< 11 December	13 December >

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

The result was merged to Georgia Public Broadcasting#GPB Radio. I see no reason to keep this AfD open. If an admin disagrees feel free to revert. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WBTB[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/WBTB

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

Non-Notable. No significant coverage and FCC database show no licensing info for WBTB. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it is licensed, at a very low power rating (97 watts), for future construction and operation. There is no evidence it will create any of the programming to be transmitted, as opposed to being a mere repeater. It appears to fail the de facto notability standard for broadcast stations. Edison (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Edison When I clicked on the link to the FCC database for WBTB in the article's External links it comes up as call-sign not assigned which is why in my original reason I stated that the station does not have a license because I was under the belief and still am that it may at one time had an FCC license or construction permit but apparently not anymore and I agree with you that it does fail to meet the defacto notability for Wikipedia. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it once had a construction permit, but no longer has even that, then the article is all the more deletion-worthy. Edison (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and Redirect: into Georgia Public Broadcasting. Since that is the network that is going to simulcast, like K-LOVE stations, the information should be merged into the parent article and the WBTB page redirected to the parent article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged: Better yet, I was BOLD and merged the "WBTB" article to Georgia Public Broadcasting#GPB Radio. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Young, polymath[edit]

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

non notable person, but does make a claim to notability so fails a7. only one RS, which does not reference the subject. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far, the references presented do not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent coverage of note. Maybe Merge to Mark Young, egomaniac. EEng (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment this looks to be fairly one sided already, but just as additional comment - Mark Young teaches at aberdeen university, and the creator's name is aberdeentartan. Perhaps a COI (or even autobiography). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it has all the hallmarks of WP:VANITY. But what it does assert is sufficient notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable person. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor deletion -- as it is spam. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V. V. Ranganathan[edit]

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

Passed AfD, but I don't think he's notable, & there are no adequate 3rd party sources. Only likely notability would be as a co-founder of Compassites--what might be possible is an article on that organization. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing a real assertion of notability here. Disavian (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification requested: - I see no previous AFD. Does the nominator mean that it passed CSD? -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He did, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are hints at notability as an Indian businessman. This article lists him amongst "[p]rominent independent directors". He is quoted here and there as well, but I can find no substantial coverage about him to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unconvinced as to his notability as a business person. He appears to be an accountant, who contributed (as one of 30+ authors) to a book, and then had a couple of startups. That is a country mile away from notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No prejustice against recreation when he plays professionally. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Krneta[edit]

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

Contested PROD & Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:13, 12 December 2011 (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/2011 December 12. Snotbot t • c » 20:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. He will be notable if and when he makes his debut for Red Star, but not until then. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.

Folgertat (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perspicacity[edit]

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

Article meets criteria for speedy deletion A5, but someone contested its speedy deletion. Even the admin who restored from speedy deletion said that he felt the article was still just a dictionary definition with an entry in Wictionary. The new text added is just examples of where the term is used, and has the appearance of an awkward attempt to stretch a dictionary definition into an encyclopedia article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided all address the topic of perspicacity as a concept, not as a word. There is no etymology, pronunciation, grammar or other dictionary-like content here. Instead we have the work of psychologists and other scientists who have studied the matter and value the talent. The article is still short but that just makes it a stub. Please see our policy WP:DICDEF which explains that "Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.". Warden (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the admin previously mentioned I make no further comment about the article, except to mention that the keep comment here is posted by the author of the greater part of the article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No thanks to you nor the nominator — neither of you followed the common courtesy of notifying me of this nomination. Fortunately, I was bored by the party I was attending this evening and so thought to check my watchlist before retiring. Warden (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Warden, please maintain civility. The instructions for nominating an article for deletion do not direct to specifically inform any individuals. Even if they directed to inform the original author of an article, that would be Cyrillic, not you. It is not rational to expect people nominating an article for deletion to personally invite every individual who might have an interest in the article to the AfD discussion. The Afd template at the top of the article is expected to suffice. I reasonably assumed that since you asked for a reversal of the speedy delete so quickly you must have the article on your watch list and would see that it had been nomed for afd, just like everyone else with it on their watchlists. Rest assured my nomination has little to do with the brevity of the text in the article, and much to do with tone, usuage of sources, etc. Not every abstract word in the English language needs a Wikipedia article. For most, like this one, a Wictionary article suffices. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please see WP:AFD which advises that "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion". Warden (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The full quotation is: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Very telling that you would leave out the "While not required" part.Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're absolutely correct that it's not required. That means that failing to make an effort to inform the author or other contributors does not invalidate the deletion nomination, nor would it in itself bring about any sort of direct sanctions against you. However, it does show a lack of courtesy on your part. The main reason why we don't require it is because sometimes the author and/or major contributors are long absent from the encyclopedia, or have been blocked, or are otherwise unable to contribute to a deletion discussion so setting a hard rule that requires you to inform people goes against common sense. That's obviously not the case here. I suggest that you make a greater effort to be more courteous in future deletion nominations. -- Atama頭 00:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no call for such officiousness. The only reason we are discussing this is because Warden tried to make it an issue when I tagged the article for speedy deletion. He tried to use my not informing him as a reason for calling Anthony Bradbury's deletion of the article "improper", to which Anthony Bradbury pointed out a.) Warden was not the author and claiming to be so was "disingenuous", and b.) Warden hadn't actually edited the article since 2010. Bradbury saw through Warden's claim, but now he's trying it again here and you have bought it hook, line and sinker. It is ridiculous for him to make a federal case of "you didn't inform me" when he had already made it quite obvious he was monitoring the article and didn't need such notification. There has been actually quite a bit of questionable behavior from Warden besides that, including leaving off "while not required." That's just petty stuff I can overlook, but his edits to expand the article since it was restored are concerning to me because they misuse outdated references to make claims the references do not support - that hurts the project. Look at the NASA-related source. Your time would be better spent focusing on content-related issues like that than wagging your finger at me.Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles do not become dictionary definitions merely because they are about words. Note also the dissimilarity between the current version of the article and the wiktionary entry. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the dissimilarity of the current version of the article (ie the changes Warden made to it after he got the speedy delete reversed) is starting to concern me very much. Warden's misuse of the NASA source (see my response to Dream Focus below) is one example of what is appearing to me as an effort to load the article up with "justifications" to keep it without regard to faithfulness to the sources. There is a strong appearance of page ownership and pointy-ness starting to emerge. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not just a definition. NASA considers it notable enough to test people for it! What a concept. Dream Focus 23:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should examine that NASA-related source from October 7, 1966 more closely. It is a 45 year old article that said the word "perspicacity" was used in a recruitment brochure. It did not say that perspicacity was "tested" for. It also never said that the quality was "the most important quality required" as Warden's text claims. That was actually a pretty egregious misuse of the source. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When I first began to read the article and read the first line, my first thought was WP:DICTDEF. But once the article began to discuss how Descartes defined the term as one of the two components of intelligence I realized that the article did not fit that label. Dictionary definitions are articles about the word itself, however this article discusses the concept of perspicacity and how various authorities have approached and valued the attribute. I see no other deletion criteria that would apply to the article either. -- Atama頭 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern with the Cartesian use of "perspicacity" is that of course, Descartes didn't write in English. So, it is important to 1. know what Latin or French term he used to describe the concept that has been translated as "perspicacity", and 2. has that Latin or French term been consistently translated into English as "perspicacity" throughout the years? Is "perspicacity" considered a psychological concept by anyone besides Descartes' translator? My psychologist wife, who did and published research into theories of intelligence, tells me she hadn't heard of the word until I asked her about it this weekend, so I think more and better sources need to be found to establish the notability of a concept of "perspicacity." Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word perspicacity is somewhat old fashioned, one doesnt come across it that often in contemporary discussion, but cant think of a better name for this challenging but important topic, which has wide ranging application. A nicely written stub, with sufficient coverage found to pass WP:GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination Though some of the "keep" !votes seem to indicate they did not carefully review the sources being used and how those sources were being used before rendering their opinions, it is pretty clear that the "keeps" will prevail, so I withdraw my nomination in the interest of focusing on fixing the many problems with this article for now, and seeing if it can be turned into a workable article before considering another nomination at a later date. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No prejustice against recreation when he makes his professional debut. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Đuričković[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Has not featured in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Folgertat (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 close. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Kissing Girls 2: Foreplay Loving Lesbians[edit]

