< 21 September 23 September >
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. De728631 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Adamson[edit]

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

Subject is the police chief of a small town in Oklahoma, who acted in one video short. He doesn't appear to meet any of the notability criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which notability criterion does being appointed Commissioner of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics meet? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above user account, SteveJWilson580, seems to have been created solely to contest this deletion. JoshuSasori (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the article says he was appointed to "serve as a Commissioner for the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics". He's not the commissioner. It appears he's one of many or at least several. Pburka (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A commissioner for the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs is a political appointment for a statewide commission authorized by the Oklahoma Constitution. Since it is a statewide office it meets the criteria of of Section 2.8 just as an appointed judge or other legislative position Notability Criteria --SteveJWilson580 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My ID was not created to simply contest this deletion but this is my first attempt at helping on Wikipedia and I hope to be able to contribute on more items in the future, any help would be appreciated --SteveJWilson580 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I have misrepresented you. Thanks for your contributions. However, your account was created very recently, and the first edit you made was about this deletion. Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all and if you can offer any pointers I would appreciate it. --SteveJWilson580 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it does meet the criteria for notability. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has more members than the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and their members are appointed by the governor and meet that criteria such as Kenneth BuettnerSteveJWilson580 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are your references that list the number of members of the commission that the subject has been appointed to? According to their website Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, they don't even LIST the members, in addition the last annual report available is 2005. Really? This makes the subject notable? A commission that hasn't produced an annual report in 7 years? I also don't understand how number of members of one group has to do with another, regarding notability, but I still contend that an appointment of a judge is far greater notable than this subject. WallHalen (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBN has a seven member commission according to this listing on Wikipedia OBN Wikipedia Whether a judge is "far greater notable" than a commissioner for OBN is not the issue. The issue is whether that position is notable in and of itself and should not be compared to other notable positions. --SteveJWilson580 (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CCM Presents: The 100 Greatest Albums in Christian Music[edit]

CCM Presents: The 100 Greatest Albums in Christian Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article uses a dependent source, which is the book itself. Therefore, it makes the article fail the General Notability Guideline. Interlude 65 22:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zu Lin[edit]

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

There simply isn't enough here to show notability. The person may be notable, but the lack of information here also makes it impossible to ascertain her notability. (Indeed, it doesn't even show whether Zu or Lin is her family name.) Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft codename "Jasper"[edit]

Microsoft codename "Jasper" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This overly technical stub does not have any notability. It uses only primary sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft codename "Acropolis"[edit]

Microsoft codename "Acropolis" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This article about a failed never-released software product is not notable. It uses only a Microsoft blog post as a source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under capitalist regimes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mass killings under capitalist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And under its previous name:

AfDs for this article:
Mass killings under Capitalist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This articles appears to be a recreation of a deleted article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Capitalist regimes. The article re-creator AnieHall (talk · contribs) states at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes shortly after re-creating this article that the notion of "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is absurd but concludes that since it exists then so too should this article[4]. Therefore it seems apparent that this article may be a POINTy creation in response to the article Mass killings under Communist regimes. It appears to be a synthesis of the articles Late Victorian Holocausts, Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus and Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme. In fact there is no such thing as a Capitalist regime in the first place, since Capitalism isn't even a system of government. Therefore this article should be deleted as a synthesised POV-fork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nug (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 September 2012

