< 5 September	7 September >

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

The result was redirect to Bangerz. Of note is that a merge can occur if anyone's interested in performing this; redirection of the article retains its revision history. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hands in the Air[edit]

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

Aside from this questionable source, the song has no coverage from secondary sources outside of album reviews and thus doesn't warrant a separate article per WP:NSONGS. Should be deleted or redirected to Bangerz. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangerz. No significant coverage found in reliable sources for this song; just trivial mentions within the context of album reviews, which per WP:NSONGS is insufficient for establishing a separate article. The chart info is already listed within the artist's discography page. Gongshow talk 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge to Bangerz. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album after merging anything worth merging. Insufficient encyclopedic content for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Witchblade#Ian Nottingham. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Nottingham[edit]

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

A character with insufficient third person sources to justify having an article. Unless someone can provide sufficient third person information to justify this article I suggest deletion or merger is the only solution. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Witchblade#Ian Nottingham. That target already has a paragraph on him, which seems sufficient. Nothing to suggest the character is notable enough for its own article. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Witchblade. (The article doesn't have a subsection on Ian Nottingham, so Witchblade#Ian Nottingham will just redirect it to the top of the article anyway.) Given that Ian Nottingham is mentioned in the Witchblade article's very terse plot summary and is one of about a dozen characters listed in the "Characters" section, it would seem he's significant enough to the series to merit a redirect there. I haven't read the series, though, so it could be that straight-up deletion would be more appropriate. At any rate, there's nothing in his article to suggest that he's notable enough for his own article, nor anything worth merging to Witchblade.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Witchblade per Boleyn.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to an appropriate redirect j⚛e decker ^talk 18:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture (comics)[edit]

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

A character with insufficient third person sources to justify having an article. Unless someone can provide sufficient third person information to justify this article I suggest deletion or merger is the only solution. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I only say weak because I am not sure about WP:RS for comics. I am inclined to agree with the nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The character gets considerable mentions in Savage Dragon, so a redirect there may be appropriate. However, the character's own article doesn't say anything about her having any special significance to Savage Dragon. Nor does the article cite any sources to indicate notability.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -A google search for the character brings up comic vine, which I assume is not a verifiable source because it is also a wiki. I'm inclined to think that this character is not that notable, so I am leaning towards delete.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detour to Hell[edit]

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

Seems to be a local film with no coverage at all. (and it cost an amazing 5K dollars) Wgolf (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. Cpuser20 (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 22:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no reliable sourcs for this, doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found to indicate notablity. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Aerospeed (Talk) 02:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equal house system (Hindu astrology)[edit]

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

Non-notable subtopic within Hindu astrology. Falls afoul of WP:NFRINGE since only "in-universe" sources exist (and it's not even clear if all of those unreliable sources even mention it, some of it is WP:SYNTH of general descriptions of astrology). Independent and in-depth sourcing is required. Second Quantization (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced that this is an important topic within Hindu Astrology. Hindu Astrology is such a niche subject that any more than a single article on this subject would seem excessive. I agree with NOM, this subject does not appear to pass the relevant notability guidelines. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete:. Hindu astrology, which is based on the sidereal zodiac, is wholly based on the Equal House system or the Whole sign system advocated by the Parashari system, the Jaimini system and the Tajika system which are the three important schools of prognostication that have a wide following. But for the Whole sign principle the concept of the formation of planetary combinations (Yogas and Raja yogas), the planetary aspects, the sub-divisions such as the navamsas, drekkanas, shashtiamsas, vargas, the role of planetary dispositors etc., which are all fundamental to Hindu astrology could never have been thought about. Western astrology which is based on the tropical zodiac does not follow the Whole sign system but which system, in the recent past, has found favour with western astrologers. From the very date of joining Wikipedia I have resisted all temptations to initiate or intervene in discussions mainly because I am not competent enough in all subjects dealt here. Even then I have been at random following the course of many adiscussion and I have found that the most mis-used word is notability. Now, please tell me how a system which has survived for more than 2000 years and is still faithfully applied cannot be notable.Aditya soni (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic being discussed is not Hindu Astrology in general but the specific topic of the Equal House System. More specifically we are trying to determine if this is a topic that is significantly notable according to Wikipedia's notability standards. Can we please focus on finding Reliable sources which can confirm the notability of this subject according to our policies. Generally we are looking for scholarly or historical research into this tradition, and not esoteric magazines which tend not to be valid reference material for an encyclopedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Kindly move this page to new title - The Sign-wise Equal house division of the Zodiac or Rasi-chakra. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have logged that request on the article's talk page. This AFD discussion is really just for deciding whether the content is suitable for Wikipedia or not. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bhāva As in the David Frawley's RS book ([1]), this topic needs to be a section in the master article on the houses (Bhava). Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very niche topic on Hindu astrology, but it is a valid due to all of those astrology books writing about it shows it is notable.Frmorrison (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As pointed out, there are no reliable independent sources here, and without them, there can be no verifiability. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mfx[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure how this article survived its first deletion nomination. Nothing in it establishes notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 08:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete makes sense to me. I can't tell if this group still exists, but the evidence is that the demogroup scene is quite fluid, which is in general an issue for establishing notability. There are 45 pages under the category Demogroups. Some of the pages do have references, so the only difference with this one is the lack thereof. LaMona (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would imagine that the reason this article "survived its first deletion nomination" would be the nineteen separate 1st place demoscene awards. [2] MEP MEP1697 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But we need reliable sources to confirm this. We can't take the information on faith. See WP:V and WP:RS. Without reliable sources, the notability cannot be established. --Λeternus ^(talk) 21:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Note that merely having mentions in reliable sources isn't sufficient, see WP:GNG for the whole requirement for notability. -- intgr [talk] 12:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's amazing to see how things look so different between 2008 and now ... Anyway per above no evidence of notability ... or even it exists for that matter. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article is a stub. mfx is still one of the most prominent demo groups, and as far as I know, the only one of whose releases have been taken into fine art collections (their work Cannapaceus is in the VILKE collection). Besides demoscene circles their work have been shown in several art museums (at least Kiasma, Kerava art museum, Pori art museum, Jyväskylä art museum), galleries and media-art festivals, most notably Ars Electronica. User aeternus claims that there are no reliable sources to check whether mfx productions have won demoscene awards, which is total bullshit. pouet.net is the place to check how competitions at demoparties have gone and it is a fully reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.206.144 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pouet.net isn't a useful source for establishing notability because they cover all demogroups and events regardless of their significance, and their coverage is limited to collecting some metadata, not "significant coverage". See WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH for what "notability" means in Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 19:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you take the same approach on sites publishing sport results, and regard them as not notable? Competition results at pouet are facts. And if you regard them as meaningless, you should just go on and delete the whole demoscene article in wikipedia. But, of course it does seem like what this attack is aiming to in the end. This current attack on demoscene articles by the user Aeternus is quite ridiculous, I'd update the article by myself but don't really want to spend time on making content on a site where deletionists run amok attacking things based on their personal views. anyway, some references, found in 15mins with google: articles in english: catalog of ars electronica from 2009, http://www.aec.at/humannature/wp-content/files/2009/06/FE09_AnimationsFestival_FolderA5_FIN_screen.pdf mfx in mustekala.info, on an article about history of demoscene http://www.mustekala.info/node/35590

articles in finnish: mfx in the intel demo competition http://dome.fi/pelit/ajankohtaista/suomalaisryhma-mfx-intelin-demokilpailun-finaalissa mfx interviewed in digitoday http://www.digitoday.fi/viihde/2008/08/04/demoskenekin-muuttuu/200820081/66 page for the exhibition at Kerava art museum, http://www.sinkka.fi/nayttely/vilketta-ja-tajunnanvirtaa/ article about the exhibition in kerava http://www.kontrasti.org/vilketta-ja-tajunnanvirtaa-sahkoisen-taiteen-lahihistoriaa/ blog post about the exhibition http://afilalapices.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/vilketta-ja-tajunnanvirtaa-keravan-taidemuseo/ article about the exhibition in keski-uusimaa (behind paywall unfortunately) http://www.lehtiluukku.fi/pub?id=36622 home page of the VILKE collection http://www.vilkecollection.fi/ article in Helsingin sanomat about the exhibition in kerava (Helsingin sanomat is the biggest newspaper of finland) they use image of Cannapaceus by mfx in the article http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/a1380259521568 the exhibition mentioned in kulttuurihaitari http://www.kulttuurihaitari.fi/suomalaista-topselitaidetta-1970-luvulta-nykypaivaan/ mfx cannapaceus in the national filmography of finland http://www.elonet.fi/fi/elokuva/1486341 mfx demos being shown in jyväskylä at the opening of a web gallery: http://www.liveherring.org/2009-2013/ mfx demos as part of demowall, held at Kiasma (the national fine art museum of finland) http://www.demowall.org/ALT-demoseina-digitaalista-ilotulittelua-auringonlaskusta-aamuyohon.pdf article about demowall in dome.fi http://dome.fi/pelit/ajankohtaista/alt-jarjestaa-50-000-ihmisen-demobileet-helsingissa mfx member uncle-x coming as a quest of honor to a demoscene event in tampere in september 2014 mfx member at the first ever seminar held about demoscene at an art university: http://www.mustekala.info/node/35579 & http://www.mustekala.info/node/35577 mfx demo cognoscere shown at a media-artist meeting in jyväskylä http://liveherring.blogspot.fi/2009_05_01_archive.html

several of mfx demos have been mentioned also in paper mags like windows 100 and some others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.206.144 (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, please take a deep breath and understand that I am trying to help you. I made an effort to look out for qualifying sources and came up empty. I would vote to keep, but I have to concede that mfx doesn't seem to qualify for notability. Beware that Aeternus's explanations of the requirements have been somewhat misleading.

> So you take the same approach on sites publishing sport results, and regard them as not notable?

Yes, that is correct. Just having results published does not make an athlete notable. You need other sources with significant coverage about the subject to establish notability (see WP:GNG for the whole criteria). Not simply name-dropping, but for example, articles talking about the group's history, or interviews with mfx members about the group, etc., in published sources. Once notability is established, such facts you mention can be incorporated to the article, but notability is the primary requirement for having an article in the first place.

I checked many of your links and mere namedropping is how I would describe them. Please take the time to get familiar with Wikipedia general notability guideline and pick out sources that qualify all the criteria, instead of posting a set of Google search results. -- intgr [talk] 12:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kopernik (organization). Insufficient independent coverage to justify a stand-alone article per keep !votes. Only significant coverage is in the context of Kopernik hence redirect as an alternative to deletion. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa Wojkowska[edit]

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

I stand by my original prod rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." This was deprodded by creator, but I don't believe new sources are sufficient to change my initial assessment. PS. See related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopernik (organization) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wojkowska has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources per WP:BASIC. See, e.g., [3], [4] and [5]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly. [6] - she is mentioned once by name in the article, and shown one in a captioned photo. The article could be used as a source showing news coverage about the foundation she runs, but she is only mentioned in passing. The [7] in Jakarta Globe is more of the same: she is mentioned more, but this is an article about her foundation based on interview(s) with her; she is quoted several times and named, but this is not a source about her. [8] is a short press-release like note about her and several other volunteers visiting United Nations Volunteers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is easily notable as per the sources listed in the article. And an inspiration - why are we seeking to downplay TED speakers? --Pete (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Skyring: I put some effort into explaining above why the sources are not sufficient. By saying the sources are good enough you are simply saying WP:JUSTAPOLICY - hardly a valid argument. Regarding TED speakers, she was a regional one, not a main TED speaker. Regional TED speakers are numerous, and often poorly vetted, thus I don't think it's a criteria of notability. Feel free to point me to a policy that classifies regional TED speakers as automatically notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two of the references in the whole article are completely independent from the subject and reliable. Those being the Jakarta Post link and the Jarkata Globe link. The rest are either from her companies website or YouTube or the United Nations Development Program, who the subject has worked with. The two links that do constitute completely independent sources do not constitute in depth coverage of her. Fails WP:BIO. AlanS (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though evidently a successful entrepreneur this article is basically a CV with little evidence at all of reliable secondary coverage about her. Sionk (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kopernik (organization). The coverage that exists only seems to mention her in the context of this organization. A separate article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While a case can be made for a redirect to her clearly notable company, I think the fact that this is a TED speaker gives the nudge to this subject over the GNG bar. Yeah, it's a borderline call — but the bio includes useful information that would be lost in a merge, methinks. Carrite (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is explicitly listed as not a valid argument, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ))[reply]

Sunny Tripathy[edit]

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

Would have put this article under CSD as per WP:A7 and WP:G11 but I need suggestions whether appearing in "magazine" section of a leading newspaper qualifies an individuals notability. The BLP article seems to be noticably inclined towards promotional, complete with an unnecessary "Quotes" section and references about the person being named among the "coolest Indians" by a website with questionable notability. Also , is "Indiawest" a reputed newspaper in the US ?
SaHiL (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SaHiL (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SaHiL (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SaHiL (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sahil, Sunny Tripathy has been the international face of the mountain dew brand with billboards spread over London and other European countries. He has been the face of MAJOR Adidas collegiate clothing campaigns. Tripathy has an active developmental contract with 20th Century Fox Television, was crowned Mr. India, has been an impressively active model for over 7 years, and has done comedy stand up tours in Seattle and Los Angeles. He has been featured in 20+ articles chronicling his success and celebrity status. And in addition, he was the front page article for the Times of India in 2013 (reaching over 7 million daily readers) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/US-based-Odia-director-plans-Mahabharata-for-big-screen/articleshow/17970952.cms He is indeed a rising celebrity and this page must stay.