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

No reliable sources, no evidence the article's subject pass WP:MOVIE, the article's content basically is a duplicate of the article Girls Kissing Girls. Cavarrone (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Cavarrone (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. causa sui (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ognjen Ožegović[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. He will be notable if and when he makes his debut for Red Star, but not until then. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. Too soon, but clearly he will play a professional game soon barring crippling training ground injury (if not at Red Star (who are like the Man Utd of Serbia) then elsewhere). Why delete just to inevitably recreate later? --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this article passes any notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graph (software)[edit]

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

All that I found in searches were 3 download pages. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The commonness of the name makes it difficult to search but I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there is any real assertion of notability (it plots graphs...), even without sourcing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Wiley discography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolve Or Be Extinct[edit]

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

Unreleased album, per WP:NALBUM ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 19:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiley discography. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to discography per Whpq. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link Up (Wiley Single)[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Singles do not inherent notability from artist or album, per WP:NALBUM ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delele. Fails WP:NSONG, WP:GNG, WP:V.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of being a notable song. - Whpq (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sufficiently notable - clearly fails WP:SONG. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Moab, Utah. v/r - T P 21:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four-wheel trails in Moab[edit]

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

Non-notable, unreferenced ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 19:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On one hand, this isn't actually unreferenced: it cites this trail guide. On the other hand, WP:NOT indicates that travel guides aren't appropriate content. Perhaps a short summary at Moab, Utah would be a better fit. §everal⇒|Times 20:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a travel guide. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate information to Moab, Utah and redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Action Network[edit]

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

NON-notable organisation. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable third party sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is coverage of CAN at the site of the SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER. Carrite (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The group is active in the right wing anti-Muslim movement in the US, per this piece in the Durham Herald-Sun, "9-11 Survivors Appear with the Christian Action Network." Carrite (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The group has made a film and attracted conservative Congressional support relating to the So-Called Ground Zero Mosque. Carrite (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The group has also become a cause célèbre of the American conservative movement, as this piece in FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE indicates. None of this touches on the organization's earlier activities, which dealt with the anti-gay rights movement. Carrite (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Google News link above lists over 900 articles dealing with Christian Action Network. This is very, very easily over the GNG bar. Whatever concerns with self-sourcing there may be need to be corrected through the normal editing process, not through deletion. Carrite (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the challenge to improve the article. Let us see if you can convince be to withdraw the nomination. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:GNG per sources listed by Carrite. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I know it is not a vote, but I endorse Carrite's line of thinking as well. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Front 242 discography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mut@ge.Mix@ge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and fails to meet meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Scottdrink (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Front 242 discography -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to discography. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 16:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anannya Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable publication. No reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No page on the Bangla WP. Nothing in the way of refs. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are actually reasons for deletion. Notability is established by the existence of reliable independent sources, and of course it's easier if those are in the article as they should be.
Search seems to be easier with "Ananya Magazine"; if we have a Bengali speaker then "অনন্যা" gives a lot more hits.
We must be careful to avoid native-English bias. Sources need not be in English, and need not be online.