Yes, this article draws from the listed sources at this point and time, and if given time to mature, will include more sources. The works cited are works that are in reaction to books like the black book of communism and notions like subjects such as [[mass killings under Communist regimes." and,
in response to you point that "Capitalism isn't even a system of government", I'd like to note that i specifically left the "c" in capitalism lower-case. That just because a regime may gall itself "the Harper government" or "the republican party" or the "democratic party" and so on, does not mean that these parties which rule states and form regimes do not have a capitalist agenda, which is obvious. Perhaps the Bolsheviks weren't communist by the above reasoning.
At any rate, I took effort in the article under debate to emphasise that at least three of the sources were directly responding to the work The Black Book of Communism and the debate surrounding the number of deaths caused by Communism, and that the debate sparked the effort to tally the mass deaths under capitalist regimes.AnieHall (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic outside of Noam Chomsky's area of expertise, so at best it is just his POV and the article remains a coat-rack of POVs synthesised into an article. --Nug (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky's statement is amazingly deceptive with regard to the methodology of the Black Book of Communism and economic conditions in India, a socialist Cold War ally of the USSR. Moreover, to attribute all differences between China and India to "capitalism" is not logically defensible. Chomsky may be a reliable source for Chomsky, but the quote seems to be giving undue weight to a fringe opinion; it's sad that Chomsky's quote may be the most reliable source used in the article. At least the 1.6 billion estimate from a blog was removed....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mhmm. Did I state that imperialism was exclusive to capitalism? no. Have I nominated the mass killings under Communist regimes page for deletion? No. Have I denied that the Soviets along with various other communist governments committed crimes? No. Have the sources used tried to deny that crimes occurred under communist regimes? No. What they have attempted to do was bring the claims of works like the Black Book of Communism into perspective by creating works that chronical and examine the harms caused by capitalism. What I have attempted to do is illustrate the crimes of capitalism under a similar existing page construction, which has had not much time to develop.AnieHall (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheTimesAreAChanging. You correctly mentioned North Vietnam invasion of South Vietnam and Cambodia, however, you prefer to forget that invasion of South Vietnam was caused by mass killings of Communists by Saigon regime. You also prefer to ignore that Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia helped to stop the worst genocide in history (committed by the regime that was implicitly supported by the US).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very creative interpretation of why North Vietnam attacked: To "liberate" South Vietnam and stop the "mass killings"! The North Vietnamese killed several hundred thousand people in their brutal purges and camps in the fifties and sixties, and nearly one million people fled to the South to escape the horror and repression, but no matter: Hanoi wanted to protect the rights of persecuted South Vietnamese Buddhists....except for the fact that they repressed Buddhists much more severely. The North Vietnamese attempted to overrun Cambodia at the request of the Khmer Rouge in 1970 (Dmitry Mosyakov, "The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives," in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda) and were one of the few countries to maintain diplomatic relations with the KR regime until 1977. The Vietnamese did stop the worst genocide in history--to their credit, although their motive was self-defense--but it should never be forgotten (as authors like Craig Etcheson in After the Killing Fields have documented) that they (and their puppets in the PRK) killed tens of thousands of innocents during the occupation. I wonder why so many radical academics supported the Khmer Rouge at the time, and a few (like Grover Furr) continue to deny the genocide to this day, if it was always so obvious that everything bad in Cambodia was America's fault? Why does Furr take the time to argue both that Pol Pot only killed a couple hundred thousand people at most, and that--however many people he killed--Pol Pot was really a right-wing, fascist reactionary?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say, your post is a very creative interpretation of my words. I never said that the goal of North Vietnam was to stop mass killings, my point was that it was the Saigon regime who started mass repressions against Viet Min Communists, and that triggered the civil war. It is also hard to deny that Ngô Đình Diệm's regime was among the worst authoritarian regimes in history, and it committed mass murders and other crimes, so we can speak at least about the clash between two Asiatic barbaric regimes (Northern and Southern ones).
    Regarding Cambodia, stopping mass genocide at cost of killing of ten thousands of innocents is not too terrible price.
    Re USA, I did not mean that their role in genocide was important (or significant). My point was that they implicitly (although not actively) supported KR against Vietnam, and therefore they bear some moral responsibility for those events (although, again, I would object against the attempts to exaggerate their role in this story).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The civil war was the result of North Vietnam's fanatical expansionism and commitment to spread communism across Southeast Asia. And it is very easy to deny that Diem was one of the worst dictators in history; that looks to me like unquantifiable hyperbole.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • kind of off topic. but, I think the key is "among the worst", which would not be easy to deny. Anyhow. the point isn't what our personal interpretations of history are, it's about the cited works' interpretation. Just because you disagree that Diem was the leader of one of the worst authoritarian regimes in modern history does not mean that countless scholars and published works wouldn't disagree. unless you have a source that says he was "not so bad if you ignore the murders and the torturing", then you could add that source to dispute the hypothetical section that lists all the dead. But to begin with, Vietnam has not been explicitly stated on this page (that may not exist for much longer) - though it is mentioned in, at least,Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme, so potentially it could eventually be added if someone has something reasonable to put together and the page still exists, and then at that point in time you can add the source explaining that Diem was a fine ol'chap and those dead people deserved what they got so they don't really count. Vietnam is just an obvious point-to example for capitalist aggression, which yes, I'm sure there is some published work out there that vilifies the north and glorifies south Vietnam/US, which is kind of the point of this article... presenting views from the opposite side of the spectrum to the mass killings under communist regimes page (that, surprise, has a section on Vietnam), which we are not discussing here. So, I guess what I'm saying is that there are different approaches to history and it's nice to have as much information from all sides available so that readers can interpret for themselves, and also that maybe we can pick apart the history of murders in Vietnam in detail at a later point in time if this article isn't deleted (or on the pages that are more specific to this topic).AnieHall (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although Diem was a pretty bad leader, I highly doubt you'd find many reliable sources that describes him as "among the worst authoritarian regimes in history". For all of Diem's misdeeds, that is quite over the top. Diem's regime is estimated to have executed 10,000 people whereas North Vietnam killed at least 172,000 people in land reform alone. Also regarding this: "Regarding Cambodia, stopping mass genocide at cost of killing of ten thousands of innocents is not too terrible price." Sure it would be hard to argue that the invasion itself created a beneficial situation for Cambodia but that does not justify their mass murder or their deliberate starvation afterwards. It's just swapping a tyranny for an albeit far lesser tyranny, so I would not give much credit regarding the Vietnamese conduct or intentions. Anyway this is off topic. Stumink (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also have noticed that some of those who have voted for deletion are contributors to the mass killings under Communist regimes page, which makes me suspect that they may have a personal bias in favour of the existence of an article listing the deaths under communism and not capitalism, and perhaps have an axe to grind. Conflict of interest? or irrelevant?AnieHall (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If true, that would not be a conflict of interest by any standard. Your remark appears to be another admission that the article is indefensible except as a way of making a point regarding a different article. However, I would like you to justify your statement. I've been here for four years and I have only edited the talk page of "mass killings under communist regimes" a few days ago, and that was to raise awareness about this article. I'm not a contributor! Stumink is only a "contributor" in the sense that he requested more information about communist atrocities in Africa on the talk page. We're the only ones who have voted for deletion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well now. The Mass killings under Communist regimes page requires consensus to edit it, so one cannot contribute to it directly, but must go through the talk page to make a case for desired changes.AnieHall (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I do not understand why the people working on the MKuCR article cannot vote for/against deletion of this article. In my opinion, that has no relation to WP:COI. Secondly, I expect the users voting for deletion of this particular article to be, at least, consistent. The same arguments you guys use to justify deletion of this particular article are equally applicable to MKuCR article. If we use the Black Book of Communism as a source, why Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus or Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme cannot be used? If we decide that these two books are controversial, why the content from the (equally controversial) Black Book of Communism is being used in the opening sentence of the MKuCR article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent points, PS.AnieHall (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't (at least the last time I checked) use the Black Book of Communism as a source, except as a primary source for what it says. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, you are not right. The Mass killings under Communist regimes article starts with the words:
"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1]"
The reference 1 is the reference to the Black Book of Communism (more precisely, to the highly controversial introduction written by Courtois). In other words, not only this source is being used as a secondary one, it is being used as a source reflecting a mainstream viewpoint, and it is being used to support the major thesis of the article.
Interestingly, many users supporting deletion of this article simultaneously supported usage of the BB in the MKuCR article as a major secondary source. This is a typical example of double standards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Requested changes on the talk page there. The article being under general sanctions, I'm not going to make the change myself without reading the 22 archives to see if there is a prior consensus. It doesn't qualify as a minor edit or reverting vandalism or a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Social Darwinism isn't science, but a political ideology. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re: "scientific" sources, since my sources are deemed unscientific, I am having a hard time determining what a scientific source is, since I have been referencing the mass killings under Communist regimes page as a rough template for what kind of sources can be used to construct this article, since the mass killings under Communist regimes page survived deletion nomination, and this page, it appears, may not. So perhaps you could explicitly explain what is not "scientific" about the sources, and then I could determine what I misinterpreted when viewing the mass killings under Communist regimes page that we are not discussing.AnieHall (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • me again, yes, sorry for the trouble, again and again. On glancing at the first few lines of the political ideology page, one reads the following: "An ideology is a collection of ideas. Typically, each ideology contains certain ideas on what it considers to be the best form of government (e.g. democracy, autocracy, etc.), and the best economic system (e.g. capitalism, socialism, etc.)." So... what I'm getting at with this quoted section is, is that it appears to mention economic systems as being a part of a political ideology. It also explicitly mentions capitalism. but perhaps its sources are not scientific. and yes, i realise that we are not to quote Wikipedia, but I thought I would mention it since you highlighted the page, and since I doubt referencing my first year political science print-text would be of much use to those online, and since I'm not discussing adding this to the page, although I could add a blurb on what the definitions of ideology and economy and their interconnection if that would make the article less disagreeable, since there seems to be a peculiar consensus here that the capitalist form of economy has nothing to do with ideology, policy and government.AnieHall (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading this and your comments in "killings by Communist regimes" (diff by Nug), it seems that you created this article as a point that both articles should be deleted. Yes, a lot of people died in "capitalist" countries. But there is no evidence that they died because of market economy. If you tried to make connection between the killings and colonialism, imperialism, militarism or anti-communism (rather than "capitalism), that would be something more logical. But we have already article White terror, do not we? My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to make connections, what I am doing is adding what has been presented in published works, and what has been discussed by the cited authors. To emphasise that these are not my connections, I have added foot notes to basically every sentence/paragraph in the entire article. And yes, my initial reaction was that the page mass killings under Communist regimes did not seem like a legitimate article, but it was explained to me that that article went through this review process here and was deemed worthy enough to continue on existing, which enlightened me to the kinds of articles possible on Wikipedia, and then led me to recognise a gap, in my opinion, that ought to be filled, and so i endeavoured to fill that gap. To me, not having this article while having the other is like having a article for frostbite and then not having one for burns. Hence, the effort.AnieHall (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The pants are not seamed properly so therefore the shirt is defective? We're discussing one article here, not two. Am I wrong? !!!!
My point was that both twins must be seriously modified. Regarding terror, you perfectly know that majority of 100 million victims of Communism mentioned by Courtois were not the victims of terror, but the victims of famine and disease, which were the result of social transformations. However, capitalism also lead to profound social and economic transformations, which lead to mass deaths, so, as soon as Courtois' approach is being used to calculate the amount of victims of Communism, I do not see why the same approach cannot be used in this article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense Paul, a form of capitalism has been practiced since at least the time of Ancient Rome so I'm not sure what "profound social and economic transformations" your are talking about. --Nug (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is nonsense only for those who have limited knowledge of history. Whereas some seeds of capitalism existed in Europe since ancient times, it started to dominate only in XVII-XVIII century, and its encounter with traditional societies (in Ireland, India, Africa, America) lead to sharp and profound social transformations, comparable to that in Communist states. Just compare the events described in Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" with concurrent Soviet collectivisation. And, please, remember, that by that moment western capitalism had become much more vegetarian than it was on the apex of capitalist expansion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely WP:OR on social transformation. Hmmm... was there forcible government confiscation of food grain, seed grain, and the food off of the shelves of families in Steinbeck's world, leaving starvation as the only option? Hmmm... perhaps not. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forcible confiscation of food grain was not the only option to starve people to death. It could be taxation beyond any reasonable limits (as in Ireland), or "speculative withdrawal and panic purchase of rice stocks encouraged by administrative chaos" (as in Bengal). Of course, the causes were different, but the results (death of 25% of Irish population, or death of 2 million out of 60 million Bengal population) was equally impressive. And both those events had direct relation to capitalism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forms of communism (obviously not Marxism specifically, as that didn't exist until Marx, but one could argue it still hasn't, but that would be off topic) have also been practiced prior to the 20th c. I'm not sure what your point is, nug. the point of this article is to group all the mass killings (from at least the 20th c) that have occurred under capitalism's different forms. Also, like capitalism, not all communist states have been identical, and yet mass killings under communist regimes is an acceptable umbrella category, whereas a similar article for capitalism appears to be unacceptable; seems inconsistent to me. Also, I have to agree with Paul's above statement. If you are unclear as to the "profound social and economic transformations" of capitalism, one only has to open any history or political science text textbook to find a plethora of examples (of course, I have only stuck to the ones found in the cited sources, as they explicitly state that there is a relationship between the economic system and the deaths). i.e. the great depression, lack of access to health care, anti-communist movements (McCarthyism, Vietnam war, korean war, bombing strikes on civilians in Cuba, etc), lack of access to housing (i.e. freezing to death, not unheard of in northern capitalist states (ie canada, russia)), the french revolution, numerous other revolutions, the collapse of the soviet union was not without deaths, and modern russia has not been significantly improved. Anyways, my point is, is that if a person thinks about it, the examples of social and economic transformations are endless under any economic systems. This is not to say that all transformations result in numerous deaths, some even reduce deaths (preferably), but that is not the subject of this article or the article that inspired this one. AnieHall (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courtois. Off topic. Enough said. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Courtois is not off topic, as his work inspired Kurz, Chomsky, and Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme, and his work is mentioned specifically in the article that is being disputed. AnieHall (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Social transformation" yes, a useful term for mass deportation, requisitioning all grain, grain seed, and foodstuff in the family cupboard. Yes, all those deaths certainly did transform society. Again, wrong article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the term "social transformation" is a useful one. This term is widely used, for example, by Benjamin Valentino on his "Final solutions", chapter 4, where he discusses mass killings under some Communist regimes. Therefore, I don't see any problem with that term.
BTW, the same term can be applied to eradication of native American population, Atlantic slave trade, or destruction of traditional Indian economy, that lead to large scale famine in Bengal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since in surveying the last century of carnage Valentino has created a category for communist mass killing and not capitalist mass killing, and since you quote Valentino as well-known scholar in the topic area, we appear to have solved the issue of notability of both articles. Bravo! VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The fact that Valentino does not use some term does not mean such a term does not exists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked the cites from Chomsky and Coatsworth, and I don't see where they make the connection between mass killing and "capitalist regimes". I've tagged those cites as having failed verification. --Nug (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the idea to blow it up and start over is an absurd: that is what exactly has been done on 3 September 2012. The article is less then 1 month old, so the most reasonable solution would be to gradually improve the article, get rid of synthesis, remove unreliable sources, add more reliable sources, in other words, to follow the standard procedure described in our content policy.
Meanwhile, I noticed that at least one very reliable source exists in the article that supports the claim that in XIX century capitalist system caused death of at least 60 million peoples. The famine that caused those deaths was not the natural consequence of weather but ‘brilliantly organized’ by the Victorian ruling class (Critical Public Health,Vol. 12, No. 1, 2002). Therefore, the main thesis of the article (that capitalism, at some stage of its development, is a deadly system) is fully supported, and whereas we can argue about minor synthesis problems, the article, by and large, has a right to exist.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalism isn't a system of government. If you found a source that links mass killings with the "Victorian ruling class" then go start an article Mass killings under monarchies. --Nug (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Communism is not a system of government either. Like Capitalism, it is an economical system.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • indeed. in a capitalist state, it is not necessary to call a political party the "capitalist party", as all parties are fundamentally capitalist, some (or most) with varying degrees of socialist policies. And if you say that if a state that has a socialist policy (say, free education up to grade 12) that they are not fully capitalist, then one could argue the same for every communist/socialist state that has ever existed (ie. ussr and the NEP). Also, the title of Late Victorian Holocausts may be misleading, as it indicates the era named for queen Victoria. the interest in India was economic, not due to monarchy, and the monarchy already had limited powers by that point in time. Davis clearly makes the case that the deaths were a result of capitalist policies. To go further, today Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen is technically head of state (or her representative who is appointed by the pm, the governor general). The head of state technically can oppose legislation and has the final say, but because the gg is appointed and is symbolic of the monarchy s/he usually does not oppose anything and simply signs and carries out ceremonies and that sort of trivial business. If the gg ever did oppose anything proposed by the elected parliament, likely the monarchy would be done away with and the royal family would no longer get to go on free vacations to Canada at the taxpayers’ expense. Point being, monarchy has increasingly less and less power in the UK and abroad since the civil wars (prior to the work in question)… so what I’m getting at is the point made about monarchy isn’t a very good one.
On another note, sorry for the lousy formatting and so on, I'm admittedly not a seasoned wikipedia article creator/formatter, but I believe that those are issues that given time could be alleviated, especially with the assistance of those with more experience. Unfortunately (for me), currently, much of my time is dedicated to attempting to defend the article here, rather than working on it, and life off of the computer, of course. I haven't had time, as of yet, to read the sources recently added by another contributor that have been tagged as irrelevant, so I can't say if I agree or disagree with that. I would argue that Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme and Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus are at least as reliable as The Black Book of Communism (which is cited on wikipedia under the antithetical article) if not more reliable. So if I have erred in selecting those two works as sources, it is because I was looking to a highly scrutinized article for what kinds of sources are considered acceptable.AnieHall (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AnieHall, don't pat yourself on the back too much. We both know that those were your only two sources because the rest were instantly removed as outrageously unreliable (The Maoist Rebel News claiming 1.6 billion deaths, self-published blogs, ect).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for patting myself on the back. Yes, "Maoist Rebel News", admittedly not a fabulous source (Hence it not being re-added once)(although in defence to the news source (not that I am proposing using it, just sayin', it would be difficult to get corporate sponsorship like mainstream news suppliers if your goal is the transition of the modern market economy into one that would end the existence of big business and so on). At that point in time, the page was perhaps a week old, and I was mostly trying to accumulate all information specific to the topic under discussion. It would have been wiser to have done it on a Word document, or figured out how to work on a page on the user page. And again, the figure was much larger as it was not exclusive to the 20th C. Anyways. I'm going to go ahead and note that you have mentioned this several times, and that since the source and figure are not present on the page and I have made no mention of including it since, you are not being constructive by any definition that I can conceive of, unless your point is that I am now tainted with poor sourciness for the remainder of my cyber-life. Please place a scarlet letter on my user page and burn me at the cyber stake so that your ad hominem attack can be immortalised in space, and you can spare yourself the trouble of repeating it again every 3 or 4 days. At which point in time, perhaps you can then begin to focus on the sources that are on the page.AnieHall (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several times"? This was the first time MRN was ever brought up on this page! And you're the only one who has resorted to ad hominems, by insinuating conflicts of interest. I brought it up because you were preying on the ignorance of editors who may not be aware of how much (even) worse the article was before it was nominated for deletion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, You mention it above here under Pburka's comment, and then again, and under the talk page for mass killings under capitalism and under the talk page for mass killings under communism, so that is 4 times (either MRN or the 1.6 b. figure) off the top of my head. And I do not see how I was "preying on ignorance", I think I was apologising for being a beginner at Wikipedia article creating and formatting? Also, I did not explicitly name anyone with regards to the communist regimes page, I simply asked if being involved in the "mass killings under communist regimes" page could potentially be a conflict of interest (ie, contributors may be biased on the issue), or if that were irrelevant. After further comments, I struck through the comments I made. I would have deleted them completely, but then it would make the further discussion not make sense, and I have a feeling that deleting dialogue here is usually not acceptable? but if it is, feel free to delete the comments i crossed out. SO what I'm saying is, I retracted my comments that were not ad hominem to begin with, as they were not directed specifically at anyone. although I suppose that someone could go read through the talk page to find out if they were really interested, which seems unlikely to me. Anyhow, I imagine that the crossing out makes it obvious to other readers that I was admitting that that statement was either wrong or at least irrelevant. Also, I think it is generally obvious that articles are usually worse in the past, and then get better as time goes on (even if the better state is still not wonderful like the m.k.u.com.r article), as they have more time to develop and be organised/written better, unless vandalism is occurring or something of that sort. So, no I wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. Also, I believe it is the current article that is being debated, not the version of it from prior to the deletion nominations and debate, making this entire thread of discussion irrelevant.AnieHall (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned the source on other pages when I was trying to draw attention to the article. It was salient at the time because it was still included.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarians would point out that the US has been getting progressively less capitalist since the twenties.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AnieHall, I'm sure MVBW wasn't serious.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for pointing that our for us. I am sure I intentially chose to respond as though the suggestion was not facetious.AnieHall (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article reminds me the front page of Soviet newspaper Pravda ("The Truth"). What I gave you (the graph) is a typical example of data that would be used in Pravda as a proof of The Parasitism and Decay of Capitalism. Let's not do it here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the number of prisoners in the US is excessive is a well known fact. By the way, the fact that capital punishment is still massively practiced in the US, along with China and Iran, is also a fact. In connection to that, I do no fully understand the point you want to make.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. A simple example of mass killing under capitalism is described in the "Victorian Holocaust" (which is definitely a reliable mainstream source): food was being massively exported from Ireland or India despite large scale famine there, and this export occurred according to the mechanisms immanent to market economy (similarly to the export of grain from starving USSR during the Great Soviet Famine, which was a result of planned socialist economy). In other words, "Victorian Holocaust" provide clear example of mass killings that were a direct result of free market economy, and they were its essential part.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, a book by a hard core marxist which basically confirms my initial statement. It would have been far more interesting if Davis had not come to a "Capitalism is Evil" conclusion. Regardless, the issue to which is describe is not even true capitalism, is either state dictated crony capitalism or pure statism. I'll say it again. Capitalism is not a governmental form, but an economic theory for trade. By the very definition you cannot have a ruler of capitalism, because once you have a ruling class over a free trade the trade is no longer truly free. Arzel (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "book by a hard core marxist" got many positive reviews and is considered as a reliable mainstream source. In addition, the facts from this book are confirmed by other, non-marxist sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. Its facts may be true, but their interpretation has definitely been found lacking by much more authoritative sources on famine, such as Econ Nobel winner Amartya Sen. See his review of that book. I've taken the liberty of expanding that "plot-only" advertorial article for the book with some elements from Sen's review. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Sen's review says:
"The insightful writer Tariq Ali has described this challenging monograph as a veritable Black Book of liberal capitalism. That it certainly is, but it is more than that. "
Yes, Sen points at the fact that not only capitalism should be blamed in mass killings, however, who argues with that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So here we go: Mass killings by market economy. P.S. No, the Holodomor and other Soviet famines were not result of Soviet planned economy, but that belongs to another discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalism and market economy are very close concepts inseparable from each other. Regarding Soviet or Chinese famines, please, read more on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to understand why a Marxian view of history is not legitimate. Does that mean that anyone who favours the ideas of subsequent and past philosophers and economists is also considered to have illegitimate ideas? Because basically that excludes... everyone? Quick, everybody, go back in time and don't read the works of Marx (especially Marx), Kant, Hegel, Burke, Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Lenin, Woolfe, Keynes, Mill, Rand, Bentham, Smith, etc etc etc, as they might give you an "ian" or "ist" view of the world, and subsequently all thoughts from your mind will be considered unreliable by azrel. Where is your source that states that a source from a marxist perspective is not trustworthy. If anything, your admission only draws attention to your personal bias. AnieHall (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are conflating reliable with objective. Certainly the socialistic works of Marx et al are reliable, it is just that they are in no way objective about capitalism. Those that have a strong anithesis to capitalism are simply not reliable for any objective view about capitalism since most of their works has been to demonize capitalism. Now is this article supposed to be an opinion about what anti-capitalist think are mass killings under capitalism...or...a factual article with actual cited examples of such mass killings? Because your choice of sourcing favours the first. Arzel (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think all these cases are very different. My personal suggestion would be to rename and expand Mass killings under Communist regimes to more general subject of Political repression by Communist states (not a propaganda, but a notable subject supported by huge number of RS), to rename and expand Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) to more general and neutral subject of Zoological conspiracies (maybe word "conspiracy" could be replaced by something else), while Immigration and crime looks to me as a legitimate subject, just like Poverty and crime, as long as this is something described in sociological studies. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea to rename MKuCR to Political repression by Communist states (or Political repression under Communist regimes) sounds quite reasonable. That would allow us to get rid of ridiculous numbers of 100+ million killed by Communists (because lion's share of population losses were not the victims of political repressions). Simultaneously, such renaming would allow us to look at the Mass Killings under Capitalist Regimes at different angle. Good proposal, MVBW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, renaming/restructuring seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. At the moment, as is, the name of the current article makes sense in correlation with its antithesis, and the general direction both pages have taken.AnieHall (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand why some like to pretend that the economic system of a state has nothing to do with its politics; absurd. In most cases, economics is the main business of government, minus issues like gay marriage and abortion and other religious or legal matters, and even a number of those are often related to economics.AnieHall (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the beauty of a title like "Famines under capitalism". Unlike "killings", there is not nearly as much implication of an active role, and as such that can be examined in the article. As it is, current thinking is that famines are almost always a matter of distribution rather than absolute shortage (per Amartya Sen etc), is it not? HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reasonable arguments, however, what I cannot understand is the following. The similar situation with famines under Communism, which are currently are being described as "killings" in the Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes article, causes no concern of the WP community: the article had been frozen in its present form, and it currently says (using a highly controversial Courtois' introduction the the Black Book of Communism) that people who died as a result of Soviet or Chinese famines were "killed". In my opinion, your criticism is an example of double standards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a new editor who is doing his best to make a decent contribution, I'd like to make a plea for you and others to go easy on this kind of rank-pulling. I would say you had a point were there a lot of anonymous contributions in a similar vein, but as it is I don't exactly see what the matter is. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to other problems (see comments above and below), this is also WP:POV fork to White terror. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Adam Jones, author of the scholarly works Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (second and first editions), New Directions in Genocide Research, Evoking Genocide: Scholars and Activists Describe the Works That Shaped Their Lives, co-author of Genocides by the Oppressed: Subaltern Genocide in Theory and Practice, editor of Genocide and executive director of the NGO Gendercide Watch, "