Comment: Appearing on billboards doesn't exactly qualify notability . The BLP fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMODEL . The Link provided above is not a national coverage ; it is covered only in one city and clearly not frontpage as claimed. Also, can't find any news coverage on the Mr. India crowning episode as well - SaHiL (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a link to the event organizer's website: http://spiritofindia.com/index.html (His title of Mr India Global and photo with Mindy Kaling can be found 3/4 the way down on the page) His title is also confirmed in this article (http://dailybruin.com/2014/06/30/keeping-up-with-the-guptas-creator-makes-deal-with-20th-century-fox/) as well as this article (http://urbanasian.com/events-gigs/2013/11/keeping-up-with-the-guptas-creator-hosts-birthday-charity/) I've reached out to the event organizer, Jinnder Chohaan (info@MrIndiaGlobal.com ), and she has confirmed his title. Below is a post from Jinnder herself confirming that Tripathy is the Mr India Global title holder.

As well as the links to the following press photos from the pageant: http://www.donruss199.com/missindiapageant/h1994f191#h1994f191 http://www.donruss199.com/missindiapageant/h17d7dee#h17d7dee

Comment : First off , clarifying that Mr. India Global pageant is not a notable beauty pageant and clearly not to be confused with the much-more-notable Mr. India pageant. This itself nullifies all the notability claims and links that NetPress45 had gone to great lengths to collect - SaHiL (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to NetPress45 : Please do not add too much line breaks to your paragraphs.Try to keep your words compact and together for readability. I have removed the breaks now to avoid the mix-ups between your comments and mine. -- SaHiL (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment creator stated that he/she is on the marketing team for Tripathy's show: [9]. User:NetPress45 is also an WP:SPA. This information doesn't mean he is or isn't notable, but means we must be extra careful to be sure the article is accurate. Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth sources here and here; another source here, a blurb here, another source here, meets WP:GNG requirements for independent, reliable, nontrivial sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough in the sources from Townulcer (Daily Bruin, New Indian Express, Times of India) providing signficant coverage to establish notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PinoyExchange[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

advertising The Banner talk 16:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS DocumentError (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No different from any other forum on teh interwebz. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable website in the Philippines and the country's largest Web forum, in addition to being an all-around Web portal. If that's not an indicator of notability, then I don't know what is. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have independent, reliable sources for that? The Banner talk 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here (this is arguably the weightiest I found so far), here, here (this shows that the website was used as the subject of another notable topic) and here. I'd add them in, but I'm working on the FAR for the Manila Metro Rail Transit System. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mwah, one website ~~offline~~ quoting the boss, 3 passing mentions. Not really conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 00:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting per sources introduced in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No luck here, I might be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the AFS-CBN source if there were a second, solid source to meet the other half of GNG, but I don't. Tried Highbeam as well as the usual Google suspects. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 10:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UE 900[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 17:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dmatteng (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Ultimate Ears While there is coverage on this product, Wikipedia is not a product guide, and that's all this article is. WP:PRODUCT at least advises this outcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:PRODUCT the product might have its own entry as it demonstrated sufficient notability on its own. The article was submitted to an independent experienced editor in order to be reviewed and ensure that it complies with the WP guidelines prior to posting to the main space.Dmatteng (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This AfD is similar to AfD that was just closed as keep. Multiple reviews satisfies GNG.Dmatteng (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing with other articles/AfD's is useless. The Banner talk 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I cannot reply to the nominator as per Dennis Brown we have to avoid each other. However, it was noted that he nominated 3 of my articles to AfD and the community voted to keep two of them, with this one pending. Dmatteng (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Honestly now, look at that large Reception section! The product has been reviewed by a slew of reliable sources. It doesn't look like an advertisement to me. Dream Focus 19:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any corporation or product can be framed as "advertising" but one needs to make a case for it by explaining why the sources used in this article are non-neutral. Keep per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 20:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable product. If there's a promotional issue, fix it or tag it, don't delete it. ~KvnG 22:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ReDub[edit]

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

I fail to see an indication that this individual is notable, as defined by WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article indicates that he is notable, and a search does not turn up anything either. (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I could find nothing to confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Şahane Sultan Müftüoğlu[edit]

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

Not a notable academician nor a notable politician. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - 43000 hits suggests some notability. She is not notable as an academic but as a political figure. Turkish political figures seem to come and go and come back again - the reality being that people of seemingly minor importance can actually be very important. BTW, the "malicious accusations" mentioned in the article was a smear campaign directed against the leader of the [People's Ascent Party] in which she was accused of having an affair with him. I think it would be OK to mention that more fully in the article - even though it is a BLP she has written about the accusation. She is an opponent of Erdogan and his political Islam and his re-Islamisation of Turkey, though her politics seems on the surface to be backward and obsolete (it's all part of an imperialist plot against Turkey and our Great Leader Ataturk stuff). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-1 She is not a notable academician because she has not written even one page of anything academic. She is not notable as a politician because she (and her party) has not received even 1 percent of votes in any election. This is why, possibly, she wrote her own bio. (On the other hand there are several really notable people with the same surname.) The search hits are related to the claimed love affair of a married man where her name has been referred to frequently. Even that indirect notability (the news were about the man, a respected university prof, nobody knew her before) was a one-time event. So until another scandal she is not notable. Full stop. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-2 (for the concerned user) If you have nothing better to do in life than follow me to pages that had no interest for you before, go ahead, but please do not add your POV nonsense to these pages. WP is not a forum; I am sure you may find a suitable one for yourself in the internet and fight against others there. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability as either an academic or politician. Tiller54 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not notable as a politician or academic and lacks the coverage required by GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Track'em[edit]

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

This is a specific product of a company that the community decided is not notable back in April: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saleem_Technologies. It was written by undisclosed paid editors and while they've tried to cobble some evidence of notability together there is no substantial independent coverage of this product that I can find. SmartSE (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG does not require "substantial" coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company AfD holds little information. Two editors doubted the notability of the organization without having a fully-formed opinion, and without providing the searches they used. Two editors expressed content concerns, which is likely the reason the article was deleted. The closing admin left the reason for the closing as an exercise to the reader, but non-admins cannot see the article. @Tawker:, FYI. Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the awards are legitimate attention given to Kashif Saleem, but investing.businessweek.com does not list either him or his company or this product. Kashif Saleem has been moved to draftspace. CNN iReport and Washington Times Communities probably should not be used to assess wp:notability. The Nick Sas article is good, but notice that the company refuses to reveal revenue figures. I found [10], while looking on the first two pages of Google, but a close reading of the latter shows that this product is more about what it might be in the future than anything to report in an encyclopedia. I saw nothing in Google books. Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Is here to promote. Delete spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Emerson Electric. No concensus to delete after two relistings. Redirect per !votes as an alternative to deletion Philg88 ^♦talk 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artesyn Embedded Technologies[edit]

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

An unsourced article about a company which does not appear to pass WP:N requirements. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'm seeing a decent number of ghits but nothing outside of press releases and capsule summaries. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Please see Intel® Network Builders, who refer to Artesyn as "the number one provider of open standards based computing platforms for telecom infrastructure equipment". Fredleaf (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't seem to find reliable source for this one, just press releases. I'm leaning towards delete. Where does it say it employs 20000 people? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~— Artesyn won four Communications Solutions Product of the Year Awards from TMC. Regarding employees, "Artesyn has over 20,000 employees worldwide across nine engineering centers of excellence, four world-class manufacturing facilities, and global sales and support offices" from Company Profile. Fredleaf (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredleaf:: it's ok to make a few comments in a deletion discussion, but limit yourself to one boldfaced !vote. Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect as below The Intel link is hardly an arm's length independent source meeting CORPDEPTH, I'm afraid. Included a search through the usual Google sources, Highbeam, and a pass through the press page on the company's web site, the latter was all PRs or reprinted PRs. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Since this non-notable company is part of Emerson Electric, the article can change to a redirect.Frmorrison (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No problem with a redirect, I'll modify my note above. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Down Gilead Lane[edit]

