< 7 January	9 January >

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ascension (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A tag team that has never won a championship and never made it to the main roster. Also the team is now disbanded after Cameron's release. STATic message me! 11:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. STATic message me! 11:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMRT Service 307[edit]

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

Appears to fail the GNG; it's just a bus route. bobrayner (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete - This fails any number of qualifiers. There is nothing special about this bus route. It would be unwise to open the door to having every bus route in the world given it's own article on Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SBS Transit Service 143[edit]

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

Appears to fail the GNG; it's just a bus route. bobrayner (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete - This fails any number of qualifiers. There is nothing special about this bus route. It would be unwise to open the door to having every bus route in the world given it's own article on Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SBS Transit Service 151[edit]

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

Appears to fail the GNG; it's just a bus route. bobrayner (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete - This fails any number of qualifiers. There is nothing special about this bus route. It would be unwise to open the door to having every bus route in the world given it's own article on Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SBS Transit Service 284[edit]

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

Appears to fail the GNG; it's just a bus route. bobrayner (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete - This fails any number of qualifiers. There is nothing special about this bus route. It would be unwise to open the door to having every bus route in the world given it's own article on Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SBS Transit Service 163[edit]

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

Appears to fail the GNG; it's just a bus route. bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete - This fails any number of qualifiers. There is nothing special about this bus route. It would be unwise to open the door to having every bus route in the world given it's own article on Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aaliyah (album). MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Refuse[edit]

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

Not enough sources available to warrant an article on this song, not notable (WP:NSONG) Only one reliable source about the topic is available, but its incorporation amounts to a single chart appearance that is included already at Aaliyah discography. Dan56 (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aaliyah (album). Nothing really notable about the song. It only charted because it was released as an B-side to "More Than a Woman". Although, I do dispute that only one reliable source exists for this song. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the chart source, I could only find reviews of the album that mention it, which would be sources for the album article more than the song. Agree, redirect to Aaliyah (album)#Songs. Dan56 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Status and Dan56. Gong show 06:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Société des Amis des Universités de Paris[edit]

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

No references are given in the article, and I can't find any substantial coverage online. ~~I thought a merge/redirect might be suitable, but I can't find a suitable target.~~ — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looks like I was thinking too hard about this - now I think the best course of action would be a merge/redirect to University of Paris. I thought the society wasn't tied to a particular university, but it turns out that's because the original University of Paris was split up into several smaller universities in 1970. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, update and move to an article with its current name "Fondation Robert de Sorbon" (see [1]) then redirect there. I admit that it is not too easy to find online references but this is a venerable institution from 1899 that creates or runs courses at the Sorbonne. And has hosted academic conferences - see some of the references within amazon.fr books. It also published or publishes the annals of the University of Paris which are available in the BNF. Some of its presidents have been ex-presidents of France. Mcewan (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Mcewan, but remove all the unsourced BLP red-listed people per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Model Organism Protein Expression Database[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the primary citation describing this database (PMID 22139914) which was published January 2012 (after subtracting self-citations) has already been cited 7 times. Boghog (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Boghog Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 23:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Kandukuri[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable entrepreneur with very few reliable sources. Most sources seem to be written in telugu, and some of the english sources the article had were clippings hosted on a fanblog dedicated to the subject. The closest to a reliable source we get here appears to be Postnoon, which describes itself as a 'hyperlocal' newspaper according to their Facebook page and official website. I don't read telugu, so I'm not able to translate the clippings listed as sources.

I haven't been able to dig up better sources, and most hits appear to be either blogs or videos by the subject himself.

I should also note that this article (and a couple of other related articles) have been the target of heavy POV-pushing, with multiple sockpuppets. Bjelleklang - talk 21:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABLE. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt No major claim of notability, and seems to be promotional. Sopporting salting to prevent continuous re-creation. Mdann52 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might one day be notable, but is at present no more than locally noticed. Acroterion (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:BIO in particular:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Kandukuri has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as Postnoon, see http://postnoon.com/2012/09/22/be-the-change-you-want/74912 Postnoon is a written English based newspaper based in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India, and is considered notable enough per its article on the Dutch Wikipedia: nl:Postnoon. He has also been covered at [2] by Hybiz TV, an online news media based in Hyderabad as well. Wether the subject is notable hyperlocally is irrelevant for Wikipedia due to WP:NOTPAPER. Furthermore, Kandukuri has been a speaker at TED per File:Vishal Kandukuri delivering talk at TED conference.jpg and File:Vishal_Kandukuri_talking_at_TED_conference.jpg. All this, in sum, makes him notable per WP:BIO. Wether the article is an ad or whatever is irrelevant for an AfD, that's a content dispute and does not merit deletion. WP:FIXIT. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The video was mentioned (although not by name) in the nomination and is self-published. Go to the site, look just above the video and you'll see a link titled "How to upload my business videos". Basically, the site appears to be a service where businesses can upload their own videos and hence not useful for notability.

The images you refer to doesn't really help either; they only prove that he was at a TED Conference. He probably gave a speech, but we don't have any context. For all we know, he could have been onstage for two minutes giving some background information as part of someone elses speech. We simply don't know, so there's nothing there to base a claim that he's notable on.

Postnoon is probably the best of the sources listed in the article. However, when they describe themselves as "hyperlocal" one of the things I'm concerned about is that they hype up local stuff and make it more important than it really is. I'm not saying that this is the case here at all, but the general lack of coverage gives me the impression that he is the non-notable CEO of a local startup. Bjelleklang - talk 16:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the video is not self-published. Did you even click on the link? It opens a form to CONTACT Hybiz TV. It is NOT an upload form like YouTube. This is quite normal with pretty much all news sources. Remember, news is a business, not an altruistic service. Regarding TED, his talk was at TEDx, specifically at TEDx Youth @ Alexander Rd, see [3]. Regarding "hyperlocal", that just means that the newspaper focuses exclusively on matters that are relevant solely to the local community. The hyper- prefix in this context mean "overly" or "excessive". The use of hyper- and its antonym hypo- is common in medicine. It does not mean hyper as in "hype". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been somewhat on the fence about this, not least because I've spent some time working on the article; the fact remains, as I see it, that there is only one reliable source, namely Postnoon. The Hybiz TV video appears to be self-published - while it's not a YouTube-like site where anybody can freely upload their content, they still invite business people to submit their own videos for publication on the site. So there's some editorial discretion as to what is published on the Hybiz TV site, but it's not comparable to a news site. One reliable source does not meet WP:GNG - two sources don't either, so even if Hybiz TV had been reliable, it wouldn't have changed anything. The excessive and rather unpleasant sockpuppetry doesn't help, but the important point is that the subject's notability is not sufficient, quite independently of the activity of his fans. --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lebrero[edit]

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

WP:VANITY - Created by sockpuppet of paid editor. Assumed to be WP:PAID

WP:GNG lacking sources from WP:RS. Other sources are web sources featuring: IMDb, Dork Shelf and two of the other websites appear to be the same site but with different logos: bestshorts.net theindiefest.com

Original PROD, which was seconded, was removed by a SPA... Thus I am bringing to AfD PeterWesco (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with extreme prejudice. NickCT (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...please. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing there except claims to notability by association, and even that is weak at best. Fails WP:ENT, not to mention basic notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Original Research and spammy--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs of English and British American colonies[edit]

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

contested prod; unsourced; original research; duplicative of other lists of English and British monarchs; orphaned DrKiernan (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strikes me as a non-notable intersection. NickCT (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely repetitive, both internally and of other articles, and redundant, limiting its encyclopedic value (if any). If there is any necessity for something like this, it could be better handled by a category. Agent 86 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; content wholly redundant to actual list of monarchs, also not a distinct topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; for all the reasons given above. (Also arbitrary in only showing this information for the 13 colonies that joined to form the USA, as if those were the only British colonies ever to exist in North America, e.g. Plymouth, New Haven, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland; and if that is what the list is to be, why are only the British monarchs of New York relevant and not the Dutch of New Netherlands?) Total WP:Listcruft. Agricolae (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a completely pointless article. The monarchs were kings or queens of Great Britain (or England), and became morach over the colnies at exactly the same time they succeeded to the crwon of GB etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Harkness(Quarterback)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played a professional game. ...William 19:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albama-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jailton Nascimento de Oliveira[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) 17:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - WP:NOTABLE with significantly more coverage than the underdeveloped article in question makes it seem. Received a lot of Arabic-language media coverage, which might explain the difficulty in locating those sources. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He appears to have primarily played in the lower-tiers of the São Paulo state football pyramid, and more recently in Iraq. I found little Portuguese-language coverage, and without someone showing Arabic-language coverage that meets the GNG, I think we have to conclude the article fails all of the relevant notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He might pass in Arabic or the Brazilian pedias but in the English version he pretty much fails. Govvy (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not Notable ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunting (2012 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, PROD removed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember endorsing the PROD on this because it lacked any reliable sources to show that it was notable in the slightest. There's just nothing out there to show that this exists or (more importantly) is even notable in the slightest. I don't doubt that this probably exists, but it seems to be your standard non-notable indie/homemade film that will never really become notable enough for Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't quite say this is a hoax either but it's probably an indie film that was released to a limited area. I searched the production company, MadHatter, and found other companies that appeared to be irrelevant. Despite multiple detailed searches, I haven't found at least one piece of evidence to support this article. Additionally, it never clarifies the filmmaker's hometown. Nor did I find evidence to support the book, The Haunting:The Devil Children. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G11. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher International[edit]

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

This article about a fishing company appears to be non-notable. According to an internet search, there are not enough reliable sources for significant coverage requirements, so I propose deletion. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 16:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kothi Anandam[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable Indian hotel. Previously deleted as G11 advertising, the author of this article has made a fair attempt to bring this up to standard. Despite some encouragement on his talk page however, the author has not been able to provide anything that satisfies the general notability guideline, and I cannot find anything to suggest that this warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. There also appears to be a conflict of interest, with the author of the page also being the director of the hotel. — sparklism ^hey! 15:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This topic appears to fail significant coverage requirements in reliable sources for notability indication. According to an internet search, there are only sources to unreliable websites, such as TripAdvisor. There does seem to be a conflict of interest as well. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for so many reasons. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ankireddy Pally[edit]

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

Unsourced. Cannot find reliable sources for it. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename Ankireddypally - According to the source Googlemaps, looks like a real village to me. [4].--Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a village in Ranga reddy district, I couldn't find references for the article Randhir 00:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, a village 1, 2 --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Could have been A1 in my opinion ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KVT[edit]

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

No context, no references. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any Google hits for this term. In HBase there is a KeyValue class that has a Type member. Or maybe this is an alternate naming of the Entity–attribute–value model. In any case, the topic itself has no notability and the article should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 18:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NickCT (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is it? perhaps could one day be a subsection of an article on this-if I ever

find out what this is.75 * 20:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedy delete at this point. WP:BEFORE does not reveal any significant coverage. Mkdw ^talk 21:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as possible hoax --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thatto Heath[edit]

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

Article has been here for six years and still has only a single source, that one is for a school and not the subject itself. All the content appears to be OR. I think the topic may not be notable. MY PROD was deleted because the originator was minimally involved so others should have been notified as well, there are many articles like this on Wikipedia and why pick on this one, and Wikipedia policy was looser when this article was started so it should be excused. None of these objections address notability or policy. Joja lozzo 15:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was the editor who removed the Proposed Deletion template. That an article is poorly referenced or may contain a certain amount of irrelevant material is grounds for improving the article, not for deleting it. The nominator's grounds for the proposed deletion appeared to be uncertainty about whether the subject was notable: I would assert that Thatto Heath's status as a ward of the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens [5] make it a "Populated, legally-recognized place" under WP:GEOLAND, and therefore it passes the notability guidelines for geographical places.

