< 23 September	25 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Costa (inventor)[edit]

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

This is an inventor who claims to have created a perpetual motion machine. However, there are really not enough sources to really make any claim of notability. Of the sources presented in this article, only the Wired article can be seen as reliable, and even that seems more of a fluff piece than anything else. The only other source is the appearance of the individual in a documentary that, itself, is unnotable. Upon searching for additional sources, the only reliable one I found that mentioned the name was here. However, he is only mentioned extremely briefly in a footnote, and only to talk about how his invention, and the documentary it appeared in, are nothing but minor works of fringe theory. Hardly the kind of coverage needed to support notability. Rorshacma (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources, other than the three already mentioned by the nominator. Not enough to establish notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Practically no biographical information. The source can be used to say something about his contraption in the article on perpetual motion or something similar. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 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) 03:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The wired ref is a good start but multiple sources are required to establish notability. I did not find others. -—Kvng 03:41, 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. Whether to merge is an editorial decision here. Black Kite (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cash: The Complete Columbia Album Collection[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. The only reference in the article is a press release and all the coverage of non-trivial length that I'm seeing in google are rehashes of the release (search for the string 'named for the Cash-composed single track that appeared on this album'). A few other sources have blurb-length articles which contain no information not in the press release and are probably very cut down versions of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and Redirect to Johnny Cash albums discography. There's more that can be said about this than is currently in the article (e.g. using this from Billboard, this from American Songwriter, and this from FACT), and some detail of what's on the two cds of non-album material would be interesting. Failing that, having some basic details in the discography of what's in this box set would be better than simply deleting this. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One of those sources contains entire sections from the press release, as mentioned above. Neither of the other two appear to contain any infromation not in the press release. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Johnny Cash albums discography. Johnny Cash is one of the most notable and endearing musicians of his format and era. This needs to reside with his other musical contributions. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:02, 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, BusterD (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other boxsets of Johnny Cash have an article and there is also an article for "The Complete Columbia Album Collection" by Miles Davis. So I don't see a reason in deleting this one.--RasAndi (talk) 14:01, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:17, 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 merge to Forced_conversion#Pakistan (or a different target if there is a better one). Black Kite (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lata Kumari[edit]

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

Non notable person involved in a common occurrence in the region Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are sufficient to pass WP:GNG, and it is nonsense to suggest that being a party to a Supreme Court case is an every day occurrence.
However, this is one of three closely-related articles which may be merged at editorial discretion: Rinkle Kumari, Asha Kumari, Lata Kumari. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these three articles together; Supreme Court cases are notable, but I don't really see a need for three separate articles with more or less the same content. As well, when merging, please check the facts/sources; one article says that the plaintiffs wished to remain with their husbands, while the other says they wished to remain with their parents! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Forced_conversion#Pakistan. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:41, 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 merge to Forced_conversion#Pakistan. (or a different target if there is a better one) Black Kite (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Kumari[edit]

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

Non notable person involved in a common occurrence in the region Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are sufficient to pass WP:GNG, and it is nonsense to suggest that being a party to a Supreme Court case is an every day occurrence.
However, this is one of three closely-related articles which may be merged at editorial discretion: Rinkle Kumari, Asha Kumari, Lata Kumari. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these three articles together; Supreme Court cases are notable, but I don't really see a need for three separate articles with more or less the same content. As well, when merging, please check the facts/sources; one article says that the plaintiffs wished to remain with their husbands, while the other says they wished to remain with their parents! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Roscelese. I would expect that she's correct in asserting the notability of Supreme Court cases in Pakistan, and putting these articles together (minus the inconsistency that she notes!) would form a good basis for an article on this case. If Asha and the others get substantial coverage in the future, we can always split them out and have standalone articles; there's precedent for this with parties to US Supreme Court cases, as seen in articles such as William Marbury and Norma McCorvey. Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Forced_conversion#Pakistan. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:42, 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. (non-admin closure) -— Isarra ༆ 04:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in American music[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL- the article serves mainly as a list of albums that, for the most part, aren't even named yet and have no guarantee of existing. Ducknish (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know there's only four months left before 2013 begins, but many artists are already confirming albums to be released that year. Mr. Metal Head (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This thing is TBA City right now; at best WP:CRYSTAL, at worst, also has WP:MADEUP material (yes, it has sourcing, but mainly of the promotional "This band is now in the studio for their maybe coming out soon album" type writing); also oddly bent towards solely rock and metal acts, you'd think there would be a couple pop and rap acts here and there. A couple months of patience before a recreation of the article won't hurt in the meantime. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some articles by year (like 2013) get created. I remember seeing a music article for 2012 last year (2011). 76.191.214.150 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though there are too many albums listed as "TBA". One of the biggest fans of The Offspring _{(what's up?)} 03:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2013 is only months away. Remove any entries from the page that don't have a source. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 06:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case more releases are announced, keep. 205.155.154.172 (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or HEAVY re-work - The fact is that most of these sources just state they're recording a new album and people "assume" it will be in 2013. So either delete the entire page or remove ALL information that does not specifically state that an album is coming out in 2013. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 22:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. There's nothing encyclopedic that can be written about this topic at this time. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia is not a collection of rumors. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Various albums have been sourced and announced to be coming out in 2013. I agree, however, that it could use a HEAVY re-work and clean-up. Tom Danson (talk) 19:02, 24 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, though as others have noted, it does need a significant cleanup. WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply here, since 2013 in American music will undeniably be notable assuming the 2012 apocalypse doesn't happen. The large number of "Untitled"s and "TBA"s is also not a reason to delete, as this is also true of 2012 in American music. Everything in this article appears to be properly verified and NOR. No reason to delete. De Guerre (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2013 will happen, and thee will be American music at the time. More relevant, a good deal of the music that will be notable next year is already being discussed to a considerable extent now, 2/3 of the way into 2012. Major artistic endeavors are not done on the spur of the moment, and people are enough about them to write about the planning and production. How far ahead should we go? Looking at the contents, I'd say midyear is about right for this. (in some fields, like film, it would be longer) Those who think there's nothing to say should look at what has actually been said. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 1 October 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. Already speedy deleted as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of http://www.pace.on.ca/ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academy for Gifted Children[edit]

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

Asserts no notability and no notability demonstrated. No references and reads like a small-ad. Whilst most schools are deemed inherently notable, there is so little substance here that it fails even that basic test. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:57, 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. Black Kite (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LG Williams[edit]

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

I have deleted much from this article that simply cannot be supported by WP:RS. I understand that this is a performance artist who is using Wikipedia, and this article in particular, as part of his performance art. Obviously, this is completely unacceptable, as per WP:HOAX. I've been unable to unearth any persuasive evidence that he is a notable artist. Several hoax articles pop up, such as this false news story [1]. There have been problems with notability and deletion before, as noted here [2]. At least three accounts that have been trying to promote him have been blocked [3][4][5]. It looks like a real mess. This article and variations such as "L. G. Williams" should probably be salted. I also hope that Williams won't come to this AfD and attempt to turn it into a "performance piece" circus. Qworty (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Has the above become some art critic of the imaginary? I do not see "performance artist" in the acclaimed artist's description? Where is the 'hoax' in all the citations that were deleted? I will undo so that people can make there own decision.--ArtFartAttack (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, how can one review an article when all the verifiable and well-sourced information has been deleted? The artist was in the 2010 Venice Biennial -- considered one of the most important exhibition on Planet Earth! :::--ArtFartAttack (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On schedule, we have the appearance of a new sock. The new account should be blocked, and this article should be deleted and salted. Qworty (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know enough about his notability as an artist, but he does seem to exist [6] and given that the socks promoting him on Wikipedia live in the same area, he is probably not an imaginary person. His notability as WP:PROF seems rather marginal though. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How can any wiki visual arts editor review art literature, articles, and primary / verifiable sources (2012 Venice Biennial, Artforum, La Stampa, HuffingtonPost.fr, San Francisco Chronicle, Village Voice, et al), about 100 actually, when they have all been deleted BEFORE posting this 'discussion' by a verifiably rouge editor [[7]]? Next, how can one read a comment by a 'neutral' (ie, rogue) editor who (i) claims to have no visual art knowledge whatsoever but then (ii) proposes to delete a Visual Art / Artist article via WP:PROF? Clearly all of these actions are suspicious. I look forward to reading learned editorial commentary. Jusanotherwikidope (Talk) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence the subject meets WP:GNG. To meet WP:GNG we need significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Provide some and it might be a different story. Everything so far is either WP:ILIKEIT or pure, unverified WP:OR. Agree he exists but Existence ≠ Notability. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Obviously, ArtFartAttack and Jusanotherwikidope are new socks of the three blocked accounts I referenced in the AfD nomination. Qworty (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPI now available here [8] for these new accounts. Qworty (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LG Williams as a person exists. He is even an artist but clearly of no major importance. If you check his cv on his web site you will notice that much of his web presence is used for his performances. His statement, for example, that he was invited to the Biennale in Venice is of course not backed by any official statement from the organizers. You will also notice in his cv that he claims to hold a Ph.D. "honoris caustica" from an academic institution that I have never heard of, clearly a hoax and part of his performance. The same is true for the claim that he holds an endowed chair at a non existing university in Hawaii. I could continue this list of untrue statements but I hope that the examples I have shown demonstrate the claim that LG Williams is a performance artist who clearly misuses Wikipedia for his (commercial) purposes. I would like to add that a previous article in Wikipedia about him had been deleted because of similar accusations and that the current article is his second attempt. LG Williams seems to receive help promoting himself from a visiting assistant professor in the art history program at Arizona State University, who might be his girl friend and writes about him for example in the Huffington Post. In order to keep Wikipedia a respected source of information entries like this have to be removed. So far the quality control system seems to work but self promotion and self performance seems to become a real threat for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.249.117.156 (talk • contribs)
- Maybe we should give him a caustic reception then. Where is his CV anyway? It's not on the ASU site, and the private (.com) one is probably part of his performance, as you say. In any case, please stop adding unreferenced derogatory material to this article, see WP:BLP. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tao Lin redux, minus the notability (i.e., using Wikipedia as a promotional tool as opposed to reporting on an already notable topic). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!!! Since you mentioned LG Williams girlfriend (see above anon comments with zero objections), I would like to say for the record that I am one of many "girlfriends": we taught (read WP: PROF) together at UCB, USC and CCA. I "did it" with him in many classrooms when the students/administration/janitors were busy elsewhere. For the record, Williams (by his own admission, just ask him) is a super-sex-fiend and he will have relations with anything that has walked on this planet for more than 19 years. He has no limits. His poetry is vulgar and crude and is sold at the best bookstore in the USA: City Lights bookstore. I have seen him go all night at the Power Exchange in San Francisco without a glass of water. (By the way, it is true that he has filthy 7.5" white member.) In addition, he regularly shoots bibles with shotguns at his RV compound in Utah and he regularly prays to Satan's granny for less libido (See his YouTube videos). However, I must say, he would never be so stupid as to not find a CV on a webpage like the "editor" above: here is the CV link Einstein: only a Wikipedian could be so blind; nor would he give his opinion on matters he knows absolutely nothing about, like the other thread "editors" above (see their own disqualifications above / and contributions pages). True, Williams is an art/sex monster of the lowest calibre but this is a ghastly tribunal strung together by mediocrities [[9]]. Rid him of this hypocrisy! Speedy deletion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.104.254 (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Delete I can't find any reason that this article meets WP:GNG- no notable coverage to support the inclusion of an article. Ducknish (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Ducknish, all the notable material has already been deleted. Excellent work. Performance art is despicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.83.194 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete — Fails WP:GNG and everything else. Objectively, it could be WP:TOOSOON, and notability might not be far off. It's unhelpful that he'd pick this venue, though. JFHJr (㊟) 02:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok, his ASU CV [10] is also full of performance art, containing for example:

“

EDUCATION

ت�ب�ر�ی�س�ا�ی�ا�چ�ط�و�ر�ط�ر�ا�ح�ی�غ�ل�ط�غ� • , Institute for Subversive Art and Analysis, Cedar Rapids, IA, Ph.D., Docteur Honaris Caustica • University of California, Davis, M.F.A. • Kansas City Art Institute, Kansas City, MO, B.A.

”

It's not possible to base a Wikipedia article on sources that mix fact with fiction so freely. Come back with non-selfpublished WP:RS Tijfo098 (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those with highbeam access, the artforum article used as one of the two references in the current version of our article can be found here. It covers Williams' works in nontrivial detail, so I'd say it goes some way towards notability (though we'd need more than one such source to pass WP:GNG) but it barely says anything about Williams as a person so it doesn't really address the verifiability concerns that have come up in this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That artforum article is written by Julia Friedman [11] [12] who is some sort of ASU museum curator and visiting assistant prof. She is also the author of the Huffington Post France piece [13] also promoting Williams; that blog entry has caused a BLP bruhaha on ANI after it was quickly added to other articles by Art4em sockpuppets because it made some disparaging remarks about another (more famous) artist. It's not clear if artforum has some editorial oversight, but the Huffington Post fr blog surely looks like it doesn't. Some editors on the other side of the sockpuppeting war have alleged that Friedman (besides working for the same institution as Williams) has an intimate relationship with Williams, making her pieces even less neutral. Even if that is bollocks, we want sources less connected with Williams' workplace for GNG purposes. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Artforum articles in general are considered reliable sources, so they do contribute to the notability of an artist. (As with all art criticism, opinions published there should be attributed to their authors though.) But insofar Friedman is the only source of substantial coverage for Williams, it seems. We need more for GNG given that independence is not so clear cut in this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was able to find the "L.G. WILLIAMS AT WIRTZ" 1999 piece. It's at the bottom of this page (which is mostly about Mike Henderson--a painter for which we do not have an article--, although that combination may be an artifact of how the newspaper was digitized.) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They also have a Scribd account [14] which may or may not contain any useful press clips; most seem fabricated. The account makes a typically boisterous & bogus claim "LG WILLIAMS is the Emma Hennings Distinguished Professor of Visual Art and Art History at D(D).DDDD University in Honolulu, Hawaii." Related hoaxes/promotional web stunts include 2005prixmarcelduchamp.com and ddddddu.com Tijfo098 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think that the 1999 and 2011 coverage show enough notoriety to warrant a stub. It would probably need to be permanently semi-protected from sockpuppetry. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it makes an interesting chalenge for Wikipedia to check out if a so-called "long artist career" can be totaly fabricated just with web referencies. Jean-no (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He list news coverage of him in a rather strange manner on his website. http://lgwilliams.com/?page_id=1962 I went to one of those places, it being http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=435755, which allows anyone to submit their own news. A lot of the other things appear to be websites of a similar nature. The article is all referenced to a free magazine, or the website for them anyway, Tokyo weekender. Dream Focus 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The San Francisco Chronicle does give him a few paragraphs. [15] Artforum did in fact review him in one issue. [16] So he has gotten coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 18:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smells like WP:HOAX to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe major publications were fooled? Or that when they reviewed art that he had on display somewhere, they just imagined it, or were in on this "hoax"? Dream Focus 16:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one believe he's fooled many. And many more have picked up a real story based on a hoax, fake story from the horse's mouth, or fake listing and reproduce it. JFHJr (㊟) 06:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - San Francisco Chronicle July 17, 1999, Artforum May 1, 2011, and Artforum October 6, 2011 provide enough reliable source information to meet WP:GNG. It doesn't help that the editors of the Wikipedia article chose to use sources not independent of the topic. The Tokyo Weekender Magazine sources in the Wikipedia article are written by LG Williams, so they are not independent of the topic and do not count towards WP:GNG. The Village Voice source in the Wikipedia article is a letter to the editor from LG Williams, so it is not independent of the topic and does not count towards WP:GNG. Some other source material: San Francisco Chronicle July 17, 1999 (write up on work of L.G. Williams), Honolulu Advertiser, June 29, 2004 (letter to the editor, not independent); Western Mail December 9, 2005 (letter to the editor, might not be from above LG Williams, not independent); Artforum May 1, 2011 (significant coverage #1), Friedman, Julia. LG Williams/Estate of LG Williams: Super Window Project, Artforum (October 6, 2011) (3 sentence coverage, couldn't get URL from http://artforum.com/search); Resume at ASU (not independent). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., The San Francisco Chronicle July 17, 1999 article is odd in that 12 years pass from then until the Artforum October 6, 2011 article. You would expect that there would be more reliable source coverage between that time span. The ASU resume doesn't help explain this. A more detailed resume is here and perhaps the clever Fuck That Gallery might explain the lack of gallery, and thus, reliable source interest. From the resume, Williams may have graduated from Davis in 1986. The resume is from the website web59.asu.edu[17], but I could not find any information about the website from network solutions.[18] The resume sites notes "Your profile? You control what’s displayed"[19] so none of the information in the Wikipedia article should be sourced to the web59.asu resume. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery solved. He used to go by L.G. Williams and L. G. Williams, which might not be found in searching for LG Williams. There's more information on L. G. Williams:[20]; In October 1992, while an instructor in John F. Kennedy University's graduate arts and consciousness program, Williams was awarded the California State Award of Excellence in Art for "Ranging Succubi," a charcoal drawing by Williams. Pat Walsh (October 29, 1992). "People In The News". San Francisco Chronicle. p. A24. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding "this is a performance artist who is using Wikipedia, and this article in particular, as part of his performance art" noted in the AfD nomination, where are the diffs to support this BLP issue claim that it is Williams himself causing the issues within Wikipedia? The reliable source information I found backs up claims in his resume that his art medium is tangible rather than the purported performance art. Instead I'm seeing attacks against Mr. Williams through Wikipedia, which needs to stop. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A few paragraphs in a newspaper isn't significant enough coverage p b p 18:47, 1 October 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) 01:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kodi internacional i ndertimit[edit]