I'll have a look at what I can find and report back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep - the magazine's web presence is pretty scrappy. It's a popular fortnightly for women. Web distribution is not their thing. The magazine has been running since 1987 and seems to have a huge circulation. It is mainly noted for its annual award ceremonies which are well respected. Search is a bit complicated by spelling but mainly by being in Bengali and not online. I've cleaned up the article a bit. The sources for the Anannya Magazine Awards are I think sufficiently reliable. Ideally we'd also have (Bengali) sources for the magazine itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As of 2003, its reported circulation is 20,000.[1]. According to this[2] 1999 book, its "Bangladesh's premier woman's magazine." Similarly, The Daily Star (Bangladesh), an English-language Bangladeshi paper calls it "the most popular fortnightly magazine for women in Bangladesh".[3]. And this [4] 2006 Daily Star piece includes a section about editor-in-chief Tasmima Hossain, who apparently founded it. Other sources also suggest it has influence in Bangladesh society [5], [6], [7], [8].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm a keep then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources that qualify topic notability, researched and posted by User:Milowent above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 16:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Wonderstone[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF, the development section is a case in point of why this policy exists. pushed back several times. Preproduction. WP:TOOSOON. Obviously will meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM once completed. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It starts filming in January and unlike at other stages of its development has a signed cast including some who are out in Vegas researching their roles. It has been given plenty of coverage by places like Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety and presumably others I don't check often as well as smaller outlets like Collider and Cinemablend. If it hasn't started filming by February feel free to give me a call otherwise this article has suitable sourcing and coverage and is not harming Wikipedia by its inclusion. Wasting time on matters like this may be why Wikipedia is losing editors. That said, I am happy you were able to use the researched and sourced development section to come up with a reason why the article 'fails' to have enough coverage to be notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the linked policy "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date.The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. " Which this movie itself has proved multiple times. If you don't like the policy, petition to change it. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a policy set in stone, like most things on Wikipedia. If you came to me with the Saw 8 article I had deleted a few days ago you might have a case, as it is this is a petty action to invoke these policies against the film when it clearly has resources and coverage, an assigned budget, a signed cast, a planned filming date and production officials in Vegas scouting shooting locations. If you can't create a film article before Principal Photography begins then many of the earliest sources will simply be lost in time, like tears...in rain. There are actual articles you might have a case against and instead you're wasting both yours and my time with this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really have a film article until there is a film to have an article about, which doesn't exist until the cameras start rolling so maybe these articles are best developed in user space until filming begins. I notice this article was created back in June, which was clearly premature and should never have been created back then and should have been deleted straight away. I take the nominator's point that it has already been pushed back several times. That said, providing this film DOES go into production in January, there's not a lot of point in deleting at this stage. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well sourced article about a film that is in pre-production, entering filming in a matter of weeks. Now, WP:NFF is a guideline, not a policy and i do follow it, but i only follow it to the point where an announced film has no cast, director or any news other than a possible script coming through. Those are the articles that fail WP:NFF. Since there's a script for this, a set filming date AND actor research, this for me is a keeper. RAP (talk) 20:53 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak keep or userfy~~, but only as there doesn't seem to be anywhere else sensible to house the article. Definitely fails WP:NFF, and probably fails WP:GNG, and as such, should never have been created back in June, and should have been deleted months ago. WP:N states "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage" and it's borderline as to whether this article is much more than a news article. Under normal circumstances, I'd support a merge and redirect, but as I stated, there doesn't seem to be anywhere else (director, source material, etc) to put it and given its supposed imminent filming date, it's not sensible to delete. I'd suggest we keep an eye on it, and revisit in a couple of weeks to see whether filming actually does begin in January, or whether it get pushed back yet again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to me that the article incubator is a sensible place to put this article until it actually enters production, and this makes sense to me. Given the history of production being continually pushed back, and given that they are still casting the movie(!), I'd have reservations as to whether production will actually enter production as soon as some editors expect. Therefore, let's incubate until cameras start rolling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casting Brat Garrett in a minor role means it will not be able to get started in January? They cast main stars a week before filming starts in some cases. Seriously, it has a 6 week period here where it can start filming, it is sourced and provides significant coverage of all available information, it is better sourced than a lot of released film articles, they are scouting locations, actors are researching roles, they've moved on to fill out minor parts which wouldn't even necessarily be filmed until the end of the production, they have a clear, relatively low budget. This film is happening. If it hasn't started filming by the end of January this argument may have held water but as it is, it is a really petty act against a decent article when there are bigger problems on this site to deal with. The most ignorant thing of all is putting it up for deletion, not a merge or anything but deletion (not that a merge is acceptable in this case either). Seriously, six f'in weeks, mostly six because they're probably not wanting to film through Christmas. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of supposition in your argument there. We have no idea whether they will start filming in January. Much the same argument was used at the recent afd for Paradise Lost, also due to start filming in January, and yet, yesterday it was announced the film would be put on hold. Given that this film has been in development for 5 years already, there's no guarantee it won't get put back again. Interestingly, the article was created way back in June - why was that if filming isn't supposedly due to start until January? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Lost was pushed back because the budget had spiraled out of control, and from this article at Deadline "but it is always a shock when a large film has its start date scratched so close to production, even if it is temporary," and this is a large film which gained a lot of coverage with the casting of Jim Carrey in a return to his older comedy films. Considering that the Brad Garrett casting on December 12, 2011 features the line "The movie is scheduled to go before cameras in January" again, I would say the article deserves the benefit of the doubt. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just goes to show these things can happen. It doesn't matter how big a production it is, it can still fail. I think WP:NFF says something along those lines. If you wish to continue the Paradise Lost parallel - Bradley Cooper was interviewed about it on 6th December,[9] just a week before it was put on hold. ~~I'm still interested as to why this article was created as far back as June. What would have been the justification to keep back then I wonder?~~ --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I missed that it was only moved from userspace in October. I'll stop banging on about June. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Cooper is an actor and will have a different level of involvement in the day to day of production than the casting department who will be answering directly to producers and directors. The idea was initially pushed back to rewrite the script for Carrey's involvement, making his character much older than it was intended. Other than that, there are no hints of any reason that this production would be pushed back at this moment in time and I reiterate, there is no gain in deleting, merging, or incubating this article for 2-6 weeks, it is not a problem article, it is not written as an advertisement or 'news article' and again it is well sourced. The only argument here seems to be "well something COULD happen". Well a meteor COULD hit the Earth before The Dark Knight Rises is released in cinemas, should we incubate that until July just in case? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course not. The Dark Knight Rises has been discussed at length in the media, has started filming and has had trailers released, and therefore passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG. This article does not. It is really just a list of casting decisions, and therefore pretty much just repeating news, going against guideline at WP:N#Events. The question is more whether you should write an article about the aforementioned meteor before it hits the earth! Now, don't get me wrong, I deliberated my response here carefully, and almost reluctantly favoured against it, but let's face it, there has been a spate of these premature articles, and this isn't really notable yet. There is a lot of supposition in your arguments as to what has been going on behind the scenes, regarding casting, scouting locations, rewrites etc. This isn't firm information, and don't forget, to be notable, it needs to have been discussed objectively (again WP:N#Events). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a list of casting decisions, it has the exact same content as any other film article: a lead, an infobox, a premise, a cast list and a development history. In these ways it is further along than a lot of released film articles. You are relying on something going wildly wrong in a short span of time to throw the entire film into disarray which while possible is incredibly unlikely. Not every film has something go wrong with it and not in a short span of time. NFF and GNG are guidelines to help article management, not outright laws and repeatedly citing them doesn't undo the fact that the article is not a stub, it is sourced, detailed, it is not an advert, not a news article, NOT a list of casting decisions, scheduled for filming imminently and has been addressed across multiple film following outlets and news outlets such as the Las Vegas Journal. If this starts filming in January and this article is deleted beforehand I am going to flip the hell out. And it has not been repeatedly pushed back for filming, it was given a filming date of October, it was pushed back to January. The script having been in limbo a long time doesn't mean this will get repeatedly pushed back, there is no history of it being pushed back for filming repeatedly. In a short span of time, from June or July it gained a director (Carrell had been attached for a long time), had rewrites for Carrey, gained Carrey, gained Buscemi, gained Wilde and had one pushed back filming date. It is not a trouble production. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read WP:N#Events you will see that it says: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." To my mind, this describes this and similar premature film articles exactly. And they shouldn't really have infoboxes just yet, as a lot of the information is speculative. Have a look at WP:MOSFP. And what with what just happened with Paradise Lost it is clear to see where WP:NFF is coming from. Everyone seems a little dismissive of these guidelines, but they are established guidelines, and have been drawn up by experienced editors for a reason. However, I agree, deleting the article now might be a little extreme, but if it happens, it happens - no need to "flip the hell out"(!) But for the meantime, let's keep a close eye on it and if not leave it where it is, then incubate it, and if the production is delayed further, then I trust you will support a delete. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Paradise Lost and Burt Wonderstone is that Paradise is intended to be a big-budget epic, while this is a comedy that only costs the same amount as any other comedy. Not exactly something New Line Cinema would dash to place on hold. RAP (talk) 16:37 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That and the Paradise Lost article (now I've looked at it) is little more than a stub, a basic cast list, bare links and grammatically incorrect sentences, of what few there are. Burt is well developed for available information. I also didn't create it too soon intentionally, it was moved in October for when I had exxpected filming to begin. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not relevant here, as we're discussing notability, and not what films are more likely to get made than others or which articles are better written. As it stands, due to it failing all the notability guidelines, this article is not notable. That said, I am not advocating deletion in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree, I think it is notable and the coverage compliments that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage". --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guideline and none of it relies on a press release, sports coverage, tabloid journalism or a public announcement. It's websites doing actual reporting on film industry activities. It is not routine, that the casting for the film is covered on the main pages of these sites elevates it above routine, it is specifically being singled out as worthy of mention. The individual casting of every film is not covered. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not going to rehash all the exhaustive arguments above, but I am never a fan of deleting articles that we know we are going to recreate later anyhow - making work for no good purpose that we don't even get paid for. If for some reason it all catastrophically fails, then it can be renominated. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my proposal to incubate until it reached notability. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Greene Foster[edit]