Besides, my remarks linked to above still stand: (i) notifying an editor who created a stub article over six years ago and never touched it again does not appear to be appropriate, given that a number of other editors have worked on the article in the mean time; (ii) despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the precedent of there being many other similar articles which this nominator hasn't proposed for deletion suggests that the rules are being applied indiscriminately; (iii) one should not expect that articles written in the early days of Wikipedia when the rules were less strict to conform to modern standards. If they don't, then if the subject is notable enough, they should be improved, not deleted. --RFBailey (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(i) You were automatically notified as a result of posting the prod template. Notifying the originator is standard practice. If you think others should be notified you can do that. (ii) I happened to notice the poor quality of this article. That means I am applying policy carefully not the opposite. (iii) If we decide to keep this, then we should remove the unsourced content and revert it to a stub with the basics (e.g. "a ward of the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens "). Just because content is there doesn't mean its worth keeping. It's verifiable sources, at a minimum, that make something worth keeping. Joja lozzo 18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Notifying the originator is standard practice"---yes, in cases where the article is new or where the orignator is the editor who has done most of the work. As for (iii), why not improve the article yourself rather than starting deletion discussions? --RFBailey (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the poor quality of the article is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for improvement. The wiki has an informal style, but that's easily remedied. Revert to stub and the verified content. For development, Thatto Heath should really pick up on its historical notability. It was home to some of the earliest coal mining and tableware / plate glass foundries with links to the historic Leafe family, Scottish Industrialist John Mackay (of the Parys Mines and the British Plate Glass Foundry) and John Henzy. Koncorde (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: I am convinced the topic is notable and the lack of sources is due to relaxed standards (which we are told is endemic to articles in the category of small English places). I've reverted it to a stub and it's ready to be expanded. As far as I'm concerned we can close this now but it will probably have to wait the normal seven day AFD run unless an admin notices it sooner. Joja lozzo 04:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not notable ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Woo[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet notability guidelines.NickCT (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only notability comes from covering notable events that everyone else covered. Fail WP:NOTABLE. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. Gong show 06:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherent. She covered some very notable current events, but has not received attention from the journalism community for her work in the forms of honors or awards such as Pulitzers. Mkdw ^talk 22:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After several source searches, the subject does not appear to pass WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. The lack of sources makes the potential for qualification under WP:CREATIVE very difficult to assess. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus there's no evidence of meeting WP:NBOOK j⚛e decker ^talk 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Orange[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:NBOOK; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better references are found. Self-published (iUniverse and Amazon Kindle). Peridon (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Available sources fall short of the WP:NBOOK notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this book meets WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Gong show 06:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable fails WP:BOOK--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Euphoria (Vanessa Carlton album )[edit]

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

No track listing, no release date. Not mentioned on artist's own website (at least that I can find - it's not Wikipedia-optimised). Only coverage in forums and blogs, and apparently based on a single tweet. Without prejudice to start again when/if details available, it's Hammer Time. Shirt58 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER. It seems unclear this time whether the new album will actually be titled Euphoria, and there's no significant coverage for the upcoming project as of yet in independent reliable sources (does not meet WP:NALBUMS). Gong show 19:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER. PianoDan (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HAMMER applies, and there is too little information on this article; also, it's completely unsourced. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:HAMMER --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boomwhacker[edit]

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

Looks to me like this is an advert for a corporate product, not an article for a musical intrument. Whilst the instrument this is an exampl of may be itself notable this brand name appears not to be. It lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. It's a mix of bad sources, original research and promotion. External links used are not independent reliable sources. It's still reads like an advert even after a good faithed attempt to rectify that problem. A search failed to found any indepth coverage as asked for by WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm a former elementary school music teacher, so I can speak to this from a position of experience. The article does indeed need a lot of work, but Boomwhackers are an extremely commonly used learning tool for elementary music educators. There's a LOT of literature and resources available concerning their use in the classroom, and not just from the company itself. They're common enough that the notation software, Finale, actually comes standard with a font pack corresponding to their colors. I'll see what I can add later, but given that a search for "Boomwhackers resources" returns 51,000 hits... PianoDan (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "There's a LOT of literature and resources available"". such as? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colapeninsula added a few good references, I added a web link. I agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but thousands of kids use these things every day - the topic is definitely notable. PianoDan (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books has lots of hits (WP:BEFORE states that you should search Google Books before AfDing). Some are for books published by the corporation who sells boomwhackers but plenty aren't. Steve Greenberg's book in particular has lots of info on the history of the product. I added 3 books as refs; there's more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four million sold and many reliable sources, a no-brainer frankly. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs cleaning up, but shouldn't be deleted. The instrument is significant and widely used all over the world. MichiHenning (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:N, section WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [6] (in German), [7], [8], [9], [10]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - evidence exists that it is used extensively in music education. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The American School in London. Courcelles 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Eckard[edit]

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

An article about a WP:NN journalist whose major accomplishment appears to be founding of a small private school. ((findsources)) does not turn up anything useful and unable to establish any decent refs other than the UK death index Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The American School in London. This probably involves adding a few words to that article about the circumstacnes of its foundation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The American School in London. He does not appear to have any notability other than as founder of the school, and his story belongs there. --AJHingston (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EasySky Flight 735[edit]

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

Unremarkable aviation incident. PROD removed by IP with no reason given TheLongTone (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Runway overruns are very common....William 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. Typical runway accidents are generally regarded as non-notable, and occur often. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 20:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH - not notable in the least.--Petebutt (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fatalities, investigation, or change to the industry; delete as mentioned above. Mkdw ^talk 21:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't meet notability guidlines ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deadly onez[edit]

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

This is a self-published book by a non-notable author. I cannot find any independent coverage that demonstrates this book meeting our notability guidlines. PROD declined without comment by an IP user. — sparklism ^hey! 09:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is ultimately a non-notable self-published book. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources to show that this is notable and everything I did find (including this Wikipedia article) was uploaded by the author himself. This is pretty much just another one of those articles added by an author trying to promote himself via Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Fails WP:NOTBOOK.reddogsix (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notable, Article has also cleaned up since last year. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this a year ago and will now nominate it again, now as then this was clearly a important news story and at the time got coverage in the US, however there is not any "enduring historical significance" to this crime and the coverage that it got was the routine coverage that a crime of this type gets. The article makes no claims to any lasting significance and as such fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NEVENTS. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems more than a routine news event as the plot has thickened. I would also like to say this crime is not routine by any means. Since it involes the guy,and his mom, and there are lots of articles out there on both of them. Like this one for example. Passes WP:EVENT because it "This page in a nutshell: An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." All of the criteria is met. This whole flying his mom business is weird, on top of the massive scope of this guys damage. Notable to me PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The coverage was only for a week around New Year's 2012. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for NYT, CBS, CNN, LA Times, and ABC News]. The last being May 24, 2012. Mkdw ^talk 22:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to agree with PortlandOregon97217 that WP:EVENT is met. The situation received significant, non-routine, international coverage in many reliable news sources (e.g. the BBC, the Guardian and the Jerusalem Post). A Los Angeles Times news article about the story dated to May 2012 was already posted which provides evidence that coverage "persists over a period of time" --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple reliable sources that cover the events in an in-depth manor to pass signficant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Coverage is beyond WP:ROUTINE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources given in the article make it abundantly clear that the subject is notable. I don't see how the nominator can characterize that kind of coverage as "routine". Everyking (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS says in the first sentence: " editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events ". Essentially it's very difficult to prove this event isn't significant with the length of coverage its received. Your argument must rely mostly on your personal opinion as the basis of it not being a significant current event. Mkdw ^talk 22:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources have been provided to indicate that this is worthy of a stand alone article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:N/CA, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". As far as I can see, the event (or serial of events) reached significant media coverage, and the article is well written and well referenced with RS. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1988–1989#Toonces the Driving Cat. (non-admin closure) — Yash ^[talk] 14:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toonces the Driving Cat[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Already mentioned at Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1988–1989. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1988–1989#Toonces the Driving Cat. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect (I don't care which, but don't just delete the info when there's a perfectly good place to put it). Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merger is sensible here. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. G11 does apply Courcelles 00:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Ahmed Abbasi[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a local politician. Fails WP:GNG as their is no proof that he had a national political role. The Banner talk 05:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy delete, perhaps, as outrageously promotional. The first half of the article is about the his more notable relatives, the second half a description of his not notable career, including the fact that one of his students got high marks on a school examination. He seems to be the appointed head of a local district, but that's not enough. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Pioneers Baseball[edit]

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

Semi-professional/non-professional team that fails WP:ORG, all sources are very localized in coverage, prod removed, all other teams in the league was deleted, and I see this one as no exception. Delete Secret ^account 17:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject of multiple instances of independently-published coverage, passes General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't independent of the subject as its the league website, the other two is the very small town newspaper from where the team is located, and I couldn't find much else in a Google search. If you find more reliable sources that is independent of the source i.e not the league website or the local newspaper let me know and I will reconsider. Secret ^account 23:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage, thus it fails WP:GNG. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Fields[edit]