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

This page is just a translation of the 2006 International Building Code (as in title) and doesn't need a dedicated article. I'm not sure what the non-english text is, potential copyvio? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I previously redirected it to International Building Code but the article creator restored the content. The Albanian text is just a translation plus some soapboxing. It's not sourced, per se, unless we count a link to a copy of the IBC (which already has its own article) - the article content itself is just an essay and not notable. bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the message of the original author from his user talkpage:

Please don't mess with this work, everyone of us has their area of expertise. This article hurts no-one on the contrary it helps. Isn't this the original purpose of Wikipedia, disseminating helpful and relevant information?! Its time for you to move on! You are not helping Albanians with your actions, so please let it be.--Enejamushi (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

the original author has further edited the article. It's no longer in English at all, but he does not wish to edit the albanian wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk)

Delete -- I came to the same conclusion as you guys after seeing it pop up on Bob's talk page. a13ean (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing about the article that meets WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS, regardless of whether or not it is harmless. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the form of this article belongs at sq:wp, not here, although the soapboxing means that we should't transwiki it. If it were an English-language article on Albanian building codes, that would be a good idea, but things in Albanian don't belong here. Nyttend (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been speedied when first created, as a foreign-language article on a topic already covered by an English-language article. (See the procedure at WP:Articles needing translation into English, but since it has been translated previously, it may have been reported there earlier. To be sure, I've now reported it myself.) I think I see from the Google translation why the editor will not put it on the Albanian Wikipedia; otherwise I'd do so myself. It's not doing any good here. I have reverted the author's removal of the English translation to make the nature of the article easier to judge, since we shouldn't evaluate things purely on the basis of a Google translation. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspect that (a) the original IBC is copyrighted, (b) the Google Docs link is to what seems to be a literal translation of the IBC with somebody else's copyright and registered marks pasted on top, (c) that somebody has a name very similar to the accountname of the editor who created the article... I will remove the link, per WP:ELNEVER. bobrayner (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect and salt as per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paritosh Parmar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Harsh (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. FurrySings (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 18 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage for article. SalHamton (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources and lacking a native-language wiki article. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:52, 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. Black Kite (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lim May Zhee[edit]

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

Sources do not provide sufficient coverage for notability. Appears to be written by the subject herself to promote her blog and books. The first link is dead (and was to another wiki anyway), the next to links are actually to the same source, and the fourth link is to a blog. All they establish is that she wrote a book. Manybytes (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not exactly sure if this will be enough to establish notability, as it's by The Star, which is a Malaysian newspaper, and thus would normally be reliable. But with the lack of other reliable sources, I don't know if this will be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I share your skepticism-- it establishes that she's a self-published author with slight blog readership (looking at it now, I doubt it's still as active as claimed in that article) but neither of those establish notability. (There are [over half a million] self-published books a year, and I think that number is for the UK alone.) How do we proceed from here? Manybytes (talk) 05:40, 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)} 07:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Found another article in The Star [21]. Both are feature articles, not trivial. Just because she is self-published doesn't make it non-notable, some people are notable for being self-published authors ie. the rebel who made it on her own story. It seems to be the case here. The The Star has picked up on her story as a successful self-published author. Another mention in The Star [22]. It would be nice to have other sources than The Star (in case she has some sort of connection to it), but I think these are enough to err on the side of caution and keep the article around for more development. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:28, 19 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The two articles from The Star are good enough for me to establish notability. Any other problems with the article are surmountable. De Guerre (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing a book at a young age tends to generate some curiosity, but it is not an indicator of achievement or success. Most self-published books are self-published because the authors cannot find a publisher; so instead the authors borrow their parents' money to fund their ego project. There is no sign of her further advancing in her "career" since her self-published book from 7 years ago. Rank-one map (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another reference is Cheryl Fernando (July 9, 2007). "Only 17, she's written 2 books". New Straits Times. Retrieved October 1, 2012.. That with the other references has the topic meeting WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:36, 1 October 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 El Ten Eleven. Black Kite (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transitions (El Ten Eleven album)[edit]

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

Non-notable forthcoming musical release. No independent refs. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Future album with lack of coverage (these blurbs were the best I found [23][24]) to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:05, 11 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)} 07:21, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to El Ten Eleven. A standalone article isn't justified at the moment. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iqrar ul Hassan[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist and I haven't found any relevant and significant sources aside from the news article that the article currently contains, which is a small mention. I have searched with Google US and Google Pakistan (English) and found absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, it appears that the article has never mentioned a Farsi or Urdu name to help expand the search. I also attempted to search with the English Pakistani newspapers, PakTribune, Express Tribune and Daily Times but found that all of the websites never featured a search box. However, I found one mention here at The Star, which would confirm the school sentence that the article formerly mentioned here. Despite that the article has existed for nearly five years, it has never received significant improvement but rather repeated cases of content removal or additions of unreferenced material. This is probably caused by either the lack of proper English skills from Pakistani users or that there is little to no coverage. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. cannot find sources in English. if someone can find sources in Urdu I will reconsider. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that the journalist in question is a television journalist and hosts a current affairs show called "Sar-e-aam" [25] I see enough evidence to convince me that he's notable, therefore I'm going for a borderline keep. Mar4d (talk) 06:43, 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)} 07:02, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources and lacking a native-language wiki page. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMEDIA, Could not find any reliable third party source. Found lot of Youtube, Facebook and Twitter hits. Might meet WP:BCAST later if he is covered by reliable sources in the future. -Wikishagnik 05:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was weak keep. A much more compelling "fails WP:N" argument would need to be made in the face of sources like [26] and [27] for that policy position to carry the day. SImilarly, arguing that the article "ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject" might be possible, but I don't see the argument being made here - merely that it's a synthesis to mush them together. A couple of sources seem to do that mushing e.g., There is, I believe, a NPOV problem, probably mostly a result of using primarily English language sources? I can't find a consensus to delete on that ground - such would be an exceptional result, which would require a strong consensus for it, which obviously doesn't exist. What else is there? Numbers marginally favour keeping, and "Meets WP:N" is a generally a good argument. One might prefer "no consensus, leaning towards keep", rather than "keep, leaning towards no consensus", but the difference is pretty academic - a relisting wouldn't have a chance of ending up anywhere else. Fix the article by more fairly representing the Arab POV. Maybe, or maybe not, split - I don't know, and don't see a consensus to do so here (but probably not to not do so, either). Wily D 08:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

At this point the article appears to be turning into little more than a WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of WP:NOT#NEWS events serving as a WP:COATRACK intended to demean the Arab and Muslim community. Notability is not really the issue here as these events are simply being combined to conjure up a notable subject, which would generally include any Israel-centric misinformation in the Arab and Muslim community including matters not regarding animals. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree WP:COATRACK. Also seems to fall afoul of WP:Notability. Can anyone point to a single source that actually covers "Zoological conspiracy theories" generally, rather than individual examples of said theories? NickCT (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic on its own is well known, notable, and sourced. Almost every single source utilized in the article mentions other conspiracy theories, which they deem as a trend. This entire nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article does appear to demean Arabs/Muslims (assuming the theories are untrue) but this is irrelevant policy-wise even if this was the intention. There are far more articles and editors with the sole intention of demeaning Jews but I don't see anyone getting all anxious about those articles or nominating them for deletion. Nothing new I suppose. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent developments have simply drawn my attention to the article and it has nothing to do with bias, at least not on my part. Just because you can cobble together enough sources about tangentially-related events to say together they meet the notability criteria does not mean it does not violate other policies. Quite a large number of the sources in this article do not even allude to "conspiracy theories" at all, with some of the instances describing the claims as such being from partisan sources that raise an additional WP:UNDUE concern.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@brew - re far more articles and editors with the sole intention of demeaning Jews - Can you point to some of those articles so we can work to delete them as well? NickCT (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Israeli government comes to mind right away. As far as I am aware this is the only article dedicated to the criticism of a government. Criticism of the Iranian government, Criticism of the American government, Criticism of the Palestinian government are all redlinks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there's no article Criticism of the American government is because there's so much criticism, it wouldn't fit in a single article: instead we have everything from Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina to Criticism of American foreign policy to Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt (see List of criticism and critique articles#America-specific, and yes the US is the only country to have its own sub-heading on that page). If you like, maybe somebody could create more articles critical of Israel? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@brew - re Criticism of the Israeli government - You know, this article doesn't really seem to pass the sniff test. I'd agree it raises WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK,WP:NOTESSAY,WP:SYSTEMICBIAS concerns. The fact that there aren't any other "Criticism of the XXX government" articles seems to lend heavily to the systemic bias idea. Why is only the Israeli government worthy of criticism? Tell you what brewcrew. Point me in the direct of a deletion nomination for this article, and you got my vote! NickCT (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an assorted collection of criticisms of the Israeli government; it's a discussion of the phenomenon of criticism of the Israeli government. For example, there is the oft-discussed question of whether criticism of the Israeli government is antisemitism; that is covered in the article. There is the question of whether the Israeli government is criticized for actions that are normal among sovereign states; this is covered in the article. Topics such as the impact of constant criticism by the world media on the Israeli psyche, the disproportionate focus on Israel by human rights groups and the United Nations, and the suppression of criticism of Israel internationally are topics that enough commentators have written on that the article can, but is not composed of, synthesis. Shrigley (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well even if you forget the synth concerns for a moment, you're still left with the huge question of why there aren't any "Criticism of the XXX government" for governments other than Israel. I'm sure that "enough commentators", as you put it, have written works criticizing every government underneath the sun. Why don't we have Criticism of the Albanian Government? Could it perhaps be that articles of that nature are tremendously unencyclopedic? NickCT (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is the second nomination for deletion. The prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - The material is well-sourced and sources discuss the subject in its totality. WP:COATRACK is not a reason for deletion but a cause for article improvement. Ankh.Morpork 22:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the entire article is a coatrack, then it's a pretty good reason for deletion. Notability of the topic itself has not been demonstrated. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NickCT and Devils advocate. Take a look at the alleged "Pig conspiracy" for example. The allegation of settlers releasing pigs onto Palestinian land as part of a well documented campaign of violence and intimidation is reported credibly by CNN [28] along with a number of Palestinian and Arab sources [29],[30]. There is not a single source which says this is a conspiracy theory. Those which cast doubt on the allegation are Palestinian Media Watch[31] (An activist organization run by a Settler), Arutz Sheva [32]("voice of the Settler movement") and an Opinion piece[33]. Why on earth are we reporting this as a conspiracy theory? And this kind of sourcing generalizes to the whole article. Dlv999 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what your position is. If you are claiming that these are true and not conspiracy theories, then you are not making a valid argument for deletion. If anything these "animal attacks" are even more notable and you are disagreeing with the nominator's main argument for deletion -- that the article demeans Arabs and Muslims.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea where you are coming from with this. Are you saying that you think it acceptable to have an article on "Zoological conspiracy theories" including material based entirely on partisan sources and opinion pieces, none of which even refer to the existence of a conspiracy theory? Dlv999 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CNN was quoting someone making an allegation. Pretending they were reporting it as fact is, well, not very nice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NMMNG, I said "The allegation of settlers releasing pigs onto Palestinian land as part of a well documented campaign of violence and intimidation is reported credibly by CNN". The allegation was reported credibly by CNN (not as some crazy conspiracy theory) as I said. I did not say they they reported it as fact, I said they reported the allegation. I would ask you to retract your snide remark. Either way there is no RS which says this was a conspiracy. Dlv999 (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was already submitted for AfD, and survived by a landslide. Consensus was to keep. The article's subject is notable and covered by a variety of RS outlets, and includes significant information, and there have been many reactions by various people to this info. The entire topic is well sourced to RS outlets and is verifable, which includes Huffington Post, BBC, Washington Post, etc. Some people oppose it here simply because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or are upset that the previous AfD's consensus was to keep, but it's a pretty far-fetched claim to say that an article that numerous admins voted to keep an AfD is to "demean Arabs." I don't think any of us are mind-readers. --Activism1234 23:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps rename per my comments at the previous AfD. There are RS that connect these together, noting previous cases when reporting new ones. It does not fail WP:N nor can it seriously be described as a COATRACK when all the cases fit the title of the article. What's it supposed to be a coatrack for? Silly myths involving Israel controlling animals? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NickCT and Devil's Advocate. It's arrant nonsense – essentially OR, with editors collecting reports of disparate incidents to form a supposed topic (zoological conspiracy theories) that the sources are not writing about as such. --J N 466 23:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have noted, and as has been noted in years past (will get to that in a moment) this is just the usual game in the Israel-Palestine topic area where one side collects isolated happenings and stitches them together into a grand and overreaching conspiracy. Original research and synthesis to a T, created by the currently-banned-by-Arbcom Mbz1 (talk · contribs). The larger issue here is that that this subject matter has been tried before by a variety of socks and other banned users, i.e. Zeq (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apes and pigs in Islam and the related ANI discussion and an Arb Enforcement over Apes and pigs that backfired on Zeq here. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an article about Islam. And if those articles got deleted, great. But there was in fact an AfD for this article - an AfD whose consensus was to keep the article. --Activism1234 00:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- your little rant reminded me of Israel and the apartheid analogy, your favorite little number here on wikipedia.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough sourcing that ties events together to justify keeping the article, at least per the standard of WP:LISTN or a liberal reading of WP:GNG. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the article is a little bit synth'd-together but I think without it, editors might find enough sources to justify Arab-Israeli Shark Conspiracy and Arab-Israeli Rat Conspiracy and the like, as stand-alone articles. I would prefer to see them grouped together than separated into individual articles (which would no doubt result in a primary List of Arab-Israeli Zoological Conspiracies article anyway). Stalwart111 (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the shark attack claims could easily be moved over to the article that actually covers the shark attacks and the other incidents would fail a WP:ROUTINE consideration. None of these claims have independent notability and most of them are only tenuously connected. At best we could move some of the material to the article on "Antisemitism in the Arab and Muslim world" since a few of these incidents are discussed in that context, but I don't think any of this is significant enough to so much as merit a redirect from this bizarre name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why as a whole, and as noted on the previous AfD, they form a notable article reliably referenced. The article was first called "Mossad Shark and Zionist Vulture," but this limited the scope and as mentioned, may not have created sufficient notability for 1 article. A lot of people supported the article but opposed the name. The name was changed to the current one. Indeed, some of the sources here do establish notablity for the article. I doubt these conspiracy theories would t fit in an article about anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim world... --Activism1234 03:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure what's the problem. Of course Military animals is something well known and widely used (please see Category:Military animals). This includes Project Pigeon, Military dolphins ([34]), War pig, Exploding donkey (used in West Bank and Gaza Strip), and who knows what else. No wonder, there could be conspiracy theories about this too. However, as far as content is sufficiently well sourced (it seems to be) and covers a well defined subject, we can have an article about this. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. The article could use some wording tweaks for NPOV. Many of the media sources cited are extremely obscure or local papers. I imagine we could easily create Conspiracy theories promoted in the Daily Mail or Conspiracy theories promoted in the British tabloid press based on similar sources. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are unlikely to be created, because we do not have a cabal of editors who spend there time trying to edit war racist and demeaning material into the encyclopedia targeting the British, as we do in the case of Arabs/Muslims. Dlv999 (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. Maybe We Are Doomed. Or Wikipedia is, anyway. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak Delete) changing to Weak Keep (see below) - each of the "items" in the article is fine (might need some editing and more RS), but the article itself as a whole is OR and SYNTH. i have no doubt that if i had posted it, i would be shot down left and right (mostly left). so, my weak is that if we can find a separate RS that talks about the zoological conspiracies in toto (pardon the pun, dorothy), then sure, keep the article, otherwise, delete it, and maybe add this information to an existing page (and that will be fun to decide which one). oh, and why aren't the following on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal-borne_bomb_attacks#West_Bank_and_Gaza_Strip (which i will be happy to add anyway, ok?) Soosim (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These sources discuss the general topic area and not just individual cases in isolation:

Washington Post

Secret agent vulture tale just the latest in animal plots

What is Responsible for Miseries of the Arabs?

Egypt's Prison of Hate - You know a country is in trouble when it blames shark attacks on the Mossad.

Epistemology to the Muslim World

the wash post, star and gatestone all speak of more than one incident, so yes, those are not bad. of course, some are opinion pieces so must be labeled accordingly. and like colap's comment below, i would rename the article to something like "possible zoological conspiracy theories regarding suspected zoological attacks by Israel". Soosim (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post - Opinion blog should be attributed to author per WP:NEWSBLOG, which it is not.

Secret agent vulture tale just the latest in animal plots- The Toronto Star

What is Responsible for Miseries of the Arabs? An opinion piece(not attributed in the article)

Egypt's Prison of Hate - You know a country is in trouble when it blames shark attacks on the Mossad. - An opinion piece (not attributed in the article)

Epistemology to the Muslim World - a blog named neocon corner (not attributed in the article).

Can someone explain to me, if the purpose of this article is not to denigrate Arabs and Muslims, why have we built an article based on a small collection of rightwing neocon blogs and opinion pieces (all unattributed in the article). How can a collection of blogs and opinion pieces (Defined as Primary Sources by WP:NOR[35]) be used as justification for notability when WP:PRIMARY states that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability" and that "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Dlv999 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Add "List of" in front of this article's title and it becomes acceptable by Wikipedia standards. It's true that I can't find a similar topic in a paper encyclopedia of conspiracies,[36] but Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER! I have asked the WP:ARS for help. They are experts on this type of material. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It brings together well-attested events with commentary that indicates a connection. If the majority believes there's not evidence to call it a conspiracy theory (and I'm slightly unsure myself) it could be renamed to Zoological attacks in the Middle East or something similar, but the article should stay. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as propaganda - which is quite evidently exactly what it is. Do we have an article on Conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)? Nope. Do we have an article on Zoological conspiracy theories in general? No we don't - in spite of the misleading and self-evidently misleading redirect. So why do we have this article, on this 'subject'? Quite simply, because there are enough people, both within the mass media and within the Wikipedia 'community' (which of course includes a well-coordinated group of pro-Israel/Zionist POV-pushers who needless to say are responsible for much of the article content, and are quite willing to misrepresent sources in order to make the subjects of their propaganda look even more ridiculous) who like to see as much material portraying their enemies as backward and ill-educated (or worse) as possible. It is an utter disgrace to Wikipedia that the project has been abused in this way, and it is high time that it was stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, we do not have articles on Conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) and Zoological conspiracy theories in general. But we could have them if anyone would be interested in creating them, just like this article. Not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you may not realize is that this article is not even being limited to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The "pigeon conspiracy" is talking about something that happened in Turkey and they aren't Arabs. Another was a claim about Iran, which is predominantly non-Arab. Basically it just being used to record any bizarre claim of Israel using animals to do bad things. None of these have notability on their own and the general subject is only occasionally covered trivially in connection with these incidents.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is interesting, well written and well sourced.--Collingwood (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Well sourced, high quality sources. It's really disappointing to see attempts to censor material in WP, we have enough of that in the mainstream media these days. I should add that I personally don't like wording like "conspiracy theories" in article titles though, as it denigrates the article contents and is inherently POV. What it essentially means is "the content of this article does not reflect the current presentation of the mainstream media in the United States and United Kingdom". Rangoon11 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. This has nothing to do with censorship, but is instead about addressing a problematic article that has proven to be little more than a magnet for ORish agenda-pushing. Most of the contents that actually has some relevance can be easily merged to other pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Per all above. Flayer (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can see the WP:COATRACK concerns, but all-in-all, is reasonably sourced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete The topic of the article is a claim, namely that Arabs are prone to invent animal related conspiracies, it then provides a list of putative examples of such. However, none of the sources describe the main claim, namely that all of these cases are examples of the same phenomenon. It therefore breaches WP:SYNTH, and WP:COATRACK. The sources do not support the notability of the topic, because they are all about single events, not about the general topic of zoological conspiracies. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you clearly haven't read them, for example the BBC source states "The vulture is the latest animal to be accused of being an unwitting Mossad operative", the World Affairs source links use of rats and sharks, and the Washington Post piece links vultures and sharks. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Delete as per Maunus above. Unless some way of preventing the obvious coatracking can be found. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the article refers to a number of conspiracy theories all well sourced and tied to a broader topic which the article discusses. The reasons cited for deletion by almost everyone who wants to delete refer to specific problems with some of the article's content. I admit that the article's quality fluctuates and that's not desirable, but this is not a valid argument for deletion. The vast majority of the article's content has to do with what the article is about, so it's not a WP:COATRACK. If some of the content is not relevant to the article, those arguing for deletion are welcome to make a case for deleting that content on the article's talk page. I find it funny that one of the arguments for deletion above claims that there is a conspiracy by certain editors to write articles such as this. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty obviously a synthesis of individual incidents into a made-up phenomenon. There are no reliable sources either in the article or offered in this discussion that treat this as a topic in itself. I thought we had grown out of exploding whales, but clearly, judging by the continued existence of that article and the support that this one has attracted, we haven't. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As written above by Rangoon, "for example the BBC source states "The vulture is the latest animal to be accused of being an unwitting Mossad operative", the World Affairs source links use of rats and sharks, and the Washington Post piece links vultures and sharks." So I see a connection to a topic being used in these refs. --Activism1234 20:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see no such statement in the BBC article.[37] The articles in World Affairs[38] and The Washington Post[39] are both opinion pieces and each mentions two incidents involving animals along with other non-zoological incidents. There's nothing there that presents zoological conspiracy theories as a topic in themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential and trivial connections at best that do not deal with a general subject of "zoological conspiracy theories" as you claim. We could expand the conspiracy section at the article on the actual shark attacks, noting briefly in like a sentence or two that said theory was seen as being part of a pattern that included the claims about the rat and the vulture. However, I don't think redirecting this name to there would be appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, you're looking in the wrong BBC article. The statement is in this article dealing with the vulture. --Activism1234 20:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we have 15 words of coverage in one news article. Are we really going to keep an article on that basis? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course. As the nominator of the first AfD, I have not changed my mind about this (steadily increasing) heap of garbage. Of course, I expect it to be kept, (as such garbage always is) with "some" help...with the normal "recruiting", and socks. (Editors can go back and see for themselves how many of those who voted "keep" in the first AfD have since been banned as socks. I assume Nocal, Matanmorland and the rest are already out in force. ) However, I retain the satisfaction that other people have nominated this article (off-wikipedia) as among the "Worst of Wikipedia". Hurrah! This article (+ quite a few others) serves absolutely no other purpose than to "prove" that Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians are a backward and ignorant lot. No wonder Anders Behring Breivik loves English Wikipedia: it "confirms" all his beliefs. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Demonizes Arabs and Muslims" is a WP:JDLI argument. Sources that on the surface only discuss only one incident, in fact note the existence of trends, antisemitic canards, etc. Shrigley (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing that is not the only argument presented. We have reports that are almost entirely just random news events collated into an article based on some sources making trivial connections. It relies as the basis for its inclusion on there being enough sources to get keep votes, rather than relying on there being significant discussion of it as an independent subject in multiple reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've edited the article a fair bit to make it easier to see which sources link the events and provide commentary on the pattern [40]. I hope this helps alleviate the SYNT concern. The title is still a bit problematic because few sources refer to the Arab overreaction as "conspiracy theories". We should probably consider renaming the article to something else, but nothing good comes to mind now and it's not really a topic for this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It turns out that most of the press commentary is about two events, one of which (the shark one) has a separate article already. These are both pretty recent events (2010, 2011). I checked Conspiracy Theories in the Arab World: Sources and Politics [41] (a 2010 book) and it has no mention of any animal-related spying/attack theories. The neutrality of about half the sources of commentary has been disputed, and these have been deleted [42] [43]. So, it looks like this article may have been created a bit too soon. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There were actually a lot more conspiracy theories on this article... But once the restrictions were in place, any editor who didn't like it (you know, because it somehow makes them look bad) could freely remove it, and not worry about it ever getting reinserted since they'd just oppose it on the talk page... --Activism1234 01:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH material in the article. The restrictions were put in place to stop edit warring and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. So far they appear to have been successful. Dlv999 (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of content was recently removed from the article. I remember reading about the giant rats years ago. [44] mentions that, as well as two pigeons arrested in 2008 for staking out a nuclear enrichment facility, 14 spy squirrels being arrested, and the super rats. My internet keeps going out, so hard to search right now. But these various things do get coverage, and no reason not to put all animal related conspiracies together on one page. Dream Focus 08:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a large number of content has already been deleted seems like a reason to delete rather keep the article.Poyani (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep broadly per brewcrewer. There seems to be a lot of confusion here (especially per recent block deletions) between needing to prove that there were supernatural rats, and needing to show that there was a popular impression or panic about supernatural rats. No-one seriously claims that Zionist Death Kittens are real, merely that there is a noteworthy conspiracy theory claiming they are. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is saying that you need to prove there were supernatural rats. I have no idea where you are getting that impression from. The claim that there was "a popular impression or panic about supernatural rats" was only coming from Palestinian Media Watch, an agenda driven activist organization run by a settler - which falls a long way short of the sourcing needed for such a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Dlv999 (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Palestinian Media Watch: "A report Palestinian Media Watch presented to the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 2008 indicated that the Palestinian Authority was engaging with enemies of the United States on a shared platform of hatred toward the U.S. The report argued that under such circumstances the creation of an independent Palestinian state would contribute to the undermining U.S. efforts toward world peace." Tijfo098 (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting a report to a United States House Committee does not automatically confer reliable source status for wikipedia articles. For instance Human rights organizations, such as Human rights Watch([45], [46]), regularly testify or submit reports to House Committees, but they are not regarded as RS for verifying facts in the Wiki voice. Dlv999 (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Activist and My Very Best Wishes. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 01:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Struck, likely banned editor. Amalthea 18:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP is known for !vote stacking in AfDs [47]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this even requires a discussion (let alone a divided one) is a testament to how badly wikipedia's systems are failing. This article is beyond ridiculous. It was originally a badly written WP:Synth. Over the years the original research advanced in this article was picked up by a few opinion columnists and now the wikipedia article lists them as sources, a perfect example of content creation via circular references. And it is all done to push a POV. Notice that to date there is not even one single notable or reliable source pushing the synthesis presented. Not a single one. Just opinion writers who wrote their synthesis after this article was created. And yet we still have all these votes for "keep".Poyani (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that this article has been the source of the third party sources quoted within it?Rangoon11 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What happened to the rats???? so not fair. bring back the rats! Soosim (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic is notable there are plenty of sources that discuss those theories so its meet WP:N and WP:DIVERSE.For example [48]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you found an article created well after this one was created that mysteriously used the exact same term as the title of this article at that time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it's because this article was created as a result of all the conspiracies floating around at that time, also accumulating in various op-eds, which were also collected in a JPost piece... Also note the JPost piece focused on a different zoological event, and then mentioned the other conspiracy theories since it was connected to the actual story (and no, I don't think anyone has control over when historical events occur). I don't think it's too wise to speculate conspiracy theories regarding RS outlets, there's no possible way to back up that unsourced speculation. Let's be realistic here. --Activism1234 23:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post article is an obvious case of circular sourcing. I do not even remotely think the author came up with "Israeli zoological militancy conspiracy theories" all on his lonesome when the Wikipedia article used that exact same term at the time the article was written.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, it's odd that the name of the article changed in April 2011, the journalist used that exact (strange) turn of phrase in August 2011 and the article name was changed to something else in October 2011, because that particular turn of phrase was strange. It really was a strange phrase and the use of it by a journalist "at random" during the few months it was in place suggests either the journalist was using WP as a source or the journalist is the editor who made that change and used the phrase here before using it in an article there. I don't think that's a "conspiracy theory" - neither of those is illegal or unethical. It just means that source doesn't make for a particular good-quality source for this article. It's either WP citing a source citing WP or it was WP:OR in the first place for which someone has manufactured a source. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article contravenes a veritable alphabet soup of Wikipedia policies: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:Notability, and most of all WP:COATRACK. Although the article might serve as an example par excellence of the last one. Oh, and it's pretty clearly breaking WP:NPOV too, as it appears to cast one strange and fairly silly event as evidence of some deep insanity among Arabs that means they think animals are more often than not controlled by Mossad. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)— HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is this actually your 17th edit to Wikipedia or did you edit previously under another user name? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the relevance of this question here. You should ask on my talk page. As it is, I've made occasional contributions to Wikipedia for at least 6 years anonymously, and registered in order to make a more substantial commitment. I also see no point in contributing without familiarising myself with the policy of the website. In light of this, it sounds like you would do well to remind yourself of WP:GOODFAITH. If you have suspicions about my account, take them up with an admin. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI on you opened. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you waited six whole years before your felt confident enough open an account. So noble, so very noble. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable individual events (per WP:EVENT - these lack persistent significant coverage or lasting effects) do not dodge the notability requirements by being glued together. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After thinking some more about this, the combination of absurdly narrow title/topic with the AE-imposed rules make a decent article impossible. The fact that most sources tying together the rather recent events are opinion pieces in the press doesn't help either. I've started improving animals used in espionage instead. The wider topic of Israel/Mossad-related conspiracy theories (not necessarily involving animals) and the proclivity of the public and press in Muslim countries (even in those far away from Israel) to believe and disseminate those is covered in more reliable sources. [49] [50] An article on that would be less contestable by the anti-activist activists. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a really good idea. Then these individual incidents, if they are to be covered, can have more context. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can also mention it a teensy bit in the article on the shark attacks under the conspiracy section there, since that is mainly what prompted the talk.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could rename this article to Mossad related conspiracy theories which would solve the problem I guess. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could only possibly 'solve the problem' for material which could be cited as being a 'Mossad related conspiracy theory'. There was too much WP:OR in the article as it was - having to guess which particular Israeli agency was being accused of zoological monkey-business (so to speak) would be stretching it, even for nonsense like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you wouldn't need to guess as RS would state is as such, like in the shark case. How about Conspiracy theories involving Israel (which currently redirects to this article) then? There are a few "Conspiracy theories about X" articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a misdirected redirect if ever I've seen one. Sadly, there are a hell of a lot of 'Conspiracy theories involving Israel' which have nothing to do with sharks, vultures or puffer-fish - and as such much more deserving of in-depth coverage in Wikipedia. The problem is of course sourcing. It shouldn't be difficult to find plenty of proper academic coverage of the way the old anti-semitic tropes have been redirected at Israel, but there is a real problem knowing where to draw the line when almost any criticism of Israel is seen by a few (or maybe more than a few?) as evidence of antisemitism. I suspect that any general article on the proposed subject would rapidly degenerate into the same old Wikipedia battleground article, of little use to a reader actually trying to get a clear view of a complex topic. I am increasingly coming round to the opinion that there are some subjects that Wikipedia's 'anyone can edit' methodology is incapable of covering in a useful way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - As of this post, I move the article to List of animal attacks (Arab-Israeli conflict) and rewrote the lead to read: List of animal attacks (Arab-Israeli conflict) is a compilation of incidents in which a country is alleged to use an animal to attack Arab or Israeli civilians or conduct espionage, such as part of a Zionist or Israeli plot. I suggest closing as no consensus (which is where the discussion was headed anyways) and relisting at AfD to allow editors to consider the topic as a list without the problems of trying to justify a prose article or justify a topic with a vague article name. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a pretty big unilateral change without any prior discussion... I'm not sure everyone is going to agree to this... --Activism1234 15:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I think it's a great idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A list of animal attacks (Arab-Israeli conflict) topic is viable as supported by the content already in the article. The article name "Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict" tried to aggrandize the topic into something more than it is, and that is what was turning editors away from supporting the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old article worked towards trying to prove that there are zoological conspiracy theories in the Arab-Israeli conflict. There were animal attacks, some people thought that one country or another was behind the attack, reporters reported on it. That's all that happened. But the events did happen and there is enough of such information to form a topic in which Wikipedia can publish in the form of a list article. I revised the article to move it away from being about conspiracy theories,[51] so that the article can continue to move towards being a representative survey of the relevant literature rather than an original source of conclusion for different events. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete nonsense. Had you even read the article before you moved it? It isn't about 'animal attacks', but about alleged conspiracies using animals. And why the hell do you think it is remotely appropriate to move an article to another subject matter without any discussion whatsoever in the middle of an ongoing AfD discussion? I see your move has been reverted. If you want Wikipedia to have an article on the subject you propose, start one (if you can find sources to meet the guidelines). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems enough common information about these to justify the article. A list of actual use of animals in combat would be a different topic, and should be written DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "common information" has mostly been editors finding tenuous connections between events, or just adding anything they think fits. At its core the article was focused on the shark incident and the vulture incident, but the basis for an article was tenuous there as well. We have material about shark attacks that could easily be moved over to the article on the shark attacks that prompted the conspiracy theories, as that was a big part of what made the event notable. Beyond that none of the other incidents, even in combination, would really be able to withstand a faithful application of WP:NOT#NEWS. The vulture stuff was basically just tacked on to discussion about the sharks because the events happened around the same time. When it was put in some sort of context, such as in this article, it is often put alongside plenty of conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with animals.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"~~editors~~ journalists, mostly in op-eds finding ~~tenuous connections~~ similarities between these events (which they say fits well in the overall picture of the ease of propagation of other Israel-related conspiracy theories in Muslim majority countries)". There, fixed it for you. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Op-eds and opinion blogs are defined as Primary Sources by WP:NOR[52]). WP:PRIMARY states that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability" and that "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Dlv999 (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are examples. If all opinions are disallowed (as primary sources or whatever other wikigimmick), then we wouldn't be able to write anything about the critical reception of a book for instance, because all book reviews are opinions. I agree however that better sources of opinion should be sought for contentious material like this. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: You're a brave soul. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 1 October 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. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The_Hobbit_(1985_film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Hobbit (1985 film)