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

obscure radio drama fails WP:GNG. Plenty of sites host links to episodes but no substantial coverage found. Tagged ((notability)) in January 2009 with no progress made. The Dissident Aggressor 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this relies entirely on primary sources for referencing, with not a shred of reliable source coverage provided to get it past WP:NMEDIA. And for added bonus, nearly all of the content is in-universe biographies of the characters, with virtually no real-world context. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Note also List of Down Gilead Lane episodes; if this goes, that will have to go too. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more or less per Bearcat, I was unable to find sources which would establish notability, used the usual arrangement of Google searches plus a look via Highbeam. Also would support deletion of the episode list, same reasoning. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I've spent the last few hours reviewing the article and the comments in this discussion. I'm not exactly happy to come to this decision. The articles is going to be controversial and will be a prime target for POV Editing and BLP-issues for some time going forward, but that is not a valid argument to delete it, only to focus more attention on it to try to counter these issues. However, the arguments that this article does pass our guidelines for Notability does have some merit. If it was nothing more than a tempest in a teapot confined to twitter or the like, I'd be very happy to delete it, but it's not so it shouldn't be. SirFozzie (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article does not meat notability requirements for a wikipedia page. Generally every hashtag that is created on twitter doesn't get it's own wikipedia page just because it exists on twitter, even though many of them are reported on by third party sources. Countered (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently the original page was deleted at some point last night; I had been working on improving it on its talk page, and now the page is entirely gone, talk and all. It has several hundred sources at this point, and has been reported on by Al-Jezeera, The Guardian, Business Insider, and numerous other places. Several places have changed their ethics policies as a result of this fiasco, Kotaku issued an official response to the accusations re: Grayson, and the whole thing has been brewing for nearly a month now. It clearly meets notability guidelines; I'm not sure who deleted the page, but they really should not have done so as we had some stuff going on on the talk page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant enough coverage across a variety of sources, including but not limited to The Guardian, Forbes, Business Insider, Vox, Slate, and Al Jazeera Stream. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With the comments on cleaning out any controversial information and protecting the article, I'd like to voice support of taking caution and removing potential BLP-issues. That being said, I don't think a redirect is necessary, and would rather have the article truncated while still retaining basic and clean information. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but empty content and protect for about two weeks - This is an article ripe for BLP issues and partially because we don't know all the answers. Things are moving too fast to make something neutral at this point, though it definitely has the coverage to be a topic once the dust is settled. As such, I'd rather see this just redirected and protected for about two-to-four weeks until the whole issue has settled so that we can then have a better chance at writing a fairer article (not that this present one isn't fair, just that there's a lot of details to be added and we're lacking the full picture). If necessary, the redirect here should go to Zoe Quinn, who's page is already under a lot of scrutiny from bad faith editors and is the central figure to this. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (Specifically at this time, Quinn has been able to produce a number of logs she reported had taken by just sitting in various irc channels from the people that are the reported ones that launched this campaign against her. As she is also working with the FBI, this I can see turn very nasty knowing the attitudes of those against Quinn. Even now, on the larger picture, whether Gamergate is about journalist integrity or about females in the video game industry, or some made up term, it's hard to know what the focus should be. In some time we will know, however). --MASEM (t) 21:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Masem: We have covered other controversial issues in the past, such as the Shooting of Michael Brown, which involved actual, physical violence and mayhem. We don't need to go out of our way to protect this article unless people actually ARE engaging in BLP abuse, and part of the issue here (as is noted by several reliable sources) is that Quinn has been accused of playing the victim and hiding behind victimhood to avoid reporting on allegations of misconduct. We need to keep WP:BLP and WP:HARASS in mind as well, but the issue is not nearly so clear cut, and I don't think we need to protect the article unless we actually end up with major issues; TBH most of the nastiest vitriol I've seen on Wikipedia is coming from people accusing others of being misogynistic for even discussing it. I think if we discuss things calmly, coolly, and rationally on the talk page, we can hash things out and make a good, NPOV article depicting what is going on. See [discussion] on the page for details - we have tons and tons of RSs on the subject, and I don't think we need to worry about its notability excessively, or lacking in good sources. We've got places like Al-Jazeera, Forbes, Time, Business Insider, Vox, and lots of other places reporting on it, so I don't think we're too worried about this all just being WP:GOSSIP, and the issue has expanded beyond Zoe Quinn - she sparked it, but it is only partially about her, and a great deal of it has to do with the response and the greater issues with the industry coming to a head per the RSs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the Shooting of Michael Brown there was a lot of "happening" alongside the speculation of why it was; as such a good article on just the timeline of events from a neutral standpoint could be made. Here we are dealing with something that has yet to been proven to have a lot of "happening" and much more hearsay and speculation. Facts are starting to emerge slowly, so we'll certainly have some type of article on Gamergate at some point, but I feel we cannot write a fair article at this time. The suggestion below of delegating it to the barest facts , those reported by non-VG sources, and to only the core events. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Masem: It's worth noting that the full channel logs of the channel she was quoting from have also been released, and draw some of her comments on them into question in their full context. Ironically, if you follow the social media keruffle that surrounds this, a meaningful number of the people trying to maintain that this is about Zoe Quinn are the anti-GamerGate folks (including Zoe herself), while in the bulk of discussion on the GamerGate side she's only interesting as far as thezoepost having been a flashpoint, and some specific poor conduct of her or her alleged partners (such as her involvement with TheFineYoungCapitalists, whether or not two of her alleged sexual partners being involved in the selection process for Indiecade Night Games creates the appearance of impropriety, etc). I suspect keeping NPOV on this article will be frighteningly difficult, given that much of what is going on is about the very media that would be covering it. How does/should WP write about a scandal regarding journalistic ethics when the majority of sources that would be deemed RS and cover the subculture are the very ones whose ethics are being brought into question (and thus have a vested interest in trying to claim it is about something else)? It doesn't help that the more people look into the various organizations tied into the GamerGate complaints, the more complicated it gets (the connections between SilverString and seemingly everyone, the whole Polytron/IndieFund/IGF mess, etc). I'm sure there are parts of this that will be difficult if not impossible to get a third party RS on (such as Operation Disrespectful Nod, a part of the whole GamerGate thing wherein people contact advertisers about the media sites in question), or the new ethics policy at Defy Media (parent company of The Escapist, and triggered by GamerGate), which seems inline with the stated goals of GamerGate. Schadrach (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're well aware at the talk page that getting a third-party, RS article that has zero bias in this is going to be hard if not impossible. But what was can do is look to articles that strive to present both/all sides of the issue to avoid biasing one side. Additionally, as being discussed at the talk page, some of the specifics might be best left out - noting Quinn had logs, and that 4chan claims they don;t show the whole story is fair, but getting into the specifics of what Quinn says were the key statements or what 4chan says were the wrong ones would be too much detail that would invite more conflict. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protect - I'm with Masem on nearly everything he said except for redirecting to Zoe Quinn. I feel like that's going a bit too far. Sure the whole incident was started because of the Zoe Quinn controversy, but redirecting it to there is probably not a good idea. The article is notable and needs work, I can agree. But I don't find the idea of redirecting the page to there to be well. GamerPro64 21:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Masem. The topic meets GNG, but Wikipedia is not a news report. The story is still developing rather rapidly so it may make the most sense to pare the article down to its simplest facts and protect it for a few weeks until a BLP-neutral article can be crafted. -Thibbs (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thibbs: I think we can cover the stuff which has already happened, but should avoid being a crystal ball. There is significant coverage about the issue from a number of different angles in a number of different sources, so I think there is enough to actually cover the basics of the article - what caused it, what made it blow up, and the various accusations. We have dealt with other controversial incidents (such as the Shooting of Michael Brown, which involved actual physical violence, including several deaths) so I think we can cover this reasonably well. See [[11]]. The idea that it is about any one thing is wrong to begin with, as several articles note that the whole thing is very complicated. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Titanium Dragon: Yeah that's what I meant by "its simplest facts". Just the "who," "what," "where," and "when," but not the "how" or "why." For now anyway. We can expand the article in a much more neutral manner once things have settled a bit. -Thibbs (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Titanium Dragon: I concur. It's a big, messy, moving elephant of a target with a lot of facets... Which makes for a difficult editing environment, but hey...! kencf0618 (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment LA Times, Examiner... lots of sources have covered this already. Exodus of various writers, freelance in particular caught in the crossfire. Making things even more complicated is that the FBI is involved now. Still a developing story - or stories I suppose (rather complicated). Even when all the dust is settled (if that happens?) it's going to be a mess to sort out. Nothing Wikipedia hasn't done before though. I'll leave it up to others on how to format the information though. Ryan Norton 22:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but i'm with Masem, this isn't about zoe. lets wait for this to end before writing the article in the meantime collect sources. Retartist (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: for clarification i mean that the article should be untouched until it ends, DO NOT redirect to zoe because although she may have sparked it, she is no longer important; she is trying to remain populr Retartist (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the article because GamerGate blew up on my Twitter feed, and because it's a fascinating complex of death threats, viral phenomena, feminism and culture war. As mentioned above, it's a big, messy moving target. The implementation of Wikipedia policy have proven to be interesting too. kencf0618 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced; somewhat vague and indeterminate subject matter; and lack of demonstrated long-term notability. Not every transient Twitter/Reddit meme needs an article. Zoe Quinn is notable, but I'm not convinced that this 'controversy' is. Robofish (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep. The article is still a bit of a mess, but I think there's now enough significant coverage in reliable sources to say that this one passes the notability test. Robofish (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the reasons noted by Robofish (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC), keep in mind that there are two sides to this story and the other side is not sourceable. The reputable articles used as citations in this article are filled with journalistic bias as noted by people on the other side of the controversy. Generally speaking one can expect this article to be subject to numerous edit wars by people on both sides of the controversy, looking to use Wikipedia as their own personal propaganda tool, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. If further evidence is needed of that fact, look at the edit logs for this article which seem to be pushing and pulling the article in different directions to suit the agenda of the person editing it. This controversy is too recent, tempers are running high and of course the article itself may not be relevant in a few months.Ramba Ral (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the other side of the issue (from Quinn and others) is basically Anon/4chan, which means that we are likely never to get a good reliable reason for this from that side. Arguably, Quinn's ex-bf (which made the initial allegations that we can track) is also on that side, but again, we're not likely to get a good story from them. Keeping that in mind, we can still write an article that sticks to the actual events filtered by non-VG sources (some already identified). But we need a better picture of what all this really is before we can write that well. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not necessarily 4chan fighting a battle alone. Adam Baldwin has been involved with it heavily over on Twitter and brought the whole thing to the attention of conservatives, and a couple of sources (Vox, for example at http://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting) make note of this. Citation Needed | 03:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, what's the situation here is we have two different "fences" here. There's the "corruption of game journalism" aspect (eg the claims Quinn slept with a reviewer to get reviews) that we do have sourcable aspects on both sides (That's where Baldwin would fit in as well as TotalBiscuit); but then we have the "anti-SJW" aspect that is where you have Anon/4chan on one side and the rest of the journalism aspect on the other. That side, we're likely never to get their POV at all. But that's why for now, we best stick to core factual details and why I'd rather just see the article protected until we can work out all the POVs that are involved. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much more beneficial to scrap the article and wait until cooler heads have prevailed. As I and many others have said, there is no way this article is ever going to be neutral. Hell, even the mention of Zoe Quinn on the Did You Know? section of Wikipedia's front page was not neutral. Ramba Ral (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Masem's comments. Citation Needed | . 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I mentioned at WT:VG, it has come to a point where we have to write about it even if we don't want to. There are clearly enough reliable sources addressing #GamerGate in detail. - hahnch e n 01:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The space-filling sources are repeating gossip which need not be repeated on Wikipedia (WP:NOTNEWS). Watergate involved a lot of significant events—by contrast, nothing notable has occurred in the he-said-she-said flamewar reported in this article. The correct procedure is to delete this and wait three months to see if recreation is warranted—that would depend on whether anything of encyclopedic value could be written regarding a gamergate event. The current content is that a boyfriend posted an attack on his former girlfriend, and that a bunch of accusations followed, and that Quinn has been harassed. The harassment is covered at Zoe Quinn and the other stuff is just the current issue-of-the-day at various shock forums. The punchline of the article is that the name GamerGate is itself a meme designed to attack a living person. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term GamerGate has evolved beyond its initial intended usage, much as Yankee Doodle had. Death threats have been made, and the FBI is known to be monitoring the harassment of game developers (thanks to the International Game Developers Association), so stay tuned. kencf0618 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The punchline of the article is that the name GamerGate is itself a meme designed to attack a living person" - This kind of thinking is exactly why this article will never, ever, be neutral and why it should be deleted. To one side, GamerGate is a meme designed to attack a person, and to the other side it's designed not to attack the person but what they see as systemic dishonesty. Emotions, not logic, are running high and I don't want to see Wikipedia become the personal propaganda tool of either side Ramba Ral (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Widely reported and significant event with far reaching impacts quite separate to nonsubstantive claims at the heart of it. —Pengo 03:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pare down to basic facts, then protect for two weeks. This will be relevant in a few weeks, once the warfare dies down. But until then, to stop the inevitable edit wars, this needs to be locked down harder than the Pentagon.ip.address.conflict (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable (at least not established as separate from Quinn or Sarkeesian), and there is no way this is ever going to be a neutrally written article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, as GamerGate has far reaching consequences for the gaming journalism as a whole. Though the article does need to be NPOV. DarkNightWolf (T|C) 07:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Far reaching consequences" would be great if there were a reliable source to verify the consequences. So far, it's just a circle of people repeating each other's gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian, Al Jazeera, Forbes and Business Insider are reliable sources Johnuniq.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Johnuniq's point, the consequences haven't been yet established by these sources; sure, the VG journalism side is going around with opinions on the "death of 'gamers' as a name" and a whole bunch of other valid rhetoric but that's all insider views and somewhat tainted; however, this does not mean that we won't get external sources to comment once the issue has settled down, and given that they are covering it now, is a good sign they will cover it in the future too. Even so, there are also, in the VG industry, some strong RS sources that are less involved in the mess (Gamasutra, Game Informer, etc.) that are likely going to continue the coverage to work from. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Thibbs (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Thibbs (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by notable reliable sources such as Guardian or Al Jazeera.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering the totality of: 1) BLP issues (high); 2) quality of sources (low); and 3) tendentious editing (high); I consider it unlikely we'll be able to produce an NPOV article on the subject in the near term. When people are citing really borderline sources like Business Insider and Al Jazeera Stream as the "reliable sources" (and citing things even worse than those), it doesn't give much confidence in quality. Maybe revisit in a year once better sources appear. 2nd choice is to keep but pare down to a short factual article. --Delirium (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I posted this, I've been made aware of more mainstream media coverage (e.g. in the L.A. Times print edition), so I change my vote to cautiously keep. I do remain worried about the NPOV and BLP angles. --Delirium (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Delirium: If you're worried about BLP and NPOV issues, why not join us in trying to make it better? We could really use more editors, and people who haven't been following it might be nice as fresh eyes. Though admittedly the talk page is a bit bitey sometimes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is receiving extensive coverage from top-tier sources (The BBC, Los Angeles Times, etc.) and is clearly considered significant by the media, the exact litmus test for WP:NOTABILITY. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while dealing with BLP and other issues in a sensible manner. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IGNORE THIS ENTRY and associate the content with the relevant people. At the moment the article is parsing several distinct issues / components - none of which actually say what is or isn't GamerGate. The responses by the BBC have nothing to do with GamerGate and are instead an extension of the harassment of Sarkeesian, the remaining supporting sources are largely Op-Ed pieces delivering their own interpretation. This is dangerously close to gossip. Koncorde (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oped pieces from non-SPS, non-VG sources are demonstration of significant coverage by secondary, independent sources that demonstrates this. Mind you, the bounds of the issue are very "squishy" right now, and that's something to be figured out, but it's not isolated to one or two persons. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I appear to have voted twice, so please ignore this comment. Koncorde (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this is a significant event with some coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up as a redirect to Zoe Quinn or some other suitable article. As a matter of style, the current name is unsuitable, and the article should be moved to something like Gamergate (computer game controversy). We can certainly hope that higher quality material on this topic will eventually materialise. The recent "Gameovergate" revelations have not been documented as yet. Although they may not affect the developing events (largely based on mutual animosity between people who zealously defend a subculture and entertainment journalists they perceive to be damaging or corrupting it) the news about the use of alleged corruption as a pretext to attack women changes how we will approach the topic. It's a crisis in gaming, but it's also a carefully planned campaign of slander and intimidation that runs underneath and alongside the crisis. --TS 22:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. This isn't an imbroglio that's going away. Death threats have been reported to law enforcement, so it's not some tempest in a teapot of a sub-culture. kencf0618 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just learned that the American FBI has been investigating harassment in the video game industry over the summer. LA Times. Although it's not clear yet whether there is any more to Gamergate, the topic could well end up being just a small chapter in the broader topic of misogynistic harassment in gaming culture. That's certainly the early consensus of the news reports (as opposed to op eds). --TS 00:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are working with the IDGA but they haven't been actively yet getting into any of this, but Zoe Quinn has hinted she has provided some information to the FBI on her current harassment cases (there's no verifiable evidence of this). However, this is something to keep in mind that this might gain more sources over time. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but decimate and protect per others above. It's too damn soon to try and build a full article out of this. If it were a viable option, I'd suggest something along the lines of transwikiing to Wikinews... but I doubt anybody's going to actually execute that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone tried that, I found an article on WikiNews last night, can't find it again though. DarkNightWolf (T|C) 03:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been years since I've seen a transwiki outcome at AfD anyway. I get the feeling it's not done anymore, or nobody knows how to do it anymore. And I'd never seen a transwiki to wikinews. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We actually cannot transwiki to Wikinews as their license is CC-BY-2.5, and ours is CC-BY-SA-3.0. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've seen the article. It's still under development, and it hasn't been updated since the third of September. As far as transwiki requests, they pop out on AfD but it's just rare and it's usually to Wiktionary most of the time. Also, I've always thought anything Wikimedia used the same licensing for any project. Citation Needed | . 03:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each project must use an open license, but each is free to choose the one that best suits theirs. The inability to transwiki from en.wiki to wikinews (but not the reverse, we can use content from CC-BY only sources) has been noted before. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's the explanation. Thanks Masem; looks like a true transwiki is not possible. I think decimating this article, protecting, and using ((wikinews)) (where appropriate) to link to ongoing developments is about as good as we can get. Too bad. I really think it should be possible to kick a lot of the technically-notable-but-recentist event/controversy articles over to Wikinews until the story develops further. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is why Wikipedia should not be a newspaper; we don't know enough about lasting effects. Fails all criteria for WP:EVENT. Fails EFFECT and GEOSCOPE, then fails DURATION spectacularly. IMHO, it's still short of meeting DIVERSE and and INDEPTH. This is a 4chan-created meme that the gaming press has adopted, and it has spread only because of the life-threatening actions of a few irresponsible anons. I'll confess the Vox and Slate articles help the keep argument, but IMHO, the average Yankees game gets more media attention, and deservedly so. (Like the Vox author, I agree that #GamerGhazi would have been far more appropriate, as an invented controversy which seems to serve the inventors' interest.) My second choice would be to deeply truncate and protect, as several editors above have suggested. BusterD (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is connected to the DoritosGate,[12][13] which shows that coverage is extended in time, making this not a single-time event. Diego (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another invented controversy with routine coverage to mark its passing. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's already a wikipedia page on this topic: Sexual harassment in video gaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PigArcher (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate of entry Sexual harassment in video gaming, individual page not notable enough. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of GamerGate is different from Sexual harassment in video gaming. Although they have some overlap, GamerGate also involves the integrity of gaming journalism, which are outside the scope of the latter. It also extends in time to previous incidents like the DoritosGate, which has nothing to do with sexism; I'd propose renaming the article to Video game press controversies and make sure to expand the scope and cover those. Diego (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd be okay with List of peevish reactions of the gamer community to any imagined slight. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I see the above looks unnecessarily harsh. I'll concede we may eventually need an article about game community reactions, but since the intersection between the subsets "gamer" and "wikipedian" is large, I'm not sure we can get a neutral article out of what has been so far published. I think Stephen Totilo's reaction on Kotaku Friday afternoon was the best take I've seen on the overall event: About GamerGate. And he basically says get over it. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly believe that Kotaku is anything approaching a reputable, unbiased source on this subject, you haven't been paying attention.Ramba Ral (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Diego's point, sourcing is now tying this to events that started mid-last year of "entitled" gamers that have reacted over-the-top to game devs (irregardless of gender), including death threats, causing some devs to leave the industry and what has prompted the FBI involvement prior to these actual events to help determine how to stop such online harassment. This is a culmination of all this type of nonsense. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while related to a hashtag campaign, it has developed into a noteworthy news event in and of itself. It is not 'fully covered' by sexual harassment articles, and categorizing it as such would be a violation of neutral POV. --Primal Chaos (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge whatever is useful and and redirect to Sexual harassment in video gaming - Cwobeel (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lengthy in-depth articles by The Guardian and Vox sealed the deal after various other articles in non-gaming press gave significant attention to the controversy. Clearly, this is a notable event in gaming history, regardless of your opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm working on figuring out the future of the article, I believe that there is merit that this can be expanded into a general discussion on the issues of the last few years that involve the poisoning culture in the video game industry (albeit: I will have to source this information and not present it as POV). As I noted, events now are things that started at least a year ago, and this is part of a longer-running issue of potential issues with game journalism. I can't right now wrap exactly the bounds of this, but a key facet would be that GamerGate would be a section of that, instead of being the only focus of an article. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? "While I'm working on figuring out the future of the article"? It is not your place to decide that. You gave your position in the discussion like everyone else and all you can do is accept the result.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the sense that I was trying to figure out on my own how it could expanded/etc. then present that to the talk page as an option to consider. By far, I'm not trying to claim ownership of the article. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sexual harassment in video gaming covers the overall topic broadly enough, and is ripe for some expansion, but it'd need to be monitored closely. There's really no need for a standalone article; all that does is give advocates a larger patform form which to mitigate the original harassment by going into mind-numbing detail. They already tried this at Zoe Quinn last week before bouncing to this one. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even sources defending one of the sides of the controversy like The Guardian note that the issue goes beyond any harassment. Other reliable sources like Al Jazeera note that there are numerous legitimate concerns raised by the other side.So naming this as "sexual harassment" is incorrect as per reliable sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the issue is more than just sexual harassment, though that is one facet of the problem. It's harassment in general and growing chasm between developers/journalists and players that this event hit all the right buttons to make huge. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COATRACK article used to propagate gossip about developer Zoe Quinn under the guise of a "games journalism" controversy. Lots of BLP and NPOV concerns with the article in its current state. Breadblade (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The only piece of gossip on Quinn is the possible encounter with a reviewer, and 1) that's been neutered to the fundamental claim as much as possible and 2) the flashpoint of the whole event and cannot be ignored. As I've noted above, there's a lot more history to this event that needs to be added to understand why this blew up. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by NPOV concerns you mean it is heavily slanted towards the anti-Gamergate side of things then yes, there are lots of NPOV concerns with the article in its current state.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current state is 100% pro-gamergate, in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Fringe, and WP:Undue. No reliable source has confirmed the "Journalistic ethics" narrative of the controversy. If you want to argue that that is a part of it, fine, but the objective facts show it has always been largely about misogyny and anti-feminism. There's plenty of support for including this under Sexual harassment in video gaming, or to create a more specific article like Anti-feminism in Gaming that covers the extended campaigns against figures like Sarkeesian and Quinn. If this article doesn't get deleted it needs to be heavily edited to reflect the actual, confirmed facts regarding the incident and protected to prevent disruptive edits. PigArcher (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[14] fairly discusses the ethics-in-game-journalism aspect, but there is more on this when you start talking about pre-August 2014. Unfortunately with the article fully protected, that stuff cannot be added now, but there are issues with gamers seeing problems with game journalism policies. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the proposed created category above, I would support creation of same but would hope a slightly less POV title could be found SPACKlick (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple and sustained coverage by mainstream sites like Forbes and Slate, and game industry sites like Gamasutra and GamesIndustry. Old Guard (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. Just because people think the article subject is controversial doesn't mean it should be deleted. KonveyorBelt 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr Cwobeel, Huldra (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but keep an eye on it: From a glance, I don't even think there's NPOV issues (the Totillo statement pretty much blows the "journalistic ethics" straw man out of the water, if it was ever made of something as strong as straw). I don't trust the article to remain that way given the amount of petulant manchildren Wikipedia seems to accommodate for. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but lock down tightly. GamerGate has been getting continuous coverage for several weeks from many mainstream media sources, which is an unusually high level of coverage. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The subject is indeed notable and if curated properly has the potential to be an excellent article.--Perennius (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC) — Perennius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking SPA !vote. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Article Creator I came across one reliable source (I forget whether it was Gizmodo or Kotaku) covering the subject in my standard reading for the day, and I didn't know what it was, so I turned to Wikipedia. No article. So I found other reliable sources covering the event, so it met the notability criteria. So I created the page. Current sources abound. There's no reason to delete, although BLP applies, so content should be pruned as appropriate. McKay (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ayyy I marked this article reviewed! I was dubious when I came across this article originally as a stub in the new pages feed, but it seemed to have widespread coverage and the potential for a lot of good references, which it currently has. Upjav (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, however, that ongoing coverage is questionable, and it could be too soon for this. Maybe this could be userified, but I don't see a problem with a 'keep' and then a later deletion proposal if coverage dies down to the point that this fails notability guidelines for news and events. Upjav (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it with fire An unencyclopedic kerfuffle in Blogistan. 96.251.137.43 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge relevant sections with Sexual harassment in video gaming and Video game controversies (although only a tiny bit is relevant there). as yet this event doesn't meet WP:Event strongly enough to merit its own article although my personal feeling is it eventually will. SPACKlick (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having looked at the increased number of RS's this doesn't seem to be going away. Vote changed due to changed landscape. SPACKlick (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The amount of mainstream and subculture attention it's getting from is pretty overwhelming. Despite the "battle" taking place on blogs and social media, this is obviously a significant event in this subculture. Strict adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:RS is imperative, of course. 93.172.61.72 (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) — 93.172.61.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. BusterD, Ramba Ral, and others sum this up pretty well. In the final analysis, the topic's scope is insurmountably vague, and the article will always suffer from sourcing and BLP issues. It is a one-time news story that fails WP:NOTNEWS as well as every criteria of WP:EVENT. It is also redundant with several other articles we already have, including the biographies of the involved subject, sexual harassment in video gaming. Relevant material can be merged into the existing articles. However, there's no sense and no value in keeping another unencyclopedic BLP landmine in the article space.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. We do not delete articles because we fear they may have problems. KonveyorBelt 15:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We absolutely should and do delete items for failing WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT and every other notability criteria.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet NOTNEWS. Reliable sources point to this as a recurring problem with the industry that goes back years. KonveyorBelt 15:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I've tried to explain, there's a larger problem here that this GamerGate was the flashpoint of. We want to expand the article to reflect that but it's currently under full prot to be able to do so. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The incident itself is just another one-time news story of the week, it absolutely fails WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:NOTEVENT). The article on the underlying issues can be expanded, but this particular trivia has no enduring notability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true yet, there's enough indication that this event will be triggering changes in the industry, for better or worse. There are already effects on the game jounralism side with some editors going out to be more open about their reporting structure, etc. But I agree that we should have waiting on this to get a better picture of the whole thing and how to scope the article properly (whether GG should be the centerpiece, or just one aspect of long-running threads). However, as it is created and the idea should be going somewhere, deletion is not helpful. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This particular trivia has no enduring notability" - newspaper DigiTimes disagrees with that view: [15] Diego (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but we don't keep things because they could be notable, we keep them because they are notable, and nothing distinguishes this from every other one-off news story. Again, relevant material, such as there is, can be added to the relevant articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things are notable when they have been noted. Stories that last more than three weeks generating news at news media are not one-off events. Diego (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and well covered. . WeldNeck (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional coverage in Breitbart, Salon, and The New Yorker.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Protect - it's a notable event that found itself thoroughly covered by secondary sources. While it may be difficult to resolve some of the neutrality issues that this subject will necessarily cause, there appears to be no cause for deletion. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly enough coverages and source to make this relevant from all provided above.--BerserkerBen (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPlenty of sources have discussed about it, has barely anything to do with Sexual harassment in video gaming at its core, since there's been reported attacks on both sides200.59.78.239 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)— 200.59.78.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete; based on current reliable sources this is essentially a subtopic of Women and video games; there's simply no mainstream support for the claim that this is about 'corruption' and not about harassing women. If we must keep Keep Protected for the immediate future: there have been lots of calls on Twitter from those using the hashtag to come to WP to 'fix the article;' (and also to boycott Wikipedia for hosting such a biased article.) It's going to be very important and very difficult to keep this WP:BLP article to reliably sourced and neutral information while the rabbling is still going on. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles like this from the New Yorker go into the complexities that are just beyond gender issues. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you give me specific quotes that you think suggest that the New Yorker accepts the narrative that this is about corruption and not about punishing specific women? The closest they come is here: In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible. (The debate dissipated after Quinn posted the chat logs of some 4chan users, revealing that the #gamergate hashtag had been coördinated with malicious intent.) (Emphasis mine) That article clearly supports the conclusion that this is primarily a targeted attack on women in gaming. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the section I was talking about (and to keep our bias, it should be noted that the 4chan logs have been the subject of how valid they are and are still being debate; it has not ebbed yet). But here's another mainstream source from the Telegraph that goes beyond the fact it is just about harassing women in video games. There's many sources on the talk page of the article that are being discussed for inclusion that go into all the facets that have come up from this. I understand that if I was not a gamer, it may seem that the story is as simple as "female game dev harassed by gamers", but really there is a lot under this that several sources are trying to figure out. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that was the quote you were talking about I'm going to go ahead and stand by my statement that the MSM is not treating this as a legitimate movement about journalistic corruption, but as what it is: a bunch of angry rabble making vague excuses about corruption to cover their harassment of women. Bending over backwards to interpret the New Yorker's mention of GGs 'concerns' as legitimizing them (by ignoring the very next sentence which points out that they're *not* legitimate) in the name of 'neutrality' is not going to improve the article. Yes, several articles mention what GGers 'claim' their movement is about (and in so many words; the second article you offered specifically qualifies it as a claim.) But this alleged journalistic corruption isn't what's getting mainstream attention and coverage: the MSM is talking about the misogynistic aspects of the movement and treating the 'corruption' claims as a smokescreen. When there's a legit expose on some of the GGers claims of 'racketeering' and 'collusion' and 'bribery scandals' then we can talk. Until then legitimizing those claims puts us in danger of BLP violations. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        All I can do really is that we've been collecting sources on the talk page, that regardless of how this started, even if it was an organized effort to harass a single person, it has grown beyond this, making the overall game community have an introspective review of why we got to this point. Honestly, if it was just simply the organized effort, it would have been called out and ended long ago, and I would completely agree a standalone would not be appropriate, but having watched this explode, and having read through articles to try to find things to keep the article unbiased, it's clear it's no longer simply about harassment. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        And I don't agree that the sources - the quality ones, at least - support your contention that it has 'grown beyond' that. Hence my !Vote. It's a lot of unfocused noise, coupled with a lot of aggression against a few targets. The reliable sources document that. Your contention that it would have 'ended long ago' if it was only an attack on women is nothing but speculation. People have been harassing women for having opinions on the internet for many, many years. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 1[edit]

