over time. — Cirt (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~So you think it passes FRINGE and DUE as written?~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 7 October 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - established spooky tabloid meme. Artw (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember running across that in our guidelines or policy. Could you post a link? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Only heard about them 6 months ago, and then read the Wikipedia article. I am One of Many (talk) 05:56, 14 October 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 Custard (band). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomically Correct

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

Unotable single that could just be redirected to this band IMO. Wgolf (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. No information worth keeping and the chart it links to should be in AfD as well.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:09, 9 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeton Estate

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline, lack of reliable sources. Anonymous single-purpose account keeps deleting PROD, so going this route. Drm310 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam for a subdivision. We are not Remaxipedia. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete spam. Pity there's no photo... ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The extent of the WP:SPAM is too obvious to ignore. Wikicology (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clear it is just spam. I am One of Many (talk) 05:58, 14 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Yeagley

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable. When the least fringey source you can find is an interview with him in the Washington Times blog... He just doesn't have the coverage outside of fringe sources and hate groups. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting this seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. [redacted] The Washington Times is not considered a "fringey" source, it is a mainstream one, but it is one a far left person might object because of their own personal bias. Subject and sources are notable. Neptune's Trident (talk)
Keep, the subject who went by "Bad Eagle", has received significant coverage in the Washington Times, a reliable , all be it biased, source. Furthermore, per WP:AUTHOR the subject's work has been cited in credible works, such as here. Furthermore, as an artist the subject has received significant coverage in a non-primary source, such as this article. Moreover, the subject has received a notable number of passing mentions, such as this one, and opinions included in such non-right leaning media as CNN, and Boston Globe, that the subject clearly passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like a long-running hot topic at Wikipedia, judging from THIS 2006 blog post. My sense is that this individual probably does pass GNG as there is already a good source or two showing in the footnotes. Trout to Neptune's Trident for getting personal with the nominator — there is no call for that sort of stuff. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:04, 12 October 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. snow delete SpinningSpark 16:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The seal of Solomon in three dimensions - A fractal pattern for massive parallel architecture programs

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

Non-notable fractal. Only sources are articles by Christophe Roux, who may be connected to article creator Chris2refuge. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DELETE - This is a blatant advertisement, which had been previously been speedy from his user page. Only reference is from the book itself and has no third party sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 October 2014‎
Speedy Delete - No third-party sources to establish notability.--75 * 21:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. I don't think this fits any of the WP:CSD categories (the closest is G3, "blatant and obvious misinformation") but there's no need to wait out the full AfD period for such obvious crackpottery. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per above. There isn't enough coverage to really show notability for this concept and even if there was, it would still need to be re-written to really fit our editing guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete per David Eppstein. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note for the curious — if you got notified and can't figure out how, click this link; Sammy accidentally transcluded David Eppstein's userpage instead of linking it, so everyone whose username appears on David's userpage got notified. Nyttend (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aaaah, that's a clever little trick then :) 12:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - this one is so strange that I don't know what to do with it. Normally, for such trifles, I'd redirect it boldly to fractal, but it's not a likely search term. Bearian (talk) 12:47, 8 October 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. Secret ^account 16:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game moments

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

Page with no context or indication of the notability of this concept. The only references are to articles by Dr Kelvin Wong (cited on the page as Wong, K.K.L), and the article creator's username is Kelvinwongk. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it was created from Game moments via a copy-and-paste move:

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No context, no notability established, no intro, no reliable sources. This is not academic journal. Kingjeff (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept – The page is still under construction and will prove its worth later on. The references are valid. Kelvinwongk (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.80.189 (talk) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. This article is unfinished and the author should be given a chance to flesh it out a little more. He should be reminded not to excessively cite his own work, and we should revisit this after more references have been provided. Note this was nominated for deletion within one hour of being created. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, and we have AfC, the Draft namespace, and user space for articles that aren't yet finished. I wouldn't object to userfying the article, but I still can't find any indication that the term "Game moments" is at all notable, and all the cited sources not authored by the editor of the article are about Bargaining problems in general. Without evidence that anyone other than the author is using this term in this context, I can't see how this article is notable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion – If changed the key subject header to "Moment (game theory)" now, all the contents related to this input will disappear. Can someone please advise what can be done? Actually, it should be "game moment" that is singular. User:Kelvinwongk|Kelvinwongk]] (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ahecht - doesn't seem to be used widely enough for notability. ansh666 17:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept – It is now renamed as "Moment (game theory)", except that I could not move the page and had to copy and paste over. Can an administrator please help me transfer the contents? User:Kelvinwongk|Kelvinwongk]] (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have history-merged the cut-&-paste. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. There might be a notable concept there, but what is in the article is all Wong's views, and other comments about loosely related topics; and Wong's views are clearly not significant in the field. Furthermore, the copy-paste move has damaged the integrity of the edit histories to the point that starting over would be an improvements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found this AfD through the edit on cooperative game adding a pointer to it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion – The concept is published in two journal articles and my colleagues and co-workers use the suggested conventions to publish their own works now. The page is useful to researchers in the combinatorial optimization field of research. More contents on the applications with detailed methods will be provided in due course by my co-workers. It is going to restart the whole editing process again if this page is deleted. The notable terms as mentioned by the WP:TNT are taken into account seriously and addressed as detailed in the talk session of the main page. Kelvinwongk (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.112.42.60 (talk) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis Fleming