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

Completely unsourced Biography. Does not have any WP:RS to back up any of the claims. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are two book sources listed as refs that discuss him in some detail (the historical man, not the television character) and I found another book without much effort. I didn't look at regular GHits due to the TV series hits, but I'm sure that more references could be found. GregJackP Boomer! 05:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as defined by WP:SOLDIER as a flag/general officer, with rank verified by RS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, both book sources were added by me after the article's nomination -in an effort to see if the article can be saved. According to the first source, he was an infantry private during the American Civil War and he "promoted himself to General", thus the article doesn't meet the WP:SOLDIER criteria. Nimuaq (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not policy. Fields still meets WP:GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 12:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is also this source, but it is self-published and I don't think it meets WP:RS: some of the claims there cannot be found elsewhere -eg. the source says that he served as a private in the 114th Infantry Regiment, and while there was a private named Samuel Fields in the 114th Infantry Regiment according to here, he died in 1888 while that self-published source indicates Samuel Fields was alive in 1889 and the first book source says the last record from him is from 1890. There are records of more than ten soldiers named Samuel Fields who served during the American Civil War (see here) and the self-published source might just took a guess. This doesn't mean there are no other sources that meet WP:RS, I think there are more reliable sources out there (like the first book source) but they are hard to find, so my vote is Weak Keep at the moment. Nimuaq (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. and improve ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colfax Corporation[edit]

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

Delete, WP:UNDUE to the closure of a plant, seems to be a WP:COATRACK that ultimately fails WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant third party coverage about the subject presented in article nor found via search. fails N and WP:CORP -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep - sources are significant, third party coverage about the subject. It is a very specific topic, welding, therefore sources are only to be found on welding-related sources. The company is billion turnover one, with 10 000 employees worldwide. Alone this fact is signifcant enough. I added more third part sources for increasing the significance, if this is the measurement of significance ... --Pesen S Trompet (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. A large, NYSE-traded company. WP:LISTED instructs: "notability is not automatic" for such companies, but "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. . . . Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." A quick look at GNews[11] and HighBeam[12] shows that this is the case here. Among other things, Colfax recently bought Charter International and there's plenty of coverage of the transaction [13], including one focusing on Colfax's "mysterious past"[14]. One possibility might be to merge the existing Charter International article into this article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Here are more solid sources about Colfax: The Washington Post[15], The Wall Street Journal[16], The Daily Telegraph[17].--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive suggestions. Some of the information was already briefed, some of it I briefly included. Best, --Pesen S Trompet (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches yield many press releases about this company, however, some news sources include: [18], [19], [20] (more on page 2), [21], [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Basically per WP:BIODEL: Nusbacher's notability is borderline at best, the article suffers from BLP issues, the subject has asked for its deletion and there is no overwhelming consensus here that, despite all that, the article should be kept. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Nusbacher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aryeh Nusbacher

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

opening the AfD discussion on behalf of User:Hinata. Rationale has included "Help me get it nominated for deletion, I don't know how. Article lacks notability other then some tabloid source." I am strictly opening on User:Hinata behalf and have no opinion at this time and will let User:Hinata more fully explain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinata has now left their expanded statement see here and additional clarification [23] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG because of coverage in the following sources:

• William D. Rubinstein; Michael Jolles; Hilary L. Rubinstein, eds. (2011). The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 727. ISBN 1403939101.
• Frazer, Jenni (April 5, 2006). "Military maven". Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
• Herbert, Ian (2011-10-23). "The IoS Pink List 2011". The Independent online. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
• "The IoS Pink List 2012". The Independent online. 2012-11-04. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
The first two sources show non-trivial coverage of the life and career. The second two sources show recognition by a larger community, akin to a minor but national award. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is misguided as there is already broad consensus on the Talk page for GNG and there is evidence the subject meets WP:PROF. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Delete and salt - I don't actually think Binksternet provided the best sources to prove notability in the discussion. Individual "community" listing or mention is not exactly a way to determine notability. I had thought the figure was notable originally, but I am not clear that the person being named here can be seen as notable enough even under their own website description [24].--Amadscientist (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if (and there should be no question, but at Wikipedia sometimes BLP and logic and sanity are not allowed to be in the same place at the same time) The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History is determined to meet the WP:RS requirements, then keep. If it for some insane quirk of BLP application overriding all logic and standard definition of reliable sources is determined NOT to be a reliable source, then we have insufficient third party content to show notability for Lynette Nusbacher, so delete Lynette Nusbacher. However, even without the Palmgrave, there is marginally enough reliable third party sources for a weak keep for Aryeh Nusbacher. The Palmgrave is the only reliable source connecting the works of Aryeh Nusbacher to the name Lynette.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - mostly per Collect - even the most substantial source, the Palmgrave shows only standard academic publishing, minor TV appearances and mid-level government position, none of which in themselves is particularly significant nor together do they gain any synergy. If the Pink award had stated anything about why she was selected, but all it lists is the above so one is left with the belief that it is because of having a fairly high visibility transgender person - but being transgender is not WP:N either. So being only marginally notable combined with the subjects desire to not be included, delete.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we go by that source alone, then ....delete. The authors have Identified all their sources for the tiny little section on the subject in Palgrave Dictionary as "Online sources". Does a google search really give this source "high quality"? Can historians really be used to source a "gender change"? I do agree that "there is marginally enough reliable third party sources for a weak keep for Aryeh Nusbacher"--Amadscientist (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unless you want to change the definition of reliable sources, then yes, "online sources" interpreted by experts and determined by them to be worthy and accurate are indeed sufficient sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Gee, I guess that we should re-write the entire Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as well as all of the BLP policy then to fit your definition. But since we are not doing so I think we should stick the policy at hand. The work itself - a tiny little section in Palgrave Dictionary that uses all online sources is weak. The authors are not experts on gender change or sex change and don't even appear to be biographers and used unkown, unlisted "online sources". No - it isn't sufficient. Its a tertiary source. Per WP:WPNOTRS: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." This source is used multiple times and for information its authors have no business being cited as experts on with unkown manners of research.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at NOTRS is not about establishing notability. Instead, it is a warning not to rely on tertiary sources for details. There are no details that we are trying to establish in the biography; for instance, we are not trying to specify exactly what sort of gender change Nusbacher underwent. Note that the Palgrave scholars used six Jewish Chronicle articles and a variety of unlisted "online sources". We are not here arguing whether Palgrave is wrong (which is very doubtful) but whether Nusbacher is notable. The fact that Palgrave felt Nusbacher was worth including in their biographical dictionary is the only point we care about. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that we're "not trying to specify what sort of gender change" she had belies the fact that we know very well how readers will read it, and they're not going to read it as "we don't know what sort of gender change"--they're going to read it as "she had a sex-change operation". Just the fact that the words can be literally read in some manner other than "sex-change operation" doesn't change this. Heavily implying something we have no good source for is no better than outright stating something we have no good source for. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Revised opinion below Examine the sources provided:

Palgrave is tertiary, as explained by Amadscientist. No good for proving notability.

Jewish Chronicle mentions Arye, not Lynette. Without RS demonstrating they're the same thing, no good

Pink list mentions include no in-depth coverage of the subject. And an annual award voted for by the readers of one newspaper, the Independent on Sunday, is definitely not sufficient to demonstrate notability. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at GNG recommends secondary sources instead of primary ones, not instead of tertiary ones. If you examine the historic development of GNG, you'll see that as far back as 2007 it specifically says secondary sources are better than primary ones. There has never been (and likely will never be) a recommendation saying that tertiary sources are not sufficient to establish notability.