Keep and Keep Protected Protect until the end of the Gamergate. This shouldn't be merged under sexual harassment in Video Gaming. I believe it has become noteworthy in the Gaming industry, and should have it's own wiki article. Such as changing policies in gaming journalist sites. --24.17.203.165 (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)— 24.17.203.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete - wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and there is no indication this astroturf harassment campaign will be of any lasting significance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been going for at least a year, see [16]; this has been the flashpoint. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your link: "Over the past few weeks, the video game community has erupted into a full-blown culture war. " Salon Sept 14, 2014. And you have proven my point. In a year, maybe people will look back and say "this was the incident where things changed" but we can wait and see if people actually say that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a content fork from Zoe Quinn. Quinn was the catalyst for GamerGate, but GamerGate is discussion of a number of issues revolving around gaming journalism, and is a distinct topic. Polemic Thoughts (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It meets every notability criterion. Its proposal for deletion is not based on wiki policy but on an ideological agenda of censorship. Aesir.le (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Its addition to Wikipedia is part of an ideological agenda of proposed-victim glorification. WP:AGF. On what credible basis does your point lie on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.21.53 (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another news story with no secondary sources to provide context; recreate only if secondary sources are published on this subject. If you think that a contemporary news story can be a secondary source, please go take a historiography course to learn that a secondary source is one that's written after the event in question, not one that's part of the context in which the event happens. "This has been going on for at least a year" — exactly. It's still ongoing, and no reliable, published sources exist to back up your claim that this will be a topic once the dust is settled. Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect a principled appeal to neutrality, but wouldn't such a strict interpretation of WP:SECONDARY mean that Wikipedia could no longer cover things like currently sitting politicians, recent blockbusters and bestsellers, ongoing military conflicts and protests, and anything else listed at Category:Current events or Portal:Current events? -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In contrast to most news stories, nearly every article from RS is actually secondary here - it does create a bias on the coverage in that people are saying if one side is right or wrong (criticism == transformation, ergo secondary). The fact that we have coverage in mainstream press instead of just the usual video game sources gives the independent coverage needed. I will note that I would consider it likely better to expand the article to talk about the general problems that have existed before this actual event as to make the topic less about the event and more about the concept of the change in video game culture, as to also defuse the issue of bias in the coverage of the actual event, but I will say it would have been possible to write about that concept before without this event from happening based on everything before August 2014, but the coverage of the event since has provided even more sources for that. So it is not so much what's going to happen in the future (but as a VG editor, this has drastically shaken up the community, I've never seen seen anything like this) but that we have plenty from the past to go on. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Significant coverage from many reliable sources. Drunk in Paris (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely biased and missing a lot of information regarding the actual events surrounding the issue. Takes for granted that those quoted are the only ones of import, whilst ignoring the other side of the debate. Evidently written by someone with a strong bias against GamerGate for the purpose of spreading misinformation or, at the very least, keeping people's information on the subject to a minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.114.29 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — 86.154.114.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The know your meme article details the notability pretty well. It is sad that KYM, a not entirely "serious" wiki has a much more straightforward, well sourced article than wikipedia. Basically I'm saying that KYM did it better. --Dany0 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article is fully protected so we can't edit it at the time, though we are tracking many new sources that try to cover all sides fairly. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dany0: I really hadn't thought about scavening KYM for potential sources, but one issue we've been facing is that there are a heck of a lot of opinion pieces, and not as many actual "news" items about it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - will need monitoring and (hopefully) temporary protection, but this is definately newsworthy, definately more than just 'gossip'. If the encyclopedia of the internets does not cover this event, then who will? I do think that this one will need careful attention by editors to avoid emotional moralizing (rather than presentation of facts) on all sides. But given the basic issues at play (accusations of integrity fails against persons who have made accusations of integrity fails) that's to be expected.Kerani (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable by any definition but needs a lot of work and monitoring as the whole gamergate thing is openly loathed by social justice crusaders.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.190.209 (talk) 19:52, September 10, 2014‎— 151.229.190.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strongest possible Keep Based on the reliable sourced presented by SuperHamster and on the article itself, this topic quite clearly passes the threshold for topic inclusion and has morphed beyond the original controversy surrounding Zoe Quinn and her relationships with people in the gaming press. This doesn't mean that anything should go on the article, but because of the potential WP:BLP abbuse, care must be taken in using quality sources when reporting criticism involving individuals in the gaming industry and press. —Farix (t | c) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too much supposition and hearsay to constitute a proper article. Might be possible to merge with a larger topic? If kept, Keep Protected for foreseeable future. --24.34.139.166 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)— 24.34.139.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, with merge of some content. This does not warrant an article on its own. It should be included as part of the individuals BLP's per cited harassment, and if it turns out to be a significant factor for journalism and gaming culture then it should be documented at the relevant Video game journalism, Video game culture and the like. Koncorde (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid arguments for deletion, as Wikipedia is WP:NOT#PAPER. We can have the topic covered at those articles, and at the same time have a more detailed full article covering it in depth. Diego (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Koncorde: - you already made a !vote on the 7th. Nobody should be using a strict yea or nay count to close the discussion, but even as part of a straw poll !voting multiple times within the same discussion without striking your previous !vote can really confuse reviewing closers. Please strike one of your two !votes. -Thibbs (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to have to say keep here, the article is well sourced and passes WP:GNG as a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has raised significant attention for it to be considered a notable moment in the history of computer gaming and gaming culture. SplatMan DK (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Koncorde . It is hard to say what the article tries to say. It is a mix of several topics that are covered elsewhere. SplatMan DK may be right that this is "a notable moment in the history of computer gaming and gaming culture", but for the moment I believe that WP:TOOSOON applies here. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is just a summary of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTE. However, this topic has well established its notability via coverage by multiple third-party, reliable sources. Also, Koncorde did not give a policy/guideline based reason for why s/he thinks the topic should not have an article. In fact, his/her comments amount to nothing more than, I don't like this topic or think it should be given any credibility. But to suggest that its coverage should be spread out to multiple articles instead of consolidated into one where the readers can better understand the links between the various aspects of the controversy is suggesting that the Ferguson riots should not have an article on its own but should instead be incorporated into the articles on the Shooting of Michael Brown, Civil disorder, Police militarization, Police brutality, and Police misconduct. —Farix (t | c) 13:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a variant of the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST-policy you are applying here, it seems. Anyway, we'll see what the administrators think about it.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you honestly suggesting the absence of a policy or guidelines citation invalidates mine and Jeffs opinion? More so are you suggesting that I "don't like" this subject as some kind of bias? Ferguson riots is clearly notable, furthermore it has precedent. Howevever it almost certainly should be mentioned and can be used as a source of evidence for Michael Brown, Civil disorder and the like. At the moment the notability of this article suggests that the harassment should be associated with the harassed, while the topic of journalism and ethics should be with journalism and ethics and used a source for criticism of game journalism and ethics - because that's what it's about. Instead it's going to be used to create a spin off article mostly about the harassed principles. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hodgepodge of issues but because these have all been long running concerns in the industry (ranging from harassment of devs, harassment of women, lack of journalistic transparency, the changing demographic of gamers, the rise of indie games and the ability to use them for political messaging, the rise of citizen journalism. etc.) that have all become open topics for the GG stuff. These are all connected facets in the event. Changes have already happened in the industry (sites adopting policies for better transparency, and for zero tolerance on hateful speech). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got any sources that indicate those changes that have occurred have any relation to the subject of this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least two major gaming sites have changed their polices in reaction to all these events. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of which should be dealt with under Video Game Culture, Video Game Journalism etc long before a stub was expanded into the current debacle of opinion. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am withdrawing my Delete-vote. This issue is getting bigger than I expected, thus my appeal on WP:TOOSOON fails. On the other hand, I still think it is a bad article. So it needs a major rewrite OR the issues could be placed somewhere else. I think that both options are valid. As a result of this reasoning, I cannot maintain my Delete-vote and have to withdraw from voting. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sustained coverage in a multitude of reliable sources, including mainstream sources outside of the videogame world. Given the duration of coverage and the impact that's already been seen (changes in journalism policies as Masem mentioned), I don't believe WP:NOTNEWS applies. CaSJer (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG, this is covered in multiple reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward keep. This isn't going to be an easy topic to write about given the amount of noise threatening to dwarf the signal, but if one looks outside the gaming press (where most of the noise actually comes from), one can find reasonable articles that can be used to write about this topic, e.g. Slate. Notwithstanding the rubbish initial controversy that launched this #GamerGate, there have been real consequences ranging from editorial policy changes at major gaming sites to actual disclosures confirmed by major gaming publishers. Expecting Wikipedia to sensibly cover this topic is probably just as wishful thinking as expecting the same on any other controversial topic (i.e., you are much better off reading about it elsewhere), but my biases about Wikipedia article quality in general aside, this is a worthwhile topic, probably more so than, say, Titstare is. JMP EAX (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose someone could open a merge discussion to video game journalism, which is a rather short article, but that's beyond the scope of AfD. JMP EAX (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Merge is a perfectly standard outcome from an AfD particularly in cases like this where there is WP:NOTNEWS no actual evidence of any long term coverage of a side topic and standard parent level article topic that is lacking in coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I think there is evidence of that. E.g. Salon or WaPo managed to cover the numerous aspects of GamerGate; these articles contain a lot of links to other articles. So I think it surely has more than Titstare had in terms of length of coverage (and that article was a "keep"). It's because of the multiple facets of the GamerGate controversy that it probably should have its own page. JMP EAX (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a recent hashtag campaign that has gotten some news coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:EVENTS is a better guide here than WP:GNG because it's specifically about events, and that guideline makes clear that you need to do better than find a smattering of recent news articles to show an event is notable. It's too early to say whether this will have any lasting effect or will be the subject of further analysis after the commotion has died down. At the moment the coverage is driven mostly by WP:SENSATION over reports of harassment and conspiracy. It is a bad sign that there is so little coverage out there that could possibly get us to WP:V and WP:NPOV that the page has to be fully protected. As others have said above, this event merits not its own article but rather mention elsewhere in the encyclopedia: Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Women and video games, Sexual harassment in video gaming. If that last topic is as important as some keep !voters insist (and I agree that it is!) why aren't they making desperately needed improvements to that article instead of trying to save this one? We're here to do a good job covering notable topics, not a mediocre job covering every non-notable skirmish in the blogger wars over those topics. Lagrange613 03:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot more going on in this than just the surface of the harassment claims; that's what's drawing attention but there's a lot more analysis and understanding and change happening because of the more underlying issues. As I've pointed out above, this is a culmination of many long running issues that have been occuring in the VG community for years, with a few events sparking the clash between devs/journalists and gamers. It is not just an event, and the fact that while the event started mid-August and coverage is still coming belies the idea it is not notable under EVENTS. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a noun, right? If it's not an event, what is it? A person? A place? A physical object? An abstract idea? I get that this is embedded in a broader context, but whether it's "a culmination" or just another episode remains to be seen. I linked WP:RECENT for a reason. Lagrange 613 12:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an idea, much like when you say "Watergate" as a broad term to refer to that scandal. It's become the general issue of the differences between gamers and game devs and journalists. And part of what is hard to explain and demonstrate if you haven't been immersed in the game industry is how the rumblings of this have been slowly building; we can look back now with 20/20 hindsight and identify several issues now, but it wasn't obvious where it was going then. This is the thing that is causing change now, there could be more down the road, but the impact on the industry already is well documentable. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If impact on the industry were "documentable" then we'd have some documentation of that instead of what we have, which is a summary of a routine Internet kerfuffle. A claim based on immersion in a subculture rather than reference to reliable sources is original research. It's also essentially unverifiable and open to all sorts of NPOV questions, so you've hit all three core content policies in one fell swoop. And it's all attached to an article only you and the other admins can edit, and at whose AfD you're insisting on having the last word with everyone you disagree with. Surely you see the problem here. Lagrange 613 01:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's documentable, we're collecting the documentation on the talk page at the present but we can't update the article because it is locked down (yes, even though I could edit it, I'm only touching BLP until it is unprotected). Yes, reporting this is going to be a minefield of content policy issues, but we can report on it objectively, for example, simply stating noted accusations made by specific people without giving any weight if these accusations were true or not, and as long as thee accusations are documented in the independent secondary sources (like the Wa Post article noted recently). The problem is that editors who are looking at the article at its current WRONGVERSION state are seeing only the NOTNEWS aspects of the story, the talk page has much more and should be considered before passing judgement on AFDs. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protect This article meets all notability requirements and you can't rationalize deleting an article because there's potential harassment on it. You protect the article and edit it, that's what you're supposed to do as a Wikipedia contributor; you don't delete it. As for the notability there's just been so much coverage in both mainstream and online media that no one can dispute notability when there are so many reliable sources referencing it. And the article is well sourced already. The contributor who mentioned Wikipedia is not a news report doesn't seem to fully understand what the policy is about. The article is in Wikipedia format and doesn't look like a journalistic entry (nor does it talk about anyone in a journalistic fashion) nor can it really be, seeing how the original news are now a month old - not breaking news on their own. However some caution must be used in further usage of breaking news articles. SSJ 5 (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: As the warring on the talk page has uncovered, this topic is impossible to cover in a manner that is in compliance with the neutral point of view and biography of a living person policies. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is possible to get past the BLP and cover the topic in broader aspects and avoid the details of every specific accusation. We have to mention a few names as they were targets of harassment, but we don't have to get so far into the "he said she said" accusations flying, only that after the fact, many have recognized that there is a legitimate call for being more open about issues on games journalism and interactions with others. If we chose the right level, we'll be able to keep the intrusion into BLP minimum, and letting anything more specific that WP needs to cover to the specific articles on said persons. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. KonveyorBelt 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, as there's plenty of sourcing for this as a distinct topic of coverage by reliable sources, but I wouldn't rule out a later merger with a parent topic article if it turns out that this incident has little lasting significance. Sandstein 17:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More coverage in The Guardian and Washington Post.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient media coverage to establish notability. Artw (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zoe Quinn and Sexual harassment in video gaming. It's been gone over in RS, but those have become POV. I vote that the most NPOV parts be split into the two articles I mentioned. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The GamerGate controversy is very notable, especially in the gaming community. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of this feels like it's manufactured and we are being manipulated. It feels like the old adage "all publicity is good publicity." It's Kang or Kodos and everyone associated with it seems to want to keep it alive because everyone associated with it benefits. I have a hard time stepping back and looking at game developers (individuals and groups), game reviewers and game players being "adversarial." The more social buzzwords they throw out, the more twitter space they occupy and it drives up interest in all of these people that are desperate for interest and relevance. We should stop playing the game. It's like watching WWE hype a wrestling matchup and seeing people think the outcome is more important than the hype. --DHeyward (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corn cheese (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTVOTE Lazy Bastard Guy 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Video game culture we can do without the salacious details but as a sociology topic [17] is appears to be a good fit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability criteria and has very broad coverage. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In some ways GamerGate resembles the proverbial tempest in a teapot, but enough articles have been published about it in reputable sources that it obviously meets the general notability guideline. Cardamon (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Simple. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Read through the article and looked at the references and it looks to me to meet the General Notability Guideline. It doesn't seem like it is on the list of WP:NOT. I can't really see any reason not to keep this article. Zell Faze (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the moment this is a twitter hashtag that generated enough traffic to warrant articles from SEO minded blog managers. It's being referred to as #GamerGate so why was the tag taken out of the name of this twitter gossip? Lets rename it to - Hash-Tag-GamerGate. At least let this nonsense sit around and stew for a few months and then if the weepy media still remembers it a month later ( Bring back what girls? ) , then can write a blurb on it since its 'mostly harmless'. I feel guilty now about all those people who walk past me on the street, whose lives are also filled with drama, passion and betrayal never getting a Wikipedia page to showcase a drama of their very own. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most concerns of the article violating WP:GOSSIP were resolved with the editing of the article. Citation Needed | 13:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 7 days have passed, there seems to be a consensus, can this be closed now? Retartist (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded SPACKlick (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable controversy that has generated plenty of RS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In this corner, our General Notability Guideline... In that corner, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a clear, although not snowy consensus amongst editors that the article is a clear WP:GNG pass. Arguments for deletion range between arguments based on WP:LIKELYVIOLATION (not grounds for deletion), merging into Sexual harassment in video gaming, and concerns of WP:GOSSIP vios (most of which have been ironed out from edits made during protection and after). WP:BLP is always a valid concern, but this article surpassed the threshold for WP:GNG ages ago. Citation Needed | 13:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it were clear consensus the decision would have been made already. Breadblade (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. It can't possible follow NPOV. Havok (T/c/e) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails WP:EVENT" you say? Let's see, WP:LASTING . . . check, there have already been reactions of lasting significance such as changes at numerous gaming news outlets. WP:GEOSCOPE . . . check, we have reports in American, Canadian, British, and Australian media with coverage in non-English sources as well. WP:INDEPTH . . . check, numerous articles in major mainstream media give extensive probing coverage to the controversy. WP:PERSISTENCE . . . too early to tell, though the odds are ever in its favor given what has happened up to this point. WP:DIVERSE . . . check, sources from all over the place in the gaming and general media are reporting on the situation. Soooo . . . what were you saying again?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. This is a made-up controversy designed to attack a single person. Although it has enough references to meet WP:GNG, I don't think we need to contribute to the harassment campaign by giving this media flash a permanent home. Kaldari (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a gossip article that reads like it was ripped out of Salon.com, rather than an objective encyclopedia entry. (Redacted) The fact that WikiProject:Feminism feels the need to get involved in this is laughable. Speedy deletion, please. Paradox295 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all of the above. Either delete this page, or turn it over to Project: Wikifeminism to properly and responsibly curate it. It's all just a conspiracy theory and misogynistic. I say delete it and move on, or let wikifeminists document it properly. 97.117.224.142 (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — 97.117.224.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK and comments by TheRedPenofDoom, also some WP:BLP concerns after the skirmish with some editors curating this discussion and the Quinn page --5.81.54.112 (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — 5.81.54.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Article is a WP:FORK from Quinn and clearly intended primarily to harass a living person. This is nothing but a forum for the trolls to continue their attack on this young woman. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HM Prison Slade (North London)[edit]