Classical and modern states alike have coalesced and expanded through acts of imperialism and colonization. The growing emphasis on these processes in genocide studies, led by the European/Australasian school gathered in Dirk Moses's Empire, Colony, Genocidecollection, has supplemented the previous focus on the atrocities of fascism and comunism. The new agenda, for the first time, directs systematic attention to a third major genocidal "-ism" - colonialism - and to the imperial holocausts that Western and other countries unleashed on indigenous populations during the great waves of Western colonization (sixteenth to twentieth centuries). Most of this colonial expansion was capitalist or proto-capitalist in nature, certainly with regard to the most destructive institutions imposed on native peoples. Indeed, it was the gold and silver of the Spanish American mines, sustained by genocidal slave labor and circulated throughout Europe by indebted Spanish rulers, that helped to kick-start modern capitalism. These tendencies remain prominent today, in a post-colonial period in which capitalism reigns supreme as a system of economic organization and exploitation. Jones, Adam(2011). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, Second Edition. New York: Routledge. p. 65. (emphasis mine)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well start an article called Mass killings under colonial regimes. --Nug (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, Indonesia and the Latin American countries are formally independent nations, rather than colonies. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Indeed. Sen describes the Indian famine(s) as "imperialist famine" not "capitalist famine". There's of course a minority of Marxist and similar writers who will confuse the two, but that's a fringe view. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were quite capitalist too. The influence of capitalism on the Holocaust is discussed too by various authors [6][7] but no serious (non-propagandist) author refers to the Holocaust as being caused by "capitalists". The category is simply too broad to be meaningful in such discourse. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has actually brought up the Holocaust as an example of capitalist mass killings or added it to the article so far (though this is a minority view, as you acknowledge), you are setting up a fallacious straw man to attack, and you are successfully doing that. As regards the various atrocities and killings by European imperialism and the mainstream views of imperialism as part of the world history of capitalism, see page 65 of Jones, Adam (2011). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, Second Edition. New York: Routledge, on p. 65: "Most of this colonial expansion was capitalist or proto-capitalist in nature, certainly with regard to the most destructive institutions imposed on the native peoples." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since bold text is so chic on Wikipedia, I can also emphasize the stuff that actually matters in that page: "The new agenda, for the first time, directs systematic attention to a third major genocidal "-ism" - colonialism - and to the imperial holocausts that Western and other countries unleashed on indigenous populations during the great waves of Western colonization (sixteenth to twentieth centuries)." You and the other activist editors are using colonialism as a classic WP:COATRACK to rail against capitalism in general using a scant few fringe sources that don't make the distinction. Bye, bye. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very chic, actually, but everything pertaining to a topic in a secondary source matters, even if you don't put it in bold. Don't forget to add "emphasis mine" at the end of a quote when you choose to do that. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And my analogy with Nazism is not a straw man at all. You can find Marxist writers who blame the Holocaust at least partially on (German) capitalism [8]: "He clearly sees the connection between the Holocaust and German capitalism as an example of the same type of interpenetration of interests [...]" And another, more direct one: [9] "The extermination of the Jews is presented and interpreted as an extreme form of capitalist exploitation. Weiss subsumes the death of six million Jews to a universal Marxist critique of capitalism." Tijfo098 (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Weiss is a dramatist. He is not a scholar in any actual field, and you're just quoting an interpretation of his fiction by a different author, rather than something that would be considered reliable on the topic we're discussing. I'm honestly not sure about the actual point you'd like to reach in that sort of way. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance clarified. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalism and genocide (or better Marxist theories connecting capitalism with genocide) might be good title for an article discussing the various opinions on the relationship (or lack thereof [10]) between the two. But this aritcle trying to list "mass killings" under capitalism when almost every instance is more readily assigned to a more proximate cause by more reliable sources it just a giant violation of NPOV. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes. And drop the references to a Capitalist regime encouraging a massacre. By that logic the US encouraged Stalin to commit the Holomodor.Aaaronsmith (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel that it is poorly documented/organized/trustworthy? I have examined many of the sources, which seem to be perfectly legitimate. I don't think anyone disputes that Adam Jones is a legitimate genocide scholar. Somebody did, I think, suggest that many other writers are left-wing -- if so, we might as well go ahead and organize a purge of the encyclopedia to remove any secondary source that somebody from "the left" has written with regards to capitalism or socialism in the fields of history, political science, sociology, or cultural studies. Or we could let this sit for a bit so that some of us are able to develop and expand it further - because the article we're looking at right now hasn't been around long and can be made to be as good as so many other fine Wikipedia offerings. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaaronsmith. Firstly, Holodomor was not a massacre, but famine, whose primary cause was food requisition. Food requisition occurred (according to Stalinist standards) via forceful confiscation. Under capitalism, such measures are umpossible, and market tool are used instead. Thus, according to Sen (cited by O'Grada) the cause of Bengal famine was as follows:
"The famine was due in large part to ‘speculative withdrawal and panic purchase of rice stocks . . . encouraged by administrative chaos’." (O'Grada. Economic History Review, 61, S1 (2008), pp. 5–37)
In other words capitalism achieves the same results as communism using quite different tools, but in both cases the tools are immanent to each of two types of regime.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this is not the place to debate the article on Holodomor or the mass killings under communism article. I actually agree with you that the lead of the latter article is not neutral enough because a sufficient number of sources don't consider all Socialist-country famines to be directed at killing some specific section of the population, but simply ascribe them to theory-driven ineptitude. And Sen does say that in 19th century the economics of famine were not well understood in capitalist societies either, with no emergency relief programs in place, etc. But he doesn't call them killings by capitalism either. The only authors who do that are a few Marxists. Please stop using this page as a soapbox for the problems in other articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to re-consider my opinion about this article if we simultaneously remove the statements that famines under Communist regimes were mass killings (and leave this info just as the opinion of some authors). However, I do not understand why this article caused so nervous reaction, whereas absolutely non-neutral statements in the MKuCR article seem to be tolerated by WP community. Again, I agree that this article should be seriously modified (and, probably, renamed), however, the MKuCR article needs in even greater work. If you are ready to join this work we may probably come to some consensus about this article too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who's tolerating it, but I made my opinion clear on the talk page there, I think. Unfortunately if I were to WP:BOLDly improve that article, I'd get instantly blocked because of the inane sanction regime in place there: I need the consensus of 4 editors to make any substantive change. On Wikipedia that's practically impossible to obtain on most articles. So essentially that article is frozen by fiat. It speaks to the failure of dispute resolution in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the paper Paul has cited, O'Grada writes, "In the following account, it will be argued that food was indeed in short supply in Bengal in 1943; that this was not due to excessive hoarding on the part of traders or producers; and that the incidence of the famine by occupational group is consistent with a poor harvest." Srnec (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same was true for Soviet or Chinese famine, so I am not sure I understand your argument.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought it was important to make clear that the paper you quoted is arguing against that quotation, since Sen's thesis is that there was no shortage. (If I had any argument in mind it was only that neither Sen's thesis nor O'Grada's has much to do with government's (mis)using "market tools". Since I didn't want to actually have to make the argument, I didn't.) Srnec (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In actuality, O'Grada makes similar conclusion for both Chinese ("communist") and Bengal ("capitalist/colonial") famines: according to him, in both cases he argued that the responsibility of the two regimes was not as significant as people usually think. In other words, if O'Grada's opinion deserves a mention in this article, it should be mentioned in MKuCR article also.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The possibility of merging the albums into a discography is an editorial one. There is no consensus to delete, though. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swingin' Utters[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Lots of discography articles (these might be deletable too), but there's no independent sourcing on any of it. Their own site is generally linked (WP:SPS) and there's some coverage at Allmusic to show that the band exists, but there's no reviews or comment on the band to show any attempt at meeting WP:N or WP:V. Some of these articles have been tagged as unreferenced for over 4 years.