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

Run of the mill former minor league baseball player (currently plays Independent ball). Fails WP:Athlete. Might pass GNG but nothing separates him from hundreds of other minor league players. Yankees10 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If he does pass GNG, that makes him quite a bit different from all of the other aforementioned run of the mill minor league players. I think there's an argument to be made that he passes, with these pieces of coverage specifically: Modesto Bee, Journal Star, Times Herald-Record, Montgomery Advertiser. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's enough to pass GNG, then literally every all-county high school athlete in the country could pass GNG. These are just local stories, the likes of which fill newspapers from coast to coast every single day. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Geographic scope. The question is whether or not this is enough for an article. I said weak keep because I'm not 100%. It's still deeper coverage than "literally every all-county high school athlete in the country" gets, but is it enough for GNG? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly nondescript minor leaguer. Coverage is all of the routine variety.Spanneraol (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing of particular note. Alex (talk) 21:22, 13 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vosicky

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject of this BLP. This is a lawyer who had a failed attempt at being elected to the Illinois state senate. I do not believe the page meets GNG, POLITICIAN, or ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 17:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office are not eligible for articles on Wikipedia just for the mere fact of being candidates. If you cannot properly demonstrate and source that they're notable enough for inclusion under a different guideline independently of their candidacy (e.g. as a writer, as an athlete, as a holder of a different notable political office, etc.), then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to qualify for an article — the mere fact of being a candidate does not get them over WP:NPOL by itself. And for added bonus, this article is completely unsourced. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable (but verifiable) candidates are supposed to be redirected to the article on the election, IIRC. James500 (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no article on the election. J04n(talk page) 14:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Asides from not meeting GNG, he also does not ,eet WP:PROF. Fulbrght echange professor is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 12 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Lian Pai

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

Non-notable martial art - local synthesis Peter Rehse (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable martial art. Has no independent coverage and nothing to show it meets WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE and doesn't give any indication of being a notable martial art. Papaursa (talk) 17:11, 12 October 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. Secret ^account 16:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Bastek

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

Fails WP:GNG with just 228 unique Google hits. The Director of the Year Award she got is itself not an important award. And appearing in listings is also not an award. The Banner talk 16:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessperson spam / resume. head of a soft-tech business with just 30 workers --there are local car dealerships with a bigger staff so not apparently notable as a CEO or whatver. i suspect COI and i see that the original writer blanked a previous AfD of this. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'The Banner' The number of staff in a company is nto a reflection of its success. Wolfestone, Anna Bastek's company, was the 6th fastest growing company in Wales. This is not voted, or a nomination, this is fact. To be the 6th fastest growing company in a country, I think you'll agree, is quite an achievement. Anna Bastek is very well known within Wales, you may not be aware of her influence, but she is a very influential person in Wales and for the Welsh economy. She is a 'Dynamo role model' for the Welsh government'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.200.88 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please get your facts right, mr. IP/Crs1991. It was not my remark about the size of the company. And no, we are just building an encyclopaedia based on reliable, third party sources. Especially when writing about living persons, everything must be sourced. And a person can not inherit notability from an other entity, like her company (what may be growing big, but still has a doubtful notability-claim itself.
- I know that these deletion nominations are hard to deal with, especially when you are a company intern told to write wikipedia articles to promote the company. (I don't know if you are, but the article style and editor behaviour are similar of what I have seen with other marketing-interns.) If you are, please tell you boss that Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. The Banner talk 11:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I could come down on the side of "weak keep" on this one, but looking at the sources for Anna Bastek (as opposed to the sources talking about her company - different article, notability is not inherited, and that article is in AfD as well), they are not really sufficient, with three inclusions in lists, which are trivial mentions (and should not be categorised as "awards" in the article). The only real claim to notability is the Director of the Year award which is apparently not a major one. Another point: the article creator did not blank an AfD as claimed above, they removed a PROD tag, which is allowed. --bonadea contributions talk 12:09, 8 October 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 under G5 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 arcade gems

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

This is in no way notable: there are no references to prove notability. This doesn't warrant a separate article either. st170e^talk 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Discussion is a loss of time. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Games don't fall under a speedy deletion criterion st170e^talk 17:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens it was created by a block evading sock puppet, so it could probably be speedily deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PhilKnight. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:05, 7 October 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) 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 7 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Bearman

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

I suspect this is the work of WP:Wiki-PR Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOO SOON --a local radio host who this year got named #96 on "talkers" hot 100 or whatever and also recently got to speak at a big conference. not notable yet. maybe in a few years if the momentum builds. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conor McGahon

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

Not notable per the general notability guideline. The article creator blanked the article but I'm not comfortable enough with a G7 deletion given edits by others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE, WP:COI, WP:SOAPBOX. non-notable lawyer spam. this is not a claim to newsworthiness: "became the youngest local politician in the Republic of Ireland when first elected in 1991 and the fifth consecutive member of his family to sit on the County Council". original writer has only made articles about this person, and his father (mentioned in this article), and the same family's locality --with too detailed info for an item with no inline sources (indicating likely WP:AUTO or at least likely COI). (example: "A vegetarian and practising Buddhist of the SotoZen tradition, McGahon entered a Civil Partnership in Northern Ireland..." --see? original author BLANKED a previous AfD of this same article. looks alot like the son of a conservative and not exactly gay-friendly politician trying to distance himself (a proud key figure in the "Belfast Gay Pride march") from "his colourful father’s socially conservative views" if i'm to read between the lines a bit.Cramyourspam (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Cramyourspam on this st170e^talk 16:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It should be deleted because the subject is a non notable former local politician who likely self-authored the article, not because the subject/author has now changed his mind. Note: I prodded this article in April 2011. Snappy (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBeast

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

I have a hard time seeing this page as notable, and the article barely even claims notability. PROD tag removed, probably by a sockpuppet of the article creator. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, no indication of any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches (Google, Questia, Alexa) turn up nothing to indicate that this publication is notable. AllyD (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above could not find anything notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:00, 13 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M football game