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

Possible hoax article. No reliable sources found. Tentinator 20:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. I'm going to block the editor myself, as he seems to have done nothing but try to insert various hoax articles into Wikipedia. In any case, this is the same editor that has tried to claim that there's a Doctor Who: The Movies video game, that a BBC Two show is rebranding, and so on. The only link for much of his claims has been a blog filled with various hoax claims, and in many of the articles he mentioned the same person ("Callum Precious"). Given that they've created so many other hoax articles and that I can find nothing for this article's claim, this appears to be another blatant attempt to introduce a hoax article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The Movies Game[edit]

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

Possible hoax article. No reliable sources found. Tentinator 20:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. This looks like it is one of several articles created by one editor, who also operates under an IP. Basically, there's no coverage out there for this in reliable sources and the only thing I could really find was this blog by the same name... which is full of various hoax claims. Given that there are a few other AfDs open for similar hoaxes, I propose that we speedy this and block the editor that created all of these. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The Movies Game (spin-off)[edit]

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

Possible hoax article. No reliable sources found. Tentinator 20:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax. I found this blog, which makes a ton of hoax claims- including a similar BBC Two claim as in BBC Two 'A View To The Background' idents. There's no way that a game of this nature would receive no coverage in reliable sources, considering the large fandom. I say we block the editor as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page was started by an IP, but it looks like User:CI5Real2 was the one who moved it to the mainspace. AND they created Doctor Who: The Movies Game, so this looks like it's the person we need to block in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Not a hoax, but definitely an A11 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Two 'A View To The Background' idents[edit]

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

Possible hoax article. No reliable sources found. Tentinator 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. I found this blog that makes a similar claim, only that it was to happen in April. I'll tag it accordingly as well as the Doctor Who Game. There's absolutely no way that something like this would gain no coverage and given that we have a blog that is full of pretty blatant hoaxes (AND it's named "Doctor Who:The Movies Game"), there's no way that this can't be a hoax as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of songs from Sesame Street. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Emotions[edit]

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

Independent notability of song has not been shown. Creator of original article, who was banned, has since requested deletion. Peacock statements. Suggest merge to John Pizarelli's article or Sesame Street soundtracks. AngusWOOF (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability in question. Little sources found after search. Only found a Muppet wiki ref. Jim1138 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect to List of songs from Sesame Street doesn't meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Savage (baseball)[edit]

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

Baseball coach who fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH (as a coach), and WP:NBASEBALL. Additionally, the article's creator and main contributor, User:Amy savage (talk), appears to be closely connected to the subject, and so Phil Savage also fails WP:VANITY. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Vanity page about a non notable coach who has worked primarily for non notable teams in non notable leagues. Article contains no reliable sourcing either. Spanneraol (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet any notability criteria. Also has a COI issue.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable summer league baseball coach. There is no specific notability guideline that covers the subject's coaching niche, therefore he must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, to wit: significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. It's not there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Own English High School, Sharjah[edit]

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

This article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of this school in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates and it also does not cite any references or sources since May 2012. Ayub407 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools. We treat all high schools as notable because references for them exist, even though they may be hard to find. Here's one: http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/education/our-own-english-high-school-sharjah-wins-green-flag-award-1.1322923 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our working consensus is well-established: High schools are considered notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on UAE schools in English. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard John Durley[edit]

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

See talk page for page creators assertion of notability. IMHO having a Who's Who entry does not confer notabilty, since it may be self-published. (This is also mentioned in notability guidelines: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Notes) Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.) I also am not convinced that being a Member of the Order of the British Empire ( "the most junior and most populous order of chivalry in the British and other Commonwealth honours systems") makes one notable in and of itself. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The reference to Professor Richard Durley is in Who's Who, published by A&C Black Limited, which does not accept self nominations. The note above which gives cause for deletion relates to Marquis Who's Who, an entirely different publication from Who's Who (UK) (and Who Was Who), which doesn't accept self-nominations. Who's Who is an independent, reliable source, so meets WP:GNG MJT21 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~: Durley was a Professor at a well established Canadian University, an author and a key contributor to the Canadian war effort MJT21 (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of a chair at a major university at a time when there weren't many actual chairs at universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. One of three members of the commission to make recommendations on the design of the University of British Columbia MJT21 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @MJT21: Please note that you should only "vote" once, not every time you add a new opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Powder River Telegraph Station[edit]

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

A small telegraph repair station, manned with 6 soldiers, which only existed for a few years and of which no real trace remains. No evidence of any notability whatsoever. It existed, that's about it[18]. Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On a point of order, this is about one of 3 related articles separately up for AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homan's Rock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leopold Hohman. Can this be closed and one unified multiple AFD discussion be held? --do ncr am 17:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It gets briefly mentioned here and there, but nothing of any significance happened there. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, tentatively (replacing my initial "Keep" tentative !vote). I have some sympathy for historic nature of stations like this, e.g. see Category:Stagecoach stops (about stagecoach stations rather than telegraph stations). Also I think this should be discussed as part of multiple-article AFD, in which outcome could be to merge with redirect of 2 of the 3 articles to one unified article. --doncram 17:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ILIKEIT is not really a good reason to keep articles. Any evidence of notability? Fram (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest redirect to another article, perhaps a new list-article on telegraph stations which could be promoted to mainspace, from Draft:List of telegraph stations (that I started up).
  - I just also noticed there is Powder River Station-Powder River Crossing article about a location on the Bozeman Trail already; that station was located in the Montana Territory as was the Powder River Telegraph Station; not exactly clear what is their relationship, if they are same or different. A telegraph station could easily also be a stagecoach stop. But I think these are different. In the Powder River Telegraph Station article i added sourced mention of a connection from a Powder River telegraph station to Fort McKinney but now I am concerned it may belong to the other article instead. The PRS-PRC article has numerous sources, including about military locations in Wyoming which could be useful. I expect not to comment further. Hopefully others can sort this out. --do ncr am 04:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 10:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballistic (Image Comics)[edit]

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyberforce. The character is minor but at least link to their team. Frmorrison (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tomasetti[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Created by a single purpose editor who also created an article on this lawyer's place of employment. The article merely confirms biographical details. The references on court cases are not indepth coverage about him. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another lawyer. Wikipedia is not a directory of run-of-the-mill lawyers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are mentions in reliable secondary sources, but none of them are particularly significant. The strongest source is probably this , but single ten-year-pd news clip is not sufficient for a standalone biography. Also fails the additional criteria of WP:ANYBIO - no evidence of awards or honours and nothing to suggest an enduring contribution to the historical record of the law. Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:JAL. ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was excited there for a moment that we might have a WP:JAL page! The only real claim to significance in that field is that he is an SC. Now, that is a high career achievement for a lawyer. But I don't think it is enough to meet our notability criteria. That is evidenced by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (Euryalus' link is about a legal dispute; it is not detailed coverage of Mr Tomasetti). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too was momentarily pleased by the apparent reality of JAL. Curse you, ukexpat! Euryalus (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My work here is done.--ukexpat (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I have added details to this article that suggest the subject is notable. Only 14 % of the NSW Bar are appointed as Senior Counsel. The subject's own financial situation and the coverage of the court cases about it and their impact on legal precedent have received wide coverage. His philanthropic involvement in Indigenous literacy and his publications make him more than "just another lawyer". Castlemate (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His private finances are hardly appropriate for inclusion in the article, let alone for the purposes of conferring notability. Bear in mind that the finances only became public knowledge as the result of litigation and the prurient interest of newspapers in the private finances of wealthy lawyers. We have to be really careful with this kind of thing as the subject of the article now has to live with this on a Wikipedia page (although if the article is kept I'll argue vehemently for this section of the article to be removed). He really is a run-of-the-mill lawyer, albeit quite senior within his profession. Fourteen percent of the NSW Bar is still quite a lot! --Mkativerata (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes there are WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues with focussing on his financial issues, that and his run of the mill legal career don't make him notable. LibStar (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gottfried Eschenbach[edit]

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

This article has been here for over four years, but it is a hoax. Thanks to new user DraesekeAlken (talk) who spotted it, and to Schissel (talk) who tagged it. There is no reference to Gottfried Eschenbach in Grove Music Online or in the Oxford Companion to Music. The book about him listed under "Further reading" does not exist.

Searches find no independent source. They turn up many references to this book which at first sight looks like a source, but it is just another WP mirror: "LLC Books" is one of those companies that makes "books" of reprinted Wikipedia articles.

There is a "Gottfried Eschenbach Society", or at least there is a website on a free web-hosting site, which shows little sign of activity - the page "Music" just says "Coming soon". The website contains the same text as the article, marked "Copyright © 2010 The Gottfried Eschenbach Society", and is evidently part of the hoax. The WP article was posted in January 2010, so it is not clear which came first. The website also contains the same photograph; I have tried Tineye but not found any source for that.

A case could be made for speedy deletion as a copyright violation or as a blatant hoax, but I bring it here for more opinions, and also because disinformation from this article has spread so far. It will be useful that anyone tracing information about Eschenbach back to its source here should see the deletion log with a link to this discussion, and so will see not just that the page has been deleted but why. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not supported by our guidelines but if I cannot see a German composer in German WP I doubt the notability or even the authenticity -as in this case, of that composer. Thanks for finding out. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: Have you seen this? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! More confirmation. It's evidently the members of that site who first spotted this. Thanks again, gentlemen! JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G3 (blatant hoax) Aerospeed (Talk) 15:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources found. Almost certainly a hoax. --Boson (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The research at Unsung Composers is compelling: not present in any major music catalog, article claims he was prominent enough to conduct his works in concert but he is not present in any biographical lists, only book supposedly used as a reference doesn't seem to exist, title of the song cycle attributed to this allegedly German composer is grammatically incorrect German. Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as article now redirected. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, Prague[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable and there's no bilateral article to redirect this one too either. LibStar (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (changed from keep or move) to the bilateral relations article that is appropriate to have, but does not yet currently exist. I am trying to remember specific similar past AFDs resolved this way. I think it seems to be the case that bilateral relationships between 2 countries are valid topics, so move this to start that topic and leave redirect behind. The deletion nomination itself implicitly acknowledges that a bilateral relations article would be a valid redirect target. So just create that valid topic, perhaps by moving this and a little editing. That would not be controversial, does not require an AFD. --do ncr am 22:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is now Czech-Moldova relations article, created by move of this embassy article to that topic, by me. Similar to resolution of several other AFDs in favor of redirects (e.g. redirects to Czech-Mexico relations, Italy-Moldova relations) this could now be closed as "Redirect", please. I hope no more AFDs like this will be created, as AFD process is costly and an embassy page can simply be moved without an AFD process. --do ncr am 12:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smell and Bogey and the Magic Carpet[edit]

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

Unremarkable book without reliable reviews or coverage in reliable sources. Possible COI as the article's creator appears to be the book's illustrator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable enough for an article at this point in time. There just isn't any coverage out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline G11... --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Searches of LexisNexis's news database reveals only the very minor mentions it got in the Coventry Telegraph, which seem to fall short of the "substantial coverage" that WP:GNG contemplates. Searching general academic databases that contain literary reviews, there are no hits. As an aside, there seem to be some close paraphrasing issues with the official book description. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (G5) Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This actress biography fails WP:ENT because she never had a prominent role, just lots of small roles in films and local stage productions. Binksternet (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD nomination should have been a speedy deletion because the article was created by a sock account after an earlier account was blocked, so that means the article was created as block evasion. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electromechanic, and note that Starman005 was blocked on August 16, while this article was created by a sock account on August 17. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G4). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Huneidi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. Company chairman, who is not notable. scope_creep talk 09:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently this is the second nomination, I requested a delete about 2 weeks ago. The article was deleted and reappeared, with all delete vote/discussion. Looking for a delete and salt under WP:SALT. scope_creep talk 11:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again and salt it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No reason not to respect the AfD decision of less than a month ago regarding this non-notable businessman in the family firm. I have also flagged this as CSD G4. AllyD (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, as this is the third recreation attempt of the same article. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isildurs Bane[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Has articles in severla languages, but all lacking in reliable sources verifying notability. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 08:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient reliable sources. No references other than the band's own website.--Rpclod (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:band --—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jannion Steele Elliott[edit]