Your argument throwing out Palgrave is faulty; even if you think it does not establish notability it continues to connect Aryeh to Lynette Nusbacher, which means the Jewish Chronicle "Military maven" piece remains valid, along with anything else about Aryeh Nusbacher. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're going with that, but the trouble is the interpretation of "should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion". Is this an overview issue or a detail one? Given the importance of BLP, I can't help but side conservatively. The best solution here is someone presents a nice RS that links the two people and this AfD collapses in a heap. Without it, I can't help but find it sits uneasily with BLP for the notability to entirely depend on a tertiary source, given that we must discount the Jewish Chronicle. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discounting of the Jewish Chronicle. Where did that come from? Even NetNus, the subject of the biography, accedes that her name was previously Aryeh Nusbacher. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The JC article says nothing at all about Lynette Nusbacher, and unless and until you show me a solid secondary reliable source that Lynette=Aryeh, the JC piece is valueless, no matter how many Wikipedians, blogs, tertiary sources and other sources shout that they're the same person. As I've previously stated, if they are demonstrably the same person, I'd strongly consider switching to keep, and I doubt I'm the only one who would do so. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said if "someone presents a nice RS that links the two people [then] this AfD collapses in a heap". What alien universe is it wherein three Fellows of the Royal Historical Society are said to be unreliable for facts published in their scholarly reference book? The Palgrave book is the very source you call for. I am astounded at the method by which you came to some other conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) without a reliable source such as Palmgrave making the connection between the two, we cannot - and a wikipedia users claim is not sufficient evidence either. So far the only potentially reliable source for such a connection is the Palmgrave and if that is (Bizzaroland) not an acceptable source, we just have some potentially significant sourced content to establish notability for the work/impact of Aryeh but certainly not sufficient content about Lynette. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets WP:GNG - sex change raises nobility and should be reported with careful consideration, but should be reported - Youreallycan 11:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have any BLP-compliant evidence that this person used to be called Arye, with or without a sex-change, I'd change my opinion to "Keep", per the Jewish Chronicle article alone. Without BLP-compliant evidence, we have nothing to link the two individuals. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Palgrave does not mention a sex change. In fact I see no source that does. This is exactly why the source and the article should go. This whole thing is leading people to make assumptions without even realising it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Palgrave book specifically says "gender change", not sex change. However, many editors here confuse the two, seeing them as identical terms. The whole point here is about notability, not about the difference between gender and sex change. The whole point is that the Palgrave people saw fit to include Nusbacher in their compendium of notable people. If we do less than that we are failing the Wikipedia reader. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IAR delete - This is a sorry spectacle of process over common sense. No one who has seen the preponderance of evidence available can seriously suggest (a) the subject was not previously known as Aryeh and (b) the subject did not previously lived as male. They are not even disputed by the editor who is supposedly the subject in question. And yet, we have spent many KBs on a number of different pages arguing over the reliability of various sources, including one edited by three Fellows of the Royal Historical Society and published by a well-regarded academic publisher. In the name of preventing outing of what isn't actually a secret, we have had various surreal suggestions ranging from having two separate articles on the same subject with one covering pre-2007 and one post-2007, to pretending either explicitly or implicitly that the former name was a nom de plume. In the name of WP:BLP, the article have also over time been sanitised of much content that is referenced and otherwise standard on any of our other 600,000 BLPs. While I do believe the subject does marginally meet our notability guidelines, I'd only consider that to be the case if we consider the subject's life as a whole. If we're going to pretend some part of her life didn't happened, and ended with a crippled article as a result, it would be better to just not have the article at all. Such an outcome is also one the alleged subject is on the record as being happy with, so would satisfy deletion based on WP:BIODEL. KTC (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to either be signed or stricken. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! KTC (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let met see if I got you straight: You are essentially saying that because we cannot collectively put together a sensible biography with relevant details about a life and career which includes a gender change in 2007, we should give up and delete the damn thing? I think that is a sad reflection on our capabilities. I think Wikipedia can do better than that. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am usually hawkish on the "If The Subject Squeals, Pay No Heed" question — this is not what should be impacting our Keep and Delete criteria, and probably 90% of the time I'm automatically in the Keep camp when it becomes clear that this is what is driving a deletion nomination. Here, however, we've got a subject whose main notability hook, it seems to me, is that they grew up an orthodox jewish male and had a sex change operation. Whoopty fucking doo. Oh, and by the way, she was and is a military historian. Oooooooooo. As a historian, this individual would probably not clear our notability guidelines, that's the main thing to me. If this is not a case of squeaking past the special notability guidelines for scholars (I don't know and have no view on this), this should end in a GNG Delete. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's preference, as expressed here. That preference offers the following option to the closing admin: AfDs of BLPs for non-public figures "where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete", at WP:BIODEL. Coverage of this person is not widespread to the point where a biography is necessary, and if editors are going to insist on violating her perfectly reasonable expectation of privacy then deletion is an entirely reasonable choice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another fraudulent rationale (just the latest in a growing string) from the deletionists. Nusbacher is a public figure by din of her years working as a television personality, thus this argument has no basis in fact or policy. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She(or he) is not exactly a public figure because there is no reliable source on any other place. As a matter of fact, there are reasons I wanted this article deleted, one I personally think she is non-notable, two she seems normal aside from her sex change, three we are violating WP:BLP by saying private things that everyone can see, four subject request deletion, and Finally, of all things, there is a TOTAL lack of reliable sources other then some tabloid which shouldn't even be used. --Hinata talk 19:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely marginal notability (commentator on a game show and the Jewish Chronicle write-up is it, the others refs are just name-drops and cites), subject requests deletion, that should be respected. I think whenever possible, we should respect the fact that some people out there would just rather not have a biography hosted on a high-traffic website, controlled by anonymous amateurs. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let me explain, article is about a subject that lacks notability except one source, and all other sources are only mentioning in a one line sentence. How does the subject account for notability needs to be explained. Also, I hardly think anyone comes see this page as well, but I know that has noting to do with the page. --Hinata talk 19:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to what the article contains. Editors saying things like "extremely marginal notability" and "lacks notability except for one source". Either have no idea why they are commenting here or cannot be taken in good faith. There are countless sources attesting to the notability of the subject. She's a senior lecturer at one of the world's top military schools, formerly a permanent advisor to the Joint Intelligence Committee and a minor TV personality. Last year, The Independent listed her as the 53rd most influential LGBT person in the UK. We obviously wouldn't delete the article of anyone else on that list and, given the vast number of incredibly minor academics we are happy to house bios for, its absurd to suggest we should delete this one. Formerip (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. She or he is not LGBT anyway, and regardless, she is non-notable. These sources are also Unreliable and the most important thing is to actually PROVE that she even made the sex change. Without this confirmation, the article fails without sources, as most of the sources are her as a male. Oh, but wait... we have to prove that.. so a catch 22. --Hinata talk 20:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's only one source, should that be "most of the source is her as a male"? Formerip (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a senior lecturer or #53 on a famous gay people list are not inherently notable criteria, I'm afraid. You can't just bean-count these tiny scraps of things a person does and declare notability, that is the classic asinine Rescue Squad mentality. Before you slag other editors as having "no idea why they are commenting here", try coming up with less woefully ignorant rebuttals yourself, Mr. FormerIP. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's consistent for someone to be considered 53rd most notable LGBT person in the UK by a major newspaper yet not notable for a Wikipedia article? Formerip (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they failed to otherwise have received significant coverage in reliable third party sources, yep it is consistent with Wikipedia Notability criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sidebar exchange is purely academic, since the coverage is there (even if some pretend not to see it). Keep in mind, the subject is a television personality, noted author, and meets notability under WP:PROF, all of which seems to be getting overlooked in the irrational fixation on the Pink List business. ► Belchfire-TALK 20:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to point out what criteria of WP:PROF you think this person meets? A PhD, a master's thesis and 2 obscure books are woefully short of what is claled for by a sub-notability guideline. Tarc (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is not highly notable. She's written two relatively obscure books, some newspaper columns, has held a relatively obscure teaching post (yes, yes, two princes - I don't think anyone is claiming she shaped their view on life?), and has been a consultant to several shows. Probably enough to meet WP:N, but not overwhelmingly; not by enough that it's worth causing her pain, which it clearly seems to be doing. That's not quite what NetNus is asking for - she's just asking to remove the link - but it's the best we can do. We can't avoid connecting Lynette to Aryeh if we have an article (the best source, the Jewish Chronicle piece, is about Aryeh, and the books have Aryeh on the cover), so the only choice seems to be not to have an article. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find the WP:BIODEL request but if it exists we certainly should consider it; she's of marginal notability. Just because there are a lot of sources doesn't mean she's that notable--the sources don't go into depth. It also seems obvious that Wikipedia is unable to get this article right, and eventualism really isn't acceptable when dealing with a BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. You hit it right on the head. Unless there is more sources other then what we have, and even that is considered unacceptable even by her, then what do we have? Nothing, which in a blp policy means Delete. ( I already voted, just saying...) Also, being a sex change in itself is non-notable regardless, she is not a public figure by any means, we are technically outing her, and I could go on... --Hinata talk 21:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, including the second name redirect here. Wikipedia is essentially serving as a gossip forum and endorsing what looks like very sloppy "research." There is very little here that isn't based on WP:Original research and marginal sources. I've removed IMDB at least twice. Wikipedia should avoid causing real world harm and the subject has made it clear this article is unwanted and gossipy content is ranked higher than her own website on Google searches. Insomesia (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Real world harm" is a valid concern, however, if there was no Wikipedia article on Nusbacher then the reader who is searching for her will instead find the sensationalist Sun tabloid article and the Jew-hating Metapedia biography. If Wikipedia hosted a professional and fully factual biography Nusbacher's search results would not be quite as hurtful. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't work like that. We're not here to hamhandedly cure the evils of the Internet. We're here to be the best encyclopedia we can be. In this case, that means not writing anything, because the only things we can write would do more harm than good. --GRuban (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from your word "hamhandedly" I think that Wikipedia is indeed here to give the reader correct information, especially when there is incorrect information widely available. I am confident that it is less harmful to the subject for Wikipedia to carry a fact-based biography than for Wikipedia to have nothing. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject doesn't agree with you and assuming there's a deletion request, thinks that it's less harmful for Wikipedia to have nothing than to have a "fact-based biography". And she's in a better position to know than you are. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt per above I haven't found anything that makes me believe that anything said in the article is untrue, but my impression is that too many are trying to advance a cause and/or make this person's life difficult through scandal-mongering. BLP considerations should trump the relatively slight academic notability of this person. Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If we were to delete the salacious, the subject still crosses a GNG threshold. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person is not particularly notable, and Palgrave per se does not show notability - only that a very large list of people will actually include some with very limited notability. We have a person who changed names in 2007, which is not, in itself, a "gender change" as some would like to believe. The person quite well may be gender dysphoric, but that is not a measure of notability that I can see. The person has appeared on a small number of tv programmes as an "expert" of some sort, and has written some specialised books or articles which do not show up as being of sufficient earth-shaking importance to make the person notable as an author. So - not sufficiently notable = deletion (especially since the person has stated they consider themselves not to be notable per Wikipedia standards). Collect (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now on the nomination, but I have some observations. Firstly, the Independent Pink List is not a self-selecting community-based list; the Independent is a major national broadsheet newspaper. However, while inclusion on this list is a significant thing to report, I don't regard it as a sufficient claim to notability on its own. Secondly, having undergone a gender transition (whether surgical or otherwise) is not a claim of added notability; it's something a minority of people of all levels of notability do, and is not inherently newsworthy. Moreover, in British law, it's something which the subject has a reasonable legal expectation of privacy about - especially from employers - under the Gender Recognition Act. While as far I know that doesn't bind us here, we should bear it in mind. Thirdly, Hinata is wrong to say 'the subject is not LGBT' - firstly because a reliable source (The Independent) says otherwise, and secondly because if it is true that the subject has transitioned gender, that makes her trans, which is what the T in LGBT stands for. Fourthly, it seems highly unreasonable, and arguably quite disruptive, to suggest that an article should be created about a trans person that is entirely about their pre-transition identity, and uses their old name and pronouns throughout. And lastly, incompetent speculation about 'sex or gender change' doesn't seem to be moving this discussion forward at all. Why not focus on the key question: Is Lynette Nusbacher notable? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not matter, regardless the subject is non-notable. Why I nominated the article for deletion is because I think we are violating the subjects privacy for no reason, and two, she is non-notable. There is no extensive history and almost all sources are ether tabloid or one line mention. Also, we do not even have confirmed she even made a sex change... which would kill a lot of the sources even though they mention very little. --Hinata talk 12:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I therefore support your call to delete this bio. Could I ask you, though, to consider amending your choice of words regarding gender transition, please? 'Sex change' is a rather old-fashioned colloquialism for Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), which is only one element of transition, and not one that every person transitioning goes for. It's probably clearer to talk about 'gender transition', since that focusses more appropriately on identity, rather than what people keep in their pants. Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming that people can refrain from insanity and leave the Palgrave source alone. If not, Revert it back to 2007 with the previous name, then lock the damn thing. Human.v2.0 (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, marginal notability, wishes of the subject. Yworo (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I think Carrite and Yworo are correct. So is Hinata, for the most part. Because there's no indication of a noteworthy achievement or public figure status, and because there's no source providing substantial biographical detail, a BLP on this subject is going to remain worthless at best and problematic at worst. An article is devoid of encyclopedic content when it consists of shit people think is interesting, a meaningless list of TV appearances and publications mostly lacking note among third parties (no, just being on TV doesn't make one a public figure — that takes demonstrable coverage or prominence), and outdated, contentious information that isn't exactly additive to any noteworthy aspect. Furthermore, I've seen nothing in the current or previous versions indicating the subject passes either WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC, but even if the subject did barely pass, that's no mandate to keep, especially in light of the subject's wishes. The marginal encyclopedic merit of the article, coupled with the wishes of the subject, set beside the paucity of in-depth coverage, should help those on the fence reach the same conclusion. JFHJr (㊟) 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Meeting a WP:GNG threshold in some trifling way is not enough grounds to keep, and the article keeps running afoul of WP:NPF. Palgrave is a low quality tertiary source by the way. Italick (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That reminds me of an old joke: Q: What do you call a person who graduates medical school at the bottom of his class? A: "Doctor". The point is that if a person meets our GNG threshold in a "trifling" way then they have indeed met the GNG threshold. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uh, no. right there in the WP:N it states that the GNG are the minimum requirements and it specifically states that meeting them DOES NOT automatically result in the establishment of a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny; I see it says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline". I do not see your bolded term "minimum requirements", so I wonder why you thought it worth the emphasis. In discussing whether a GNG-confirmed topic ought to stand alone as its own article, the guideline gives Wikipedia editors the leeway to form consensus not to do so, and instead to incorporate the cited text into another article. Nothing like that is under consideration here—this is a deletion discussion with no suggestion of merging with, say, Sandhurst. Rather, there are suggestions to delete and salt; a strange notion for a topic that passes GNG in however trifling a manner. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a word in English for this sort of thing: "censorship". ► Belchfire-TALK 01:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are carefully ignoring WP:BIODELETE: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Of course, this doesn't mean that such a article must be deleted, but neither are we obligated to have an article. Nusbacher doesn't want this article, and there is a strong difference of opinion on retention of the article; it seems to me that the benefit of the doubt in this policy should be given. Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's being ignored because it doesn't apply. Nusbacher is a limited purpose public figure. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with the decision making here? She is a relatively unknown person, so WP:BIODELETE might apply under this encyclopedia's editorial practices. WP:NPF explains that "notable" persons might still be relatively unknown. The reference to a limited-purpose public figure does not explain Wikipedia's guidelines. Italick (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belchfire, I just don't see how LPPF applies here in the slightest. Far from "thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies," all evidence is that the Sun and others have dragged this out into the limelight against the subject's will. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IAR Delete per subjects preference. People. We are not mindless paper-pushing drones. This person is not very notable. Other Sandhurst lecturers aren't. Angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguing about the details of Wikipedia's GNG standards do not supersede our duty to be decent human beings. In addition, the drama is deleterious to our functioning and wastes our time and energy. Just let it go. Delete and salt. Herostratus (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgetting this Lynette persona, is Aryeh Nusbacher to be considered notable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but WP:BIODEL would still apply. BIODEL applies to people who are marginally notable, which is different from non-notable; if they are non-notable we wouldn't need to use BIODEL in the first place. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been asked by Baseball Bugs to weigh into the debate about 2nd nomination for deletion for this article on the basis of me having started the article in the 1st place. YE GADS! If I had known the can of pandoras worms box I'd opened by starting this article I think I wouldn't have bothered (to put it mildly). I initiated the article (thinking it had been done so previously) because the person in question was of notability due to his regular appearances on the various documentary channels I watch on TV. I knew nothing of the sex change issue at the time (only found out about that after being notified on my talk page due a previous deletion attempt), which I presume is the reason for the storm of controversy this page's existence has garnered in the mean time. Frankly I don't really care whether the page is deleted, renamed, has references to sex-change removed or whatever. Might get round to reading all the hoo-hah above, just to see what all the excitement is really about.1812ahill (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a bit of reading and sifting through my memory, here's my 2 cents worth. The article seriously downplays Dr. Aryeh's television contributions. For instance his frequent appearances on the Military History channel. (For example). If one looks at that link one will find one of Dr. Aryeh's co-contributors, a Dr. William Atwater, who clearly is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia!1812ahill (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. I'll take a look at that. I will mention that, just appearing on the History Channel does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article. Actually even many appearances in film, televison and stage does not make one notable enough for an article on its own.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...no. That may need an AFD discussion as well. That article contains three inline citations and two general references, both of the GRs are dead links. The first citation reference is to the US Army Ordinance website biography page and is used extensively. The second source is only a listing in the primary work and doesn't actually support the claim being made and needs secondary sourcing to even make the claim about the primary work. So, there are really only two sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert back to the point where it was a couple of weeks ago, where it simply acknowledges that the author used to go by this other name. There's no factual issue about that. But near as I can tell, there's no hard evidence of any sex change or gender change or whatever - the only verifiable fact is a name change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, delete because I have a personal grudge against a person like her because of my personal belief. Wait... I am gay hater lol... Anyway, read my previous comments thoughtout this page. --Hinata talk 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I wish that were so, but while there isn't RS evidence of the change, there is plenty of RS evidence that Aryeh was considered male and Lynette is considered female, and that they're the same person. So while we can avoid writing "sex change" we can't avoid pointing out this fact, if only to make our sources make sense. Since Nusbacher seems to want to avoid this, and isn't highly notable, I'm with the "delete" voices. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable, per the Independent "Nusbacher has been a senior lecturer in War Studies at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst since 1999, and is an influential military authority. She has recently advised the Government on national security strategies, and also writes a popular blog". Content issue have already been addressed elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Subject is not notable, she is simply a nobody who is unknown to many. A sex change - which still hasn't been verified - is not notable. --Hinata talk 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I switched my stance, as indicated in my comment above. For how to deal with the article if it is kept, I agree with user:Human.v2.0 about reverting and locking it for a few months to cool it down. Again, the article does not have to be kept. Italick (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of WP:NPF would be to keep allegations of a sex change out of the article unless it is something particularly notable, and I think that it isn't noteworthy. The name change is different if she became notable with both names. If a source better than Palgrave (i.e. a high quality secondary source per WP:NPF) cannot be found, then she should not have been notable using both of the names. There wouldn't be a problem with citing her work under one name or the other name in some different article, depending on how it was published. Italick (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is the subject notable? In my opinion, no it is not. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt She seems more notable on Wikipedia talk pages than in real life. First Light (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may interest contributors (and any closing admin, for that matter) to learn that Hinata has just been blocked for trolling the LGBT project and WP:ANI itself with claims that homosexuals should be executed, and that such a law would not even be controversial. I'm slightly chilled to discover I've been discussing LGBT issues with someone who thinks I should die for my sexuality. It certainly casts this entire debate in a different light. For what it's worth, I think we should ignore Hinata's inconsistent ramblings, and delete the article because the subject is, in fact, barely notable, and would prefer the article to be removed. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, if Hinata had not been here, the article would not be up for deletion. Maybe he's right, but for the wrong reason? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is definitely marginal if it exists and generally in such cases we will defer to a deletion request from the subject. Prodego ^talk 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dweller and Collect. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my default vote when a BLP subject of low, marginal, or unclear notability requests deletion of their own article. Wikipedia articles shouldn't exist to cause their subjects grief. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak IAR Delete per Herostratus.--В и к и T 12:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:SOLDIER. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am guessing you refer to WP:SOLDIER #9 in which the person's peers acknowledge the expertise shown in the person's writings. If that were the case then we should be able to find a positive peer review of Nusbacher's books or papers. Here is what I found: David Simpkin, writing a chapter within Andy King's and Michael A. Penman's book England and Scotland in the Fourteenth Century: New Perspectives, lists the "major works published on the battle" of Bannockburn, and Nusbacher's The Battle of Bannockburn is among the six listed.[25] Michael A. Penman reviewed this same book by Nusbacher but I cannot tell if it is positive or negative or both or neither.[26] Michael Brown criticizes Nusbacher's Bannockburn book by saying Nusbacher assumes as "proven fact" a theory that Barrow suggested based on common sense but not on evidence.[27] So there is one acknowledgement of Nusbacher as a major influence on the topic of Bannockburn and others who are sufficiently impressed by Nusbacher to point out its flaws and strengths. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so determined to ignore the subject's own wishes? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do subjects get to dictate content? The only issues are notability and BLP rules. The former appears not to be settled yet. The latter is manageable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's part of the BLP policy. -- KTC (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "relative unknownness" of the subject has not yet been established. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It works the other way round. A person is not publicly well known by default. One have to prove that a subject is a well known public figure if they don't think WP:NPF should apply. KTC (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And that has not been established yet. My question is: At what point did the subject decide they didn't want an article about them? Was it from the beginning? Or was it only when the "Aryeh" question surfaced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Alex, I don't think WP:BIODEL applies to a very public person who blogs for herself and for Huffington Post, who publishes books, who appears on TV, who enjoys public participation with SCA events and who advertises her think tank services with a domain name tied to her surname.
• I think the least WP:HARM to Nusbacher will be if Wikipedia carries a fact-based and neutral biography which will eventually overshadow the terrible Sun tabloid piece in search results.
• NetNus/Nusbacher's record here is bifurcated or torn—she has added to the biography indicating she wants it kept and yet she criticizes it as if she wants it deleted. (Note that she has not !voted to delete the biography in this AfD, and she did not vote to delete in the previous AfD, though she argued for deletion back in 2007 before there was a Palgrave writeup.)
• Finally, Nusbacher's insulting effort to diminish the scholarship of the Palgrave reference strikes me false; she uses belittling put-downs such as the "Palgrave Book of Yids" and the "Palgrave Bumper Book of Jews" as if she is not proud of her Jewish heritage. However, in her personal blog posts, her Jewish Chronicle interview "Military Maven" ("I'm the open Jew"), and her Huffington Post blogs she continually points out her Jewish heritage, demonstrating great pride in it, taking her daughters to Israel during Christmas, cooking Jewish dishes such as matzoh, participating in the parade of the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen, etc., etc. The reaction to the Palgrave book makes me think she is using bluster to hide something from us. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note that she has not !voted here because she has been made aware that as a person with a conflict of interest, !voting in AfDs related to them is frowned upon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and now after fully reading your assault on her intentions and motives, per WP:IAR I will be inviting her to respond. Such statements should not be able to be made and left to stand in an arena where the person being accused is unable to respond. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are no good, so please, lets avoid them. Prodego ^talk 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give Nusbacher's apparent attempt to get the article deleted by proxy, it would be best if Nusbacher came here directly and speak for herself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a far stretch of the imagination to say that User:Hinata- currently blocked for gross violations of "hate speech trolling" against LGBT people - was requesting a deletion of this article acting as a proxy for Hinata. It is my own shame that I acted as a proxy for Hinata in technically opening this AfD on Hinata's behalf.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Hinata was proxying Hinata. Be that as it may, while his push for deletion was in bad faith, your attempt to help Hinata was in good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This person has identified themselves via WP:OTRS in the past to make their concerns known, that is what OTRS is for. There is no, need, call, or reason for them to prostrate themselves personally before the likes of you or the other rabble of an Article deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, there are other users here claiming that OTRS cannot be cited for anything, as it's supposed to be private. That, I wouldn't know, as I've never set foot in OTRS, whatever it is. Otherwise, your comments make no sense. But now that the subject has commented directly (see below), it's a moot point. Although it's certainly odd to see an article subject trying to argue that they are not notable. Usually it's the opposite. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge the subject of this article has never made matzah, but has made matzah brei, matzah cupcakes, matzah kugel and matzah balls. The subject of the article is, however, a professional historian who understands that academics have to make a living, sometimes by writing or editing books of marginal merit. One does not condemn Roger Scruton for editing the Palgrave Dictionary of Political Thought (£11.69), nor the editors of the Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy (£18.99), the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (£1,940), nor the Palgrave dictionaries of Women's Biography, Chaucer, Anthropology, Transnational History, Psychology, Tennyson or Anglo-Jewish History. Any derisive references to the book are in the context of overestimation of its scholarly merit as compared with its splendid price (£123.50 new, you save £6.50). Is it inconsistent to be proudly Jewish, stand out in the cold at the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women remembrance parade, read the Torah in a synagogue, teach Hebrew School or otherwise act like a Jew; and yet dream of a world in which William Rubinstein could write his scholarly treatises like The Myth of Rescue without having to resort to writing a book calculated to sit on the shelf of every synagogue library in America? Perhaps. Does that mean the subject is 'using bluster to hide something from us'? An untidy office at Sandhurst? A rare copy of "Lobscouse & Spotted Dog: Which It's A Gastronomic Companion to the Aubrey-Maturin Novels"? Skill at calligraphy? Perhaps a childhood case of varicella zoster, parotitis or scarlet fever? A fondness for anchovies?