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

Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team and 2013 Texas A&M Aggies football team). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPORTSEVENT and lack of coverage beyond the WP:ROUTINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of pre-game build up around this game especially after last years game between the two teams. THis game also had an exciting finish as Texas A&M nearly came back from a 21-point deficit falling short losing 49-42. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:19 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This game was #23 on ESPN's list of the top 25 college football games of 2013. It seems that that would count as coverage beyond the routine. --B (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - B, notwithstanding ESPN's ranking of the game as No. 23 of 2013, rarely do more than three or four regular season games merit stand-alone articles in a given season. As No. 23, without something more, it probably does not make the cut. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly surpasses WP:GNG. Clearly surpasses WP:ROUTINE with feature articles in independent sources from multiple outlets.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these debates many times before, Paul. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over. Even the nomination is cut and pasted, and so are many of the entries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is just another routine game. One of hundreds played in college football each year, and just one of many thousands played in all of sports. Reso lute 14:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, ss far as I know there is no procedure for combining AfDs after they have been filed, and I object to your proposal to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. It's the AfD nominator's prerogative to nominate articles individually or in a bundled manner. In my experience, invariably the fairest way is to to nominate articles for AfD individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. As I have said before, bundled multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles -- especially when there are 16 articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable for inclusions, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

really? "If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable for inclusions" --what, you think I've just been pulling your leg? Did you expect me to respond with, "No I'm just kidding..." My position has been clearly stated. Stating it again is extraneous.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to the specific 2013 Alabama/Texas A&M season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 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 blatant advertising. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yp685

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

This unreferenced orphan page is being used for commercial activity. http://www.yachtforums.com/index.php?threads/navel-academy-patrol-boat-for-sale.23473/#post-204982 wikipedia is being used as a tool to add a veneer of legitimacy to the commercial spam. No surprise, the articles one author also registered for that forum right before posting Opcnup (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also being used for an ebay auction--209.112.131.178 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as unambiguous advertising. This individual boat is not notable either.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as unambiguous advertising. EricSerge (talk) 22:29, 7 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the other editions of the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game have it's individual wikipedia article, why can't this one? Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:04 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - They're all going to get nominated before we're done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like there's some good significant coverage of this game that far surpasses WP:ROUTINE sports scores and listings, clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these debates many times before, Paul. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over. Even the nomination is cut and pasted, and so are many of the entries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Paul, perhaps the best response to "cut-and-paste" responses is not a cut-and-paste response. As the nominator, I object to your proposal, however well intended, to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections and demands. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the guidelines. WP:ROUTINE clearly applies only to sports events where only listing of scores are found. At least, that's what it says there. I understand that there are editors who try to make ROUTINE say more than it does, but calling a dog a cow doesn't make it one. Each game in this block clearly has coverage far beyond "routine" by the definition given in that guideline and everything else is a straw man argument. The arguments at each AFD are basically the same. Responding individually to cut-n-paste arguments is time-wasting, inefficient, and not good for Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (After initial research, copied from similar case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State football game) Treat the game, a sporting event, like any other WP:NEWSEVENT. Fails WP:INDEPTH, which advises "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."—Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game and/or the specific 2008 Alabama/Clemson season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships for incarcerated individuals

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

Prod removed by IP user without reason. Although this is well written and referenced this reads like a thesis - WP is not a publisher of not a publisher of original thought Gbawden (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep is a bit essay-ish, but not enough to sink it. does have oodles of RS. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think it's even that essay-ish. Even if it was, style is not a notability criteria. Bottom line it's referenced well enough to prove notability. Keep. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Cramyourspam. This is classic essay. However, I think it is a notable topic as can be shown. AfD is not for clean-up or criticism. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, sources are reliable and on topic. I am One of Many (talk) 06:18, 14 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hewitt-Gleeson

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

Promotional article for minor author: according to worldcat, his most widely held book, Software for the Brain, is in only 62 libraries. This is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 30 September 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 13:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than being a dedicated Wikipedian, DGG is a librarian, as he states in his page. Therefore I believe in his assessment of notability especially on writers, and agree with him. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:51, 7 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margunn Bjørnholt

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

No proven notability within academics or any other public field. No notable publications. Asav | Talk 09:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough in the article to meet WP:GNG already. Some of the sources certainly aren't independent, but enough of them are, including significant references to her work in two TIME magazine articles. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 14:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG per Eric. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage of her in both the Time and Aftenposten articles demonstrate notability. Bjørnholt is also one of the most important advocates for women in Norway as President of both the Norwegian Association for Women's Rights and the Norwegian Women's Lobby. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 05:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eric and Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 14 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sawyer

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

Patrick Sawyer is not notable; per the usual rules of notability for a single event, any useful content from this should properly be in the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article. The article is entirely about him dying from contracting Ebola. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's not so much about his death, it's about what he did before his death, how he did it, and who he infected as a result. Sawyer achieved world-wide notoriety for his successful attempt to evade Liberia's restrictions on leaving the country, this has been extensively covered in articles throughout the world's media focusing on his personal story. See also, for example Typhoid Mary. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The index case of most major disease outbreaks are often considered notable on Wikipedia. Sawyer was on a mission and it was no accident that he brought EVD to a populous country. There is also a possibility of more revelations in the future. Darreg (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: while you are correct in saying that Sawyer is notable, I don't give any credence to the conspiracy theories: Sawyer's actions are completely consistent with the actions of a frightened man so consumed with fear that he is no longer thinking clearly about the possible consequences of his actions. It's easy to demonize him, but can any of us be sure we would actually behave better than he did, if we were plunged into his situation? -- The Anome (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seemed notable for one event, but WP:BLP1E#3 clearly stated the condition under which a WP:BLP1E can be kept . Been notable for one event does not implies an automatic delete. There are conditions where a WP:BLP1E can be kept such as the case of Patrick Sawyer here. WP:BLP1E can be kept if the event is significant (such as Ebola virus outbreak in Nigeria) or the individual's role was substantial (Patrick Sawyer been the cause of the outbreak) and well documented. The role of Patrick Sawyer in Ebola outbreak in Nigeria is substantial and well documented. In addition, it is important for us to note that, the significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. Wikicology (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Darreg and Wikicology .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:21, 12 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EXCEL Wrestling