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

Reasons? Seriously? Just look at it. Unsourced, uncategorized, not notable... student. Let's go with WP:SNOWBALL. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Bollocks. When I tried to put a message on the talkpage of the creator, I realised that the article was about an entirely notable subject, but some kid has vandalised it. Sorry. Can we please change to:[reply]

Speedy Keep per the above. I think the AfD has prevented me reverting to the non-vandalised version, but I will copy paste from the last "true" version, leaving the AfD tag. Sorry. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:48, 12 December 2011 (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/2011 December 12. Snotbot t • c » 17:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 g11, advertising, not to mention WP:MADEUP. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the smoke rings[edit]

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

contested prod (by creator), non notable film, does not meet WP:NFILM no references. possibly hoax but if real just a student film Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking at the page and my own web searches, agree with nom. Searches on "Lord of the smoke rings" plus "Wirral" (the kids' school) or character names return this WP page only. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Willetts[edit]

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

Pretty demonstrably non-notable consultant. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BLP. I'd probably just look at WP:SNOWBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legis (talk • contribs) 10:40, 12 December 2011 (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/2011 December 12. Snotbot t • c » 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the notability here, nor can I find sources to document what notability is there. IMDB does not qualify as a reliable source, nor do websites that just list contact information. Even with additional sourcing, we probably need a rewrite. That said, it's bad form to call for a Snowball close before a single comment has been made. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fairly detailed resume seems non-notable on the face of it, and I can find nothing in web searches to suggest otherwise. Social media, primary sources, directory listings, and trivial mentions only, at least for this Matthew Willets. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. no argument for deletion, disruptive nomination (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

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

Reason Spudpicker 01 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason provided by the nominator, for whom this nomination is their first contribution to Wikipedia. The article has undergone extensive discussion to reach its current, stable state. It is comprehensively sourced, accurate, fair and balanced. It has recently come under attack as "lies" by an anon JW editor, who has, on request, provided one objection to the article which multiple editors have shown was baseless. This nomination is possibly that person's response. BlackCab (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The IP user who originally requested this deletion went through several different IP addresses to make his beliefs known. At the talk page for this article, I asked him to please point out any assertions of the article that he believed were lies. Finally, after getting nothing but "this is all lies" responses, he mentioned the first sentence. After both I and another user pointed out documented, sourced evidence (from the user's own religious publications) that proved he was wrong, instead of discussing it, he simply quoted scripture (specifically Matthew 25:41-46, a childish form of a threat is my assumption) and said once again that it was a lie. This article is heavily sourced, mostly with JW official publications (which might be its only fault, as there should be more secondary sources), fairly written, and accurate. Then, after being told that an anonymous IP user could not realistically request a page deletion, a newly registered user completed the nomination who has exactly 0 edits. Vyselink (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator, who registered an account solely for the purpose of nominating this article for deletion[10], has previously been arguing (as a dynamic IP editor) at the article's Talk page that it is 'full of lies', yet only raised one single specific objection, which was shown to be flawed from the religious organisation's own literature. There have been persistent requests for the editor to indicate his other specific concerns with the article, but the editors only real objection to the article is that he just doesn't like it. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#This whole page should be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator, a new account with no other edits, claimed at the article's Talk page that "I had to agree with the anonymous user above ... so I went ahead and completed the deletion request for the page for the anonymous user." This seems to be a fairly obvious instance of sockpuppetry.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2011 (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/2011 December 12. Snotbot t • c » 17:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Per WP:CSK #1, when nominator "fails to advance an argument for deletion". Nor is there an obvious case for deletion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ GQ[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the second AFD for what is an essentially non-notable DJ for a radio station in South Florida. The first AFD was closed as "delete", but this is not a recreation of the first article (so it doesn't qualify as a CSD G4). However, the essential notability issue has not been resolved, and none of the references do much to establish it. There are a bunch of press releases, a few links to social media sites, and a few links that might qualify as enough to establish notability at a local level, but not enough to pass WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAIN. Horologium (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability has still not been shown. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wasn't notable then, not notable now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SHUTTLE LAB[edit]

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

Unreferenced non notable topic. Effectively serves as an advertisement for a "design studio" with an empty website. Google search does not return any result, except the Wikipedia article. Article creator keeps removing maintenance tags (references, advertisement, notability). olivier (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —olivier (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. olivier (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not entirely criteria to assess it against, but intuitively just not sufficiently notable. Highly irritating that the original author keeps trying to snip off the tags and doesn't come here to make sensible comments of the AfD discussion, but I'll work through that. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and apparently non-notable. It's possible sources may exist in Chinese, but like Legis, my gut feeling is that this is basically just a run-of-the-mill toyshop as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlye Monroe[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. No notability evident or asserted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:25, 12 December 2011 (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/2011 December 12. Snotbot t • c » 17:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only find the one novel from this author, and that novel does not appear to be notable (E-book or no). Usual Caveats apply, of course - if she publishes a more notable work, or if she herself receives some reliable sourcing, then an article may end up being appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This author doesn't appear to pass WP:AUTHOR, having only recently released one self-published book that hasn't received any reliable coverage. I'm going to be putting the author's book up for AfD as well since it doesn't fall under any of the speedy categories.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, or any sources, to indicate notability. I've deleted the links to her twitter feed from under the photograph. ManicSpider (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Amino Acids (band)[edit]

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

No apparent demonstrated notability. Unsourced claims, inappropiate writing style, and red flags for notability include:

"The Amino Acids perform most often for independent purposes. Being from an alien planet their motives are unknown to humans. A human writing a bio on them is rather counterproductive because only they know the truth."
"They are unique in the aspect that they never speak, to anyone."
"Humanity will fall like pins recorded 30 November 2006. It is published by Aminoacidsmusic 2007 and features twenty-one songs."(italics mine)
"We Are Alien? released 2001 6 Song EP very rare to find. "