Yes, that is the only rational conclusion. /sarcasm

The idea that participating in the public activities of the Society for Creative Anachronism with her children should somehow make the subject a public figure is a fascinating one. Given the number of people who participate in the Society's activities the authoring task would be significant, but trolling SCA web sites should provide a good start for anyone who wishes to begin adding them one by one to Wikipedia. Be sure to add their SCA names to the first line of the lede.

When did the subject decide that she was not happy with the Wikipedia entry? From the time in 2007 when her boss in the Cabinet Office told her that it revealed private medical information about her.

Why did the subject add information from time to time? Because when the entry returned from being deleted the first time it consisted largely of private medical information referenced to that same article in the "Sun" and it seemed appropriate to add some facts. Did that indicate that she wanted it kept? No.

Would a neutral Wikipedia entry outweigh the Web presence of the "Sun" article? Possibly, but remember that all the Metapedia and other lookalike bios on the Web were originally cribbed from WP, and if the entry is retained the personal medical information will creep back in line by line as it has done over the last 5 years.

Apologies if the above paragraphs seem an over-reaction to what was, perhaps, an innocent suggestion that the subject of this article might be hiding something. NetNus (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen anyone here insist that a medical condition was being discussed. The wording "gender change" is so general that it encompasses a variety of transsexual decisions. The basic assertion made by that term as used in the biography is that the subject acted as a man in society until 2007, after which the subject acted as a woman in society. There is no medical component, only a social component. The article is not delighting in a revelation of which sort of wrinkly bits are under the dress blues. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Ms. Nusbacher, for our possibly callous seeming discussion of what must, no doubt, be a deeply emotional subject. We are each, in our own way, trying to do "what is right" - whatever that may be. --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is borderline at best, definitely not enough for having such problematic article here.--Staberinde (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the subject's preference. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or alternatively Delete and salt or this issue will recur. A good test of notability is that when the biopage is deleted, someone recreates it because they perceive that it's needed, and that's the case here. She's too well known amongst military historians. Best solution is a redirect from Aryeh Nusbacher to Lynette, with a one line statement that she transitioned from (boyname)in 2007, no other details. That's noteworthy now, but won't be in the future, it's only necessary so that academic citations can be tracked back. Nettie's a friend of mine. I've corresponded to her about this. To summarise her attitude "If I thought there was a chance of an entry that didn't make me ill ..." . I think there is, there has to be. This is something of a test case for the future, regarding Trans and Intersex people. She'd prefer obscurity, but with her appearances on the History Channel and Time Commanders that's not possible. Zoe Brain (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, for reasons I've already argued on the talk page. In my view, this person fails our notability guidelines for people as it is; at best she's a borderline case, and there are strong reasons (the subject's own wishes, and BLP/privacy issues) why we should lean towards deletion here. The arguments for keeping this article are weak, while the arguments for deleting it are persuasive and compelling. Robofish (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable under our usual rules as an academic or an author. 4 books have been mentioned: "Sweet irony" is only the subject MA thesis; The triple thread, only the d.Phil thesis. The battle of Bannockburn iis held in 113 libraries; War and Conflict is a children's book held in 220. WorldCat. the academic position is a senior lecturer, which corresponds to a US Associate Professor, most of whom are not notable. This is what I said in the discussion in 2010 ,and it remains my opinion. The question before us is whether a person who would not otherwise be notable in their profession, becomes notable by being discussed in the context of their personal characteristics. A strict reading of WP:GNG would say that they do--and to my mind that shows the utter absurdity of the GNG. We can take the subject's wishes into account to some extent if we choose to--I consider that an exceptionally bad rule, because (a) it lets the subject in effect censor the article by being willing to approve it only if they say or do not say what the subject desires, and (b) it caters to borderline subjects who want publicity at the expense of those not interested in it, which is encouraging promotionalism. It's time we rejected it as policy or guideline, and replaced it by the opposite, a statement that the subject's wishes are in all circumstances irrelevant, though they can just as anyone else, call attention to aspects that would lead us to include or not include the article: the fundamental policy at issue is NPOV. The only true BLP consideration is DO NO HARM, which is the fundamental basis of the other parts of BLP policy. I don't think any harm in the usual sense is done here--the argument would be the embarrassment to a person not notable of having their activities hyped as if they were. I accept that people can feel this way, but unfortunately for making it a rule, some people of very considerable notability have said similarly: some have considered it a disgrace to have an article about them in a publication such as ours, which should no more be a consideration that the more common occurrence that some people think it a disgrace that we do not include them. There is however a special factor here: the embarrassment to a person otherwise not notable for their accomplishments at being considered notable because of their personal characteristics. We do consider this in the context of BLP1E, and I accept that we can consider it more widely, though I call it NOT TABLOID. I think it applies here. (Obviously, if the personal matters were to become for whatever reason actually famous, it would be another matter, just as BLP1E currently says, but that's hardly the case here.) DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in the outcome, I'm not happy with the notion that doing no harm is somehow in some sort of conflict with attentiveness to the subject's wishes. Only they can answer to the question of whether they are harmed. One subject may seek obscurity and another notoriety, and we would harm one by drawing attention to them while harming the other by denying them notice. There is some difference in that obscurity is easily enough remedied after the fact, to the degree that we afford publicity; but the glare of publicity is difficult to shadow once its light has been shone on someone. That is why our BLP standards give privilege to privacy and do not favor publicity. Our purpose her need not and should not be as private investigators working diligently to expose every unsavory detail of a person's life. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Opinion revised from above. Extremely arguable notability strongly trumped by BLP issues. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate from scratch: in my opinion, her appearance on the Pink Lists give her notability, but I can see major issues with the current treatment of the subject. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So what would your version include? What would it keep off? Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd keep her birth name, but limit it to the absolute necessary for article cohesion (so, one mention, maybe two at most), and not obsess over her gender identity, given that she wants to keep it relatively private. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete and salt. I think that the subject is past the GNG benchmark, but not by a very large margin, and that call depends very much on the discussion about specific sources which is a whole new can of worms which I don't want to open. However, the drama around this article far outweighs its encyclopædic value; deleting it would remove our coverage of an interesting (but low-notability) individual, but it would end lots of drama, free up editors to go do something else productive, and hopefully end some distress to the subject. It pains me to say this, but I think deletion is the lesser evil here. (Edited to clarify: I think that deleting without salting would be worse, because we'd get much more drama in the near future. Ditto for Aryeh Nusbacher, which is currently a redirect.) bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous manipulation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, unreferenced, appears to have been created simply to include a Youtube link, unlikely to ever be more than a stub. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NSONG and a WP:SET reveals almost no sources about the song other than lyric listings. Mkdw ^talk 02:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONG, WP:SET, WP:N, and WP:GNG. According to an internet search, there are only lyric listings and a self-published, unreliable YouTube video. None of these proof notability, so I believe this should probably be deleted at this time. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough notability for this song to have its own Wikipedia article; also, this article is a hopeless stub, as much as I don't like saying that. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (Non-admin closure). — sparklism ^hey! 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blazin' Fiddles[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO, provided source is not seperate from the source and I am not seeing, certified gold records, national tours, or signed to major record labels. the sources I was finding only "works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initial comment: I think that the lack of evidence of national tours etc. is simply an omission - I am sure I have seen publicity about them playing at The Proms for example. No time for research right now. Ben Mac Dui 10:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Keep per sources provided below. Ben Mac Dui 18:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A news search reveals a ton of sources, admittedly mostly in local rather than national press, but I see enough significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to trump any other policy. I'll improve the article with these sources if I get time. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BBC Radio 2 Folk awards nomination, live performances on the BBC, plenty of coverage: [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. I stopped at page 2 of Google News results - there's a lot more than these. --Michig (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of reliable sources, as Michig has shown. And they have won several times at the Scots Trad Music Awards. --Vclaw (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Nom Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Indonesia relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the notability of this was questioned in another current AfD. since last time was no consensus 3 years ago, putting it for discussion. I feel the coverage is WP:ROUTINE, a bit of assistance and a bit of trade but nothing aboyt an indepth relationship. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essentially every mention of Bulgaria in this article could be replaced by almost any other country, and the same goes for almost every mention of Indonesia, save for the tsunami. (What would quantum physicist make of this form of invariance, I wonder.) הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 00:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another one of these strange articles. Pure WP:SYNTH. Stalwart111 11:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it meets WP:GNG. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The countries have made bilateral agreements. This is undoubtedly dull stuff but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an entertainment. Warden (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is about a real international relationship, nothing synthetic about it at all. Sufficent sources exist to establish notability. The article also boasts an original map by editor Plumoyr, a co-worker of the legendary Groubani! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the map is irrelevant to notability. Plumoyr/groubani are sockpuppets and banned editor. LibStar (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - surely two countries mutually acknowledging each other's existence is not enough to substantiate "bilateral relations". One treaty does not bilateral relations make (surely, unless there is some longer term WP:EFFECT). Contributions of small amounts of aid, while valuable and helpful, are surely considered routine in instances where many other countries also gave aid. It is synthesis, I think, to consider a group of minor, fairly routine incidents/agreements and determine there is some broad (and significantly covered and notable) relationship between the two. So many of these essays have come up for deletion that I think it's about time we have a look at a more substantive review than individual AFDs. But anyway... Stalwart111 22:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The countries have bilateral relations, which makes this an encyclopedic topic. The article has verifiable information published in multiple sources, making this a GNG pass. I understand neither the mentality of those who write this sort of article nor those who challenge them at AfD... I do believe that this meets our notability guidelines, however. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Col. Warden and Carrite. Bilateral relations may be boring, but the consensus -- hammered out over many AfDs -- is that, if proven significant, they can be notable. Evidence here of significant bilateral relations include: a bilateral "memorandum of understanding on trade", their "respective presidents pledged agreement on combating international terrorism", state news agencies having a "cooperative relationship," and unilateral assistance by Bulgaria "after the tsunami of December 26, 2004." Bearian (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think they are significant though? A President visited somewhere and offered the usual diplomatic platitudes about cooperation on terrorism and trade (Indonesia being the most populous Islamic nation, terrorism is always, insultingly perhaps, one of the first things mentioned by foreign government visitors). Surely a President would offer the same niceties wherever he visited? Did the two Presidents even meet? The "respective presidents pledged" line is from the article but it's not really supported by the source article which just says that one president visited the other's country for 3 days. The reference for the MOU is now a dead link. I can accept that it once existed, but let's not suggest this was some form of free trade agreement or complex trade treaty. It was likely, "we'll make general non-specific effort to not impede trade". And everyone (I mean everyone) gave aid after the 2004 tsunami. The amount in this instance is tiny compared to other countries and tiny compared to the overall aid relationships that either country has with other countries. Bulgaria's annual tourism-related contribution to Indonesia is probably higher. This is an obscure combination of countries for a "relationship" article supported by fairly routine (run-of-the-mill-type) interaction between the two. Stalwart111 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"respective presidents pledged agreement on combating international terrorism" I'm yet to see a world leader not want to cooperate on fighting terrorism, how about evidence of actual action not simply one off press statements? LibStar (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International relations between countries are notable, although sometimes also dull. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 08:40, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Keep – This topic passes WP:N, section GNG. Source examples include (some are non-English): [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quoting WP:ROUTINE "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, ~~foreign medical aid, international governmental agreements, establishing diplomatic embassies~~." Not quite in the same ballpark. --99of9 (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Whittleman[edit]