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

Non-notable wrestling organization. Single primary source. Claims unsupported. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and nothing to show notability. Written as if the organization is defunct so additional coverage is unlikely.Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to indicate this organization is or was notable. In addition, the only source is a link to an archived article in a local paper. Appears to not meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Papaursa (talk) 16:50, 12 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Cowboys Classic

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Cowboys Classic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any hope that it could meet WP:GNG? Kingjeff (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff, that's not the way WP:CFB generally handles regular season games. Without some greater significance to the particular game, we discourage the creation of stand-alone articles for regular season games -- otherwise the floodgates are open. "Greater significance" generally means significant coverage over time, not just the usual post-game coverage. If the individual game is still not receiving significant coverage in independent, reliable sources more than a year after the fact, it probably doesn't qualify. We are already in the process of deciding which already existing single-game articles to purge. Satisfying the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG is not a guaranty that a subject qualifies for a stand-alone Wikipedia article; in this case, there is ample outlet for this particular content in the parent article, Cowboys Classic, including the score and a brief one-paragraph summary of this individual game's highlights. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 10:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the Cowboys Classic should have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:06 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Please note that articles for individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games have also been nominated for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep the coverage of this game is far beyond WP:ROUTINE score listings and clearly passes WP:GNG. Personally I don't think that Wikipedia should have an article for every game, but [{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is not a reason to delete. The coverage is there, the article is made, I see no reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is not merely the listing of scores. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football, NFL, NBA and MLB regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted, and that's not what was intended. Moreover, merely satisfying WP:GNG is not a guaranty that subjects merit a stand-alone article on Wikipedia; for this content, we already have individual season articles and rivalry articles for individual games, and for kickoff games such as this, one-paragraph summaries of the individual games in the parent article are adequate. WP:SPORTSEVENT suggests that "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match." None of these game received national front page coverage, and none of them are even close in notoriety to the example matches provided. WP:ROUTINE suggests that "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." That should be pretty clear to everyone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"may be better" is very clear. So is "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." You're reading far more into routine than is given in the guideline. Now, it's early... am I going to have to cut and paste this fifteen times into the other AFDs?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over. Even the nomination is cut and pasted, and so are many of the entries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments on point, Paul, and then I am happy to leave these AfD discussions to our fellow editors . . . .

I have a suggested reading assignment of the notability guidelines for you:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.)

Bottom line: there is an existing consensus that stand-alone articles should only be created for exceptional regular season games, that content should usually be incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles, and that regular season games should be of some greater significance if they are to have stand-alone articles rather than being incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles. This consensus is borne out by the very limited number of stand-alone article for regular season games (about 98 in 145 years) that presently exist. And many regular editors want this material reincorporated into their rivalry articles (see 2001 Florida vs Tennessee football game) -- it's an entirely reasonable position, as well as the examples provided by SPORTSEVENT. It's perfectly clear from other references in WP:NSPORTS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS that regular season sports events are held to a different standard, that the definition of "routine" goes beyond "sports scores," and from WP:GNG that significant coverage is no guaranty of inclusion as a stand-alone article.
As other editors have already pointed out to you in other pending AfD discussions, what constitutes "routine coverage" of CFB games when the ESPN and AP recaps of virtually every Division I FBS game equal or exceed the coverage of the subject of this particular AfD, it's apparent to most folks that that becomes the standard of ROUTINE coverage for CFB games. Otherwise, every regular season game is notable, every regular season game is suitable for a stand-alone article, and we have a real problem with the notability standards that needs to be addressed. I don't believe that's what it says, and I don't believe that's what was intended, and if we need to clarify this at the talk pages for GNG, NSPORTS and ROUTINE, I am confident that a strong majority of !voters will agree. That probably needs to happen in any event to put a stop to the argument. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, as the nominator, I object to any attempt to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled, multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically inconsistent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections and demands. BTW, there are 16 pending AfDs regarding regular season college football games, not 17. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (After initial research, copied from similar case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State football game) Treat the game, a sporting event, like any other WP:NEWSEVENT. Fails WP:INDEPTH, which advises "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Cowboys Classic where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cowboys Classic. The information about all these games can easily be included on that page. Spanneraol (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spanneraol: I could easily support selectively merging content from several of the single-game Cowboys Classic articles to the parent article, as you suggested, but virtually all of the relevant content from the 2014 game article has already been included in the parent. There's not much left to merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is nothing meaningful to merge here that isn't already in Cowboys Classic.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 10 October 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:Anthony Bradbury per WP:A7. NAC. --N Y Kevin 14:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kavita Choudhary

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

Unotable actress. Wgolf (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Tagged it. Not even a claim of significance, just a list of plays. ProtossPylon 05:45, 7 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kishor

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

"An UPCOMING model and actor" Yeah that does show too soon. Wgolf (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kishor is upcoming male model based at Chennai, Tamilnadu. He has various work reference:

TV Ad, Silkee Laser Ad Glam Hunt Page reference: http://www.glamhunt.com/rajkishor.glamhunt.com South Indian Models reference: http://southindianmodels.com/raj-kishor/ Mega Mart Model Hunt, Chennai - 2013 (Best Physique Award) - organised by Prasad Bidapa - http://www.prasadbidapa.com/ Coverpage Model of Sahodaran Fundraiser Calendar Facebook reference: https://www.facebook.com/rajkishor.ymca Has appeared in Tamil Movie Irumbu Kuthirai as actor Johnny Tri Nguyen gang member Has appeared in Tamil Movie Oru Oorla Rendu Raja as lead actress Priya Anand friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkjnu (talk • contribs) 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. Not enough to meet guidelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:02, 13 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cowboys Classic