AerobicFox (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC) AerobicFox (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see coverage that would indicate notability. Even if this is kept, broad swathes of the article will need to be removed - as the nominator correctly notes, this is quite promotional. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Local Detroit punk-surf band, active 1998-2010. Yes, article as it stands is too fan-centric, but that's fixable. The only real AfD issue I see is notability, and I'm on the fence there. To get a sense of this band's place in the world, I'd recommend this piece. Their album Destroy The Warming Sun! did get a little notice--Allmusic review, Blog Critics review, Detroit Metro Times review, blog notice [11][12][13][14], an actual video for "Lost Coordinate" off the album (14,000 Youtube views). Only around 1,000 distinct listeners on last.fm. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 most. It's not clear that the majority of participants considered the parent article when making their remarks as it was bundled in rather late in this process. ~~Suggest a separate AFD to determine that.~~ Apparently I misunderstood what was going on and that debate already exists. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Kissing Girls 1: Young Lesbians in Love[edit]

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

No evidence that WP:NFILM is met. (Disputed PROD). SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing it (the movie or the notability). Sven Manguard Wha? 17:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creator of this article, I mentioned on the talk page that while I can see why some users might have a problem with notability, nowhere in WP:NFILM does it mention anything about pornographic films. The nominator then asked why porn movies should be treated any differently with the guideline, to which I responded that WP:BIO specifically uses WP:PORNBIO as a way of treating porn actors differently. Thus, if WP:NFILM was tweaked to mention criteria for porn like WP:BIO is, then I would be more understanding of an AfD. (BTW, Sven, what do you mean when you say you're not seeing the movie?). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if all else fails, why couldn't it just be merged to Girls Kissing Girls? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Girls Kissing Girls film series has already an article, this episode does not appear particularly notable, and does not pass GNG and WP:NF. Also, a separate article is unnecessary as it basically repeats what is already written in the main article about the series. Cavarrone (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage for this film by reliable sources or even semi-reliable porn industry sources. Fails WP:NFILM and it would also fail a PORNBIO-style extension of the notability guidelines. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But there isn't an extension like that; that's my point. How can you say it would fail the extension if no such extension exists? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - PORNBIO requires winning a well known award or a credible acknowledgement of unique contributions to porn. Young Lesbians in Love lacks both. In fact, the article claims nothing that would distinguish this film from hundreds of other porn films. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just noticed you added Foreplay Loving Lesbians to this discussion. It has the exact same problem as Young Lesbians in Love. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Plot? Mise en scène? Tepid pace? LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Huh? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage for this film by reliable sources or even semi-reliable porn industry sources. Fails WP:NFILM and it would also fail a PORNBIO-style extension of the notability guidelines (per Gene93k). Next time send me a promotional copy and I'll tell you in advance whether there is any hope. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Girls Kissing Girls; there's really no evidence of independent notability for each episode. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No general notability, no NFILM notability. Not even fap-worthy, Women Seeking Women series is much better. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fap"-worthy? What? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns discussed above. Note that I have also added Girls Kissing Girls 3 to this AfD. Feel free to remove it if that article doesn't fit in this AfD for some reason. —SW— ^spout 15:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why Girls Kissing Girls 3? That was nominated for an award, as the article clearly states. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What part of WP:NFILM says that films which were nominated for an award (but did not win) are notable? If anyone else besides the author of the article believes part 3 shouldn't be included in this nomination, I'll gladly remove it. —SW— ^spout 17:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What part says they aren't? Just because one or two films in a series may be non-notable (for example) doesn't mean all the films in the series are. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The part which says that a film is probably notable if it "...has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." I don't think it's specifically necessary for the guideline to elucidate that "articles which were nominated for an award but lost are probably not notable". —SW— ^talk 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is necessary, if you're trying to use that as an argument. What is it with users in this discussion arguing points that don't exist? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. My point is that it's not valid to say something like, "WP:NFILM doesn't specifically state that films which have been nominated for an award (but didn't win) are not notable, therefore this film must be notable because it has been nominated for an award and didn't win it." By the same logic, you could say that "WP:NFILM doesn't specifically state that lesbian porno films starring someone named Samantha aren't notable, therefore this film must be notable because it is a lesbian porno film starring someone named Samantha." The logic makes no sense. I think it is more than clear that NFILM draws a line at films which have won a major award. Since it is more difficult to win an award than it is to simply be nominated for an award, it logically follows that simply being nominated for an award would not establish the notability of that film per WP:NFILM. By the same token, one of the criteria for notability of baseball athletes is that they have played for a major league team. Therefore, notability would not be established for someone who simply tried out for the team but was not hired, despite the fact that WP:BASEBALL/N doesn't specifically spell that out.

So, I think it's clear that the film is not notable per WP:NFILM, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's definitely not notable; it could still be notable if it passes WP:GNG. —SW— ^gab 00:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Samantha" logic really does make no sense, and you're way off if you think that's the point I was trying to make. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and note that I've also nominated the parent article Girls Kissing Girls. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**WP:PORNBIO says that a pornographic actor is considered notable if s/he "has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years". This film series has been nominated for well-known awards in multiple years, so how is it different? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I may just be confused, but it seemed to be that Girls Kissing Girls 2: Foreplay Loving Lesbians (also on today's AfD list) was closed as a Keep? I was a bit surprised by that, but not sure how a sequel (which is normally less notable) would be a keep, but the first film a delete (as this is clearly heading for)? --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Kissing Girls 2 was a procedural close so that it could be bundled into this discussion. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; insufficient notability (and not really practical to source enough content for standalone articles either, in my view) bobrayner (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying if independent sources are found, they shouldn't be added? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stand-alone articles after merging the relevant info to the Girls Kissing Girls article (assuming that survives AfD). Tabercil (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as not notable. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pavuk[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced(except one primary source) article which has no notability. Inactive project with no reviews or any other reliable source, nor could I find anything relevant. Article was created by a SPA. Maybe the only developer for this project. Just for advertising. mabdul 14:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Google books gives som sources, e.g. this Christian75 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Web crawler and mention it there. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable project which was stillborn back in 2008? --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still alive but no evidence offered of notability. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. One of the most blatant of blatant hoaxes that I've ever seen here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haidar Haidar Ahmad[edit]

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

I do not believe that this person meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find reliable sources with a quick google search sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Best of luck to the subject, but an article is not warranted at this time. Should his accomplishments generate coverage in reliable sources, an article might end up being appropriate - but not at present. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. EricSerge (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Lacks notability! Oh come off it, it's a clear hoax! Has anyone actually bothered to read it? He's Lebanese, he joined the RAF as an aircraftman (i.e. a private) in September of this year, trained on a Russian aeroplane and two months later is a fighter pilot (a position only given to commissioned officers after long training) with several aerial victories! And he lives in Paris! This is all blatant rubbish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to assume good faith there, Necrothesp. It's likely a hoax, but I don't think it's blatant enough for a speedy - you really really have to go off the deep end to meet that standard. But it is a clear deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but good faith does not extend to accepting that a Lebanese national who lives in France joined the RAF as a ranker, acquired a commission and qualified as a fighter pilot in two months (a fraction of what it would take him to become an officer, let alone a pilot, in the RAF) on an aircraft the RAF doesn't fly and has already shot down several aircraft. We have to exercise a modicum of common sense! How on earth could this not be blatant rubbish, pray tell? AGF is one thing, but giving the benefit of the doubt to an article that a hamster could tell was rubbish is taking it too far and gives Wikipedia no credibility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, and I should add, an article supposedly about a modern RAF pilot which references a page about the First World War and, for some bizarre and unexplained reason, Roald Dahl! Guys, this is a hoax! Dignifying it with a discussion which accepts it as truth ("Should his accomplishments generate coverage in reliable sources, an article might end up being appropriate") really just makes Wikipedia look like a laughing stock. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. —SW— ^confabulate 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Haidar[edit]