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

"Withdrawn by nominator" see discussion below, new sources identified.'--—Gaff ^ταλκ 15:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published author of some non-notable books? —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. There could possibly be a case for WP:PROF #1 if he is demonstrated to be an authority on the birds of Bedfordshire. His obituary states that he wrote for journals. However, I haven't as yet found enough to prove WP:PROF. He has 67 hits on Google books, [19], many because of the family he was born into and because he lived in a historic home, but also because of his research. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of Jannion Steele Elliott, the British ornithologist Bruce Campbell stated 'On June 4th, 1903, Jannion Steele-Elliott, the great Bedfordshire naturalist and his friend Ronald Bruce Campbell, my father, spent the day at Southill Park and found nests with eggs of 27 different species of bird, a feat which can have few parallels in British field ornithology.’ MJT21 (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some notes above refer to not being able to find journals. Some of the selected works were stated in the entry: *Purple Heron in Herts, 1903; *Local Duck Decoys, 1936;

Bedfordshire vermin Payments: Concerning the Destruction of 'vermin' by Parish Officials During the XVI-XIX Centuries, with Extracts from Their Accounts, 1936 MJT21 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Elliott was a Tring correspondent (1899-1942) - Natural History Museum Archives MJT21 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In their book, "The Birds Of Bedfordshire" (1991), Paul Trodd and David Kramer stated that 'the works of Jannion Steele Elliott were our base reference and it is only now that we can appreciate the importance of his writings when comparing the status of species than with those of today' MJT21 (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he met the guidelines for ornithologists, in particular because he has an entry in the book A Bibliography of British Ornithology by Mullens & Swann (1917), one of the notable British bibliographies about the ornithologists from the 19th and 20th century --Melly42 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He had a dedicated page (his obituary) on www.britishbirds.co.uk/, which in itself would make him notable according to WP definitions, as far as I understand. It sounds to me that he was an important collector. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Star Wars books#Survivor's Quest. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fool's Bargain[edit]

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

Non-notable novel. Article is plot-heavy and fails to establish notabilityNathan121212 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_books#Survivor.27s_Quest. I can't really find any reviews or coverage for this, so a redirect is the best scenario here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage, that's why it should be deleted. Not worth a redirect, nobody is looking for this. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap and the article had about 500 views last month, so it's conceivable that someone will look for this article. Because of that, a redirect is fairly reasonable. The book doesn't merit an article, but there's no reason not to redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Nobody knows who nobody is. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_books#Survivor.27s_Quest The book does not meet notability requirements, but if its getting views then the article might as well be turned into a redirect towards an appropriate section. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong venue (at RFD). (non-admin closure) Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven 5. senfoni[edit]

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

Reason: Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a foreign language dictionary: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: this is English Wikipedia, and this Turkish terminology for a well-known piece of music is not found anywhere in English usage or literature. Smerus (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. WP:RfD is thataway. Over there, I'd vote for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - will do.--Smerus (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now at RFD here - apologies for mislisting.--Smerus (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 10:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Possible notability from being (a) formally established by Taiwan law, Relevant provisions from Wikisource (b) much quoted by news for economic predictions. See also zh:中華經濟研究院 for expansion. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Seems to be a notable research institution. ([20])--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Government sponsored institute that seems well regarded in the field and potentially meets WP:ORG. Needs much better sourcing but that is for improvement through editing. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per all above, Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan Foreign Languages School Newspaper[edit]

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

I don't think this paper is notable enough. The Chinese version of this entry has been deleted after discussion.[21] The only third-party source in the article is a trivial mention on the subject, but not significant coverage. Huang Jinghai (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill high school newspaper with no in-depth coverage. The corresponding article on Chinese wiki must have been deleted twice or more, since G5 is the Chinese wiki equivalent of WP:G4. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Wuhan Foreign Languages School#Editorial Office of School’s Newspaper (EOSN). Per WP:BEFORE we should look for alternatives to deletion and this would be a useful redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think even the section "Editorial Office of School’s Newspaper (EOSN)" in Wuhan Foreign Languages School is redundant. A large amount of text in that article is supported only by unreliable sources such as Baidu Baike, Weibo and Facebook. Shih Hsiaoya is only a student not reported by any social media. Xinhuanet mentioned the paper, but the report was taken from a local media, and only talked about a temporary event. And I strongly suspect the article Wuhan Foreign Languages School Newspaper was writen for propaganda purpose, since the creator is obviously a Single-purpose account.--Huang Jinghai (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - In view of the analysis above I have amended my action. However, after deletion there is presently no reason not to create a redirect. If the target section is flawed then the way forward is to fix it by editing or, if considered appropriate, removing it. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think, the whole section "Student organization" of that article should be removed. It's clearly writen in propaganda style. So I left a massage on the talk page. Your comments are welcome.--Huang Jinghai (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This topic does not appear to meet any WP:GNG guidelines.--Rpclod (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence or claim that this student/alumni publication is notable. AllyD (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Popović (Journalist)[edit]

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

This journalist does not meet WP:GNG and has no reliable sources. The only reference provided is a citation from H. G. Wells that was published 12 years before this person was born. Upjav (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing, and no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY.--Smerus (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nomination. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have removed reference which doesn't mention him, which leaves this as a prddable unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing that. Upjav (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm only finding references to other people of the same name - a psychiatrist (who has a WP entry), a singer and a businessman in the copper industry. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Allen[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guideline for people; autobiography, sources are all affiliated with the subject. Drm310 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - no evidence of any notability.--Smerus (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Created by the author herself from the looks of the username, and creator is an WP:SPA. Seems like a blatant attempt to use WP to promote herself. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The original state of the article was terrible, as it was really just a fairly promotional piece as a whole. However I did find just enough to where there is an assertion of notability when you count in If:Gathering. There was a fair amount of coverage for that gathering, and along with the few reviews/coverage she got for an author, I'd argue that there's just enough here for a weak keep. I still have to check Highbeam (it's down for me right now), so I may change this to a more firm keep if I can find more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above & mainly Boleyn - Had Jennie not actually created her article I would've !voted weak keep .... But it's obvious this persons decided to promote herself, There are plenty of ways to promote yourself and WP isn't one of them. –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very, very uncomfortable with the idea of arguing deletion solely because the author decided to come on here and use it as a way to spam for herself because ultimately it's not helpful to Wikipedia. We don't TNT something if the issue of promotion has been dealt with. If you're going to argue deletion, argue it on the basis of notability. We can always watch the article and revert any promotional edits. We can also delete the promotional history if it's deemed that bad. Heck, we can always block her account if she tries any of that promotional crap again. @Jennie Allen:, consider this your first and last warning about this. But we should not and I repeat should not delete an article out of retribution for someone coming on to use Wikipedia as their own personal Linkedin account. I hate spam editors just as much as the next person, but we shouldn't vote delete solely because we want to spite the spammer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should delete purely based on that, I've voted !delete millions of times on these kind of articles and so's everyone else, This article is no different from what's listed at MFD, Anyway as I said the 'pedia isn't the place to start promoting yourself. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator, I must confess that I'm now a bit conflicted. Tokyogirl79 has made an effort to alter the content and verify it with better sources. I freely admit to being unsure of which sources are considered reliable. Certainly there's no doubt about the Charlotte Observer, an established newspaper. How about Publishers Weekly, a trade magazine? Or Christianity Today, a religious periodical? If either or both of those are deemed reliable, I would say that the subject has received sufficient coverage to be considered notable.

As much as I despise seeing a WP:SPA with an obvious WP:COI writing about themselves, occasionally it can be the start of an acceptable article about a notable topic. I agree that the article should not be deleted as a punitive measure toward the creator. It should be judged on its merits in its current form. --Drm310 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that CT is usable, as it has editorial oversight and has been used as a RS in the past. Publishers Weekly... it's a trade and it's still technically counted as a reliable source for the most part. I don't think there's ever been an official consensus on whether or not to use those, for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHello WPers, this is my first time attempting to contribute to the WP community, so your grace is much appreciated! Please feel free to go ahead with the deletion of this page, and I will attempt to gain more citations and legitimacy for Jennie's notability. The purpose of this article is not promotional at all and was not created by Jennie Allen herself. Again, this is my first time, and I made the mistake of making a user page and not a article. Apologies for not following the guidelines properly! Thank you for all that you do. –Jennie2010 • (talk) 9:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I suspect that the better approach is to accumulate a few reliable sources on IF:Gathering and to start a piece on that with a redirect there. That one might have enough sourcing available to get over the GNG bar (at least the Google footprint is promising). This looks to be a case of "Too Soon" for a free-standing bio — although the Best New Writer in the Christian category noted in the Publishers Weekly piece indicates that this day is probably soon — and that I might be wrong. Carrite (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - notability has nothing to do with the legitimacy, goodness, or importance of someone's work or beliefs; it's about fame and recognition in reliable sources. The subject of this stub (article) seems to have organized a single conference; I don't see how that passes either WP:BLP1E or WP:GNG more generally. Her books have not been best-sellers, nor have they been reviewed extensively by the critics, so she fails WP:AUTHOR; she might barely pass with the newly added sources. I think the past consensus is that an article should not be deleted merely because the subject edited their own article; normally we just tag it for conflict of interest, warn the user, and edit out the peacock lanague and cruft. However, human beings can't always be objective about themselves. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ranie Daw[edit]

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

Non notable actress. The website is non existent and can't find any info about her being in that show at all (other then on that page for that show). Also notice that one of the contributors has the same name as her. Wgolf (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY.--Smerus (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above me - No evidence of Notability, Also Fails WP:NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SUBST[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page. No objection against moving to a sister project or external wiki. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SJK (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator's rationale is correct, the correct !vote would be "transwiki" (to wikiversity or wikibooks) not "delete". NOTMANUAL is not an argument for the elimination of any given content from all WMF projects. James500 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Windows Administration at the Command Line, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with drive mapping and our editing policy is to prefer these. Andrew (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and pasted the wrong message, didn't you? (That was not a rhetorical question by the way.) We do delete notable articles that are nothing beyond a manual, per WP:NOTMANUAL. Also the source that you introduce is only one, its coverage is passing, not significant and its subject is administration; i.e. it makes administration notable, not subst. I wish I could say "no hard feelings" about you copy and paste error, but the fact is that due to the harmful nature of your replies, I do resent it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A headed section that goes on for the greater part of a page is not a passing mention. It certainly fits with my idea of significant coverage in terms of length. That passage, like any other, might arguably have a number of subjects, but prima facie, the "subst utility" is at least one of them if the heading reads doing such and such with the subst utility and the subheading reads using the subst utility effectively. James500 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Andrew having cited only one source, I think I should point out that he is not obliged to cite any sources at all as long as they exist or are likely to exist. I ran a search in GBooks and the first result was this which I assume is relevant. James500 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Passing" is the opposite of "in-depth". Since it does not mention anything beyond the help content of subst itself, yes, it is passing. In addition, that's not the only problem with notability; I just didn't list them because notability is irrelevant here. Please do note that notability is required but not enough. In this case, the article merits deletion regardless of the notability. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying, but if you are suggesting that GNG can't be satisfied in relation to a topic by detailed coverage of a narrow aspect of that topic, I disagree. If you raise arguments against the notability of a topic, you are making notability an issue, and other users will have to respond directly to those arguments. James500 (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(re to James) It's not enough to say "There are surely sources out there somewhere". You have to prove it by providing them. Otherwise why should anyone believe it? Especially when they have already unsuccessfully looked for sources. Reyk _YO! 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Reyk: (1) WP:NRVE clearly states in express words that it is enough that significant coverage is likely to exist. (2) WP:BURDEN is talking about verifiability not notability. (3) In this case, sources satisfying GNG have already been produced. James500 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN applies to the inclusion of content. The lead of WP:V refers to the inclusion of content in articles. An article isn't content. An article can be a blank page. That is why we have CSD A3 (no content). The page name isn't classified as content. James500 (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a long how-to guide. A policy-compliant version of this page would need in-depth sources that discussed its development, not how to use the command. I do not think such an article can be written. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is true, the correct !vote is transwiki. WP:NOT is not a free pass to deprive our sister projects of content or to waste time by forcing userfication before transwiki. James500 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What policy requires in depth discussion of the development of this command and not how to use the command? James500 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I am inclined towards keeping this article. What NOTMANUAL actually says is: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not" (my emphasis). This article does not consist entirely of instructions. Even if does contain instructions, I don't see why they can't be rewritten as a description of how the command is used etc (WP:IMPERFECT). To put it another way, NOTMANUAL seems to be more about style than substance. James500 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a computer instruction manual or a how-to guide. Reyk _YO! 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki because it a great in-depth original essay and an excellent manual too. WP:NOTMANUAL. Fleet Command (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth discussion can be found in the following.

Finnegan, Fran (April 14, 1992). "To SUBST or not to SUBST: What risks do Windows users take in substituting directories for drives with the DOS SUBST command?". PC Magazine. p. 367.
DeVoney, Chris (December 22, 1987). "Putting old programs in new bottles". PC Magazine. p. 329+. By understanding three DOS commands—ASSIGN, SUBST, and JOIN—you can bring older programs that don't recognize subdirectories or hard disks into the modern world.
Winer, Ethan (March 10, 1987). "Digging Deeper Into DOS, Part 2". PC Magazine. p. 331+. Note: discussion of SUBST begins on page 344.
Livingston, Brian (May 28, 2001). "Why I accept no subst". Infoworld. p. 88–. Subst has a troubled history. If you used Subst in DOS 5.0 to create a virtual drive, the setup routine for Windows 30 would crash.
Rubenking, Neil J. (February 12, 1991). "User-to-User". PC Magazine. p. 393. The problem can be solved with DOS SUBST. This command was designed for "applications that do not recognize paths."