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Cowboys Classic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, there is nothing about this game that gives inherent notability, and the coverage in reliable secondary sources is par for the course for a regular season game. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the Cowboys Classic should also have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:09 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please note that articles for individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games have also been nominated for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The single source given in the article far surpasses the standard set in WP:ROUTINE. Ooodles of other references exist, clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these debates many times before, Paul. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please list where we've had these debates before.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.)Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, it's the AfD nominator's prerogative to nominate articles individually or in a bundled manner; as far as I know there is no procedure for combining AfDs after they have been filed, and I object to any attempt to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled, multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically inconsistent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections and demands. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Cowboys Classic where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Cowboys Classic

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discourged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Cowboys Classic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the Cowboys Classic should also have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:11 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please note that articles for individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games have also been nominated for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with 2013, no more than typical coverage for this game. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widespread news coverage far surpasses WP:ROUTINE standard and clearly meets WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these debates many times before, Paul. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.)Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, as far as I know there is no procedure for combining AfDs after they have been filed. It's the AfD nominator's prerogative to nominate articles individually or in a bundled manner, and I object to your proposal to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled, multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically inconsistent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections and demands. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Cowboys Classic and/or the specific 2012 Alabama/Michigan season article where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Cowboys Classic

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Cowboys Classic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the Cowboys Classic should also have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:12 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please note that articles for individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games have also been nominated for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the others, just another football game. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just another football game? Seriously? #3 vs #4? With feature article coverage all over sporting news? The nominators and supporters of deletion position referencing WP:ROUTINE need to explain how this massive coverage falls under just being "sports scores" to make it "routine"--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these debates many times before, Paul. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over. Even the nomination is cut and pasted, and so are many of the entries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Paul, as far as I know there is no procedure for combining AfDs after they have been filed. It's the AfD nominator's prerogative to nominate articles individually or in a bundled manner, and I object to your proposal to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles for AfD individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically inconsistent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections and demands. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Cowboys Classic and/or the specific 2011 Oregon/LSU season article where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:55, 9 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Cowboys Classic

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Cowboys Classic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 7 October 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 October 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the Cowboys Classic should also have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:14 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please note that articles for individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games have also been nominated for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is far beyond basic routine sports scores. Sources do need to be added to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these debates many times before, Paul. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over. Even the nomination is cut and pasted, and so are many of the entries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.)Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Paul, it's the AfD nominator's prerogative to nominate articles individually or in a bundled manner. As far as I know there is no procedure for combining AfDs after they have been filed, and I object to your proposal to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles for AfD individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, bundled multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles -- especially when there are 16 articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Cowboys Classic and/or the specific 2009 BYU/Oklahoma season article where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Cowboys Classic

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Cowboys Classic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the Cowboys Classic should also have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:13 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please note that articles for individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games have also been nominated for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the others, just another football game. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like the others, just another football game with widespread coverage that surpasses WP:GNG and blasts through WP:ROUTINE ridiculously.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these debates many times before, Paul. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over. Even the nomination is cut and pasted, and so are many of the entries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.)Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Paul, it's the AfD nominator's prerogative to nominate articles individually or in a bundled manner. As far as I know there is no procedure for combining AfDs after they have been filed, and I object to your proposal to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles for AfD individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, bundled multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles -- especially when there are 16 articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Cowboys Classic and/or the specific 2010 Oregon State/TCU season article where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 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 List of Doctor Who supporting characters#Other humans. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Wells

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

Non-notable Doctor Who character with only 7 appearances. Also the article doesn't have any sources. User J Dalek 03:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters#Other humans. The single paragraph is pretty WP:IN-UNIVERSE. Eman235/talk 04:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Eman235. I was unable to find any reliable sources regarding this character. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters#Other humans like Eman235 said. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Reasonable enough redirect, but not notable enough for its own entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as stated above. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:39, 9 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exotype

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

Well can't put this as a prod or a speedy, so doing a AFD. It seems to a be unotable album by a a untoable band. Wgolf (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Where is the article for the band, hm? Eman235/talk 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eman. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dëletë self-promotional bändspäm by 1-subject new user. no RS, no news coverage. spirit-of-metal wëbsite mentioned relies on user-supplied content like non-reliable IMDB does. but there's one helpful thing: the site shows the disc sales to site members: a whopping TWO purchases. so non-notable, it is not worth my time to even finish this senten Cramyourspam (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:44, 8 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kavirajan

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

I was unable to find any evidence of notability for this person. Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This could have been PRODded, uncontroversial delete of a vanity article Little Professor (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was prodded, but the article creator removed that prod... Fram (talk) 19:33, 29 September 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:37, 30 September 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, czar ♔ 03:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. Also unsourced (although it has a references section). Eman235/talk 04:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only references listed are other Wikipedia pages. I also did a search and I could not find any RS.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An individual with a run-of-the-mill company/project management career. No evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Note there is also an AfC version, rightly rejected on notability grounds before this version was loaded to article space. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable obituary. WP:MEMORIAL. WP:NOTE. essentially, he lived a long time and he worked for the phone company, and during that time he did lots of projects for the phone company --not exactly newsworthy or meriting inclusion in the enycylopedia. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources found. His work for Indian Telephone Industries Limited and Bell Telephone Company don't establish notability.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:03, 11 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Moe

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

This rap artist is not notable. I tried to clean up the references but there is nothing available on this person. I got one return from google that referenced his sound cloud. I really don't like deleting articles, for the record but I just couldn't rescue this one. Bfpage |leave a message 19:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly a speedy delete under A7. Not a notable band at all. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)u[reply]

This is one guy, not even a band Bfpage |leave a message 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 22 September 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 30 September 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, czar ♔ 03:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eman235/talk 04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable rap spam. TOOSOON, NOTE, and lack of RS. likely self-promotional. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:34, 7 October 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. Secret ^account 16:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley D. Foster