Album articles

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MUSICBIO doesn't require any of those. --Michig (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shortcut WP:MUSICBIO / WP:MUSBIO / WP:BAND most certainly does require those. Take a look at the link info you are trying to assess, all three terminate at the same wiki shortcut :) Яεñ99 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That guideline lists twelve criteria by which a band or artist would be considered notable. None of them are individually required. Any one would indicate notability. You selected only five of those twelve criteria. The band passes criteria 1 ( the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself), 2 (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart) and 5 (Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels), and arguably also 6 and 7. The subject also passes WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those media mentions are performance announcements/stubs, and not reliable third party sources that can be used to establish notability - not to mention some are references for sub-groups/alternate groups that are not The Utters themselves. They describe some of the when's and what type of music, but give no inherent notable inclusions. An example of a notable announcement would be "Metal Blade's new signature artist Swingin' Utters play Astrodome" in the Houston Times, or "Swinging Utters celebrate their new release on PWL records by playing set with surviving member of The Ramones at CBGB" in The New York Times. Simply having a bunch of albums released on minor labels and playing in clubs, etc does not establish notability. None of the labels mentioned for The Utters are important indie majors in history (ex: Def Jam, Factory, Wax On, Rhino, Metal Blade, PWL, etc). Of note, Fat Wreck Chords states; The label has never been a member of the Recording Industry Association of America as indicated on the frequently asked questions portion of the label's website: Are we a member? Not only no, but FUCK NO! LOTS of bands have tons of records released as minor issues or as personal projects, and are simply not notable for them. A "significant chart" is usually Top 40 on the particular chart (AOR, TOP 40, Alternative, Adult, Urban, etc) and I don't see that notation anywhere in the available information (We generally call charts at >40 "stiffs", though some still have an influence there). I don't see where 6 or 7 come into play at all, as the majority of the links are dead for the artists, and the others don't meet prominence or notability either - one's claim to fame is "having lost control of his bladder & later went to Taco Bell with friends and paid for his food with wet bills", one is described simply as a drummer/bassist, and another is from Philadelphia and got his start working in a mail room - those do not meet the suggested criteria. Still WP:NN as above =/ Яεñ99 (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Poke[edit]

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

Very short article about a not particularly popular website. Dubious notability (WP:NN). Donkey1989 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I've deleted this because it's actually a straight copy of its sources, especially this one. There's probably an article here, but this is just a copyvio. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antoniev Caves- Sacred place[edit]

Antoniev Caves- Sacred place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of silly claims sourced to silly websites: "Chernigiv conceals as many secrets as Egypt’s Valley of the Kings... In 1970, the famous Black Monk, an apparition in a long black robe, made his first appearance … Most visitors to the caves experience increased vitality, a feeling of euphoria and the correction of abnormal heart rhythms, so from time immemorial, people have traveled there to be cured of various ailments... A group of archeologists brought electromagnetic instruments to search for underground voids, and the instruments started breaking and giving unrealistic results..." Two years have produced no reliable sources. Ghirla-трёп- 19:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Spartanburg County School District 7. (non-admin closure) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hills Elementary School[edit]

Park Hills Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-time stub of a non-notable elementary school. Not a high school. No third-party sources on article and, when researching it, nothing to make any kind of other claim to be on WP. JoannaSerah (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see now, I probably should have just PRODed this. Anyway. It should be redirected to school district's article. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of triathletes[edit]

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

List article that defines no criteria for inclusion other than "notable for their achievements in the triathlon." Even if referenced (currently no references) it still smacks of original research and/or synthesis. NtheP (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PREST framework[edit]

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

Unremarkable software, toned down from previously deleted promotional articles. Contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern buildings and structures in Mississauga[edit]

List of modern buildings and structures in Mississauga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. The list is arbitrary (buildings built after 1970), inaccurately named (few or none of the buildings listed demonstrate modern architecture), and inconsistent (it includes several buildings from the 1950s or earlier). The list is an unloved orphan. While there may be value in a list of buildings in Mississauga, this isn't it. Pburka (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Potty the Parrot. I've merged what was in the lead and first sentence of the paragraphs in the further. However, I didn't add the material which talked "particularly" about one or two episodes as no other character did that in the list. (I still remember how delighted I would feel when I got to see this serial but life gets worse..) (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potty the Parrot[edit]

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

Minor character with questionable significance, only source for the article is the SpongeBob Wiki. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect without merging. Since switching to dual licensing on June 16, 2009, GFDL-only text added after 1 November 2008 is no longer validly licensed for use on Wikipedia, so we cannot keep GFDL-only text that was added in August 2012. De728631 (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred (SpongeBob SquarePants)[edit]

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

Minor character with questionable significance, only source for the article is the SpongeBob Wiki. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pitbull (entertainer). The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. 305 Inc.[edit]

Mr. 305 Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a record label that does not seem to be notable. Existing sources are not reliable, only mention the label in passing. Google does not turn up immediately obvious reliable sources (lots of stuff linked to signed artists or to Pitbull, but nothing that would not rely on inheritance of notability). BenTels (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic digital CDMA[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability. Created as part of a collection of self-promotional articles by Tao Yang (Wuxi). However, as the claimed co-inventor is Leon O. Chua, this one might be legitimate. —Ruud 12:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Cripe[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only source is to a directory entry. Google searches not finding any significant coverage - just more directory listings. noq (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Le Mur (urban art)[edit]

Le Mur (urban art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstration of notability, doesn't meet the requirements of the GNG or WP:NWEB. A small graffiti wall in France :) Anakronik (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are four books referenced in the article; two are about street art in general, one is about Une Nuit, one of the groups that graffitied the wall, and one is called Le Mur: The Wall, so is presumably about the wall itself. There are more books cited in the French wiki's version of the article. Do any French speakers have access to any of these books? (Or do any English speakers have access to Street Logos or Beyond the Street?) DoctorKubla (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Mangalore Homestay attack[edit]

2012 Mangalore Homestay attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of sources in the media, but absolutely nothing to suggest that this is nothing more than a normal news story and fails WP:NOT#NEWS. This belongs at Wikinews. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I talk a lot about my feet hurting, and lots of other people talk about it too, so I'm assuming in good faith that everyone knows about it locally and also worldwide. I think I got a mention in Famous Bunions here Should I start a page on that too since it's common knowledge? (please forgive the sarcasm, but I got lost in the intent of the article somewhere :) Яεñ99 (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In that case, I don't understand then how you allowed this article: 2009 Mangalore pub attack to be on Wikipedia which is a similar incident. Sir, if you feel it to be deleted then put delete rather than putting some sarcastic comments. I only expressed my opinion and I am neutral as far as other comments are concerned. Thanks. -- Bharathiya (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sarcasm neither supports nor denies a position. It is a humorous anecdote to a situation, and in this case is purely neutral as it does not address nor support deletion or inclusion. It is simply up to you to get, or not to get - just as in the case of the wording of the article itself :) Don't drive angry! Яεñ99 (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No physical damage? Yeah, I guess that girl must have had a bionic skull to withstand an attack like that, wherein her head was smashed repeatedly. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 17:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted the previous relistings caused the nomination to not appear in the daily log, relisting again to give time for normal discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty845 15:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebCall[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability, doesn't meet the requirements of the GNG or WP:NWEB. WebCall isn't mentioned in the NYT reference so that doesn't add to the claim of notability. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor Kiepe[edit]

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

I don't think Theodor Kiepe is notable, and don't think there is any real coverage of this person. Also please don't confuse "Theodore Kiepe KG" a company with the person. Clue - can't even find when he was born or died. Current article is just a WP:CONTENT FORK from Vossloh Kiepe. Oranjblud (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment - give me a source - any language - I'll write the ** article. I've got nothing.Oranjblud (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - you have misread. As I tried to explain above those books are by the company - they are company publications - hence the author is listed as Kiepe, Theodor, firm, Düsseldorf [15] - that means the company - not the person. The ERA highlights book is also about the firm not the person.Oranjblud (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn.