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

this film isn't notable...there are numerous films with the same name and when I search this with the year, I find about 3 youtube videos. This simply isn't notable per WP:GNG Go Phightins! (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't clearly understand what notable means? I wouldn't give the film 5 starts. I was myself rather surprised to find out it actually exists, I thought it's a joke, but I found famous actors played in that film and from the sources and even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Hobbit speaks about it. Also http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Hobbit_(disambiguation). If article isn't properly formatted it's another thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delusionalinsanity (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly the film doesn't meet notability guidelines. No third party sources found, either. Tinton5 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, man. If something exists on a tape and not on paper, does it exist? :) Here's another one http://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/468309/ hosted on a website КиноПоиск - see this link for more http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delusionalinsanity (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt it exists, but I question it's notability. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Гердт,_Зиновий#Фильмография

Ok, I don't mind if it's removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delusionalinsanity (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I went to the author's page to explain WP:N, so that might clear some things up. Also did a cleanup/format. This might be one of those things where there are refs in other languages, so I'd like to get a moment to ping the WikiProjects for Russia and for "Middle Earth" just to get some support from folks who might be able to substantiate. Given that it's apparently a Soviet film with some decently well-known institutions involved, it's likely documented somewhere. I agree it needs to show that documentation, but I'd like to get a little more time on it. Worst case, I'd like to see it sandboxed (and I'll accept it to my userpage if we lose track of the originator). MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delusional, your link has the title "Приключения хоббита" for 1985, is that what you understand the film to be? I tried gBooking that, but my Russian's not good enough (and there's a lot of snippet-view) to be able to see what's about the film (фильм) and what's about the book. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be proven. The only sources are YouTube and another Wiki. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NFILMS. Notable, award-winning actors played in this film.--Kürbis (✔) 22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Russian Wiki page has no sources, and there are no sources in this page which prove that those award-winning actors are in it. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have to look at the actor pages there, ip. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So we should use a Wikipedia article to source another Wikipedia article? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still not conclusive due to lack of clear sources, but there's a pretty lengthy writeup on ru.wiki: ru:Сказочное путешествие мистера Бильбо Беггинса, Хоббита. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adaptations of The Hobbit. I'm aware that there is a language barrier here, but a search didn't bring up anything that I could use as a reliable source to back up anything in the article or show notability. If someone can provide them I'd be willing to change my vote. That said, this wouldn't be bad to redirect to the adaptations page, as redirects are cheap and we could probably sum up everything in this article in about 2 sentences at this point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Redirect to Adaptations of The Hobbit~~ ~~for now, per the language barrier, but without prejudice for return once the barrier is overcome.~~ I did find a couple Russian language sources discussing this children's film broadcast on Leningrad Televion,[53] so its existance is not in doubt. Finding coverage of Soviet-made films is difficult, andfinding such for Soviet television is even more so. If usefied to its author, he could have the time neccessary to dig even deeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. The reader wants to know more about this film, not the adaptions. I can add a plot section, which is not 2-sentences long as Tokyo asserted. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that's a last resort; merging into "Adaptions" pulls the film out of many category trees of interest: Soviet film, 1985 films, etc. It's not just a version of the Hobbit, it exists in other spheres. So merge would wipe out most of that utility. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer: I am not at all adverse to a "keep", as we do have some sources... even with the understandable difficulty in sourcing a Soviet television project confirmed as broadcast and covered in 1985. By comparison, an American television project from 1955... thirty years earlier... would be far easier. I understand that in our improving Wikipedia, we need be careful to not let an unfortunate systemic and internet bias limit our ability to inform readers of non-English, pre-internet, Soviet topics... as long as we at least have verfiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep above per WP:CSB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a teleplay, i.e., the TV version of a stage production for children. You may download it from this torrent and judge for yourself. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources were added and some info was provided. We should not really expect a NewYorker article about this movie, but at least the source I provided is reliable (did not check the others).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether this source exercises editorial control, but there is some coverage here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not sure about the source...seems to be a little like a Russian version of IMBD--Go Phightins! (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gets mentions here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourcing isn't stellar by US standards, but for a Soviet film this seems to hit an acceptable of level of sourcing. The film is about indisputably Notable, albeit hard to properly document, so I think this we're veering into a "angels dancing on the head of a pin" argument here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Appears to be notable enough. No good reason for deletion. If this was an English-language production we'd undoubtedly keep it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the long-standing and stable Russion language wiki article and the references in the English language article. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current sources demonstrate notability. Even the Huffington Post picked up on the film last year [54]. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexta hollow[edit]

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

Non-notable character (no hits for "Sexta hollow" in any of the usual venues) that was created exclusively for fan fiction. I don't think non-notability could be any more obvious. CtP (t • c) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The series is well-known, but this is just fanfic. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources and lacking a native-language wiki page. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:00, 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 redirect to List of Mazinger characters. Any needed information can be merged from the article history — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Birdler[edit]

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

This nom is for a collection of articles about villains from the Mazinger universe. They are all unsourced, and mostly tagged as such for 2-3 years (some for 6 years). There is no assertion of notability in any of the articles. They are written in-universe in style. Some have been proposed for merge for a few years, but that hasn't happened. If no one can source, maintain, or merge these articles in years, I propose that they should just be deleted.

This nom was originally for almost all articles about individual characters, but upon suggestion (discussion collapsed below) I am breaking the articles into categories in separate noms.

I nominate the following related articles:

Dr. Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baron Ashura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Count Brocken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Archduke Gorgon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mikene Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Minister Argos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
General Scarabeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
General Angoras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
General Ligern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
General Hadias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some guy (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about breaking nom into categories
Comment - I think that a mass nomination of this size is not appropriate in this particular case. While most of proposed articles are indeed rather unnotable (such as General Birdler) and would be better suited to be a mention in a character list, there are others, such as Koji Kobuto and the titular robot itself, that I would be utterly shocked if there were not reliable sources to be found, albeit most likely in a language other than English. In addition, the rather wide range of article types here, ranging from individual characters to standard character lists, makes this a difficult nomination to be able to support or oppose a mass decision. It might be better to split this AFD up into smaller, more manageable nominations to foster easier discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply: My thinking is if it hasn't been taken care of by now, it never will be. Anything kept will need a complete rewrite. The Koji Kobuto article, for example is so full of original research, casual analysis, and editorializing that it's not usable. It's generally more work to rewrite an existing article than to write one from scratch. Additionally, I thought it more prudent to put the articles all together than to flood the AfD with twenty or so nominations, but maybe grouping into categories (protagonists, mechs, antagonists, or something) would be more appropriate. Anyone else have any thoughts? Some guy (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Rorshacma - it would be easier to split them into general "categories" which can then be dealt with group-by-group. Defining those "categories", though, is going to require some arbitrary line-drawing on your part. I think the general categories you came up with are a good start. If I could make one suggestion - perhaps leave the lists to the end so that editors have the option of suggesting a merge into those lists for any of the individual articles. If, after it's all said and done, the lists are only populated by red-links, you can put those up to finish the process. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. (for the Koji Kabuto article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Okay, should I do that immediately? Also, I don't know whether to remove this proposal manually or wait for an admin to close it? Some guy (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Would think you could non-admin close it yourself with an appropriate note about splitting it up. Can't see anyone being offended by that. Or you could reduce this nom down to one particular "category" of articles, collapse the above comments to allow consensus to re-start and start new noms for the other "categories". And maybe for the sake of a cleaner consensus, the two articles sent to the list of content for rescue consideration should not be nominated (for now). Stalwart111 (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about breaking nom into categories

Comment - I think that a mass nomination of this size is not appropriate in this particular case. While most of proposed articles are indeed rather unnotable (such as General Birdler) and would be better suited to be a mention in a character list, there are others, such as Koji Kobuto and the titular robot itself, that I would be utterly shocked if there were not reliable sources to be found, albeit most likely in a language other than English. In addition, the rather wide range of article types here, ranging from individual characters to standard character lists, makes this a difficult nomination to be able to support or oppose a mass decision. It might be better to split this AFD up into smaller, more manageable nominations to foster easier discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: My thinking is if it hasn't been taken care of by now, it never will be. Anything kept will need a complete rewrite. The Koji Kobuto article, for example is so full of original research, casual analysis, and editorializing that it's not usable. It's generally more work to rewrite an existing article than to write one from scratch.