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

Yet another LDS general authority article that has no sources except from LDS websites. As there is no policy stating that LDS general authorities are inherently notable, we default to GNG, which is clearly not met with this article. p b p 03:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been capably argued with other articles about general authorities, just because they fail GNG doesn't automatically make them unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I still believe that Vojen's excellent argument on this matter cannot be overlooked. The main argument against it? That it ignores GNG, which Vojen freely admits. As previously noted, there have been other articles that are more poorly sourced than this one, or not sourced at all, which remain untouched. I don't like the double standard here. Either all of these articles should be kept or none of them should be. I see a dangerous precedent being set. If we allow poorly sourced or non-sourced articles to remain while informational articles such as this, even if the sources tend to come from one particular organization and thus "violate" GNG, we are sending a clear message that we don't want to risk anyone being enlightened about such subjects. And I'm not sure that's a message we want to be sending. What about those users who come here for information on general authorities and can't find them? If you are going to argue that Second Quorum members fail GNG, then surely dead prophets and apostles do too, since their legacy has no further impact. I believe everyone would agree it would be foolhardy to suggest that any of those articles be deleted. So I have to ask why Second Quorum members are being unfairly singled out, simply because their service is not considered lifelong? As with other deletion discussions, this will likely be my one and only comment. I will be monitoring this page to see how this discussion turns out. And, as with previous deletion discussions, I urge civility and good faith in all discourses related to this issue. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes:, would you rather I started 10-15 separate AfDs all at once? The way I'm doing it (stringing the AfDs out over 3 months and counting) allows you that much more time to try to source the articles. And, yes, Vojen's argument can be overlooked, because he, and you, are ignoring the primary guideline that determines whether articles stay or go. The only message we are sending by enforcing GNG is that articles require reliable sources to be articles. You don't seem to understand that that is a must for any Wikipedia article, and it's even more of a must for somebody like Foster who is still. Comparing living dead general authorities to dead members of the Quorum of the Twelve is apples and oranges. Dead members of the Quorum of the Twelve are not only exempt from BLP, they may have more information written about them. "Impact of legacy" is not a determiner for keeping articles, sourcing is. Claiming that this article should be allowed to exist while other articles that are seemingly worse are allowed to remain is generally considered an invalid argument. From your responses in this and other AfDs, it's becoming clear to me that you don't understand GNG. I suggest you read it, as Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, before participating in more AfDs or creating more LDS authority articles. p b p 21:50, 30 September 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, czar ♔ 03:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If you can find independent reliable sources, then fine -- but until then, the article should not exist. --Larry (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Find independent RSs and we can talk. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete independent reliable sources are required to establish notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (like several others from the list which have gone through AfD, e.g. Wilson, Alvarez, Hamilton). Fails GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 16 October 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 as a copyright violation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weld neck flange

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

Article seemingly created for the purpose of spamming a company. Unsourced, no indication of notability of the subject given. Probably could be fully covered under the existing article Flange. Safiel (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [7] and [8]. Flange is a WP:SUMMARY so merging there is probably not a good idea. Also I don't see a promotional angle here. ~KvnG 13:40, 24 September 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 30 September 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, czar ♔ 03:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found by KvnG do establish notability. I also agree that the article itself does not seem promotional.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and the nomination seems to be proposing merger not deletion. Andrew (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violations. Indeed this is a notable subject but big chunks of the content appears to be close paraphrasing of published sources and there is not a clean version to revert to. Some examples:

The section 'Consumption Countries' is an adaptation from the 2nd and 3rd paras of here.
The first two sentences of 'Uses of Weld Neck Flange' come from here.
The first two sentences of the 2nd para of the lead from here.
Several other sentences from the lead have come from here.

Some parts of the text may be salvageable but, on further research, I am not able to say with confidence what bits may be original content. Consequently, deletion and a fresh start seems the only practical way forward. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like these issues may have already been considered previously for this article. ~KvnG 05:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that the page was G12 tagged but the creator then blanked the page so it was G7 deleted obviating the need to consider the copyvio situation. The article was reintroduced four days later. This is, in any case, not a clear G12 situation because what you have is close paraphrasing from a number of sources stitched together to synthasise an article. For that reason I have not speedy tagged it because it merits some discussion. If there is worthwhile text that is not copyvio then it could be edited down but there is nothing that I am confident about. The views expressed thus far are that the subject is notable. Therefore, if deleted, that will clear the copyvio material from the history, I am happy to undertake to write a very short, sourced stub. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the current article content. What's the best way to proceed? Edit back to a stub now? Wait for the AfD to close? I generally prefer to improve flawed articles rather than delete but maybe a different approach is required when there's a potential copyvio. ~KvnG 06:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are on the second relist now so this AFD can be closed at any time by an admin. The problem with stubbing is that the copyvio material remains in the history and could be reverted to at any time. My view is that we need to be rigorous with copvio because it has the potential to seriously damage Wikipedia's reputation. I share your reluctance to delete when improvement is possible but in this case deletion followed by a fresh start seems the cleanest way forward. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:23, 12 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eigil Erbe

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

Long-term unsourced BLP, the link provided doesn't mention the fellow, Google can't find his name on that whole domain, NOWIKI is silent on him, most searches on his name focus on the lawyer of the same name rather than him, and I don't see what appears to be in-depth coverage. He might still be notable, but right now this appears to have been written by someone with the same last name, in a modestly promotional manner (tagged since November 2010). Additional sources welcomed, as always. I would suggest a redirect to Nidar but his name doesn't appear there. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can find old newspaper sources in Norwegian; pre-2000 there's not a lot online, but there could be a lot of dead tree coverage. He has a page on a nice local history wiki here, showing that he became Chairman of the Board at Nobø; I corrected the spelling and linked. He occupies most of the space in a segment ostensibly about his father in a history of Trondheim published in 1936, and has an article in the 1948 Norwegian Who's Who; those substantiate his heading the candy/sweets company from 1910 and his many positions on the boards of companies in the Trondheim region, and enabled me to add some dates and other specifics to the article. But those positions don't rise to the level of conferring notability, the wiki is obviously not a reliable source, and I was not able to find other coverage, so right now he does not meet notability on grounds of coverage either. By the way the article author, who has not edited since but said at the time that he could add Norwegian sources, stated on the talk page that he is the subject's grandson. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 7 October 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. Secret ^account 16:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zec Dumoine