Kevin Kmetz[edit]

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

This person does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines or musician biography guidelines. The article appears to be an autobiographical vanity article. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on finding the sources, I will withdraw the nomination. If you have time, could you add some of that information to the article? Otherwise this whole rigmarole is likely to just happen again. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association (ecology)[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Unreferenced for 6 years. Can find no references, and despite another editor contacting the relevant Wikiproject, still no references or proof of notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Tossers. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undone (Tony Duggins album)[edit]

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

I am unable to find coverage of this album in reliable sources. [16] It does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Till 03:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:BAND SarahStierch (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tigertown[edit]

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

I don't think this page meets wikipedia's notability guide line.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.142.232 (talk • contribs) 04:14, September 21, 2012‎


Hi All, we are working on building more references into this wiki for the Sydney band Tigertown. Standby while we build this - i'm still getting used to the wiki editing. -Best Rowan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowangbrand (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of swing camps[edit]

List of swing camps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like an calendar of events for amateur dance enthusiasts. As such, I believe is not within the wikipedia project scope. --95.118.33.236 (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pewdie[edit]

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

"PewDiePie is the YouTube account of Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg ..." The real person is not notable and his online persona is recent only self-promoting via gaming. No long term significance. All sources from Feb to Sep 2012. Issues with WP:BIO and notability. Does not appear to be encyclopedic as written, but more like a review or ad. Jrcrin001 (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - For your information, I was conducting new article reviews when I came to the page in question. I have never heard of this person, nor ever seen any of your articles before this time. My review was based on Wiki rules. Last July, some one else made a comment. Notability is not '15 minutes of fame' or even short term internet fame. If the subject is notable in the future, then he will be around for many years and if he is good enough, other secondary sources will document his notability. At present the subject is just too new and the focus is so narrow not to be encyclopedic. Again, maybe in the future, but not now. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A correction I have to make is I meant the xconomy one not sourze one. I apologize, I was confused for that moment. Also I do agree that PewDie is only recently surging, but I feel it is enough to at least keep the article and try to improve from its current point. Soulboost (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 1 and 3 (expressen.se) is reliable, and seems to be the only good sources here.
  • Source 2 (sourze) is a strange list, includes one sentence about him. Source seems to have been rejected both times it has come up at AFD.[17][18]
  • Source 4 (eitb) is a one sentence mention, and has no author name?
  • Source 5 & 6 (yam.com & kotaku & otaku) barely an articles, just some pictures and embedded videos of people playing videos, including one of pewdiepie's.
  • Sources 7, 8, 11 are not independent.
  • Source 9 xconomy is a digital news type online only source, pretty average source/article.
  • Source 10 is just a randomly uploaded video of him on a website.
So in summary, the only sources that contribute to his notability are the expressen.se ones and the so-so xconomy. So the article sits in WP:NOT#NEWS/WP:1E territory still.--Otterathome (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XGD3[edit]