Additionally, I thought it more prudent to put the articles all together than to flood the AfD with twenty or so nominations, but maybe grouping into categories (protagonists, mechs, antagonists, or something) would be more appropriate. Anyone else have any thoughts? Some guy (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rorshacma - it would be easier to split them into general "categories" which can then be dealt with group-by-group. Defining those "categories", though, is going to require some arbitrary line-drawing on your part. I think the general categories you came up with are a good start. If I could make one suggestion - perhaps leave the lists to the end so that editors have the option of suggesting a merge into those lists for any of the individual articles. If, after it's all said and done, the lists are only populated by red-links, you can put those up to finish the process. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. (for the Koji Kabuto article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, should I do that immediately? Also, I don't know whether to remove this proposal manually or wait for an admin to close it? Some guy (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would think you could non-admin close it yourself with an appropriate note about splitting it up. Can't see anyone being offended by that. Or you could reduce this nom down to one particular "category" of articles, collapse the above comments to allow consensus to re-start and start new noms for the other "categories". And maybe for the sake of a cleaner consensus, the two articles sent to the list of content for rescue consideration should not be nominated (for now). Stalwart111 (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments after this note. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect all into List of Mazinger characters. Nomination is based on WP:NEGLECT and WP:RUBBISH, which are not good reasons to delete articles when they should be merged and copyedited. It took years to clean up the Gundam related articles, there is no WP:DEADLINE to cleanup these articles. —Farix (t | c) 13:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: I have removed AfD tags from all articles that are not listed in this AfD. —Farix (t | c) 13:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I intend to list AfDs for the remaining articles but hadn't gotten to it yet due to school obligations. I'll retag the other articles as I put up their categories. This nomination is not based solely on neglect and rubbish, there's also the question of notability. There has to be a deadline on proving content is notable, otherwise we could never delete any article for lack of notability. While the universe might be notable, per INDISCRIMINATE it is unlikely every character and mech is notable. Some guy (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What characters are covered by the character list is an editorial depression and not one for AfD. However, and indiscriminate deletion nomination—such as this one—which nominates main characters and major villains along with incidental characters, does not produce productive results. —Farix (t | c) 22:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of these articles share exactly the same issues. I have clustered together articles by category (in this case villains) to keep from flooding the AfD boards. Without sources, any judgement call I make on which characters are notable is arbitrary. I also have no expectation of finding sources based on my experience in searching for them thus far. "Being the main villain" isn't by itself a sufficient criteria; per WP:GNG notability requires significant coverage from reliable sources. Regardless, let's see what additional input garners. Some guy (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:GNG does not determine which characters are covered in a list of characters. Per WP:NLISTITEM "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content." —Farix (t | c) 00:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Just as an aside, I want to point out that several of these characters are not actually villains, but are main protagonists. Not that relevent to the discussion, but I thought I should point that out since you mentioned you had attempted to make this AFD grouped as all the villains.Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Farix: Okay, but there must be a notability guideline that covers list content somewhere.

Rorschacma: Whoops, I even remember thinking "I need to remove Boss and Jun" and I thought I followed through with that. The mistake is now corrected. Some guy (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be looking for WP:NLIST, which "applies to lists in general, not only lists of people". Yeah? Stalwart111 (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's about right, thanks. Anyway, the discussion is getting off topic. It's probably better to determine the merits of the list of characters article separately at a later time. Some guy (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only for particular types of lists, but the only inclusion guideline for a character list is that the character is from the series and their appearance is more than incidental. —Farix (t | c) 01:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List of Mazinger characters. ~~If you want to move any references in the articles to List of Mazinger characters that can be done now before the AfD closes~~ . - There are not even any references to move, redirect all then as putting unsourced information into an unsourced character page will not help things get better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All to List of Mazinger characters. Most, if not all of them, are listed there already. Only a few of the characters would actually need to have any information merged, as their current entry in the list consists only of a "See Main Article" stub, but that can be done as appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, per above, Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, I just got done placing all necessary information from the character articles above into the main list article, at this point I propose giving it to the article rescue squadron. I'd also suggest using Anime News Network or some similar site for character voice actors (and lets be honest the article needs fixing on that badly.... among other things). Rorshacma is also correct, as someone that has seen every entry in the franchise save God Mazinger, the list article does have every character that appeared in more than one episode in some entry of the franchise (except for Juuma since he was in a movie). The issue though is that all these characters, at some point in some entry, did contribute their part in the story's plot; with that said notability is hard to determine for most of them. As for the franchise mecha articles I have taken the liberty of copying, redirecting, and refining them at a Wikia and will work on it until a lot of lost information can be restored so if Someguy or whoever wants to nominate the articles for deletion I will not stop them even if I personally disagree.Yapool Seijin (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the contents of the articles have been merged into List of Mazinger characters, then the articles cannot be deleted as it would be in violation of both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses, under which all editors release their contributions. The edit histories of those articles must be preserved to maintain attribution required by the licenses. —Farix (t | c) 02:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recording the merges with ((Copied multi)). Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid merging during an active AfD, per WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. It looks like everyone agrees that merging or redirecting is appropriate, but actually performing the merge deprives participants of the option of deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:History merge and redirect to the list, as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Normal merges (WP:Merging) are fine, but history merges are not appropriate, per WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#A troublesome case and WP:Merge and delete#History fixing. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 1 October 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. No chance in hell: SNOW. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Printz Board Credits[edit]

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

Not an article; list of works of a possibly non-notable person without their own article. Printz Board has many mentions in reliable sources, but seemingly little significant coverage, and either way, an article would be called for before an unformatted list of works. (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, doesn't even bother to have a sentence explaining what it is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Note also that Printz Board (2011 afd) is red, removing any possibility of context. Kilopi (talk) 03:43, 29 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) 04:03, 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Speaking Association[edit]

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

Non-notable group and the only relevant link I have found is this press release and this trivial mention through a news article. The press release also cites "Professional Speakers Association" as their name but I have also found few relevant sources with this despite searching with both Google US and Google UK news. It seems that the group has also used http://www.professionalspeakers.org/ and http://www.professionalspeakingassociation.co.uk/ (the latter is the current link that the article uses) but both of them now lead to http://www.professionalspeaking.biz/. As a result of their generic and simple name, I have found results for individual speakers or other associations ("Professional Speaking Association of Florida", National, etc.). Google Books found this that only mentions "Professional Speakers Association" so I wouldn't know if it is relevant or not. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of independent sources. Kilopi (talk) 03:51, 29 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) 04:03, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkury[edit]

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

COI fluff, not notable, borderline speedy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:39, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that the company never received any appropriate news coverage, the only relevant link I have found is this Brazilian PC World article. Considering that the founder is Israeli, it is possible that there may be Hebrew sources but I'm not fluent with Hebrew so I wouldn't know how to search. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources and lacking a native-language wiki page. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:04, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ego Trip (Keoki album)[edit]

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

Lack of notability and has been ref improve tagged for 6 years. 0pen$0urce (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge track listing to discography on the artist's page per WP:NALBUMS--Talain (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:19, 18 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) 18:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references for 6 years, not notable. Many artists have less significant albums listed in discography that do not have own article or track listing.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:35, 27 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) 04:04, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Tahmaz[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. The nationalfootballteams profile listed in the external links is about a different person. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 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 Redirected to Abilene, Texas#Health care as a result of the merge performed by DGG. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Medical Care Mission[edit]

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

Non-notable group and I haven't found any other relevant and significant sources aside from the two present. The first reference is pure advertising and the second provides significant content such as the history but it appears that this is the only appropriate reference. Google newspapers found one small mention here. There is a link here that mentions "Medical Care Mission" but not Presbyterian, but it is a small mention nevertheless. However, it may have been the relevant Medical Care Mission as this news article contains the same address as the first news link that I provided. Google News also found one dead link here (at the top of the page, first result) but it wasn't archived at the KTXS website or web.archive.org. It is not surprising that there are few sources, considering that the group is religion-affiliated and based from a church. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. It appears that this medical clinic is now severed from the church that founded it. We have kept larger hopsitals, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Jose Hospital & Trauma Center. I am not sure if this clinic is big enough to be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to a new section on health care that I just now added to the article on Abilene, Texas. Socially significant but not by itself encyclopedically notable. Hospitals and health clinics are a problem, for there is rarely much to be found in the way of sourcing. I agree with SwisterTwister's analysis that there is not enough substantial coverage here for the GNG. In cases such as this, like Berian, I go to some extent by size, & it consists of only 14 professionals, including 2 physicians and 1.5 dentists. I'd like to include subjects like this, but we usually do not include them as separate articles. We can usually find another way, so people looking for the subject will find some basic information and links to additional. (The nominator asked me to come here, as there were insufficient comments) DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abilene, Texas#Health care; merge has already been performed by DGG. Good solution. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 1 October 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) 01:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yanaki Smirnov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Network for Advanced Management[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. a mere 5 gnews hits when established in April [55], but nothing else. currently article is standing on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG & WP:CORPDEPTH. Also keep per WP:NRVE, because topic notability is not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles.

B-schools create alliance to prosper in a global market. The Globe and Mail.
Yale Creates Global Network of B-School Leaders. Businessweek.
AIM joins Yale's Global Network for Advanced Mgmt. The Philippine Star.
Additional sources: [56], [57]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:23, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:40, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are either announcements of its formation in April or that a they have a new member school. All have no more depth than a press release. Kilopi (talk) 04:30, 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual (Master's Hammer album)[edit]

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

can't be established as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect; Master’s Hammer and the band’s first two albums are definitely notable, but this is not an article. --217/83 09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC) See below. --217/83 16:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 11 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)} 08:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I improved the article at least enough to show the album’s notability. --217/83 16:10, 18 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) 16:20, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasianity[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for publicising your end of university MA Show. There is a dearth of reliable sources [58] Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AutomaticStrikeout 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article appears to be heavily supported by UrbanDictionary, an unreliable source and joke of a dictionary. Unsurprisingly, Google News found nothing and I found what may be an irrelevant or relevant mention with Google News archives here (sixth result from the top). If that article is relevant, it would be insufficient. Google Books found an irrelevant result here. There is nothing to support this article. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a non-notable student project, just completed last week. No significant references and nothing to show notability. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 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) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agostinho Cá[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the one that requested it be undeleted, and then once I realized that I misread the source and he was only on the bench, not on the field, I rePRODed it, only for it to be removed by a drive by IP with no explanation. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore when passes NFOOTY: Fails GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of castles in the South Moravian Region[edit]

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

Useless list, as it is not linking to the castles/chateaus it promises, but to the places where the building stands. The Banner _talk 12:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the topic is important and the content is fixable. I'll look at the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some links go directly to castles and some of the locality pages discuss the castle/chateau in question, so the list does have some value and needs cleanup rather than deletion. Siuenti (talk) 22:38, 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 keep. Although we must be sensitive to BLP, in this case she has enough significant coverage in reliable sources for notability, and the continuous coverage shows that it does not fall under WP:BLP1E. Following BLP policy here is not solved by deletion, but by proceeding with caution over all statements made in the article. As a side note, the Wikipedia article (which is significantly less negative and gossipy than a lot of the news articles) is first on the Google results, so the existence of the article may actually be beneficial to her reputation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pamella Bordes[edit]

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

This is a request for deletion by the subject of the article, Pamella Singh (previously Bordes), re:OTRS ticket 2012091410007106

The controversial content relates to press coverage of Singh's role as a 'companion' to several notable individuals. The issue was raised at BLP/N in this thread. Content was revised but not removed; thus the deletion request.

I'm relaying this request on behalf of Pamella Singh. Please consider it as if she presented it herself. --User:Ocaasi

Message from Pamella Singh,

The original stories about me were originated by the News of The World a British tabloid paper which had to be shut down due to their track record of publishing inaccurate stories and phone hacking etc. Once they published stuff the material snowballed from there and other newspapers picked it up including some serious newspapers. No one called me to verify anything and by the time I got the information it was too late because it was everywhere and I had become a cottage industry for anyone to write as they pleased. In fact, they are still doing it. The information in this paragraph has been taken from various british newspapers most of them tabloid like the News Of The World etc. Everybody knows how unscrupulous British tabloids are in hounding and destroying people's lives with inaccuracies and lies.

This information on me in wikipedia has totally destroyed my life. I have been deeply unhappy and frightened for the past 25 years due to this . For past 20 years I have been doing very well as a professional photographer but people outside the art world do not take me seriously no matter how hard I work or how many prestigious exhibitions I have. I am sexually attacked by men because they read the wikipedia description of me and I am the target of jealous and hateful women who malign me when they see how well i have done as a photographer. I think I have been punished enough since 1989.

Just last week I was attacked by a woman at my photography exhibition who i thought had come to see the pictures. She said she had googled me and that she was shocked by what she had read. She was veryj udgemental and nasty. I was very upset by the incident because I had worked hard to make this exhibition a success and she was really going for me. She was not at all interested in my work but was attacking me for the very stuff which was in paragraph one.

This information about me was gathered around 25 years ago and its not completely accurate. People that i have been associated with in this article like Ahmed Al-Daim are not even alive any more and Mr. Kahassoggi was only a social acquaintance.

Many thanks for your co-operation. --Pamella Singh

Tentative delete I'm unsure if she's notable in herself: she has three possible sources of notability, as a beauty queen, as a feature in gossip columns, and as a photographer. I don't think the last is very compelling. Her friendship with Andrew Neil was the cause of a celebrated libel case in 1990, and both her and the libel case are still discussed many years later.[59][60] This issue is important to the history of Neil, who has been a major figure in British media since the early 1980s, and arguably to British libel case law (in view of the questions it raised about the nature of reputation and the derisory damages awarded), and therefore should not be removed from Neil's article. As a beauty queen, I'm not convinced she's notable and can't find any guidelines.

Incidentally there's a minor error in the OTRS comment above, since Bordes was her surname from a former marriage, not her birth name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems a clear case of WP:1E in that the only real notability arises from the London years, and can be adequately dealt with under the Andrew Neil article.Martinlc (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - we've had a few of these recently and the point I have made elsewhere is that the test for WP:GNG is "significant coverage" not "significant complimentary coverage". Selecting which sources we include based on whether or not they are complimentary of the subject is contrary to WP:NPOV. Excluding material because we don't like it is akin to original research in that we are building an article which is not based on reliable sources. There are always going to be some subjects (including BLPs) which have only uncomplimentary coverage. That is unfortunate but Wikipedia is not censored. It didn't take much to find more sources, like this from the Deccan Herald, this and this from the Daily Mail, this from The Week, this from The Telegraph and this from the New Straits Times. None of those are from the News of the World, by the way.

I don't think this is a case of WP:1E given some of those articles relate to other events / instances. I think the subject quite obviously meets WP:GNG.

That said, we need to be cognisant of the obvious BLP issues. But I think these are resolved by the use of relatively NPOV language. The article does not refer to the subject as a prostitute, though many of the sources do. The article is also primarily focussed on her more recent photographic work, rather than her more "controversial" history as most of the sources are.

The whole point of WP:V is to ensure we don't publish material which is not supported by reliable sources and the reality is that the claims in the article (entirely true or not) are backed up by sources. Deleting this article will not delete the sources on which it has been built - googling the subject's name will still allow people to see all of those articles. Again, it didn't take me long to find the sources above (and I used both "Singh" and "Bordes") so deleting this article will have little, if any, impact.

However, my position is Weak keep for a reason - mostly because I am an advocate for the principle of "avoiding harm". I don't think the article is so valuable (in an encyclopaedic sense) that we should be fighting to keep it at all costs. I'm not convinced that deleting it will solve the problems the subject has been having, but If the subject badly wants the article deleted then I see "no harm" in deleting it (as distinct from this argument), from an encyclopaedic perspective.

But (and this is a big one), if we delete the article, we should give serious consideration to salting both potential titles. Based on the sources available, I certainly don't think this is the most uncomplimentary article that could have resulted - a far less complimentary one could have been created (as far as I am concerned) without breaching either WP:V or WP:NPOV. If we are going to reach a consensus that the article should be deleted, we should ensure an attack page cannot be created in its place in the future.

Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. She received massive media coverage for a while and her name is still highly recognisable in the UK. Although only a minor celebrity at best, the coverage she received makes her notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is no doubt that the internet can do harm as well as good. Anyone googling her on her past or present name will be able to read a great deal about her personal life, true or not. Fortunately WP is not the offender here, and her case does turn out to raise some important issues. She was widely reported to have been involved in a number of relationships with men but she seems now to be denying the interpretation placed on that. Significantly, so did prominent men involved (a newspaper editor and government minister) and the whole point of the story there came down to an allegation that she was concealing elements of her past and present life from them in order to establish a relationship which was itself then being used to make her more attractive to prospective clients. Importantly, none of the sources quoted in the WP article are themselves reliable for any of that. The first two references in the article make only passing mention of her, and the third is not about her but does contain a paragraph alleging that she made certain admissions but without itself quoting a source and so that at least should come out. References 4 and 5 are unavailable and the last two about her as a photographer (the last not an RS anyway). So the basis of allegations about her does indeed seem to be in 1989 articles in the News of the World and Daily Mail both of which are not RS for Wikipedia. The affair is, however, discussed in the Max Clifford article using a book co-authored by him as a source.

So we have a BLP where the subject might be notable as a former Miss India, because she was given extensive coverage at the time for personal relationships with people who were themselves notable and because of tabloid claims about how she earned her money which she now says were inaccurate, and is now the subject of articles raking up her past and making claims that are frankly impossible to substantiate. I do not think she is notable as a photographer. She was not convicted of a criminal offence. Had she been accused of breaking the law WP would not allow those claims to be used.

As Necrothesp points out, it is difficult now to deny that the media coverage she has received does satisfy GNG though if anyone can make a stronger case for extending WP:BLP1E to deal with this I would be sympathetic. My advice to her would be that the WP article as it is now, which is always likely to appear at the top of Google searches, is the fairest and most helpful way of summarising her life compared with anything else people are likely to encounter on the internet. But I do think that the nature of the sources of the unfavourable coverage, so often repeated elsewhere, do qualify the article for protection on a permanent basis. --AJHingston (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject of the article is notable, she received massive media coverage back in those days, and even later. And the article, as of now, is forcefully sanitized, describing her photography achievements which is not what she is notable for. I think in the text of the article, we can mention that according to such and such newspaper or book, she was associated with so and so. Besides mentioning the sources in the reference section, mentioning the source in the text will easily show the readers that the claims made are from particular sources, and not made-up by wikipedia (a reader who is naive to wikipedia editing process will understand the claims made are from those sources).

However, I am unaware of any wikipedia policy for BLP that tries to protect sensitive or problematic (although verifiable) personal information. If there is such a policy, the content may be censored. As far as notability is concerned, the subject is very mush notable, and the article should not be deleted.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxically, though, if she had been accused of a crime she would be protected. And BLP policy does not allow editors to get around the ban on using unproven allegations with words like 'rumoured...' 'reported...' etc. If we are really saying that we have to repeat the claims about her in order to explain why she has an article then there is a real problem, because that principle would have wide BLP policy implications. --AJHingston (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable and multiple quality third party sources are available. The article has been too sanitised in my view - the word prostitute does not now appear at all, although that is patently what the subject was - and we should not be excessively sensitive, particularly when a quick Google search for the name reveal all manner of reliable sources which contain details which the subject would not like. I find the comment that Wikipedia has ruined the subject's life to be nothing less than ludicrous. She did that herself, with the help of the media. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am very sensitive to BLP issues, and I understand that Ms. Bordes is most probably unacquainted with how WP operates. In fact, I was one of the first people who was aware of the blatant BLP violations in this article, which is why I immediately made these edits [61]. Even as we must be very sensitive toward BLP concerns, we must also be balanced, and recognize that more than sufficient WP:RS exist to establish her notability. So I say keep the article, be sensitive, don't allow anything into it that smears her reputation. I think the middle road is the best solution in this situation. Qworty (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep. Do not even consider deletion PB was a very big story in the UK. People still talk about her, in my experience. I came to this page because she was mentioned in a story today in the Media Guardian, and I wondered what had happened to her. Also, personally I find it hard to believe her statement "This information on me in wikipedia has totally destroyed my life." If the information is true, then I have no sympathy. What next? Jeffrey Archer asking for Wikipedia to delete his article? But I think the stuff about her photography career should be cut back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.161.224 (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with both the nominator and Colapeninsula. The vast majority of coverage is insubstantial. I also think the coverage that's substantially about this subject verges on tabloid and fails WP:RS; none is very additive to WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 06:27, 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 redirect to List of varieties of genetically modified maize. Convert to a list article and redirect. There was a strong consensus not to maintain these article separately, and a rough consensus to convert them into a list. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MON 802[edit]

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

Nominating a series of articles on specific varieties of maize; some coverage exists, but all-in-all, they seem to fail WP:PRODUCT. May be suitably included in the pages of their respective companies, but as they stand, they present no useful, mergable information. Zujua (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, possibly listify There's naught more that directory info here, even if the directory can be cited. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of genetically modified crops or similar or failing that to Genetically modified maize. Individual lines are rarely notable and much better covered in a parent article as many of the criticisms will be the same. Would add MON 809 as a redirect too and consider merging MON 863 and MON 810 as well. AIRcorn (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and redirect. Sourcing is sufficient to justify a list entry, but not a standalone article. Kilopi (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The information appears to be sourced to the company itself, so there's no reliable source information to compile into a list. If you want to close this and need another Listify for consensus, I agree. Otherwise, delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not sourced to the company but to a database provided by The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment[62]. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and redirect - Notable as part of a group, but not individually. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 3 October 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) 01:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Took My Love (Pitbull song)[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have its own page, hasn't charted, radio release history is probably fake as well. The article is unlike to grow beyond stub status despite being the "official song" of Miss America (no citations provided btw and nothing on the first page of a google search) and being a downloadable content for a video game Fixer23 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:35, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything via any searches. The claims are unverifiable as well as unsourced.--Talain (talk) 17:00, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faysal Shayesteh[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 24. Snotbot t • c » 15:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or for the Afghan national team, nor has he received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 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 keep. No prejudice toward the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek landing at Smyrna[edit]

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

There is an article on the Occupation of Smyrna. The info in this article should be incorporated to the said article. This way the said article may also be developed because at present it is quite biassed. No need to have two different articles on the same issue. E4024 (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Occupation of Smyrna#Landing at Smyrna (1919). This current article is very incomplete, since it doesn't describe the landing and only the preparations, while Occupation of Smyrna describes the actual landing. Hypothetically you could merge relevant material to here, but despite the large number of mostly-irrelevant references I'm not convinced this needs its own article separate from discussion of the occupation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The occupation continued from 1919 to 1922. But this military operation had continued from May to June 1919. This military operation have to be explained in this article. I hope this military operation will be explained more detail. I think this DR is a kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Pontus. E4024 can request deletion of Liberation of İzmir with same "reason". Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article deals with the events of May 1919, while the Occupation of Smyrna, deals with 3 years of occupation/administration. I don't understand why this should be deleted, it is notable.Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua: I do not understand several things you do too, like your adding the "unnecessary" second sentence to your opinion (which was openly expressed in the first sentence) on the delete request. I am sorry that you have provoked an otherwise "unnecessary" response of mine to an "unnecessary" comment of yours... --E4024 (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is notable. Athenean (talk) 12:41, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wooboo[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. No indications that this term for an alcoholic beverage has gained any notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as something mixed up one day. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Mangoe. (A Google search turned up a dozen other, completely unrelated definitions for this term, many of them fanciful; my favorite was "An Australian purple unicorn with nostrels on its udder" - yet another reason why Urban Dictionary is not a Reliable Source.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 1 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia and state sponsored terrorism[edit]

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

Whether we go by this title or the original "Saudi Arabia and Terrorism" this is a POV laced unbalanced and out of context conglomeration of primary sources and synthesis. I simply cannot see how this subject can't be (or even isn't already) covered in context within wider articles and the subject is so inherently point of view that a neutral article is impossible. So that's a fatal breach of NPOV, SYNTH and UNDUE. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not based on primary sources, by "primary sources" if you mean those secret documents which have been added as references, the corresponding claims are all supported by a secondary source which has been already cited in the article. I can't see any breech of WP:SYNTH. Regarding "the subject is so inherently point of view that a neutral article is impossible", we have already similar articles ("X and terrorism") for several other countries which have little to do with terrorism. --Z 14:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is pure POV and also seems to violate WP:SYNTHESIS. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, edit and improve: There seems to be nothing wrong except the POV which has to be corrected a little bit. I don't understand the point for deletion when the article meets the basic criteria. -- Bharathiya (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Terrorism in Saudi Arabia. I don't usually like recommending merging at AfD, but while I have no problems with the content of this article, the title is fairly inflammatory. Terrorism in Saudi Arabia could use improvement, and I think merging this article in would improve it. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Observation There is a similarly titled article Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism in WP, which is accepted as a fairly realistic title. In this angle, there should not be any problem with the title of this article.-Rayabhari (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, you're right. And I wouldn't be in a rush to see it merged with Terrorism in Pakistan. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calling this POV misunderstands WP:NPOV. We can neutrally report on accusations made in WP:RS, and there have certainly been allegations of Saudi-sponsored terrorism in reliable sources. I encourage editors with POV or synthesis concerns to tag the sections that concern them and discuss the issue on the talk page. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BDD. A well sourced article that complies with other similiar state terrorism articles we have in Category:Terrorism committed by country. Mar4d (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. --Nounique names 04:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cites notable sources and uses sources to back-up content of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep of course. Notable, sourced, etc. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:58, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamey Harrow[edit]

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

Article about an audio engineer who is claiming credit for the success of music he claims to have worked on. Article seems to be written by his employer or a representative. Article was declined at AfC because no proof was provided linking Harrow to the awards and no reliable in-depth coverage about him. There is not enough verifiable biographical information to warrant an article about Harrow and no clear evidence that he, himself, is award winning (or notable). Sionk (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might be notable if he won a Juno for mastering if there were one (Juno_Award#Award_categories lists one for Recording Engineer, but not for Mastering... are they the same thing?) but can't tell from the article. The cited refs are mostly useless. For example, the cited ref for him having mastered a Juno winning album in 2012 does not list his name anywhere, and the album does not appear in his discography. Even if it did list him, having mastered a Juno winning album is not notable of itself, or we would also be able to justify articles on the recording engineer, cover artist, etc. Fails WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. And what's with the AfC? Sionk says it failed, but TheRealCrews created the article with an edit summary saying that it was accepted. Meters (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Juno Awards folks have a database of all awards that have been given, and a search for "Jamey Harrow" turns up nothing. I'm finding no significant treatment in secondary sources, so the article appears to fail WP:BIO. Deor (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so even if any album won an award this would be credited to the artists first of all. De728631 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All credits are listed on album covers linking him to working on all projects listed online sources were also provided linking him to the projects listed. Sources were not properly checked by reviewer, there is clear evidence that he is award winning, for example the sources that directly say he is award winning or that have him listed as an engineer on a major award nominated or winning product. --TheRealCrews (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note that primary sourced credits on albums covers is not "significant coverage in reliable third party sources" -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the reasons stated above Bernie Grundman, Charles Reeves, Jay Messina, John Sellekaers, Ted Jensen etc. must also all be deleted --TheRealCrews (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFF Meters (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Engineers are always credited with album awards statements from De728631 (talk) and Meters (talk) are both false. Also multiple nominations at the Western Canadian Music Awards are considered notable. --ThunderousMastering (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note ThunderousMastering is the original author of the article and possible WP:SOCK of co-author TheRealCrews Sionk (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sionk (talk) Nominated this page for deletion after being asked not to edit the page due to a lack of understanding of the subject and multiple acts of vandalism on the page in question and author talk pages. As well as the users talk page being full of complaints about his reviewing tactics. --TheRealCrews (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what? You don't own the article page, and any Wikipedia editor is free to nominate an article for nomination provided they have a reasonable reason for nomination. Note that only you and your sockpuppet/meatpuppet are saying the article should not be deleted. Please read WP:AGF. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also the only one with valid arguments that don't contradict themselves and maintaining Wikipedia's Civility guideline and doing my best to show respect despite not being shown any. --TheRealCrews (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having in-depth coverage in independent third party sources, as required by WP:GNG. Feel free to ping my talk page if such sources are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely baffled by this, these are the most ridiculous arguments for deletion. "he doesn't get credit for an award that was won by an album he has a credit for working on and therefore also received the award" yes and a movie director didn't act in the movie so he doesn't deserve a credit. "no in depth coverage on him" every article, an album he worked on is the only subject talked about. "Physical sources like credits on album covers are not valid" yes and the dictionary is an invalid source for spelling. "sources are not valid" Band sites, music profiles, official sites, award listings there are no sources on any article on wikipedia that are more valid than the ones provided. Not one single reviewer has even suggest a way to improve the article I'm honestly embarrassed by this site after speaking with you people. --TheRealCrews (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reviewers are 100% wrong but this isn't worth the headache. --ThunderousMastering (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - to meet WP:GNG we need "significant coverage" of the subject, not the subject's work. He doesn't inherit notability from his products (please see WP:INHERIT). For a start, he's not even mentioned in four of the inline "sources" provided - so those sources aren't even sufficient to verify that he worked on those albums. The last is his own self published website which can not be considered a reliable source. The non-inline "sources" are simply one-off mentions of the subject - they do not constitute "significant coverage" in any way, shape or form and so cannot be considered against the criteria of WP:GNG. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. You might like to have a read of, "Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of", as well as WP:SOC, WP:COI and WP:CORPNAME. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you all for your time but you may as well delete the article, the reviewers here have proven that they have no credibility. I'm allowed to be harassed and insulted but when I point it out I'm told I need to practice AFG. The references did not get checked or get ignored all together when they prove the reviewers wrong. No one seems to want to help at all so again thank you all for your time but there is nothing more that can be done --TheRealCrews (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:GNG. --Nounique names 16:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all our tests of notability. I too suspect that TheRealCrews=ThunderousMastering=Jamey Harrow. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- EVIDENCE http://www.thunderousmastering.com/aboutus.php is Jamey Harrow. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been mentioned that I can request that the article can be moved to my user account, how do I go about doing this?--TheRealCrews (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. Following Orange Mike's information above, I checkusered User:ThunderousMastering and guess what. It's you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not saying he is notable, but people do get notability from the work they do. Singers from their singing, painters from their painting, authors from their writing, scientists from their discoveries. What on earth else would a person be notable for besides what they accomplish, except for those extremely few individuals born to hereditary monarchies. NOT INHERITED means just the opposite--it means that because an artist is notable, not all the creative work they do is notable also-- this is true for the actually famous artists , but not those merely notable. Inheritance runs downwards. The question is whether being the engineer on an album, though important, is sufficiently important a role for this, and in general we have held not, unless they have done so much important work as to receive significant awards or the like. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An "assistant to Miss Davis" on All About Eve does not automatically become notable because her name appears on the credits of an award winning film. The specific work that the person contributed to the project has to have been noted/awarded TO THEM. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to be claiming that the subject was awarded a Juno Award for mastering, which would be notable (as opposed to simply having mastered a Juno Award winning recording), but we have not been able to verify this ourselves. No evidence has been provided despite several requests. Time to put this one down. Meters (talk) 15:49, 1 October 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. There is insufficient consensus to overcome WP:NFOOTY. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charalambos Lykogiannis[edit]

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

A football player who technically passes WP:NFOOTY, as he has appeared for 8 minutes in the quarterfinals of the 2011–12 Greek Football Cup, a fully professional competition. However, he has received minimal non-routine media coverage from reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 12:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 12:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; 8 minutes of gametime does not confer notability, per WP:COMMONSENSE. Giant Snowman 12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Players, managers and referees who have represented their country on international match are notable, as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of Pro football.