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 30 September 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 06:53, 30 September 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, czar ♔ 01:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable hunting reserve. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Zec Dumoine was officially established in 1978 as a "Zone d'exploitation contrôlée" as controlled harvesting area for hunting and fishing by the Government of Quebec (Canada). It is one the 86 ZEC created in Quebec. Its territory of 1500 km2 and tourist activities fully justified to keep the article "ZEC Dumoine" on Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people visit each year this Zec. I created this article in order to publicize protected areas in Quebec and to fully inform the public about the mission of this entity. Of course, the content can be improved and we have to stay open-minded. A withdrawal of the article would be contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. I strongly recommand to keep it in its original version.User:Veillg1 10:51, September 22, 2014 (HNE)
Delete. Article fails to establish the notability of subject. If there are independent RSs on this, a quick Google search did not find them; seems to be pretty much entirely promotional material. Wikipedia does not exist to promote or publicize things, it exists to document WP:NOTABLE things. Without significant coverage from reliable sources, this needs to go. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two Comments:
- (1) I see that, under Zone d'exploitation contrôlée there are more than 130 such "Controlled havesting zones, each of which has an article. I spent a few minutes skimming a dozen or so at random. Based on this cursory scan, it appears that most, if not all, of the articles will be similar to Zec Dumoine. I'd hate to open up 130 discussions! Is grouping possible? --Larry (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (2) Unless there are more reliable sources hiding out there somewhere, it surely fails WP:GNG. However, I lack enough experience to know whether WP:GEOLAND applies. The description of Zone d'exploitation contrôlée makes it sound more like an agency than a population region, but I'll defer to more experienced folks to decide. --Larry (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (and comment) - With 130 other similar articles, I wonder if anybody knows of past discussions about this (a search through AfD for "zec" was not fruitful, but there may have been threads elsewhere). As far as I can tell, these are officially designated geographical areas (which usually means keep), but privately managed and not apparently subject to any sort of exception/shortcut via WP:NGEO. As I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources, I have to go with a weak delete pending other arguments/sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:18, 16 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aviat diamond mine

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

I do not believe that the article meets Wikipedia:Notability. In fact I don't think that the mine actually exists. The article has a source, http://www.mining-journal.com/reports/diamonds---2006-last-updated-july-25th?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print_friendly, but some of the statements do not appear in the source. There is only one mention of Aviat in the source and that is as "Aviat kimberlite field". There is no mention of it being a mine nor of it having 40.3 million carats. While Stornoway Diamonds does mention the project it does not call it a mine and the last press release is from 2011. They also show the area as being on Melville Peninsula and not Melville Island (Northwest Territories and Nunavut) as shown in the article source. A search for Aviat kimberlite, Aviat project and Aviat diamond did not turn up anything recent, with the newest result from 2011. I tried searching Nunatsiaq News, a territorial newspaper that would have reported on an operating mine, and again all of their results www.google.ca/cse?cx=partner-pub-4247044917879874%3Ak3ie52kieg3&ie=UTF-8&q=aviat&sa=Search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=aviat&gsc.page=1, are outdated. I had considered moving it to Aviat Project but given how old any of the possible sources are I didn't feel that that would work. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 01:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Bine Mai has a history of creating articles about non-existent mines. Check this AfD for another example. This user should have their contributions checked to see if there are any more hoax mine articles. Volcanoguy 03:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a mine I have ever heard of, and only ref I can find is for the above mentioned exploration project from Stornoway Diamonds. It would appear that Bine Mai has taken any mention of a project and made an article on them. A scan of a few of his other diamond articles shows many stubs that all start the same way. The "NAME" mine is one of the largest diamond mines in "COUNTRY" and in the world. Obviously there are a lot of largest diamond mines out there. A quick review of a few of his other mine articles shows a similar disturbing pattern. Turgan ^Talk 05:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have started PROD'ing other mine articles that dont exist. Almost considered speedies as hoaxes. There are a lot of false articles here. How many of the 3500+ articles created are actually real. I would suggst this user's autoconfirmed right be removed so that any new articles need to be reviewed. Turgan ^Talk 20:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user has created not just false mine articles but also ones about non-existent oil and gas fields. Volcanoguy 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arviat, Nunavut is a small town where diamond miners are trained. ([9].) There is no active mine in Nunavut called the "Arviat mine." ([10].) --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-It would seem as if the article is more a case of TOOSOON. All I can find are reports such as this one from 2012, but nothing about mining activity. It could be kept and rewritten, including the 2011 and 2012 reports as refs, to reflect this. - Takeaway (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many properties never turn into mines, in fact most don't. How can you be sure the Aviat kimberlites will be mined in the future?Volcanoguy 04:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, no guarantee. I tried researching mentions of Aviat in this past year and Google still only shows geological reports, financial prognoses, and press releases by the companies involved of how promising the Aviat Kimberlite is. - Takeaway (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at User_talk:Bine_Mai#Concern. The only link in the article printed out without my hitting the print button, so beware hitting the printer-ready link. I assume that this user was duped into creating articles on mines that don't exist, or don't have the mass of minerals claimed. It seems to be that somebody has created a scam about mining investments, and is using us as the fool. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regards to the 40.3 million carats, that was reported in a document titled Aviat Conceptual Study Outlines 24.1- 40.3 Million Carats Of Diamonds, note 40.3 million as the upper end of the range they gave. I am no expert on mineral classification, but I would think (and Turgan correct me if I am wrong) that this in no way means that the mine (and I use that word in its loosest possible context) has a reserve of 40.3 million carats as stated in the article. Outside of the required technical and legal terminology (reserve vs. resource vs. conceptual), I believe that given the article and the website both list 40.3 million carats it is safe to say we are talking about the same property (notwithstanding CambridgeBayWeather pointing out that they are described in different places). Having said that, the 2008 report from Stornoway states that a National Instrument 43-101 report was forthcoming, and a search of SEDAR brings up one dated 22 June 2009, which reports a conceptual amount of diamonds in the ground as 40.3 million, with the caveat:

The above estimates are conceptual in nature and do not constitute the estimation of a mineral resource.