XGD3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not appear to be noteworthy. Games list will always be out of date because all new games released include this feature. Free Bullets (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2012 (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, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Macleod doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY in its current wording, and I don't see the arguments for an exemption for Rangers as being particularly strong. NFOOTY is already an inclusive guideline, as it allows us to have articles on players who would not otherwise pass WP:GNG; to allow further exceptions based on clubs' histories seems to me to run contrary to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This leaves us with the possibility of whether Macleod satisfies the GNG directly. I saw strong opinions on either side, but ultimately no consensus as to whether the sources in the article and listed in the debate consist of significant coverage or not. Despite arguments that the coverage about Macleod was merely routine, I didn't find the "keep" arguments to be easily dismissable. Editors should feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Macleod (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lewis Macleod (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a footballer who fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL. It was already deleted in August via AfD so I nominated it for speedy deletion via WP:G4 which was declined by an admin with the comment Not at all the same as before who failed to inform me. But it still fails both guidelines. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There are 8 references. 5 of the references are match reports, those are normal reports. 2 of the other references are just profiles... 1 of which dont even work. Only 1 reference really helps but that is it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The player has extensive bespoke coverage in Scotland's two mass market newspapers Daily Record, Scottish Sun. There is a wider issue here which relates more to a point raised previously. Like them or not, Rangers clearly are a special case as regards notability. For me, the notability of a Rangers first team player, in terms of WP:GNG, has barely dropped one iota since their resurrection in the Third Division. In my opinion only, a current Rangers first team player is still more notable than any SPL player outwith Celtic that is not a Scotland international by this measure. Not saying that's the way it should be, but as I see it, that's the way it is. Sgt Elvan (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, both dont count. He is a lower level player and playing in a qualifier will not change that. If what you are saying about the match-reports is true then I would have around 500 players from the Goa Professional League that are notable even though by the guidelines given they are not notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, but what's the difference between Lewis and players in the third tier of English football? What can we do to improve the article? --Gunk 78(talk) 07:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The third tier in England is a fully professional league so players are covered by WP:NFOOTBALL which does not apply to the Scottish Third Division. Keep trying to dig up references such as the two I listed above to look towards fulfilling WP:GNG. The player is notable by this measure in my opinion, but consensus is the key and obviously there is work to do. Would like however for someone from the project to explicitly state why Macleod does not, in their opinion, pass WP:GNG. Sgt Elvan (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • and where is the policy/guidelines that state that? Nowhere. GiantSnowman 19:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But how? Look at the references. Almost all of them are match reports for youth internationals and player profiles. If this guy is given keeps then I might as well create articles for players in the USL Premier Development League. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some more examples of coverage: Macleod signed a new contract a couple of weeks ago, coverage of that includes This Daily Record piece about him and him alone, plus a number of stories in which he was very prominent e.g. BBC Glasgow Evening Times. This is a different order of magnitude to the usual level of coverage for someone playing in that division, it is more akin to someone playing at a higher level like Andre Wisdom. I'm not suggesting Rangers players should be given a free pass, but when a team gets gates of 40,000 and has 20 league games a season shown by the UK's two main sports broadcasters ([20]), then those associated with it deserve a closer examination than a dismissive "fails WP:NFOOTY" type comment. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing computer games as evidence of notability- really? GiantSnowman 10:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read again - You asked if Rangers were a big club. The cite of a computer game addresses this along with other citations. It was not supposed to show the notability of this player but the impact of the club due to its stature - but guess you knew this?!!--Egghead06 (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortuantely, "WP facts" matter here, and nothing you wrote automatically confers notability about a footballer playing in such a club. What I've learnt from my time here is that Scotland is a land with a plethora of available news sources – if there is no suitable coverage on a player (and they fail NFOOTY), then they shall not have an article, no matter how "big", well supported (or promoted?) a club is. – Kosm1fent 11:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I must correct you, all 3rd party sources that do make DIRECT reference to the history/founding date of "the current Rangers" are clear that it is the same club: Consider the presiding League governing body, the national commercial TV news site, the two best-selling national newspapers Scottish Sun and Daily Record. Do you have any direct sources refuting this position, or was your comment above purely a gut instinct? Gefetane (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail... is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Evidently, Lewis Macleod satisfies those exact criteria here. And here. And here. Oh, and here. I am surprised editors commenting on WP:GNG managed to miss these articles. Gefetane (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are WP:ROUTINE articles on sports players signing contracts examples of "significant coverage"? GiantSnowman 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If your premise that every Scottish 3rd Divison player who signed a new contract ROUTINELY was the subject of their own interview in a national newspaper, you might have a point. The reality is that evidently isn't the case. This makes your point about WP:ROUTINE invalid and therefore of no relevance. Gefetane (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One interview with a tabloid newspaper. Brilliant. GiantSnowman 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is clearly MORE than one interview, as has been shown above in a list that is certainly not exhaustive. Please be consistent, should Rangers be treated as a 3rd Division club meaning national newspaper interviews are certainly NOT "routine", or are they in fact a club of far greater profile, justifying an exception to WP:NFOOTY for their more prominent players? Which is it in your opinion? Gefetane (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is the same poor-quality news pieces being repeated over and over again - there is nothing of note here. I suggest you read WP:GNG very carefully. Rangers play in a semi-pro league; playing in that league does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTBALL, and giving them some kind of special pass just because of their history violates WP:BIAS and WP:UNDUE. Plenty of teams have gone from a top-level league to much lower leagues. GiantSnowman 13:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your subjective views on the quality of the journalism is a very weak defence of your WP:ROUTINE point, which was the only thing you could offer to undermine the fact that numerous national media coverage of a 3rd Division footballer constitutes "significant coverage" according to WP:GNG. Gefetane (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read WP:ROUTINE? It quite clearly says "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." GiantSnowman 13:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE refers separately to (i) Sports. ie: Routine sports coverage (results, reports etc.) and (ii) Tabloid journalism. ie, non-notable, sensationalist "human interest" coverage. Bundling these two together and implying that a tabloid football article does not confer notability is clearly not specified by WP:ROUTINE. Sgt Elvan (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that sports journalism isn't allowed, and tabloid journalism isn't allowed, but sports tabloid journalism is fine? Ridiculous. GiantSnowman 14:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A pointlessly obtuse reply. Where did I say this? Read what I said again. WP:ROUTINE refers to three separate aspects: announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism. There is greater than routine sports coverage such as results and reports for this player. There is greater than routine tabloid coverage for this player, unless you wish to suggest otherwise. Every player/article must be judged on his/its own merits and the statement that sports tabloid journalism is "not fine" is not supported in any way by WP:ROUTINE. Sgt Elvan (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Routine interviews never justify notability in whatever league. – Kosm1fent 13:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, are we to assume that all Scottish Premier League players are solely notable via WP:FOOTY and not via WP:GNG? If this is not the case, then where has it been shown conclusively that the level of coverage to confer notability has dropped by any significant degree? It seems extraordinary to describe the coverage referenced above as WP:ROUTINE, it could scarcely be more non-routine. Sgt Elvan (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need GNG to justify notability, but we assume they do. If a routine interview after a contract renewal is the best a player who doesn't meet NFOOTY can do, then their article is a good candidate for deletion. – Kosm1fent 13:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the world of WikiProject Football, is this extent of coverage in the highest circulation print media considered routine? And why assume notability for other SPL players if no other reliable sources other than "routine" articles exist? Surely the project can do better than huddle in a corner clinging on to WP:FOOTY for survival? Sgt Elvan (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, surely someone will restart the page in a few weeks when Lewis has more reliable press coverage. --Gunk 78(talk) 14:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, the article can be restored at the click of a button if he plays in a fully-pro league or receives enough significant coverage. In the meantime, I could suggest incubating this in an editor's userspace so that the article can be improved, ready to be brought back into mainspace. GiantSnowman 14:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I believe this should be salted until the page can be restored. All we need are other people seeing him in action in a 3rd division match and quickly creating the page. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman I respect your viewpoint but I don't find it convincing so we will agree to disagree on the matter. Clearly the case of a club of Rangers' size and profile in the 3rd Division is exceptional.
The question is whether Wikipedia is flexible enough to adapt to these unprecedented circumstances, or must remain rigidly orthodox in the application of 'guidelines' adapted for the mundane and ordinary.
Should a high profile player at Rangers, playing in front of 50,000 crowds, in matches broadcast live around the world, receiving personal coverage from national media organisations, be restricted by a Wikipedia guideline intended to prohibit articles for the likes of Billy McBloggs turning out for Meadowbrae Rovers FC in front of one man and his dog? I think not, but am more than happy to let others decide. Gefetane (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the size or importance of the club - this is about determining whether the subject of an article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hack (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And for the main the notability starts and ends with 'does he play in a pro-league'. Plays for one of the biggest clubs in Britain whose games are regularly televised and watched by home crowds of 45,000-50,000 but are not in a pro-league = non-notable. Comes on in the 93rd minute for Accrington Stanley fails to touch the ball and is never heard of again = notable.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTBALL states you have to play in a fully-pro league - he does not. GNG states you have to have received significant coverage - he has not. Nowhere in policy or guidelines does it say that you are notable if you play for a club that some people think is "one of the biggest clubs in Britain" - complete and utter POV, might I add. You are also showing absolute ignorance of NFOOTBALL with your Accrington Stanley comparison. GiantSnowman 15:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To paint the "big club" view of Rangers as "complete and utter POV" is itself a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. Match attendances, tv audiences, media coverage, wage bills, history, turnover, all objective, quantifiable evidence - true regardless of opinion - in support of such a conclusion. You can cling to a rigid, inflexible application of WP:FOOTY guidelines if you wish, but to deny the exceptional nature of Rangers status within the 4th tier of Scottish Football is surely an abuse of common sense too far. Gefetane (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. If Man Utd had to play in front of 15,000 people would they suddenly be a 'small club'? If Hamilton Accies managed to get 50,000 spectators thanks to brilliant marketing, would they suddenly be a 'big club'? Wage bills - if the chairman wins the lottery and Accies decide to double everyone's wages, are they suddenly twice as big as before? It is nothing but opinion. GiantSnowman 16:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about your make-believe examples, I'm talking about Rangers Football Club in the 4th tier of Scottish Football. If your opinion is that the size of a club relative to another one - even in the case of Rangers vs. the likes of East Stirling/Annan - is impossible to determine from a NPOV, you are, in this regard, very far removed from common sense.Gefetane (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should have left it there - I politely suggest you strike your comment. GiantSnowman 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To get away from accusations of comparing apples and oranges attracted by Egghead06's Accrington Stanley comparison, how about Barrie McKay as a directly comparable case? His career trajectory is almost identical to that of Macleod with one difference: he played 14 minutes of football for Rangers on the final day of last season, something that reports of that match typically use a single sentence to describe. Is the current application of WP:FOOTYN really so rigid as to mean that one single sentence of coverage is the difference between keep and delete? A sentence that, to read some of the comments here, might be described as WP:ROUTINE? Yes, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, but I really fail to see a significant difference in coverage here. Bear in mind that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (of which WP:FOOTYN is part) grew out of Wikipedia:Notability (people), where it is listed under "additional criteria". There, it states Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Treating it as the Alpha and Omega strikes me as valuing the letter of a guideline over its spirit to an excessive degree. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does McKay meet NFOOTBALL? Yes. Does he meet GNG? No. Should the article be deleted? No. Why? Because the objective of NFOOTBALL is to give breathing space i.e. it is assumed that a player in a FPL will meet have received enough coverage to meet GNG, and time should be allowed for that. If McKay never plays at a higher level and fades into obscurity, and there is no more coverage, then we would have to look at an AfD. GiantSnowman 16:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think ref #4 and #6 would satisfy GNG. I believe they are enough to keep the article, considering that he also (barely) passes NFOOTY. – Kosm1fent 16:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And in #6 he gives a name check to Lewis Macleod.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Half a line about Macleod is not significant coverage. – Kosm1fent 18:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McCay is 17. I dont know about you guys but when it comes to players who are 21 or under and pass NFOOTY but fail GNG I just leave it because they are still to young (in McCays case... very young) and are assumed to eventually meet GNG. Not every player will have a huge article at the age of 17. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason why Rangers should be and ever will be a special case. They either meet NFOOTY which for two years they wont or they meet WP:GNG. Rangers players will receive higher levels of coverage than other third divisions that is no doubt but match reports will always be trivial coverage by nature so there has to be more to meet WP:GNG. I have got a lower threshold than most i have to say, however I'm not being swayed much here because the majority of the arguments here are either trying to say we should make a special case here because its Rangers, which is ludicrous or they are not very strong statements. Remember the article looked like this[24] which is exactly what it was like when deleted the first time, It was a clear speedy for most. The article now although far more informative does not meet WP:GNG. Rather than trying to argue special case which wont happen why not actually improve the article to show it meets GNG until then it should be deleted or userfied for improvement.Blethering Scot 00:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oh and ive read through the sources, 18 of the 25 can totally be discounted for proving notability the others i would count towards are the ones talking around him signing new contract which is generally considered a trivial coverage although i don't totally discount it. Also I'm just not seeing enough coverage on different events that aren't match reports or go way beyond routine. I think as ive said all along alot of these young players ultimately after time will meet GNG no doubt, but until they do completely they should be treated like all the rest. I would prefer someone requested this be incubated and worked on it. At the end of the day if it was worked on properly maybe it could be done. Lets face it NFooty means nothing if an article can be proven to and clearly meets GNG, this article in its current state at this present time does not.Blethering Scot 00:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would reliable sources regarding "Rangers exceptionalism" be? A third party source stating the Club's league attendance is "the 16th best in Europe" perhaps? Or 55 times the combined average of their league rivals? One couldn't imagine a more convincing case for "Rangers exceptionalism" if one tried. The 16th best-attended club in EUROPE, and their star young player isn't on Wikipedia? Oh well, guidelines are guidelines are guidelines. If the users suffer, tough luck. Gefetane (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty simple proposition, prove that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - Gefetane, you've gone to great lengths to show how notable the club is, but not the player. Playing for a notable club does not mean you yourself are notable - if that was the case, we would have thousands of articles on lowly English non-league clubs. GiantSnowman 08:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the verdict?27.154.208.20 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia allow for flexibility in isolated cases regarding guidelines such as WP:NFOOTY? YES.
Is a club of Rangers FC's size (media profile, general notability, 16th highest home attendance in Europe, even wikipedia page hits, however you want to define it) playing in the 4th tier of Scottish football sufficiently exceptional to justify flexibility? YES.
Is Lewis Macleod a prominent player enough player? YES - started all 12 games.
This seems to be a debate between on one hand wikipedia principles of Common sense/flexibility, on the other hand strict enforcement of guidelines to the letter. I'll remain interested on which side wins through. Gefetane (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What i cannot understand is why you are determined to prove the notability of the club, which is in no doubt at all. NFooty isn't even relevant as he does not meet it, all that leaves is the guideline that matters GNG. If you want to make amendments to the footy guideline then raise it at WP:Footy. in regards GNG, if you actually work on the article then maybe you can prove he does meet it. And i agree with Mentoz he isnt far off GNG which is a point ive made about Rangers, which is that with time these players will likely meet GNG but that time should be given.Blethering Scot 18:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue that keeping a players article because the club they play for is notable is an extreme view as well. Players should be given time to actually meet GNG and shouldn't be forced through on the basis the club is notable.Blethering Scot 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many players (with wikipedia pages) in the lower professional English leagues have, like Lewis Macleod, received person-specific articles in national newspapers? Not many I'd suggest. Any rule/guideline is bound to be undermined by an exceptional case every now and again - a club of Rangers' national/international profile in the 4th tier is exactly that. If a rule cannot be flexed on appropriate occasions, it is an ass. As far as I am aware, stringent adherence to guidelines is actively discouraged within Wikipedia. Why that message has bypassed so many in this discussion baffles me. Gefetane (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone just answer this question... If Rangers were still in the Premier League would Macleod be playing for the first-team like he is now that they are in the 4th Division of Scottish Football?--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - This is a completely different 'Rangers' who emerged from the ashes of the old club who are being liquidated. They had to enter at the bottom rung of the ladder because a Newco, as the name suggests, is a new club with no history. All Rangers' better players effected their egress when liquidatation wasn't staved off. Under 19 players like Macleod have been drafted in to fill the void, along with some anonymous journeymen. They are no more notable than whoever is waddling about for Darlington this season. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of coming across as pedantic, my argument is that if things go the way they seem to be going, I would prefer an IAR deletion. The distinction is unimportant in the context of this article's future, but very important if we are talking about the standard of proof needed to determine notability. —WFC— FL wishlist 06:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. And it isn't pedantic to point out that I seemed not to have read what you wrote... Your remarks were clear enough when they first appeared: but I ignored my rules about not posting at bedtime once thinking became difficult, wrote "keep" instead of "delete", and then based an argument on what I'd written instead of on what you had. Sorry. Though the argument's still valid :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My view on this is has it has been for six years. As an inclusionist I believe we set the bar for football notability way too high. If we are ever to encourage new editors (and the number of editors is falling) articles like this are just what we need. Try explaining to a new editor that Rangers are notable and watched by 50,000 and have their games televised but, no their players are not notable. My views are only in the interest of expanding WP with good, sourced articles and I have no love/hate for Mr Macleod or Rangers. Deleting articles whose sources don't quite meet GNG is not the way to expansion--Egghead06 (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we set the bar for football notability in the wrong place: the concept of "fully professional league" is proven unsustainable. Though I tend towards including players who've had a career in "lesser" leagues rather than kids who've had five minutes in front of a big-club crowd. It bothers me that articles on players with a lengthy career in a league not considered fully professional is deleted unless it's approaching good article status, and it particularly bothers me that recently, players with several years worth of career including appearances in fully professional leagues are attracting delete !votes at AfD if the only sources available are in a relatively obscure foreign language. I think there's more damage done to the encyclopedia by deleting real articles on players with a career already than by deleting articles on kids who might have a career sometime in the future.