Ηe is appear in his official debut with the first team. He participate in a Euro final game. He participate in the NextGen Series. Three Official Events , Greek Football Cup, 2012 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship(final tournament, final game), NextGen Series. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria. The article have strong reliable sources for the status of this player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terenen (talk • contribs) 12:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UEFA Euro U19 and NextGen Series both are youth tournaments and don't automatically confer notability. The Gavros sources are neither independent to Olympiacos nor reliable and should not be used to access the notability of an Olympiacos' player. Besides, even if the sources were appropriate, the player has only received routine coverage (match reports, contract renewals, etc). – Kosm1 fent 20:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* All the Sources are legal official media, and they are obey in the Greek Law. All the media have freedom and can not censor or blamed for their neutrality. Wikipedia records History, and not just someone who belongs to the star system and is famous. Everyone who is recorded on official sources must be recorded on wikipedia. The rule of notability is very weak in front of the rule of record history as observers and writers we are. Exable: An unknown profesionall player from Nigeria who plays in a local club without recognition, but is register on official sources must be recorded like a profesionall who plays in a local club at Holland. WE RECORD History as they are. We DONT jugde if is famous or not.

* I request from the Admins to remove their suggestion for deletion and change their vote to Keep. Terenen (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia does not record history; newspapers do and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also, sources are judged according to WP:V, a core policy. Not everyone merits a place in Wikipedia; whether you are Messi or Yusuf Malaka Audu), you need to pass WP:N, a guideline that Lykogiannis simply fails at the moment (WP:TOOSOON). – Kosm1 fent 10:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "An encyclopedia does not record history."

* The historical significance of the encyclopedia: wikipedia. Wikipedia records history. The wikipedia is a prototype electronic work to gather inventory, documentation, presentation and promotion of historical data across the spatiotemporal evolution.

* About rules and policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it".(Wikipedia:IGNORE)Terenen (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I know he does not pass GNG but I do have a soft spot for players under the age of 21. I believe that because of there young age, only passing NFOOTY should really help them and that we should assume that overtime they will pass GNG. That is just my overall preference and really the only way I can make sense of the many players from the Football League Cup who make there debuts. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of those players passes GNG, and those who don't should be taken to AfD. Opting to keep younger footballers who fail GNG, unlike older players, (WP:ILIKEIT) under the impression that they might meet GNG in the near future (WP:CRYSTAL), blaming the large number of League Cup debutants who have articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST), are all terrible arguments for keep. – Kosm1 fent 05:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most dont though, unless your a user who when he creates an article really goes deep to find sources you wont have an article which passes GNG for a 19 year old. Lets see, I shall try to redo this page and see what I can do then as it definitely needs a revamp if its a keep. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*What about Alejandro_Grimaldo; Leonardo_Capezzi; These are examples which show that sometimes the criteria for one footballer are not the same. Here we have two young footballers playing for Barcelona B and Fiorentina. These players are unknown to the public. Question: Do these players pass the criteria for notability? And why? Because they are playing in countries and clubs with big reputation? Or because they have prospective for the future and they deserve an article? Do they actually deserve the focus that we give to them(youngsters)? My answer is yes. Any detail is deserved to be recorded from the start of their career, so that we have a huge tank of information, about who is going to give us, in the years to come, a complete status of evolution in the culture of football.

*I tried to write this article Charalambos Lykogiannis based on truth, details, official sources and nothing more. If some of the writers write their articles not based on details about the career of one footballer, I ensure you that this is not the way I am going to write my articles tooTerenen (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I do believe this article should be kept but those 2 players are not good examples. Alejandro has played in 7 games in the league for Barcelona B. I am not going to comment about him passing GNG as he is only 17 but 17 and playing regularly for Barca B is a huge keep. Leonardo does not pass NFOOTY and should be deleted. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grimaldo passes NFOOTY by far. Capezzi fails GNG and NFOOTY, and it's a prime candidate for deletion. Lykogiannis fails GNG (routine coverage from Olympiacos fan papers doesn't merit inclusion) and while he meets the letter of NFOOTY, he fails its principle, which ensures that players who have appeared in a fully professional competition meet GNG (which as I formentioned, he doesn't). – Kosm1 fent 19:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technically this player doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, but there are a long-standing consensus that players who have played in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro league are considered notable. Through the last couple of months there have been some AfD's where players that have played only one match have been deleted (and I have been one of the voters for delete), but as Arsenalkid I'm reluctant to delete young footballers who have the future ahead of them. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "I do have a soft spot for players under the age of 21. " is straight-out ILKEHIM. that he might become notable in the future is irrelevant. When he does, there will be reason for an article. I might support a RfC that we want to include youth teams at the international level in the criteria, but so far the consensus has not supported it. No reason to make an exception here. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSPORT is somewhat ambiguous about cup matches, but common sense dictates eight minutes in any matches very rarely generates the coverage necessary for notability, and Lykogiannis clearly fails WP:GNG. All three external links and the first in-line citation are player profiles, explicitly excluded as routine coverage by WP:NSPORT. In line citations two and three do not mention him at all, and four makes only a passing mention, Five, eight, nine and ten are match reports, six is routine transfer news, and seven is a dead link, meaning none of it qualifies as significant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The seventh reference (judging by its title) is a contract renewal. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 05:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Technically 8 minutes are not important per se, but the 1 appearance that the 8 minutes confere. While I am not an enthusiast for considering cup games for GNG, if it is trouth that he has 1 appearance in a match that by norms we consider pro, we should do as our guides say even if I am personally tempted to say "delete and recreate once he further plays"... FkpCascais (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Guides" (I'm assuming you mean guidelines) are not set on stone – meeting the letter of a guideline while failing its spirit (the spirit of all notability guidelines is an assumption that the subject passes GNG) does not mean that it can be used to keep an article no matter what. – Kosm1 fent 14:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: On a sidenote, I've improved the article in terms of WP:MOS and grammar/syntax, as it was very poor in these areas. More referencing and NPOV prose will be needed if the article is to be kept. – Kosm1 fent 16:20, 1 October 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) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Ljuljanović[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD in November 2010. This player fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 11:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all said in earlier comments. FkpCascais (talk) 22:56, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinder's[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant chain ("well [sic] known for being able to order meat, sandwiches and also hot food"). Contested speedy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not a G11 spam that is why it got declined, but it's clearly an A7 with absolutely no claim of notability other then getting some awards from a "peoples choice awards" that doesn't mention anymore info. The sources are basic food reviews from the local newspapers, not the coverage that is needed for WP:GNG. Secret ^account 06:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprisingly for a 70-year-old franchise with 15 locations, I could not find significant coverage about this restaurant chain. Google News Archive found only routine coverage (this location is moving, that location is being sold). The article is badly written but that could be fixed; lack of notability cannot be fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources that give any measure of WP:CORPDEPTH in coverage. The multiple mentions show the company exists and has changed hands, but little more. JFHJr (㊟) 19:15, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Arjun Singh[edit]

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

Article has a sorted history of being a vanity Autobiography (by an editor of the same name as the article title). 1 reference previously existed to what appeared to be a personal blogspot account (which is in violation of WP:SELFPUB). As the article appears to have been previously partially AfDed, I'm bringing it on the grounds of WP:POLITICIAN, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:GNG. Hasteur (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything of note - lots of social networking sites but nothing in WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is of no use. -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 13:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - If it was created by it's subject... otherwise delete per above. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this person does not seem to be elected anywhere yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsouced, advertisement like and contains un-encyclopedic info.-Rayabhari (talk) 17:21, 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) 14:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veroveraar[edit]

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

WP:DICTIONARY - simply includes the "definition" ([63]) and then an unverifiable statement. The "references" cited appear to be fake/nonexistant, and the page author himself seems to claim that he "is" Mr. van der Veen -- right, cause people are living past their "death dates" now. WP:HOAX, even if so no WP:RS for rather controversial-esque statements: "1,000 members", "many intellectuals as members", etc, etc. Theo polisme 11:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- almost certainly a hoax or non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 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 Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax per contributor's other contributions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazab Kahani[edit]

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

Possible hoax film Harsh (talk) 09:05, 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 Snow delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parent revocation[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for essays or soapboxing. If there was a speedy deletion criterion for this, I would have nominated it as such. As it stands, the article seems to be the author's intent to spread awareness of some amendment by the U.S. Department of Education, and basically contains a lot of original research and personal commentary. I'm not sure much of anything can be salvaged here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I actually deleted an earlier version of this owing to its hefty copyright violation of this letter, not to mention violating WP:SOAP, WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:ESSAY and WP:OR. This version is no better. The author seems determined to push their article into Wikipedia (I've just reported them at ANI for issuing a legal threat on their talk page in response to the last deletion of it), and clearly isn't here for any constructive purpose. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator is now blocked for making legal threats, so will not be able to respond here. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I tagged a previous version which was a lengthy copyvio and this, although apparently "revised", is no better. I bet a million bucks that there will not be a "Keep" !vote on this AfD, so delete per WP:SNOW, maybe? Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow delete per above. This is a lot of WP:NOTs all rolled into one, just far more blatant than some of the other WP:NOT articles we get on AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unsalvageable as separate article. Apart from the unacceptable use of Wikipedia as a soapbox, which this article is clearly intended to be, the topic itself is not really notable enough for a stand-alone article. It is one provision + a minor revision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At most, the basic and reliably sourced information can be added there without the soapboxing, personal commentary, extrapolation, and original research. See [64], [65], [66] for suitable refs. Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unsalvageable spoapbox piece. Even if the topic was notable, blowing it up and starting over would be the best action. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article has been deleted by The Anome with the summary: "deleted page Parent revocation (Speedy closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parent revocation)" Shouldn't this AfD therefore be marked as closed? Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 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 KEEP; an early WP:SNOW closure since articles like these don't have a snowball's chance etc. etc. See also WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Callenya lenya[edit]

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

Orphan stub with no real usefulness. Andrewman327 (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All species have notability according to the wikipedia guidelines and so there is no reason to delete, furthermore, it is not even an orphan. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. All (biological) species are by convention considered notable. Were we to remove this one, we'd need to remove another million pages or so. There is good reason for Wikipedia to offer encyclopedic coverage of species, just as it offers a gazetteer of places, large and small. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not snow — that's a situation in which tons of people comment and all want to keep or delete; see WP:SNOW. As far as keeping: unless you can provide evidence that this is a hoax, there will be substantial information on it. All documented species get surprisingly large amounts of coverage, as I found out when writing Cletocamptus helobius some time ago. Nyttend (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you like. The species is already cited (Evans 1932, Corbet 1940) for its type description, as all species can and should be. I have added both of them in a new Bibliography section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep as a verified butterfly species. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 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 Excalibur#Arthur's other weapons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarent[edit]

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

Factual errors and WP:SYNTH. The article wrongly identifies the sword Clarent with the sword in the stone. The name Clarent only appears in one Arthurian work, Alliterative Morte Arthure, and it's not identified as the sword in the stone in there. The article inflates the importance and provenance of the name Clarent, and it is made redundant because of better coverage in Excalibur, which is sometimes identified with the sword in the stone.

Namespace should be redirected to Excalibur, as Sword in the Stone redirects to the novel The Sword in the Stone, or possibly Alliterative Morte Arthure. -- Asado (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed factual errors and cruft. But the namespace should still be redirected to prevent errors from being inserted again. Asado (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing redirection rather than deletion. And it can't decide where to redirect which argues for keeping the matter where it is, where it can be fully explained and linked to other related topics. Note that this "sword of peace" is discussed in detail in The Alliterative Morte Arthure and Arthur's Sword of Peace. Warden (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Excalibur#Arthur's other weapons; the one-sentence reference there to this weapon's mention in a single text is sufficient coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Colonel Warden. AfD is not AfR. If the noms intention is not to delete entirely from Wikipedia, it shouldn't be on AfD. Use the article talk page to discuss content issues, or just make the redirect and see if anyone objects, then start an RfC or something if needed. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect. Either redirect would do, but I think the one to Excalibur#Arthur's other weapons would be more useful. We can decide on that right here--there is no need to go back and do it as an edit. All named weapons in famous works of this sort are worth having some information, but that does not mean they are worth a full article. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails WP:GNG. Caledfwlch is a redirect and the one reference I could find on that notes, Caledfwlch and Caliburn are alternative names for Excalibur, the legendary sword associated with King Arthur. This 1895 book says that Clarent was Arthur's second best sword. The Wikipedia Clarent article could be copyvio of worldspyinfo.us (not sure whether Wikipedia or worldspyinfo.us was published first). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Excalibur#Arthur's other weapons per Roscelese. The only classic work that really features the sword in any large capacity ithe Alliterative Morte Arthur, and even then it is not a major part of the narrative. The section in the Excalibur article already has a brief sentence talking about the sword, and the bit of information there pretty much covers everything notable about the sword. A good deal of this article outside of that information is largely original research, and would be inappropriate for any merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 1 October 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 Microsoft_Windows#Future_of_Windows. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 9[edit]

(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. 23:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 23:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 23:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This stub, titled Windows 9, does not contain a single established fact from a single reliable source. (Either the source is uncontroversially unreliable or the reliable source gives no fact.) It is pure speculation and is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Microsoft has made statements about the future of Windows. The worst case here would be merger into a section such as Microsoft_Windows#Future_of_Windows. Deletion would just invite recreation and so it's better to manage this inevitable content. Warden (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree with the merger but let me be honest: I agree because it is a two step deletion. As soon as you merge the contents, someone will delete them for one of the same reasons that I stated: Lack of source, lack of reliable source or WP:CRYSTAL. In my humble opinion, the only reason this article has not yet been deleted is its very low profile. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove the statement "However, it is likely that the Windows brand will be retired following Windows 8, after 30 years of service" unless someone can find a reliable source revealing what Windows will be renamed. Georgia guy (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL --JetBlast (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Microsoft Windows. This was originally a redirect to Windows 9x, so it wasn't created out of speculation. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Windows per WP:CRYSTAL. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Windows. No reliable sources about it. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect/merge to Microsoft Windows#Future of Windows until more substantial details are reported. --87.78.238.3 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as needed. We have little interest in the future, because we can wait for it. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Windows#Future of Windows. mabdul 06:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article is a pure speculation on future events, and it even says that the subject's name at the time of delivery may lack the word "Windows". Though redirecting it to Microsoft Windows#Future of Windows may look like a reasonable action from the first sight, the target section goes about Windows 8 and doesn't even contain the phrase "Windows 9", so the redirect would become immediately eligible for deletion as confusing. I strongly support WP:SALTing the name in order to prevent recreation of speculative article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Windows#Future of Windows, as it would probably most closely match the intention of someone searching for the phrase, and the article in its current form is purely speculative. wctaiwan (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Windows. There are no reliable sources for it. --SajjadF (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Microsoft Windows per above. JJ98 (Talk) 21:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per the above comments. ^GB86 22:00, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peeps (film)[edit]