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

Retired minor league baseball player, never played in the bigs, no evidence of notability. Spanneraol (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found some mention in sources, but not enough to lead me to believe that the subject is notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit I have a bit of a soft spot for All-Star Futures Game players. I feel like they should be notable under BASE/N, because there should be enough coverage of them as prospects to satisfy GNG. For Whittleman, I found this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, which I think scrapes him by, barely. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources listed above are almost entirely routine coverage, either from his hometown paper or in press release-type "stories" at MiLB.com. If that type of coverage is sufficient to pass GNG, then not only do 99 percent of MiLB players pass GNG, but just about any all-star high school athlete has enough coverage to pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough of them discuss him in detail sufficient for GNG. It is coverage that most MiLB players do not get, which is why most of them are not notable but some are. MiLB.com stories are independent of MiLB, as indicated by the statement "This story was not subject to the approval of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues or its clubs". Local coverage counts as much as national. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mugobshu. Participants in the Futures Game are notable. A couple of those sources are marginal, but there's some meat there, too. Also, Whittleman was covered at length in the 2006, 2007, and 2008 (print) editions of Baseball America's annual prospect guides. The 2008 version can be seen online here. The dead-tree Newberg Report annual volumes also cover him at reasonable length - his writeup in the 2010 version can be seen online here (it's at the bottom of page 23). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per hitbull PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Two of the votes to keep this article are based on a made-up notion of notability. Contrary to the claims made by people above, neither Futures Game participants nor minor league all-stars are presumed to be notable by Wiki guidelines. Beyond that, the list of references mentioned by Muboshgu above are very, very weak. (One of them is one paragraph in a press release posing as an article, two or three others are routine coverage that any decent amateur athlete receives, and the last one is a standard wedding announcement that has zero utility for ascertaining notability for Wiki standards.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly even know where to begin with this. First, these aren't "votes" - see WP:AFDEQ. Second, nobody is claiming that the guideline says anything about minor league all-stars or Futures Game participants. We're saying that people with those qualifications typically meet the GNG if you bother to look for sources (as the sources I provided in my earlier post in this thread demonstrate). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with HBWS. I didn't say that an ASFG participant is presumed notable, I said I would change BASE/N to include them based on the probability of their meeting GNG, which I think HBWS and I demonstrated is the case here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. You and HBWS found a couple press releases, a couple three-paragraph "stories," and a wedding announcement that mentions baseball once. If these are your idea of "demonstrating" notability, then millions of Americans are now notable, including any good Little League player, just about every school board member and city councilor, and anyone else who's gotten his/her name in the paper three times. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if by "couple of three-paragraph 'stories'" you mean "extensive discussion of his playing abilities in two major newspapers and four different dead-tree books". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the word "extensive" means? The next "extensive" article someone finds about this player will be the first. (And regarding the "dead-tree books," those books cover just about every player in the minor leagues. A minor league baseball player mentioned in a Baseball America prospects book is like a Chicago resident being mentioned in the Chicago phone book. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will agree that saying it is extensive coverage is a bit of an exaggeration. With that said, the threshhold for an article would appear to be that it is non-trivial as per WP:SOURCES. So whether the refs are extensive or not is irrelevant. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To say that the sources I provided cover "just about every player in the minor leagues" is simply untrue, and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the way baseball as a whole works. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. Being mentioned in a prospects book is like being mentioned in the phone book. By your standard, every junior college volleyball player whose name appeared in a media guide is notable. It's silly. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, a terrible analogy because prospect guides are independent sources while college media guides are not. Like I said earlier - everything you're posting in this thread displays a fundamental lack of knowledge of the subject. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both the sourcing and notability are not there. Wizardman 15:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Keep I looked at the talk page of the article, and there is no history of concerns with the article. I clicked on the Google news link above and immediately saw links that merited more attention. The nomination inexplicably states, "there is no evidence of notability". The article itself appears to be credible and a proper entry on Wikipedia, although the two sources that include "blog" need more review. Further review shows that this article was created to AfD it here, which is an action that IMO should be discouraged. Responding to the edit comment that the reason for this AfD is that the player retired, the fact that a player retired is IMO not a reason to remove material about him from the encyclopedia. WP:NTEMP partially covers this idea, although WP:N is not a content guideline. Yet more review of the history shows that a better-sourced version of the article once existed. *WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion discusses the need to consider ways to protect material in the encyclopedia, as does WP:PRESERVE. On the day of this AfD, before the material was moved, there existed a three-year consensus that this material had prominence at another Wikipedia article. I don't want to claim that a policy-based deletion argument could not be crafted for this case; based on a combination of reduction of prominence, non-notability as per WP:ROUTINE, evidence that no other merge targets exist or can be created, and an adequate analysis of the sources. But the assertion that the topic has retired is not that. A more obvious solution is to (after the AfD) find or create a suitable merge target and restore the community consensus that retains this topic as a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding your 1st sentence: //I looked at the talk page of the article, and there is no history of concerns with the article.// That's because the Article has no Talk Page! Its quote-on-quote "Talk Page" is just a couple of banners with no discussion whatsoever. That said, feel free to be bold and make it a redirect again, but don't forget that "Redirect" and "Keep" are not the same thing. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify my !vote, a keep result from AfD does not bind the community against a subsequent editorial consensus to merge. The nominator has shown commendable work on this article over a course of years, so I doubt there would be any purpose to my becoming involved with a merge. Unscintillating (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Haugg[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and may even be a hoax article. The only source in the article fails verification and the two external links are invalid. This 18 year old "actor, producer and comedian" doesn't even have an imdb page. At The Suite Life on Deck, the actor was credited as appearing in two episodes,[47] but is not actually credited in either episode. A Google search doesn't turn up anything substantial, just pages like this. AussieLegend (✉) 02:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"My name is Richard Willians, working in the administrative sector of the Disney Channel, also responsible for the contract as a witness of actors, checking our data, actor Phillip Haugg yes he participated in the series in 2009, in the series The suite life on deck, the episode "twister", season 3, episode 18, code 113, hiring picture in participation in the series, and his second appearance in episode "when in rome", season 1, episode 14, code 113, hiring picture in participation in the series, both roles with little dialogue, actor Phillip Haugg not famous, but has done work on the Disney Channel series between 2009 and 2010. Answering the request of Ralph Martin Gomez verification. Richard Willians." that's what I found about Phillip Haugg, reliable source, sector management disney channel, is just what I got. 03:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)— Ralphdark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, even if not a hoax he is surely not (yet) notable for Wikipedia notability criteria. Cavarrone (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. The only user with objection has since deleted their account, etc, etc. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Jeffrey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD in 2010 indicated his notability due to "inevitable" future professional appearances. As of the end of 2012 this man is yet to play in a professional league and the previous claim that a one-page article in a German newspaper is not enough for WP:GNG in my opinion. C 679 13:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 13:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't understand how he can be created a 3rd time, he hasn't even played pro football yet. Why he has reserve stats in the infobox is another fault of the article. Govvy (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because I'd like to see a stronger consensus given this is AFD 3. Courcelles 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:FOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - Consensus is repeatedly reached, yet the article gets re-created anyway. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this closed as a Delete once and a Keep once, so the "repeatedly reached" doesn't apply, nor, seemingly, the call to salt the topic. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previous keep was base on routine sports journalism to meet WP:GNG and on speculation that failed to materialise. This is a text book example of why we have WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His career is not over. He had some moderate level of notability and continues to play. What's the hurry, and why the continual axe grinding? He continues to play with Mainz. "Jared Michael Jeffrey Profile". Retrieved 1 January 2013. As of today Jared_Jeffrey has been viewed 854 times in the last 30 days. So somebody cares and uses this article. So we are clear, the article has been kept the last 2 times, and the same arguments apply. The article was "not recreated." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exept that the article WAS re-created after a delete HERE.. I did not bother to fact-check your other comments. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Partially. I still think it was deleted only once. As to the number of views, you have access to the same history I have. I will take your expected silence as an admission that I was correct. The citations (and there are more in the article than was true earlier) speak for themselves. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citations that he has, in fact, done nothing notable in his chosen profession, do not mean he is notable. As for the visit count, I think that popularity (if we can call it that) alone does not make it notable - WP:POPULARPAGE. C 679 21:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems OK to me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it seems OK is not a good enough argument, your gonna have to elaborate more if you want this to kept. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previouly deleted 5 years old, played in the U20 FIFA world cup. Meets WP:ATHLETE under the association football section "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.". Additionally plays in the top tier German professional league. Mike (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't played one top tier game in Germany yet, those stats are B team and need to be removed, and unless the lvl23 is Olympics, then it isn't senior level, it's lower so.. Govvy (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is a member of the professional team's reserve team. Itself a professional squad, professional =/ top tier. Also the U20 World Cup is a senior competition still, unsure if it fits within the definition but is still a senior FIFA international event. Mike (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to play one game to qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL being in the reserve team doesn't pass unless he has played a league or cup game with the senior squad and U20s is classified as youth level and not senior level last time I looked. U23 Olympics allows him to pass know, yet I see no evidence that he has done any of that. There isn't much citations, I don't think there is enough there to pass WP:GNG either. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does it state that the fully professional reserve team does not count? Also please cite where you are classifying U20 as youth, last time I checked the age of 18 was considered the point to which one becomes an adult. Mike (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously are you too lame to not read! It clearly states he has to play a fully pro game to pass, he hasn't. And U21s and below is youth level in football. Play a senior game means you get a full cap! Please read the policies and don't waste me time. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting anyone's time, I am asking for clarification on your point of view. You don't need to bring in a personal attack either. I asked for what "wiki policy" you are referring to and you keep avoiding the subject. Mike (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody made any personal attacks against you Mike. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, WP:NFOOTBALL says players should play in a senior international match (point 1) or in a fully professional football league (point 2) in order to be presumed notable. Neither is true for this individual, as far as we can see. He is a member of the Mainz squad which plays top level but this doesn't count as he has not represented them. The reserve team, who he plays for, plays in the Fußball-Regionalliga Südwest, which is a semi-professional league at tier 4 of German football, therefore failing point 2. As for the international tournament, it wasn't senior (as it was under-20), therefore not the top level of football, therefore failing point 1. Hope this clarifies things for you. C 679 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fails WP:NFOOTBALL but I couldn't care less. This whole process of AfD is meant to filter out the worthless articles and keep the ones with meaningful information. The only thing which is left to make this article meet the criteria is that the guy plays one minute in a first team match. I refuse to vote delete on this decent non-stub article with multiple valid references. Many so called notable footballers which did play a few (<5) matches for a professional team have a one reference, orphan, one line stubby "article" which meets the criteria, but which I would delete which much pleasure. In contrast, there is nothing wrong with this article! I do believe he will get his selection one day, but WP:CRYSTAL doesnt bother me as IMHO this guy is notable even if he never manages to get his "needed" cap and quits football altogether. He played for several USA youth ranks and in three major tournaments and with the (reserves of) two big clubs. So stop pointing at the guidelines and use your brain, because this is a perfect example they are just that, guidelines, not cold hard rules. Just my two cents. --Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 10:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you, where is your evidence that he had that pro game? Because I only see reserve team stats. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry maybe it wasn't clear: there is no pro game (yet?), but imho it doesn't matter and the article should be kept anyway! --Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 16:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you running on WP:CRYSTAL and against any other policy! Govvy (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES indicates just because sources exist, it doesn't mean the subject is automatically notable. There doesn't seem to be another reason proposed here for keeping. C 679 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why do people call for SALT as soon as they see that this is the third AfD, without even checking that the latest discussion was closed as keep? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This guy passes WP:GNG. The subject-specific notability guideline is not a holy book, but I quote the following "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Mentoz86 (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep easily passes WP:v and WP:GNG with refs here(espn), here, here, and especially here PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess our man is just to busy prepping for The Olympics than getting a check playing soccer. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Portland: hmm, One ref has a picture doesn't tell us anything new, one says "Jared Jeffrey may be called upon for qualifying but ultimately miss out on a place at the Olympics." Which doesn't garentee he has even played in the Olympics, so you can't consider that a decent source for him to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. The only decent link you provided was from sportsillustrated.cnn which can be used for verification of moving to a top flight German club, however it's not enough to pass WP:GNG #1 Not enough significant coverage. #2 Fifa has him playing International youth level tourny's nothing at Senior level and he still hasn't played one Olympic match as far as I can see. Govvy (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still hasn't played a first team game in a fully professional league more than four years after the article was first deleted for that reason! Previous consensus has always been that youth caps do not confer notability. Number 5 7 09:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That he hasn't played in a fully pro league, and that the article was deleted four years ago is irrelevant, as the article was kept with the rationale that it met WP:GNG two years ago. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this fellow is supposedly notable for being a footballer, yet in over four years since the article was first put forward for deletion, he still hasn't managed to make a first team appearance in a professional league. Number 5 7 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Number 57. Arguments for "Keep" amount to "he has been viewed 800+ times in the last month"; "he played in the u20 world cup", and "passes wp:gng because he had a few articles written about him, which was enough to save the last AfD in 2010". It's WP:COMMONSENSE to conclude that "meeting the GNG for being a promising footballer", but then not actually turning into a top footballer, is not really notable. Especially when you consider over 500 players played in the first German division last season,[48], over 500 more in the second division,[49] and over 550 in the third division,[50] – it doesn't seem to be too much to ask that a footballer should have played in one of these leagues. He's not even considered by his team to be one of the top 1,500 football players in Germany. What's notable about that? C 679 10:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but when a promising footballer passes WP:GNG for being a promising footballer, he is notable for passing WP:GNG even if he never plays a professional match (and notability is not temporary). I do agree that it might be strange, but that's how the notability-guidelines works. Btw - the only valid argument for keeping this article is that it passes WP:GNG, all other keep-votes should be disregarded (if there are any), just like the only argument for deleting this article is that it fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to what you've said, particularly meeting the GNG for being a promising footballer in the past, it seems counter-intuitive to then say he is notable for being a promising footballer in his youth who never made it in the big time. Imagine the lead, Jarred Jeffrey is a failed association football player, who was considered as a good prospect in his teens. Jeffrey moved to Germany and signed with a big club, although never represented them, and he faded into obscurity. If you think GNG has been met, that's your prerogative, but I feel if the article's only reason for being is "for meeting GNG", then this should be absolutely clear. It would seem, due to this debate not having already been settled, that there is not a clear meeting of the GNG and I would therefore have to conclude that deleting the article is the only suitable course of action. C 679 14:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudz, I understand your argument and sympathize with it. I do think the article passes GNG, but only just. I agree that Jeffrey's news coverage is solely based on his potential (high school and youth international appearances are really only an indication of future potential) which now seems unlikely to be fully realized. Maybe the best course is to wait to recreate this article until we have more coverage of his recent exploits (I think he only appeared in one Olympics qualifier last year)? Jogurney (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – footballers have to play in a fully professional league in order to pass WP:NFOOTY. Is the German fourth level fully pro? No, according to what we know. About WP:GNG; namechecks and one-line mentions are not "significant coverage", therefore he fails WP:GNG as well. – Kosm1 fent 10:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kosm1fent, I respect your opinion, but I don't think the 2 DMN or 1 AZ articles are name-checks (they dedicate several paragraphs of text to Jeffrey), and even the less substantial articles like SI are more than just name-checks. I know that GNG is a subjective test, but I've seen editors argue that far less coverage was enough to pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Impasse PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. There's no bargaining here. It's just finding policy to support a position. --Nounique names 05:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually you misunderstand the word impasse. Which is partially my fault because Wikipedias article is a poor indicator of its meaning. I didn't actually read the article beforehand. Here are better definitions PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's clear that the article fails NSPORTS, but are we sure it fails the GNG? The DMN article is "significant coverage" in my view, and there appear to be a number of articles covering his youth international exploits and signing with Mainz (SI for example). My sense is the article fails GNG, but only just. Jogurney (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've reviewed the discussion in the last AfD and concluded that taken together the coverage is significant enough to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not fully professional. NickCT (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL --Nounique names 05:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to the last two voters: noone disagree with you that Jeffrey hasn't played in a fully professional league and fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but the question is whether Jeffrey passes WP:GNG or not. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We pretty much all agree that this subject doesn't yet meet the special notability guidelines for footballers. The question is whether this athlete meets GNG. I've got an open mind on the matter, but I'm just not seeing it in the sources. Purportedly the subject of a big piece in the Rheinische Zeitung (sorry if I spelled that wrong), but there needs to be more substantial something-something to get over the bar, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Lai[edit]

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

This is an unsourced biography. Being a martial arts teacher and opening a martial arts supply store don't show notability. If he was actually was selected to the Inside Kung Fu and Black Belt magazine halls of fame, I would think that shows notability. My problem is that I couldn't find significant coverage of him on the websites of either magazine. It would be good if someone who actually has the magazines can source those claims. Jakejr (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom: a hall of fame induction would, if sourced, at least make some case for notability. However, since the article is unsourced for nearly six years now, there is in fact no proof of even meeting WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hall of fame Induction does not mean much - pretty much a self congratulatory organization (read World Soke Council) that had no indication of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable fails WP:BIO and WP:Athlete --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a few sources. Maybe weak ones, from private web sites.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The added sites were a memorial and the bio from his school. I don't think either one passes WP:RS. Jakejr (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Rangell's rationale. NickCT (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Induction by those magazines means more than a typical martial arts HOF, but there's no support for that claim and nothing else to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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