I know this isn't really the place to discuss discouraging new editors, but one thing that must be disheartening is when someone comes along and removes most of an article's content because it's unsourced, rather than doing a 2-minute search for sources themselves and/or explaining to the creator why that content needs sources and giving them time and encouragement to find some. There's very little that really needs ripping straight out on BLP grounds. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you all miss the point. The "fully professional leagues" rule is fine EXCEPT for EXCEPTIONAL cases. Rangers in the 4th tier is - to any informed observer - the definition of an exceptional case. Therefore, Wikipedia's inherent flexibility regarding guidelines and exceptions - should be utilised for a player who's a regular (12 out of 12) First Team player. Gefetane (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, the FPL rule is far from fine. There are top-level leagues throughout the world with massive press and TV coverage of both clubs and players but whose players' articles, even where the player has many appearances, are deleted without a murmur because those leagues are not proven fully professional (and because, quite understandably this being the English Wikipedia, there are fewer editors with the language skills to expand those articles to meet GNG). Second, with respect, we don't all miss the point: some of us just don't agree with it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobage[edit]

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

Unsourced and uncategorized since the last edit by the original creator on September 4, 2012. According to the creator's contributions, it's very likely a single purpose account to advertise for Mobage on Wikipedia without studying our policies or guideline before editing. Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here, and reach a consesus as soon as possible.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD-G7. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 00:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NUOLs stadium[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources showing that this article meets the notability guidelines. ●Mehran Debate● 12:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Peak Corporate Network. SarahStierch (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Priel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gil Priel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks non-notable, either sources are non-RS or the articles I can actually view online are about other subjects and mentions are tangential. Google books has one entry - a co-author citation and zero in Google news. I'm not seeing anything significant in a quick shufti of main google. Looks like a case of puffery. Fails GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 11:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Black Lips. SarahStierch (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Swilley[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSBIO. And also Notability is not inherited. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue and even if you list it at WP:MFD your deletion rationale makes no sense. User conduct is not addressed by deleting thier userpage. (non-admin closure) Monty845 14:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abhishek191288[edit]

Abhishek191288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This user is not updating the pages with latest information.This user does not deserve to be a Wikipedia Reid.dominicanthony (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government Secondary School, North Bank[edit]

Government Secondary School, North Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not notable per WP:NHS, however it's an essay but I didn't find any guidlines which describes the schools' notability. ●Mehran Debate● 09:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I used it to analyse the article. :) ●Mehran Debate● 08:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respects to your opinion, but I don't know where have been said that "Secondary Schools are normally kept ...", would you please tell me where did you read that? I bring the related notability guideline here to compare with your viewpoint:
A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
You said that you think this school exists because of some Facebook and Linkedin pages, however they're never could be reliable sources, and even if they could, the existence of a school does not make it notable (regards to above guideline which has said it's notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources). And also attend to this sentence: "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." ●Mehran Debate● 08:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NHS is not guideline and is an essay (I mentioned above). Sorry about my mistake, anyway Theopolisme indicated us the related guideline. Absolutely like you I preferred to keep if there were be some reliable sources in the article, but for now there's not and that's why nominate it in AfD. ;) ●Mehran Debate● 10:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Kumar Walia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, possibly a hoax in that the person is not who the article says he is. Article was created by a blocked user. The first ref no longer works, although the website exists (it's the website of the creator of the article). The second ref doesn't mention Walia's name. Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus in the discussion below as to whether coverage is sufficient to support an article on this candidate. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bielat[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sean Bielat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. A candidate for office who has no other claims to notability, all sources are in context of election (which he's more than likely to lose, as a Republican in a heavily Democratic district in Massachusetts against a Kennedy). Article was deleted for the same reason in the 2010 election season, and nothing has changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this article because it gives a little background on the person responsible for the "Barney Funk" video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4QbNGnvBR7k While the politician is not notable for himself, the information is useful for someone looking into gonzo political videos. (Obviously I am not a wikipedia regular and don't really understand the criteria for inclusion or (especially) the proper formatting for this page. Feel free to edit or delete my comment. I just wanted to give some insight from outside the bubble. Thank you *very* much for your hard work making wikipedia a great resource for the resto of us. It is appreciated.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.51.23 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination does not fail CRYSTAL. All of the prognosticators (Cook, Rothenberg, Roll Call, and Sabato's Crystal Ball), all list MA-04 as safe democratic, or don't bother listing it at all. None of what you said about Frank and redistricting is anything more than speculative. Any coverage of Bielat is coverage of the race, hence WP:POLITICIAN. As you said, he dropped off the radar in 2011, and is highly likely to do so again in 2013, with no lasting impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco ASA[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. 50.84.181.6 added the AFD template and the following comment on the talk page: "Just a copy of spec sheet - Fundamentally unencyclopaedic, Notability not established, and no third party sources. Non-notable per WP:GNG." Keφr (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Considering the ASA replaced 3 extremely popular Cisco products, and is similarly popular itself, notability should not be a problem. Google News search shows 310 hits, not even archive search, just regular news search. Gigs (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References found from Google search were not independent or detailed coverage. Most reviewed are advertisements or partner reprints of Cisco PR material and Cisco sponsored Certification books. See WP:VRS, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY; maybe redirect to Cisco Systems. - LES 953 (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" The Cisco ASA range are by far the most popular security devices ever made. The article needs work but that is not a good reason to delete it. 86.139.246.38 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability not established. What makes this security product important enough for a WP article? - SpudMcCoy (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Still an unsourced BLP.  Sandstein  13:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Habib R. Sulemani[edit]

Habib R. Sulemani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially unsourced since 2004, what I can find via Gnews includes a letter to the editor from his younger brother and a critique of this article's Discussion page, and its indication that Wikipedia is full of nuts. [28].

Worldcat does give a dozen or so holdings of a book he coauthored. There are some blog hits as well. Language may be an issue. Additional sources evidencing notability welcome, as always. j⚛e deckertalk 16:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As it stands now, with the few sources available being insufficient to establish notability. I agree with the nominator, however, that language could be the problem in finding reliable sources, and I am willing to retract my vote if reliable non-English sources are found to be available. Rorshacma (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~Andrew Kurish (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Rachitrali (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect the subject is notable. Here is a version from 2004, there is a ton of interesting stuff there, but it all needs to be checked and sourced. That was 8 years ago so probably more to mine in the history tab, and on the web. This person is quite controversial in Pakistan, living in isolation in his home for years due to assassins for his speaking out on "forbidden subjects". A human rights topic basically. Shame to see it killed off. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kate Winslet. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Winslet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anna Winslet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes, this was nominated before, but I don't see the notability here. She appeared in a single notable play, and zero notable TV programs and zero notable films. I don't think the musical by itself grants her notability. Also, I don't think a redirect to Kate's page makes a lot of sense, and there's very little here worth merging to anywhere. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possible redirect to Kate Winslet - The argument at the first nomination was that she had recent work but it seems that she has never established herself as a serious actress. Several of the references I have found are small mentions through her sister, the best link I have found is this article which contains a quote by Anna and this 2010 article for a play. The latter reference is probably the best, considering that it mentions her age and husband. There is another mention of her age and aspiration for acting here. Her only claim to significant fame will probably always be as the sister of Kate Winslet. Among the small mentions, there is a mention of her through a photo here. Google Books also found small mentions as the sister of Kate Winslet. However, this is probably the best result Google Books found, mentioning that she and Kate were classmates of Christian Bale. Notability is not inherited. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kate Winslet; it seems Kate's sisters Anna and Beth are both actresses[29] but neither has done enough to merit WP:NACTOR and all coverage focuses on their sister. It's reasonable to mention family in Kate's article, particularly when they're in the same line of work as her. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But merge what? Is there really anything to say other than Kate's sisters are actresses? I don't see anything here that belong's in Kate's article and isn't already there. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR significant roles in multiple notable films, ... stage performances since roles are very small or in minor productions. Does not have significant third party coverage. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Scala Quinn[edit]

Lucinda Scala Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clannad (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This page has seemed unnecessary from the point of its creation over two years ago. Originally, there was a single hatnote at the top of Clannad pointing readers to Clannad (visual novel), and this seemed to work fine. There are only two main articles in the disambiguation page, with the other pages being branch articles from those two. I don't see a need for there to be an extra disambiguation page link on Clannad after the link to Clannad (visual novel) since the branch articles are easily found as links in their respective parent articles. It would be different if there were more than two main articles, but as convention goes, I doubt there needs to be a disambiguation to links to daughter articles easily found in their parent articles. 十八 06:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to be useful enough. No-one is saying that Clannad isn't the primary topic. And it's not like this page is using up space. StAnselm (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WTF? We have a bunch of "Clannad" topics, this is the navigational disambiguation between them. This is how we roll. What possible reason is there to remove this? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as I said when deprodding it: "there is no way a hatnote could clearly help people looking for the film/album/anime series: it already points directly to visual novel and then to this dab page,which works fine". There is no reason to delete this useful, compliant, dab page. PamD 16:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: more than one topic per WP:MOSDAB. I will clean it up, including correcting the primary. Hatnotes irrelevant to DAB or not - please read WP:MOSDAB next time. Widefox; talk 13:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)  Done - arguably between four or five entries, feel free to close this AfD Widefox; talk 15:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  13:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Stanzione[edit]

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

Despite the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, this is the subject of mostly passing mention in unrelated third party publications. Note that several apparent news stories were repeatedly reprinted from a press release network and are essentially self-promotion. The way this coverage is currently presented is rather disingenuous; being repeatedly quoted about the European economy isn't exactly notability for the speaker, even if it's repeated over and over thanks to it being free press. Except for this gem, in-depth coverage of this person appears to exist only in publications by associated groups. Generally, where this subject does appear in coverage by unrelated parties, it's either insubstantial or it's because the subject is talking about another matter entirely, which may or may not be notable (e.g., the economy). This subject's accomplishments, while admirable, fall short of WP:ANYBIO. In any event, reliable sources don't contain much information that could support encyclopedic biographical content, apart from WP:RESUME. Finally, the WP:COI-factor seems to beg a re-write from scratch, if anything other than a résumé could be made from it. JFHJr (㊟) 22:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better Sources available but are dated. I agreed tat some of the sources are not relevant and I see these are now being removed. I do think the entry should stay at it does have some value. I did find some published bio but it goes back to 1997 see: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4890504.html
Also the prospectus of his company floatation
http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=200502210700148112I
I did also find mentioned of him in the Times however this is behind a paywall
Hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.57.107 (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Note the "prospectus" above is simply a press release. I'm not able to access the document at highbeam; whether it is actually substantially about the subject (as opposed to his business) is unclear. JFHJr (㊟) 22:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and semi-protect : I, and a few others, cleaned this article up a while back, removing all the stuff cited to self-published sources - see this version - but it seems Pugdemskuf (talk · contribs) and some IPs (and my knowledge of WP:DUCKs suggest that would be either Stanzione or somebody associated with him) has put it all back again. Believe me, if I could have sent this to AfD when I cleaned it up, I would have, and I would have loved to put some stuff in about his TV business crashing and burning, but there was enough stuff in reliable sources to make him borderline notable, and I couldn't cite the failure of the Advert Channel to anything but unreliable sources. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4890504.html the full article can now be read here and clearly gives information that can be used from an independent source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36617064/Vince-Stanzione-Press-Cuttings

A prospectus is a document when a company goes public it is not a press release as someone has stated. I have found the original document here: http://www.thefinancialtrader.net/members/tvcfinal.pdf