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

I do not believe that this person meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reverted this article to a different version immediately after it was nominated for deletion. I believe that the previous version may refer to a different person or may be a hoax. Assuming good faith, more than one person may share this name and some disambiguation may be necessary. §everal⇒|Times 16:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Thanks, I didn't see that Several. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 22:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Stransman[edit]

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

I previously PRODded this on grounds that this "Biography lacks reliable sources not associated with the author and the marketing of his books, so insufficient evidence that the subject meets the notability guidelines, whether as writer, musician or entrepreneur." The Prod notice was removed by the article creator without comment. Subsequent edits have added his LinkedIn and Bandcamp pages as refs. but both these and the earlier refs fail as reliable sources independent of the subject. Google Books does turn up a film credit but that looks insufficient. AllyD (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 21:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search reveals no reliable sources capable of supporting notability. Mostly self-promotion hits. ManicSpider (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Materialscientist (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making Jack Falcone[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. Possibly based on speculation from out of date news sources. In any case, not verifiable and fails WP:GNG Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has such a film even been announced? RAP (talk) 16:50 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I found this from 2008 and this from 2010. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of a wave of hoax articles submitted by this user. Lugnuts (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N. As the nominator wrote, "possibly based on speculation from out of date news sources".--Cavarrone (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, Making Jack Falcone appears to be the film equivalent of vaporware. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur & Lancelot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Arthur & Lancelot

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

Fails notability guideline for future films and general notability guideline. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete One of several NFF articles created by this same author all in short succession. All are clearly NFF. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a wave of hoax articles submitted by this user. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there does appear to be a film coming out eventually by that name (but directed by David Dobkin and not coming out until 2013 at the earliest), it doesn't even come close to passing WP:NFF at this point in time. The movie was just recently announced, after all.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. I am a great believer in incubating rather than deleting high profile upcoming films. For a proposed high budget film with an A-list cast (proposed), I'd let is sit around rather than deleting so we can later recreate it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 RESULT. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberace (film)[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline for future films and general notability guideline. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, fails NFF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)
Delete as part of a wave of hoax articles submitted by this user. Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's certainly notable in real world terms (see these for example: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) but its title isn't Liberace and as it is currently only planned, with filming due to start in Summer 2012, it could still never happen and doesn't merit an article. It is already mentioned in more detail at Liberace#Behind_the_Candelabra, which seems the best place at this time.--Michig (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Call it an exercise in crystal ball reading, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Michig has it right. WP:TOOSOON. Will almost certainly become notable, if and when it gets made. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic, Magic (2013 film)[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline for future films and general notability guideline. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The knobhead creating this article has also been responsible for this hoax and this one. Delete, salt and block this user. Lugnuts (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per WP:NFF Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Don't salt, though. This is a real film in development and will eventually meet the guidelines for WP:NFF by this time next year. (It obviously doesn't meet that guideline right now, though.) Unless it's been repetitively added, there's no need for salt at this time in my opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I do recommend blocking the editor if/when he makes another addition or edit like this, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd argue for incubate, but this is too low profile. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Don't like the comments about blocking the original contributor. He looks like a valued member of the Wiki film community who just got a bit too enthusiastic on the upcoming films. I'll leave a note on his talk page and suggest he cools it a bit on the speculative future stuff. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a talkpage full of deletion discussions, links to policies and warnings isn't enough, I don't know what is. Tough shit for this guy. Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure they were deliberate hoaxes, maybe just misguided. Looks like a new user who hasn't edited since the warnings... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree they aren't hoax, just ignorance, or ignoring of policy. If he stays on the good path, he can stay, but I would say after so many warnings and notifications, he is definately on thin ice. If its ignoring, thats vandalism. If its ignorance, WP:COMPETENCE Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I spoke too soon - I just had to remove The Expendables 3 (2015) from the Sylvester Stallone filmography. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love Jihad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The word love "Jihad" is insulting a particular community, Jihad (arabic) means struggle(english). they are saying love jihad. read the entire article, they talking about one community. I don't know what is going on in wikipedia, lot of pages are against a single community. if you are not delete this page most of muslims they not believe in wikipedia pages. i will some proof what they said in love jihad pages. Please see the below proof published by various newspapers. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/35486/kerala-police-have-no-proof.html http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/nov/11/no-conclusive-proof-of-love-jihad-kerala-dgp-tells-hc.htm read the second line honorable judge words below famous newspaper published the judgement http://ibnlive.in.com/news/karnataka-high-court-flooded-with-love-jihad-case/107583-3.html In india, a lot problem is there, one communities attack another communities, they don't like love between two community man and woman. so avoiding this they thinked very crucially and said this name to single communities. A lot muslim girls also convert into hindus and christians due to love i will give many proof. see the proof http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/TEBDPU7EM93ODSUGE Please search in google, you can find lot of muslim and christian girls convert to hinduism. If you are not deleted this page, wikipedia is trying to demage and attack a single community with secular name. now also i am confident in wiki administrators, they all are secular and neutral persons, even i changed lot pages which hates other communities is deleted by wiki admins. i have confident you guys will delete this page. i submitted a LOT PROOF TO YOU. i don't know fluent english writing, anyhow, i hope you understand my words Day000Walker (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found some coverage from reliable sources via Google News (specifically, from the Times of India) that suggest borderline notability. Nominator's rationale is unconvincing and seems to rely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. HurricaneFan 25 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does not claim that "Jove Jihad" actually happens; it simply documents the controversy that has existed over the allegations. And controversy is extensive. In addition to the 33 sources used in the article (most of which use the term "Love Jihad" prominently enough that it is even featured in the title), as of this writing 3 google news sources have discussed the controversy within the last 30 days ([25]), while there are 171 general hits in google news archive (some of which are probably not actually related to the phenomenon, but most of which are) and including this one which indicates that attention to the controversy is international. This article has already survived a deletion debate ([26]), and it seems easily to clear the notability threshold. That said, keeping it neutral is a challenge, since we have had to deal with people who feel strongly that it does happen as well as those who feel strongly that it doesn't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia does not practise censorship. Besides, it only documents the events surrounding the issue, and does not conclude that it is in fact a reality. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 15:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and suggest speedy or at least snow keep. The article seems more than adequately referenced, the subject is notable, and no reason to delete it that's based on Wikipedia policy is made by the nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This is an awkward close. The nominator has withdrawn but there is a single delete !vote still out there. I am going to assume HurricaneFan25 hasn't seen the below discussion and close this as a speedy keep; nominator withdrawn. v/r - T P 15:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illyriad[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Illyriad" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This article has a problem with non-free image use and inappropriate tone. I was considering cleaning it up, when I realized sourcing was also extremely poor. Nearly all of the references are to the official website/forum, affiliated websites, databases or press releases. The best source is the stuff from joystiq, but that is all written by the same guy and I am dubious whether it is truly reliable. My question is therefor: should this be cleaned up or deleted as not-notable? Yoenit (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Pending more opinions on the joystiq.com sources my current position as nominator is now to keep the article and improve it. The reason for this is that Rescendent's comments cast reasonable doubt on whether the assesment of joystiq as a "multi-author blog" is accurate and until this issue is resolved (which might take a while) we should give it the advantage of the doubt and assume it is reliable. Yoenit (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little in-depth coverage — as Yoenit found, most of the material in GNews is from Joystiq, and the only other coverage in Google News' archives are from unreliable sources (e.g. a press release from Gamasutra and two other unreliable sources from JeuxVideo.com and Develop). HurricaneFan 25 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Disclosure: I am the article's creator) Have made a few changes. I would suggest cleanup. The joystiq stuff is mostly written by the same guy as he is their editor covering free-to-play MMOs, which this game is one of. I would argue that the notability and sourcing is higher in this article than most if not all of the Category:Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy games for example: The Continuum, Planetarion, PoxNora, Urban Dead, Virtonomics, Might and Magic Heroes Kingdoms, CivWorld, ERepublik, Evony, Ikariam, Lord of Ultima, OGame, Travian, TribalWars, War of Legends. Or even more so: Chronology of massively multiplayer online strategy video games e.g. Trade Wars, TradeWars 2002, Space Empire Elite, Barren Realms Elite, Falcon's Eye, Solar Realms Elite, STellar Chaos, Yankee Trader, Horseland, UltraCorps, Reign, NukeZone, Urban Dead, Mankind, FateLords, Mudcraft, Society, Saga. Being devils advocate, if Illyriad was deleted it would suggest the those categories and most of the articles in it should be deleted - which to be clear I am not suggesting..! Rescendent (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to review WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The status of other articles is probably not a solid argument in an AfD -- an article should be judged on its own merits, not "compared" to other articles. Salvidrim! 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point :-) Rescendent (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst the standard of some refs isn't up to WP:RS, it's not required that all of them are. We have enough here to demonstrate notability. Although no gamer, I'm interested to see how the HTML5 aspects work out.