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

Probable hoax. I didn't trying speedy-ing it because there is some context there, but searching for austin rogers peeps without quotes resulted in a mere six Ghits: two Wikipedia, and the other four about unrelated people named Austin Rogers (and "people", rather than "peeps"; and used in a different context). Is it winter already? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing here to show that this film is actively being planned, let alone notable. I'd suggest that it redirect to the actor's page, but other than one role in How to Eat Fried Worms I don't see that Rogers is really all that notable, although the page might just need some work. Plus there's the whole "this might be a complete hoax" thing to consider.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Erpert. No sources whatsoever provided or found.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEDAY: "If you have invented something novel in school, in your university lab, your garage, or the pub, and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, please do not write about it in Wikipedia." Principle applies here with amateur films. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. If Austin Rogers actually began this project with friends, that fact lacks any sort of verifiability... assuring no place for this article anywhere on Wikipedia. And even when unsourcable, the article itself offers us the nail for its coffin: "due to scheduling conflicts the remainder of Peeps has been postponed indefinitely." Not only does the topic fail WP:NFF, WP:GNG... but more importantly, it fails WP:V. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 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 Speedy deleted as G11. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant Support Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable group and I have found absolutely nothing to establish notability from reliable third-party sources despite that I have searched extensively with both Google US and Google Australia news. Despite that the article has existed for nearly six years, it has always remained the same, unfortunately, and the only useful content is "established in 2006 as an initiative of City International Christian Church" with the other content reading like an obvious advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Hoyt[edit]

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

Contested PROD, original reason was "Subject does not meet criteria for WP:NACTOR". Google News and general web search don't reveal any reliable sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be another case of an actor who is no longer active, I found nothing useful with Google News aside from this relevant or irrelevant news article, if this was Carol Hoyt the actress, it would be insufficient. Google Books also found this which mentions a Power Rangers character that she portrayed. It is extremely unlikely that she would continue acting again, if she would, it would probably be trivial. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information here was printed in the daily newspaper Newsday November 16, 2003, but that's all I could find. Not enough from which to write a biography on Carol Hoyt. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:49, 1 October 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) 01:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Varnier[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete - Portuguese association football classifications can be difficult to understand but in summary, Portugal has a Segunda Liga ("Second League") which is their second tier competition (and is on the list of fully professional leagues) and a Segunda Divisão ("Second Division") which is (confusingly) their third tier competition (and is not on the list of fully professional leagues). See this table. Varnier plays for Boavista F.C. which is in the third-tier league and so not a fully-professional league (even though, from what I understand, that particular team is). That said, the article suggests he played for FC Koper for two seasons; a club which is part of the Slovenian PrvaLiga (which is on the list of fully professional leagues). That would suggest to me that he meets WP:NFOOTY, but I'm happy to listen to contrary conjecture. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Having looked some more, I can't actually see any evidence he played for FC Koper - he might have been in the squad, sure, but that's not the same as having taken the field. Have changed my opinion to Weak keep but if there is no evidence he actually took the field for FC Koper during either season then I would suggest he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY after all. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't appear to have played for Koper (the only team in a fully pro league that he was signed for). No other indication of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 06:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if that is the case then I don't think he passes WP:NFOOTY. Have changed my note above on that basis. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Wolves (novel series)[edit]

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

Unremarkable book series that does not state why its topic is notable Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 03:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this can be speedied under A7 since it's not really a web series or anything to that extent. This is ultimately a self published book series that has received no coverage aside from primary sources. A search doesn't really bring up any non-primary sources at all. Fails WP:NBOOK by a mile and a half.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:15, 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 Snow Keep. As usual, this close does not preclude the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K-267 (Kansas highway)[edit]

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

Non-notable road. No claim to notability. Single ref is a database entry with no in-depth coverage which appears to be a primary source. Searching likely sources (such as http://www.kslegislature.org/li/) doesn't find anything. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—state highways have generally been considered notable, based on past precedents at WP:ROADOUTCOMES, WP:USRD/P and the proposed WP:NGEO. The article is new enough that it hasn't had time to develop, and giving that time would not harm the encyclopedia. However, deleting a portion of the encyclopedia's complete coverage of state highways in Kansas, leaving a hole in that coverage, would harm the encyclopedia. Imzadi 1979 → 03:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not convincing - see WP:CCC, WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:HURT, and wonder where all those lovely Pokemon articles went to. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - State highways have been proven notable time and again per WP:USRD/NT, WP:USRD/P, and WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Dough 48 72 03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general notability of state highways. --Rs chen 7754 03:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the long-standing consensus that certain things, such as state highways, high schools, towns, rivers, etc. are notable on a per se basis. This helps to streamline things at AfD. Carrite (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only references are information in Kansas Department of Transportation, which is a primary source and hence unsuitable to assert notability, and an entry in Google Maps, which I've found tends to be chock full of mistakes (many examples here) and hence unreliable. Indeed, WP:USRD/NT as referenced above, states "Interstate, U.S., and primary state highways are notable. However, that does not mean an article about them will pass wikipedia notability guidelines.". Doesn't seem significant enough to redirect to Transport in Kansas. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:5P: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." As part of this, major roads should be included, with state roads considered notable. Even short state highways are notable enough for articles. Dough 48 72 15:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P says nothing about major roads. It does, however, say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's quite simple - give me some significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources that verify that this road is notable and I'll strike my !vote --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the statement, "Google Maps, which I've found tends to be chock full of mistakes" is of course WP:OR, but the real point is that the argument is presented as if wp:reliable sources are or should be inerrant. See WP:Inaccuracy and Dewey Defeats Truman. Here is an NPR news report from today that shows that Google maps are the benchmark for the reliability of digital maps, [67]. Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per overwhelming, well-reasoned, repeated consensus that this is how we cover state highways. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware Route 17. AfDs seeking to create random holes in Wikipedia's comprehensive coverage of highways aren't good for the encyclopedia or for interested users.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Come on people, it's not hard - all I'm looking for is some significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, and for people to stop taking it so personally and appealing to emotion when they find none. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus says that state highways are notable - and consensus is policy. --Rs chen 7754 20:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historically, numbered roads are notable. This has been the case at AfD after AfD. The road appears on many, many maps. It appears in government sources. --LauraHale (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but integrate into a list in the future. An example of such a list is List of primary state highways in Virginia shorter than one mile. V C 23:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that List of primary state highways in Virginia shorter than one mile and State highways serving Virginia state institutions are particularly elegant solutions to this contentious issue. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough highways in Kansas that are less than one mile long, such a list would be a good idea to create. Dough 48 72 02:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kansas numbered highways says there are at least 9, plus many which have no lenght recorded against them. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile#Kansas, it looks like the state has 12 such highways less than one mile. I think creating a list would be a good idea, and K-267 can be merged into it. Dough 48 72 02:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're basically calling for deletion in contravention of community consensus that was established at a wider forum than a single AFD, so you'd do well to hold a highly-publicised RFC on this topic before attempting to have this one deleted. Consensus can change, but until and unless it does, this should definitely stay. Nyttend (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm calling for deletion because there is no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are: community consensus has held that state highways are notable, even if you can't find sources yourself and if they've not been added yet. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm really not trying to tread on anyone's toes here or rub people up the wrong way, but I genuinely don't understand where this consensus comes from, because it's not what I can see in WP:USRD/NT! That states "Interstate, U.S., and primary state highways are notable. However, that does not mean an article about them will pass wikipedia notability guidelines.", "Each article should establish its own notability." and "Secondary state highways and county highways that are part of a statewide system ... may or may not be sufficiently notable to merit a unique article."

You're saying "it's consensus, we discussed it after many AfDs", but where can I find discussions that lead to that consensus? Surely, consensus to keep implies it should be easy and trivial to find sources and verify notability! Under WP:N, I see specific notability criteria about Academics, Astronomical objects, Books, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, Sports and athletes and Web content. Nothing about roads.

I agree that redirecting to a "list" article is a better solution where the main article is little more than what you can see on a map (which this one is), and WP:USRD/NT seems to suggest this is an appropriate cause of action. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USRD/P has a fairly exhaustive list of XfDs, if that's what you're looking for. I have suggested that my fellow USRD project members and I take the Precedents page and distill it into something that is easier to understand, but as of yet, that has not happened. –Fredddie ™ 15:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting figures. I see out of 142 articles sent to AfD, 47 were kept, or just over 33%. Not much of a consensus! I'm really quite annoyed that I've tried to question the status quo with legitimate concerns, quoting policy and figures to substantiate my argument, and been met with (IMHO) unsatisfactory counter-arguments. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the ones that were merged or deleted were county routes and local roads, which are generally considered not notable enough to have their own articles. Dough 48 72 16:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. To take all five "deletes" that appear to be about state highways — (1) Arizona State Route 48 never existed; (2) Pennsylvania Route 760 was thought to be some sort of hoax; and PA 3006 is a secondary route and not at all a standard state highway like K-267; (4) SR 3017 in Farrell is about a small chunk of a route to which the criticisms of PA 3006 apply; and (5) M-2 (Michigan highway) is about a nonexistent road. None of the linked discussions resulted in the deletion of an article about a state highway whose existence was proven. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now with the express goal of getting a List of Kansas highways under 1 mile created. –Fredddie ™ 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles on such highways can indeed become well developed. Here's another example. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roads attract significant attention in the U.S. One way that roads are used is to drive automobiles. The citizens want their government(s) to pay attention to public roads, and keep them in repair. Even small holes three- to six-inches deep become a matter of urgency. If a road has an 8-inch drop off the height of a stair step, emergency vehicles are dispatched to close the road and re-route traffic. The government keeps records and studies about road usage and traffic accidents. In order for citizens to know where to find public roads to drive on, an elaborate system of maps exists, so that maps are sold at most filling stations and large retailers. There are a variety of independent reliable publishers of maps that show the roads in detail. In the electronic age, maps have become even more widely disseminated in electronic devices, with computerized voices that can talk about public roads. The U.S. Post Office is another major institution in the U.S. that gives extensive attention to roads—the entire system of U.S. Mail uses a system called the "street address" that is tied to roads, which is a design that goes back more than a hundred years. Roads are often mentioned on evening news reports in the U.S. to describe where various events occurred. The point is that public roads in the U.S. will always easily pass WP:GNG. Another point, elements of the gazetteer are useful as short articles. Such articles need only be more than a statement of existence. The issue for Wikipedia with roads is WP:NOT. For the current case, at least one cartographer considers this to be a major road; as well, all state roads are generally agreed to be major roads. Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 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 redirect to List_of_Cyberchase_characters#For_Real_segment_characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca DeGroat[edit]

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

Outstanding notability concerns have been on this article for years, and after reviewing it I'm inclined to believe the article should be deleted. Her only major role to date was as a regular on Cyberchase. All other roles have been in commercials or small parts on other shows. In my view, this fails the notability guideline for entertainers.

In addition, sourcing for this article has proven difficult, as the only attribution existing is to IMDB, which can be considered unreliable for biographies. A cursory check for sources found nothing usable for the article. This raises concerns about the verifiability of the article as well, which on BLPs is a particular worry. (It already had incorrect information on it, which I removed.) elektrik SHOOS (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - her show and a spot in a few commercials aren't enough to be considered notable and there is a distinct lack of significant coverage as a result. Does not meet WP:GNG and as a BLP should be deleted. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I am familiar with her career and, yes, unfortunately, her only major appearances were Cyberchase and this is evident by Google News results. Although the first result (Herald-Journal) provides a brief biography, it would be insufficient for a Wikipedia article. Google Books also found minimal results with this book mentioning a play. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cyberchase characters#For Real segment characters, the role in the one series for which she has sourcability[68] and for which she won a shared Daytime Emmy award. Apart from that series, her other works have not received notice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 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 redirect to Navy League of the United States. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Thayer Mahan Award for Literary Achievement[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. for it to be notable it needs greater third party coverage than military sources because that's all i could find. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am finding brief mentions of the award in various papers, but I'm not sure that these really count towards notability given how brief they are when it comes to the actual prize itself. [69], [70] I'm leaning towards creating a section in the Alfred Thayer Mahan article for the award, mentioning that the military has created an award named after him, and redirecting to that section. There would be no need for there to be a list of names, just a mention that the award is given yearly since the 50s and maybe a mention of one or two of the most notable names such as Tom Clancy.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Navy League of the United States who run/sponsor/organize the award. Keep list of winners in 3 column format, there are famous honorees in the list. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've created the content in the Navy League of the United States article. If there are objections we can discuss over there on the talk page. If by chance someone finds sources to justify a keep of this article it can be undone. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:03, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concept-oriented model[edit]

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

The "Concept-oriented model" subject appears to have originated from "Alexandr Savinov", who also seems to be the its only proponent (and the article's author), seeing as the article is sourced only by primary sources of which he is the author, which violates WP:PRIMARY and WP:N. Therefore, this looks like a clear-cut case to me. Silver hr (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I take a liberal view in what should be on Wikipedia. However, I agree with the above comment. Everything I could find on the article's subject, at least in English, was written by the article's author. Wikipedia articles must have significant information from sources independent of the article's author. Unless the author can produce independent sources, I cannot be convinced to vote to keep this article. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things you wrote up for an academic journal one day. Agree with everything said above; this is a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR, and there are no third-party references (reliable or otherwise) apparent in the article or on Big Search Engine to indicate notability. De Guerre (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 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) 01:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Tan Jia Jun[edit]

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

I was unable to find reliable sources verifying that this author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment or improvement of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: timothytanjiajun.weebly.com (Speed of Light/The Beautiful Rain) Here is the evidence. Please do let me know if you do need more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satiagorobertson (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a personal web site. What's needed is reliable, independent sources - the reviews of his novel that have been published in newspapers (NOT his school paper or hometown paper, in general), magazines, literary journals... that sort of thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book is not to be published until November, There is no evidence in the article, that it will be other than self-published, nor is such information even in the personal web site. Nothing else in the article is even remotely notable. Frankly, I would have deleted it as A7, no plausible indication of notability combined with G11, entirely self-promotional. It should never have gotten so far, but I'll let someone else close the discussion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK, #2b. T. Canens (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ROA (artist)[edit]

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

This article is about a graffiti artist who's only notable achievement is being entered in an art competition. While the sources might prove this it is not in itself a notable enough achievement to be entered in an encyclopedia. --TheRealCrews (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously WP:POINT-y nomination in retaliation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamey Harrow. I am the original author and I take care to write articles on subjects that have been picked up by reliable published sources (which can be extremely difficult with street artists in particular). Subject has been covered in-depth in The Guardian, covered in five articles in the Hackney Gazette and an appraisal in the French Graffiti Art Magazine, for example (as well as numerous street art blogs which are less reliable and as a result haven't been included). Sionk (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is about someone who has not made a notable contribution, this is not a retaliation and your argument that it is does not make the person notable. Anyone can nominate any article for deletion if they feel they have a valid reason please read WP:AFG --TheRealCrews (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite some coincidence then, this being your first AfD nomination! Sionk (talk) 23:57, 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.