Keep and semi-protect I believe that enough time has been spent on Vince Stanzione and the outcome should be to keep the article but some of the references should be amended. the COI issue is a non event, I do not think it is Vince Stanzione parties related editing it however it is clear there is an undertone of negative basis to him and before anyone says I have a COI I bought a course from him and am happy with the what I have learnt but I have no interests in editing Wikipedia pages. As previous editors has stated this page does have some value and should remain in Wiki however any commercial/sales pitch references should be deleted.Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view regardless what you think user:Ritchie333 and you have been heavy on the delete button in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.248.37 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: — 83.33.248.37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do you have any diffs to back your claim up I have been "heavy on the delete", given I've !voted "keep" above? Anyway, I don't know Stanzione from a hole in the ground, I just think that's not much that can be written about him from reliable sources, but there's just enough to sustain an article. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this matter is settled and the Afd should now be removed. The outcome: the page should remain, some of the duplicate references should be removed, any commercial reference or advertising material should not be allowed to be added. Overall the entry in the current format is clean and well referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.243.206 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — 83.37.243.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If the matter was settled, the AfD wouldn't have been relisted twice. At the moment, the only person who !voted is me, and if that carries (and tbh, it won't, it's more likely to go to "no consensus"), you won't be able to edit the article anymore as an IP. Is that something you really want? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's been in the news since at least Mirror September 18, 2003. Also see [30][31][32]. There's other source material. Meets WP:GNG. The article has some problems and attracts some problems., but some clean up would move things forward. No need to delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As usual, arguments with a firm basis in Wikipedia policy were given more weight than those that lacked any such basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Monaghan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jeff Monaghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:ONEEVENT. I don't believe Monaghan deserves an article for one event. The article also seems to have undue weight towards the event in general, and little else. SarahStierch (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  I looked at Google books and found three books, all of them sourced from Wikipedia.  This event passes WP:GNG, but lacks historians and biographers taking an interest.  Fails WP:NOT.  If the perspective of history changes, new attention could be drawn to either the event or the person, so either might in the future be appropriate Wikipedia topics.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reluctantly. I agree with the nomination, especially since the subject committed a questionable action, but unfortunately there is evidence of his being mentioned by two major Canadian TV networks (CBC and CTV) and by a major Canadian newsmagazine (Macleans). PKT(alk) 13:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for several reasons. While the previous delete discussion was closed NPASR, renomination should be based on new arguments, and we have none. It's stated above that it meets WP:GNG, but that it fails WP:NOT. This doesn't seem logically possible; I'm fascinated to know which provision of WP:NOT it fails! Similar logic problems with the claim that while the subject is mentioned in books, these books cite Wikipedia. If these books are considered reliable sources then their choice to cite Wikipedia for this particular topic (or to cite nobody at all) doesn't enter into it. We can't cite Wikipedia, but they can at their discretion, and when we then cite them we're relying on their scholarship not ours. Basically the argument for deletion above seems to be that people shouldn't be interested in the subject; That's exactly the argument WP:NOT most strongly rejects. If others are interested, for whatever reasons, then so are we. That's basically what WP:GNG says, and so agree that this article seems to meet WP:GNG, and that's then a keep. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said "sourced from" Wikipedia, not that the books "cited" Wikipedia.  See Books LLC and General Books LLC.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links would make it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewa (talk • contribs) actually I did sign it below, but you do need to follow the indenting to see this Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching on Google books for ["Books LLC" "Jeff Monaghan" OR "Jeffrey Monaghan"].  Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the previous argument to keep is because there are three books on Google books that have copies of the Wikipedia article.  See WP:CIRCULAR.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not. It puts several arguments. One of them (only) is that the previous argument, that there are three books (I assume that means only three, a link would be good) in Google Books and all are sourced from Wikipedia is unpersuasive. I obviously didn't put this very clearly, and it's a bit difficult as that claim is rather vague. Is there reason to believe that they use no other sources? There may be. Is there any other reason to discount them as reliable sources? There may be. Again, links would help a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewa (talk • contribs) actually I did sign it below, but you do need to follow the indenting to see this Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIRCULAR is a link.  It is a logical fallacy that refuting a refutation of a hypothesis is evidence of the hypothesis.  The way to build consensus is to do your own search on Google books and provide examples of books that support the argument to keep.  While doing this search, you may find books that are published by either Books LLC or General Books LLC.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this would be a logical fallacy, but it has not been committed above. Suggest that an even better way to build consensus is to share the results of your research by links, rather than expecting others to repeat it, and avoiding possibly misunderstanding of precisely what search was done. Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:What Wikipedia is NOT#Wikipedia is not a newspaper #2.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But that section lists four possible reasons for regarding a topic as not encyclopedic. Do any of the four particularly apply here, in your opinion? Andrewa (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"#2" has five sentences, not "four possible reasons".  But now that you mention it, #1 and #3 are also related.  Wikipedia editors, especially in this discussion, also need to be aware of the "See also" here.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, I missed the #2 in your above comment. Let's look at #2 first... the example given is routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. That's nothing remotely like what we have here. Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. He doesn't seem to have done anything newsworthy other than leak some documents. All but one ref is from May 2007, and the latest is from a May 2008 report into the earlier events, which indicates a lack of long-term significance. If there was a merge target I would say merge, and if the event he was involved with met WP:EVENT then we could turn this into an article on the event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I found this page useful while researching anarchism in Ottawa. --206.47.30.182 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per WP:ONEEVENT. As for the event being turned into an article, it hardly qualifies under any section of WP:EVENT. 14:55, 24 September 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szabotage (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Does seem to fail the one event provisions - I can't see anything that points to notability beyond the single event that is the basis of the article. There is significant coverage of him in relation to the event, but the BLP policy still speaks against creating an article where we can't provide proper context in a living person's biography. I'd feel differently if there was any sign of substantial coverage outside of his arrest, but I can't seem to find anything. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to B-Lynch suture. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher B-Lynch[edit]

Christopher B-Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Impressive-sounding biography. However, upon closer examination, things look a bit differently. Several surgical "inventions" are being claimed and substantiated by primary sources (references to the person's own work). However, the impact of these inventions seems to be very limited: the Web of Science lists 8 article by b-Lynch, cited a grand total of 72 times (highest citation counts 28, 22, 13, 6; h-index=4). There is one independent source, to the Sierra Leone Awareness Times. I am not sure whether this is a major newspaper, but in any case the item is rather short. There is also a "National Honor" listed under "awards". From the reference, which lists 151 names, including a "laundryman", a cook, and a "messenger", this does not appear to be a major award either. Summing up, this appears to fall short of WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Changing my opinion to "Redirect/Merge", see below.) Fails WP:ACADEMIC. I found only three articles by him at PubMed, and I found a couple of minimally cited articles at Google Scholar (needed to search under Balogun-Lynch). Google News Archive search was the same as nominator: one article in the Awareness Times. The prize does not look "major" enough to qualify him on that basis. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am a little surprised that you feel the British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, and Milton Keynes hospital's own website/news pages are being considered unreliable sources, or non-independent. With UK honours a cook, laundryman or messenger can be given honours for their services in areas other than their main job. The mere fact that the B-Lynch suture is at the forefront of post-partum haemorrhaging prevention fulfils WP:Academic:
1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
Most importantly, this article is not about his academic prowes, it is about gynaecology and his work in that field. As such it certainly fulfils:
Notability - people:
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
Creative professionals (including Scientists, academics, economists, professors [...]
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
Additional refs? Daily Telegraph, Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 2000, Vol. 9, No. 3  : Pages 194-196 (not by Lynch), Paper (not by Lynch) describing the suture Chaosdruid (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Daily Telegraph article is about the Duchess of Cornwall, with b-Lynch mentioned in-passing. Nobody is saying that those scientific journals are unreliable sources. It's just that we need more than a couple of handfulls of citations to establish notability. Perhaps the technique he developed is notable (I don't think so, but others may have other opinions), but b-Lynch himself misses WP:PROF by a long measure. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So why try and stick to evaluating him under WP:PROF? No one has claimed that he is academically based; or that he has been in any way shape or form directed through WP:PROF. If it is just that you mistakenly measured him against those criteria and cannot drop it to look at others, I would suggest that even if you do continue to stick to that measure, you at least accept that he does fulfil WP:ACADEMIC 1., in that the B-Lynch suture was a significant impact in his scholarly discipline - though I am not sure how gynaecology is anywhere near a scholarly discipline ... Chaosdruid (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my opinion to Redirect/Merge to B-Lynch suture. Chaosdruid made a good point about the B-Lynch suture.. I did not find much of anything when I searched Google Scholar for this man. But just now I searched for "B-Lynch suture" and found that it is cited in numerous gynecology textbooks and journal articles. It looks to me as if the B-Lynch suture IS notable, and while there is not enough information out there for a separate article about Dr. B-Lynch IMO, information about him could be added to the suture article. That article is an unreferenced stub but that can be fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There, I added a couple of references to the B-Lynch suture article. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a weird thing: the original article describing this technique has five authors, of whom B-Lynch is the first, but the Google Scholar page listing it omits his name! Same with this article and this one; his name is omitted and only his coauthor is listed on the Google Scholar search page. I had already suspected the search tools couldn't handle his unusual name, and that may be why we get so few hits searching for him. The first article has been cited 133 times, and the other two 90 and 64 times - good but not great. Still, we may need to find some better way of evaluating him for WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my previous comment about him not being assessed through WP:PROF (which is the same as WP:ACADEMIC) in reply to Guillame2303. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge: Inventor/developer of a new suture technique seems notable to me. 83.71.21.225 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could certainly live with a redirect/merge as proposed by MelanieN. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from inventing the B-Lynch suture, he is also notable as inventor of other medical innovations, and for being awarded National Honours in Sierra Leone. FurrySings (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As explained above, those national honors don't seem to be very selective. And we don't have much reliable sources to build a bio on. At best, I think, a merge is feasible. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, WP:CSD#G4. The article has no further evidence of notability than it did when it was previously deleted at AFD. postdlf (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McClam[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sean McClam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, insufficient refs. GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Armstrong (writer)[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Does not meet criteria for 'any biography' or 'creative professionals' per WP:Notability (people). The sources provided are insufficient in number, depth, and scope to assert notability per WP:AUTHOR and some of them are primary sources and/or unreliable. Further searches have not provided articles about the subject in the established independent press. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Objecting. If the author objects to the deletion, and there is at least one source present that mentions the subject, the PROD template is allowed to be removed. While I am not expressing any viewpoints, your nomination statement is hardly accurate. Entertainment Weekly and the Los Angeles Times are clearly reliable sources, though I understand that you may feel they are inadequate. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as PROD-er, per Notability (people). TRLIJC19 is quite right that there was nothing improper in removing the PROD. I disagree, though, that the cited sources are sufficient to establish notability. The first is Armstrong's own blog; the other two are biographical descriptions at Entertainment Weekly, where she works, and Huffington Post, where she has blogged; they are primary sources. (There is currently nothing cited from the Los Angeles Times.) Writers are deemed notable if they are widely cited by peers or successors, are known for originating a significant new concept, or have created a significant or well-known work. Additionally, a writer may satisfy general notability guidelines for academics or for biographies. I see no evidence that Jennifer Armstrong satisfies these criteria (but of course I am willing to be convinced). Cnilep (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:Notability (people), and the above. Though the sources that are cited can be considered high-quality, one is a blog, and others a bio descriptions, just a note, this kinda also happened to one of my articles, which got deleted. TBrandley 05:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to find some sources for her and for her books, but the vast majority of what I could find are not the type that show notability. I did manage to find three sources that discuss her Mouseketeers book, but that's not enough to show that the book itself would have notability, let alone for the author. As far as her work as a journalist goes, there's nothing out there to show that she's had that large of an impact to where she'd pass notability guidelines on that front.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Courtois (1999) "Introduction" p. X: USSR: 20 million deaths; China: 65 million deaths; Vietnam: 1 million deaths; North Korea: 2 million deaths; Cambodia: 2 million deaths; Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths; Latin America: 150,000 deaths; Africa: 1.7 million deaths; Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths; the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths.
  2. ^ http://vidstatsx.com/top-100-60d-sub-gains
  3. ^ ://vidstatsx.com/top-100-90d-sub-gains
  4. ^ http://bloggar.expressen.se/lars/2012/03/column-why-pewdiepie-is-swedens-hottest-internet-star/
  5. ^ http://bloggar.expressen.se/lars/2012/07/pewdiepie-rules-one-million-subscribers/
  6. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/pewdiepie-video-game-youtuber-reaches-2-000-000-080053425.html
  7. ^ http://kotaku.com/5888612/he-screams-at-gamings-most-terrifying-moments-so-you-can-laugh
More