I'm also concerned about user:ViezeRick canvassing for deletions at WP:AFD. I first saw this article there and from comments there expected to see some massive campaign by hordes of gamers to railroad an AfD. I've seen nothing of the sort - the only dubious behaviour would seem to be in the other direction. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:NOT? The article is written like an advertisement and it's currently nothing more than an advertisement. When no longer an advertisement, would the article be notable? And if so, what makes it notable? ViezeRick (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone and notability are completely unrelated. I would also note I do not consider the page an advertisement, although there are problems. Yoenit (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the reviews in joystiq considered reliable sources? http://gamasutra.com/blogs/BenAdams/20111011/8561/Illyriad_The_Journey_from_Concept_to_HTML5.php is written by someone who works for that company. Other links are to sites that just reprinted the press release. Dream Focus 09:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and apparently joystiq is a multi-author blog and it would only be reliable if Beau Hindman meets the criteria for selfpublished sources. According to his own website he also did reviews for Ablegamers.com (a website for disabled gamers) and MMORPG.com, where he is apparently a [27] Mabinogi (video game) correspondent. I do not think that is enough to satisfy the criteria for self-published sources. I do not see anything else which could be considered a reliable source in the article, so if we consider the material from mr Hindman reliable that still counts as only one reliable source, while multiple sources are generally expected. Yoenit (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reliability of author can you provide a link to the policy on multi-author blogs as I'm not sure what the details are, as this joystiq property has editorial over site, a declared staff etc. http://massively.joystiq.com/team/ of which Beau Hindman (professional joystiq link, rather than previous personal link) is one. Rescendent (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the previous link was a personal one, but I am making an assumption... For WP:RS not sure WP:NEWSBLOG applies as is that about blogs that also have physical magazines, papers or broadcast on tv? Perhaps WP:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Review_sites might be more applicable e.g. "checked for factuality by an editor" Rescendent (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down on that last page you will find joystiq listed under "situational sources", where it recommends showing the reliability of an individual author, which I assume refers to the rules for self published sources. The fact that it has a declared staff as you show above casts some doubt on this though, perhaps we should ask for input at the reliable sources noticeboard and Wikiproject Video Games? Yoenit (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a response to a very old question to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Massively.com_-_Joystiq, the the reliable sources noticeboard scared me a little... should something be added to Wikiproject Video Games as well? Rescendent (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted requests at both pages [28][29]. Yoenit (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. TigerShark (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Cotton[edit]

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

NOn-notable physician. Article gives no clue what makes this man notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this article meets the notability criteria according to Wikipedia:Notability, given that the life of John T. Cotton is discussed in several reliable and notable medical journals and W. Virginia biography collections that can be found through a Google book search. He's also a member of a notable family. Seweissman (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find relevant materials or information online relating to "John T. Cotton" as a physician; this article could be a hoax. In addition, after reading the article, if Cotton is not a hoax, the information given does not suggest notability per the conditions given at WP:PROF. HurricaneFan 25 14:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right that Cotton does not meet notability requirements, but should requirements for academics be used to judge notability of physicians? Seweissman (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They can be; some physicians do publish heavily even if they are not academics in the sense of being a college professor. WP:PROF can give the person a second shot at being kept, even if they don't meet WP:BIO. Remember that criteria like WP:PROF are not a LIMITATION on the person's notability; they are an ADDITION, a possible way of being found notable even if they have not been written about significantly. In this case the person does not meet either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply being a doctor is not enough to get a page. Vincelord (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article of genealogical interest only (although it is certainly not a hoax). Nice old photo, but nothing found to indicate he is of historic or professional significance. He is mentioned in a few books [30] and the local medical journal published his obituary [31], but there is nothing in these sources that amounts to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also found this: Cotton was one of the four members of the first graduating class of Marietta College and also involved in a court case in 1875 concerning the removal of the W. Va. state capitol to Wheeling. Seweissman (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 15:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retraining of Racehorses[edit]