Everything that I found on SEDAR over the last few years seems to be related to the Renard Project in Quebec. My belief is that, like any good junior company, they worked and reported on all their properties. When they found one that had legs (Renard) the ignored the remaining ones to focus on the most promising. I don't think this is so much a hoax, but just an overstatement of what is actually on a property that exists. I downloaded a copy of the NI 43-101 report, if anyone is interested. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just so there is no confusion. The Aviat diamond mine has nothing to do with Arviat the hamlet or the Arviat Diamond Driller Training held there. They are about 950 km (590 mi) apart. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:18, 11 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Ronnefeldt

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

Bordering on being a speedy deletion candidate, but this article has been around for so long it maybe deserves an AfD. Not quite sure what this artist's claim to notability is. The events described are vague and undated. The external links are/were largely dead or broken. Sionk (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 September 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:34, 30 September 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, czar ♔ 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doing light shows at various dance music events and artsy things is not notable. no inline sources. nothing newsworthy. Cramyourspam (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's notability, then signs of it aren't easy to find. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 10 October 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. Secret ^account 16:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Batts

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. Despite a one-line claim to professionalism, no evidence pointing to such and thus also fails WP:NHOOPS. PROD removed for "played professionally" but evidence lacks. GauchoDude (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 September 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Non-notable college basketball player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for high school athletes per WP:NHSPHSATH or college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH, and there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, either. I note that the unsourced pro team linked in the infobox, the West Virginia Wheels, was a minor league team and does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for pro players per WP:NBASKETBALL, even if subject played in one or more games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote for now. Local sportswriter wrote a book about subject's state championship high school team. Reviewing . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 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, czar ♔ 00:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NHOOPS.Mdtemp (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a basketball player and fails GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art versus Non art : Art out of Mind

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

Hmmm, a Google search just returns 10 hits. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Scholar google search for the author gives 51 hits.

- Scholar google search for the book gives 21 hits (straight 18 + 3 for "non art" rather than "nonart").

- Those numbers are respectable and in my opinion the article should not be deleted. Ykantor (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of hits of the author has no influence on the notability of the book.

The Banner talk 09:52, 29 September 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the academic sources that takes his theory and use it are:

Mureika, J. R., G. C. Cupchik, and C. C. Dyer. "Multifractal fingerprints in the visual arts." Leonardo 37.1 (2004): 53-56.‏
Mureika, J. R., C. C. Dyer, and G. C. Cupchik. "Multifractal structure in nonrepresentational art." Physical Review E 72.4 (2005): 046101.‏
Priday, Hamilton. Seizing the Essence Hamilton Priday. 2008.
Alexenberg, Mel. The Future of Art in a Postdigital Age: From Hellenistic to Hebraic Consciousness (Bristol and Chicago: Intellect Books/University of Chicago Press, 2011). Tzahy (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

John A. Walker, one of the most important art critics wrote about the book: "If Avital's diagnosis of art's illness and his proposed cure are correct, then this is a highly important volume." (The Art Book 25-26, Volume 12 Issue 2, May 2005) Tzahy (talk) 03:58, 2 October 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, czar ♔ 00:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since sources seem to be available. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:00, 10 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

God and Elvira

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

Just 5 Google hits, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus 1050 on the Hebrew title (not checked the contents of those his, as I speak nor read Hebrew) The Banner talk 23:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Hebrew WP names the article אלוהים ואלווירה [reply]

This is a famous novel in Israel and shold not be deleated . Ovedc (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 September 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 30 September 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, czar ♔ 00:47, 7 October 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 Miami Vice#Impact on popular culture. If anyone thinks that something needs merging, he or she is free to do so. Deor (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Vice in popular culture

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

The way I see it, some of the entries are sourced, but this reeks of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's no need to jot down *every single* instance of Crockett and Tubbs being mentioned or parodied. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not necessarily requesting this for deletion merely because I don't like it, and besides, a redirect to the main Miami Vice article may suffice. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Miami Vice BlueSalix (talk) 04:08, 30 September 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 00:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge Pure trivia. Elements could be merged into the impact on popular culture section of the main article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge. Agree with above. If anything can be salvaged, stick it into the main article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge is OK, but don't delete the history of this page; this show really did have a major impact on popular culture, and there's sourced and sourceable content in this article that could be utilized to enhance the existing section of the main article. No need to make interested editors do the digging again. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – An indiscriminate collection of trivia that yields no useful sum. This is just another house-of-cards "topic" that could (and should) be shrunk to a few lines at the bottom of the parent article. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:16, 8 October 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 all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 BYU Cougars men's soccer team

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nomination, non-notable soccer (association football) seasons. No demonstration of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:39, 9 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wattle Hollow

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

A google search finds lots of travel reviews but nothing to indicate why this retreat is notable Gbawden (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The article really does not explain what this even is either. Wgolf (talk) 04:03, 1 October 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or even speedy delete. This article doesn't even make a claim of notability, and I found nothing to help its cause. --Larry (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable no RS 1-line resort spam stub. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:00, 7 October 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.