That's just one search in google books. I don't see too much difficulty adding the necessary background information needed to make this an AfD-proof article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lesser Cartographies. James500 (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources obviously available. WP:Deletion is not cleanup, and this meets the WP:GNG. It's possible that a transwiki to Wikibooks would also be in order for the how-to material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is required but is not sufficient. This article is written like a tutorial (violates WP:NOTMANUAL) and has far too little sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; maybe merge into Drive letter assignment#ASSIGN, JOIN and SUBST in DOS and Windows. Instruction manual parts can be removed or rewritten without deleting the whole article, and the general topic should definitely be discussed somewhere in Wikipedia. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with a merger. If you are serious about it, you should consider changing your verdict to "Merge" instead. But no pressure. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom's objection appears to be with the content of the article not the topic. The lead does not appear to offend WP:NOTMANUAL. How about we delete most of the body of the article and call it a day. ~KvnG 22:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not appear to be mentioned in Livy. Deor (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Claudius Pulcher Nemo[edit]

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

A "fictional son"? According to the talk page statement, this person doesn't exist. The article should have the same status. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing - no evidence that this 'fictional person' orginates anywhere but in the mind of the article creator. Wikipedia:Patent nonsense.--Smerus (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability or even an indication of hat work(s) of fiction character appears in.TheLongTone (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The original version of the article did cite a source - Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, xli.10-18 - though this was removed by another editor soon afterwards, apparently under the mistaken impression that the citation was to another Wikipedia article. The cited source certainly appears to be Livy's chapters relating to Gaius Claudius Pulcher's Istrian campaign - though, on a quick scan of the first online version I found, I didn't spot any reference to brother Lucius. Perhaps someone would be prepared to double-check this - if Lucius Claudius does not appear in these chapters, presumably we are dealing with a hoax. PWilkinson (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tweed (film)[edit]

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

This film was supposed to have come out last year, but I can find no mention of it in IMDb or anywhere else online except for old pages about the director and websites that simply mirror the director's Wikipedia article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. No coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability found. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Grachyov[edit]

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

Actor with just one role so far, which was also 14 years ago. So this appears to be non notable. Wgolf (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A case could be made to speedy this under A7, but generally I'm going to say Delete. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live2support[edit]

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

This company does not meet notability standards, and appears to lack sufficient coverage from significant sources. Upjav (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for company since the subject lacks significant coverage in the reliable sources. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't really make a case for notability and I didn't find coverage that convinced me that an article is merited here. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Action Coalition[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article only references the subject's website. No apparent notability per WP:ORG.--Rpclod (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unreferenced and no assertion of notability. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Not the same as Citizen Action. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). Closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination, as the only additional !vote doesn't state a rationale other than agreement with the nomination. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Bryant (photojournalist)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:Notability (people) or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 10:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFF system[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research atarted from a [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1229919 single humorous artcle. Coincidentally it was created by a single-purpose account soon after the joke was published. There is no more siignificant references beyond wp mirrors and blogs. The previous AfD was closed kept as "well referenced" because the voters-keepers failed to notice that only one of these discusses the subject. The rest are various references to independent jokes about picofurlongs, microfortnights and the likes, none of which notices that they may be collected into a FFF system. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons in the past AfD (which had a very clear "keep" consensus), and the multiple references in the article (including several books). Both the FFF system as a whole and the units within it (microfortnight, furlong per fortnight, etc.) are notable (either would be sufficient to keep the article). Searching finds numerous WP:RS discussing both the FFF system as a whole and the units within it. The FFF system is not a joke, but an illustration used in multiple textbooks. The nom has failed to do a proper WP:BEFORE check, and deserves a WP:TROUT for re-nominating this. -- 101.117.31.220 (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP and per previous AFD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2006#District 8. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Marcinkowski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Marcinkowski is primarily noted for his political campaign which he lost. His attempts to press corruption charges and suit against his former boss at the Oakland County Prosecutors office are just not notable enough to generate an article. Getting someone convicted of a low level crime, even if they are a notorious criminal like Kevorkian, does not make someone notable. Marcinkowski's connections to Plame are also minor, and not enough to justify having an article on him. Basically the last keep may have made sense under the more lenient inclusion rules of Wikipedia in the middle of last decade, but I see no reason to keep this article under our current inclusion rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to the election --180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 02:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources discussing the subject are provided. There is one blog, one google search, and several links to front pages that do not reference the subject. The article attempts to tie to other notable subjects, but notability is not inherited.--Rpclod (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2006#District 8. No evidence of notability. Tiller54 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of known LRA members[edit]

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

Unsourced list of LRA members. The article provides not context or evidence that such a list meets the WP:NLIST notability guideline. - Mr X 23:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The list provides nothing beyond what is already accomplished by Category:Lord's Resistance Army rebels.- Mr X 00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a category would be a better way of doing this Gbawden (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 02:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very short topic that doesn't appear to have the grounds the stand on its own as a list. There's also no mention of what the LRA is in this context... moluɐɯ 15:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Windmill, Brixton[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria Boleyn (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete: no reliable sources to be found. --Klp363 (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources are out there and this is a very well known music venue. Frommer's, for instance, states that it is "one of the top-10 music venues in the U.K." ([22]). --Michig (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet notability criteria. See here for example. Andrew (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Michig; here's another "top 10" listing, in The Guardian.[23] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dean hurley[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC Fevrret (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. See user's Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a few scattered references do not establish notability. WP:MUSICBIO guidelines do not appear to be met.--Rpclod (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Does not pass WP:GNG. Just passing mentions and database entries, nothing that establishes notability. Beyond the refs in the article, all I've really found are a press release [24], an interview at Hype Machine [25] (primary), and a promo for a DJ set at Amoeba Records [26]. And a few other articles about Lynch's album that include his name but don't say anything about him. — Gwalla | Talk 18:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:GNG.1292simon (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Samantha Ramsey[edit]

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

No particular notability: appears to fail WP:N/CA. The shooting took place back in April, and if the shooting was truly notable, then an article probably would have been created at the time. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it took a little over 4 months to get a Wikipedia article on this topic is utterly irrelevant and proves absolutely nothing. Wikipedia is so far behind the times that it is missing articles on large numbers of topics that have been obviously notable for hundreds of years. James500 (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does it take for somebody to be notable? Is Barack Obama notable? Why or Why Not? I just want to understand your guidelines, if you have any.

Also how does this work? Some jerkoff accuses me of ruining Wikipedia, and there's a jury trial by "consensus"? What's that mean? Am I am part of that voting consensus? I sure hope so, because I believe my vote matters on this, and I'm still working on this page, and it's hard to keep on plowing a field when you've just stepped on a turd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefreedomskool (talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local event that doesn't seem to have attracted national coverage. And yes, Wikipedia works by consensus, and you're a lot more likely to gain consensus if you don't curse at people. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Barack Obama is notable. These two above me do not. They have not said so. You have more in common with me than these losers.

How foolish would one be just to delete Samantha Ramsey just because you do not like my words? I do not believe your words. You seek to hate and destroy. I wish we had a real conversation, but you can't tell me the truth about the "consensus", and the "voting", because you're a sadistic lunatic. How many 19 year girls have you killed? If you're able to murder her legacy just because your soul is empty on the inside, I wonder... how many other 19 year olds have you murdered? Let's waste all our time on this stupid argument... I hate you people. You aren't helping make this article better. I would love a real conversation, but folks who aren't losers who feast on the sadistic pleasure of murdering a 19 year old out of the pages of our history books forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefreedomskool (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's 18 nationally recognized media sources saying that Samantha Ramsey was a real person, and that this murder took place, and that it was significant to appoint a Special Prosecutor for the case, and change Kentucky's criminal justice system. 18 pieces of news, one would think is way plenty to justify it's significance, but heck, these losers want to dance, I'll dance. NawlinkWiki... ah, hellNaw, lol. She is real, and I do not know what arguments are or are not good... LBJ says to ruin a person, just accuse them of a crime... like, not being significant... not notable to you? Per what standards? Just because wikipedia never wrote about it before? If you used that as a guideline, then there would never be any new articles written, ever, since every new article written wouldn't have a past post... it's tautology. It's illogical and poor reasoning. Surely Wikipedia doesn't play like this. You're going to make me read about all this... so much wasted time. She's significant, there's a million sources, I don't know who these people are, I feel like I'm being picked on, and the real work is being stalled. Thefreedomskool (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Thefreedomskool: you sound like someone with a passionate personal interest in the subject, which is fine, but you have to realize that other editors are not out to get you and they aren't completely illogical or uncaring. For an encylopedia, one time criminal events have a high bar for inclusion, horrible as that crime might be. They need to prove they have lasting notability beyond a news cycle or two to be considered notable - I would read the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)

I don't say this be insulting, or to even say that this heinous crime isn't notable (I haven't studied the sources enough to see if they establish lasting notability). But you will be more successful in your goals if you state your case with respect to other editors, and inside of the above policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm passionate about my work, and I worked hard on this, and if there's reasonable objections, I can discuss, but if it feels vindictive... what am I supposed to do? Convince a jerk? Most of the time, this is not possible, and yes, there could be jerks who works for Wikipedia. But I'm game. There's 7 days of discussion, and in that time, I can tidy the article up a bit. It's the first draft, and I'm happy with it, as an article here or not. We shall see. Thefreedomskool (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no personal interest in this whatsoever, so nice pop shot right out of the gate. I have never met or seen Samantha Ramsey, ever. I do not know her, or her family, and or Tyler's, or anybody's, which makes me a great objective author to write this article as I am 3rd person. Thefreedomskool (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't satisfy WP:N/CA. Wikipedia is not the place for such incidents; this particular one simply hasn't garnered lasting national or international attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Shooting of Samantha Ramsey by a Boone County Police officer, who was never indicted or charged with a crime, has been covered extensively by nearly 50 listed independent sources, is relevant, and significant, and is "worthy of notice". WP:GNG

Clarityfiend is a liar. How can I say this nicely? Here's a million pages that says Wikipedia has covered many shooting incidents. I used to brag about wikipedia. No more. Here Clarifyfiend, you liar:

1) The Shooting of Amadou Diallo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

2) The Shooting of Andy Lopez. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Andy_Lopez

3) The Shooting of Jordan Davis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jordan_Davis

4) The Shooting of Stephen Waldorf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephen_Waldorf

5) The Shooting of Dan McGoo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shooting_of_Dan_McGoo

6) The Shooting of Renisha McBride. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Renisha_McBride

7) The Shooting of Timothy Stansbury. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Timothy_Stansbury

I guess Clarityfiend, and all psychos like him, only argument now is that she was a nobody loser, and since some random anonymous cruel haters judge her to be a nobody loser, therefore, your going to wipe her out of the history books. Hmmm... a bunch of nobody losers saying she's a nobody loser... and she only had 19 years to accomplish something! Or at least, 1 year, as an adult, free to do as she wanted, for 1 year, of adulthood life. And in that year, she didn't become Governor or cure cancer, so, her life is expendable. Clarityfiend... you're sick.

Here's wikipedia's stated standards:

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events) Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. The Shooting of Samantha Ramsey is "significant", "interesting", and "unusual enough to deserve attention".

The Shooting of Samantha Ramsey is "worthy of notice", which is why there's hundreds of articles written about her case, media for local venues, to national venues, all over the place. Maybe it's because you haven't heard of it? I refuse to believe any of you all think there's incontrovertible evidence that her slaying was absolutely of no note whatsoever.

Even if you think Samantha Ramsey is a loser who nobody should ever speak of, ever, this event involving her is significant for local, state, and national policy, which is why nearly 50 listed media sources have been documented in just this one wiki article. "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E Thefreedomskool (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have blocked User:Thefreedomskool for repeated personal attacks on other users (such as the one on Clarityfiend, above) after I repeatedly warned him/her not to do that. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Rpclod (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to have gotten some attention in the media beyond the local county, and has lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor. It does need extensive editing. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, this is routine news coverage and therefore fails notability. 1292simon (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets the definition of interesting. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.86.241 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Its interesting" isn't really a valid argument for preserving the article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is only an essay. WP:BIO and WP:EVENT, on the other hand, are both guidelines, and they begin with a dictionary definition of notability, drawn from Encarta, that refers to a person or event that is "interesting . . . enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". James500 (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. USA Today and New York Daily News don't look like local coverage. James500 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Fonville[edit]

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

The article has not encyclopedia importance. The Allmusic article is trivial. Fevrret (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per In ictu oculi. I have added two new sources (or, to be more precise, "Further readings") which should bolster notability. Certainly both are less trivial than Allmusic.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable with these sources and further reading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSBIO as a notable representative of a significant playing technique. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 20:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Soll[edit]

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

An actor/screenwriter known for a VERY obscure film. (If you heard of this film before I be surprised), now if this person ineed works for Fox that would be notable, but not for this film. Wgolf (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One credit in a film nobody's heard of does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also probably should put a notability tag on the film. Wgolf (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appearance in only one film that doesn't look notable (and for which I have proposed deletion) and no coverage found. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems a misdirected AfD Wifione ^Message 20:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy (band)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC Fevrret (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm trying to WP:AGF here, but someone needs to close these and other AFDs and talk to the brand new editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive coverage exists from sources such as Trouser Press, Allmusic, CMJ New Music Monthly, Boston Phoenix, etc. These were easy to find and the nomination gives no indication that a search for coverage was undertaken prior to bringing this to AfD. --Michig (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Allmusic, or Boston Phoenix references. Please provide them. Fevrret (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fevrret, User:Michig doesn't have to, a minimal amount of Googling could have done that. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:BIODEL Wifione ^Message 20:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Dopson[edit]

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

This biography of a music writer fails WP:AUTHOR in that he is not so widely cited. He has been mentioned in passing, and thanked many times for his assistance, for instance he has been thanked for his help on a Frank Zappa biography ("I received significant help from a number of people who still remain friends and deserve thanks... Roger Dopson, for climbing into his attic and manhandling boxes of yellowing music papers down to ground level..."), and he has been described as the co-director of RPM Records, a small label that in 1994 was putting out compilations of cover tunes. So Dopson appears at the periphery of the music business but is not notable enough for a biography. I looked for but did not find any in-depth coverage in third party media. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no significant coverage of the subject, and I'm not comfortable with keeping an article on someone simply because they wrote a lot of album sleevenotes. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bingham (violinist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO in that there has not been "multiple, non-trivial, published works" discussing Bingham, except for this interview which is specifically disallowed in MUSBIO: articles "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". Otherwise, Bingham has not charted with a recording, he has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage in third party media, he has not released major label albums, and he has not won awards. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 11:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Not finding evidence of notability. --Michig (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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