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

Looks very much like a copyright infringement of [32]. See: Duplication Detector (I have only looked at 5 words or more...) Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While there is some close paraphrasing, there appears to have been a reasonable attempt to modify the language. The bullets are the closest point of similarity, and for example raises funds from within the Racing Industry to help support the charitable retraining and rehoming of former racehorses is changed to Raises money to support the retraining and rehoming of former racehorses. Also, I am not sure that AFD is the proper venue for this... Clear, unambiguous copyright violations should be marked with CSD G12, and more subtle copyright issues should probably go to WP:CCI. As to whether the charitable organization is notable to our threshold of inclusion is another matter. Syrthiss (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While we have several articles on individual horse retirement facilities, we appear not to have a general article on horse retirement or racehorse retirement, and the subject is not dealt with at racehorse or horse racing as far as I can see. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need those individual articles about the facilities or can we merge them with this article? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see a variety of similar institutions have individual articles --- Living Legends (charity), Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation, The Horse Trust, Kentucky Horse Park, Old Friends Equine, Alachua conservation trust --- and no general article about the general idea of places for racehorses to go after their time for racing is over. I have no opinion as to whether these institutions are individually notable enough to support separate articles, but I did think the situation odd. We do have a standalone article on animal sanctuary, which may be a more general instance of the same thing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merging (some of) the articles might be an useful alternative for deletion. Is there a wikiproject about horses? Most likely they have the knowledge to merge these articles. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable organization; hundreds of Google News hits; e.g. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] etc. Chzz ► 10:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and if Wikiproject Equine don't already know about it, chuck it over to them. They're an excellent bunch with extremely high standards. They'll probably end up getting it to FA! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If have put a notification on their page here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing is probably a better fit than the Equine Wikiproject. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem, request put down there too... Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but upgrade: Needs plenty of work, but appears to be of sufficient notability as an organization, and affiliated with a major national group. I'd also consider adding a disambig tag (organisation) to the title, to separate the organization from the general concept of retraining racehorses, which is conducted by a number of rescue organizations. Or, possibly, merge with British Horseracing Authority. But it passes notability criteria as far as I'm concerned. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing member here. Charity is the main one of its type in the the UK. This hadn't been added to the project until today (thanks User:Montanabw), so I hadn't seen it. Have added a ref and a section on notable horses involved. I created the Make A Stand article, so I really should have spotted this.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. TigerShark (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Jean Mayhew[edit]

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

non-notable writer. Article looks hidden bookpromotion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found reviews on Google News, but they are from non-reliable sources or in-prominent papers, although I found one from the Miami Herald which is a reliable source, although it does not meet any of the five criteria given at WP:AUTHOR. HurricaneFan 25 14:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norden High School and Sports College[edit]

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

Non-notable school, with a advertisement to promote it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "non-notable school"? AIUI, high schools are considered notable by default, so just how much non-notability do we have to demonstrate before an AfD can delete one? I've never understood this - we have a surfeit of bad articles on trivial schools that are yet protected by this policy of assumed notability. I fail to see how this improves the encyclopedia, but there it is.

The giant spew of spammy guff is just an editing problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact no official rule that states that secondary schools are always notable. So I am free to challenge the notability of a school conform WP:GNG. As was stated in a recent discussion on WikiProject Schools: Just think how many secondary schools there are in all the countries of the world. It would be quite impossible to try to gauge every single one of them against a notional (and no doubt fairly arbitrary) set of criteria to determine notability. The only practicable solution is to deem all of them notable. For me, that is unacceptable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Official rule"? Sorry, did Wikipedia turn into a bureaucracy overnight? We have no "official rules". We have consensuses. And this is a long-standing example of one. You are perfectly at liberty to "challenge notability", but it's pretty pointless as I can guarantee you won't succeed! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is factually correct and has the potential to become much better if content is added. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per precedent for high schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are considered to be notable by default. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me the official policy on this... Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability of high schools/secondary schools is not official policy, but a long standing consensus of editors. High school deletion proposals almost always end up with the school being kept. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the following: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education (WP:OUTCOMES), Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) (WP:NHS), and finally Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this is also adequately demonstrated by the special mention for schools on every A7 CSD template and without digging for diffs for dozens of discussions and RfCs on the subject . Sufficient UK sources are the government entries at Edubase and Ofsted. There are literally thousands of secondary schools in Wikipedia, some are only one-line stubs and are kept as long as they are proven to exist.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It only proofs that nobody dares to challenge an outdated consensus. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not a valid argument for this AfD I'm afraid. Consensus remains consensus until it overruled by a new consensus. There is no such thing as being 'outdated' just because you decide it is. A recent debate on this topic was also abandoned without a new consensus to change the status quo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly. Many of us do not believe it to be outdated at all and continue to believe that all secondary schools (and tertiary institutions) are by default notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The nominator initiated yet another discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Notability when all he achieved was to reinforce the consensus. TerriersFan (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic appears to be notable for some top GSCEs, although there's little other information other than that. See this, this, and this — they don't look very professional though the numerous articles (including these) on Google News seems to support its notability. HurricaneFan 25 14:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News search plus Ofsted reports show significant recent coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and as a decades-old secondary school in a developed country there are sure to be many more offline sources such as local newspaper archives and council minutes. Qwfp (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- not only a high school but a Sports College. Sources are available to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The convention is that all High Schools are notable. The fact that it has a sports specialisation is neither here not there: most state High Schools now have some specialisation, though they do not all include it in their name. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Feel free to take this straight to WP:DRV and do not bother me on my talk page. v/r - T P 15:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Pirates[edit]

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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)

Nominated by an IP editor as spam or overly-promotional. Note: nominee did not complete AfD process; choice was to remove it or follow it through, and I'm choosing the latter. PK T(alk) 12:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is an intstruction manual on how to play the game and a promotion for it. No indication that it is notable other than self-promotional sources. 1100 people playing a game is not really very notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect a greatly pruned edit to a subheading of a yet to be created Snakehead Games page, notability of which I believe is established by the McMaster and Hamilton articles. Not an ideal solution, but one which would preserve some of the content. Quasi Montana (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC) — Quasi Montana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Redirecting to a nonexistent article is not likely to be acceptable to the admin that closes this AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, I'm kinda shocked the page hasn't been created yet. I don't know if they're afraid of the appearance of impropriety, think that the redirect is a "fallback option", or aren't as motivated anymore.Quasi Montana (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little mention in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would happily change my vote to redirect if there were a reliably sourced article on Snakehead Games. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question How much is enough? HumanThesaurus (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 1100 people is how many are active in the average 24 hours, not the total number of active players — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehorn (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect QuasiMontana's suggestion of setting SP as a subheading under a SHG page sounds reasonable, and support could be garnered from experts on the topic to help create the page if this were to be accepted as an option. Experts that could help edit the article could include game moderators, which are only volunteers, but all except two have been playing SHG games for more than 3 years. As QuasiMontana stated there are significant articles that can be used as references for SHG on the whole. (Captain Waffles) 173.145.247.35 (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have you previously voted in this discussion as an IP editor? If so, I believe the correct protocl would be to delete this and your above post and use ~~strikeout~~ over your previous Keep vote. you could copy this: *~~Keep~~ Redirect editing your comments after the vote however you like deleting the previous signature and resigning it. Also, refer to the talk page under your previous IP edits and reply on my talk page. I urge you again to sign up for an account, it only helps you to do so. As well, someone getting the SHG page up BEFORE the conclusion of this process would be advisable.Quasi Montana (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Redirecting to a nonexistent article is not likely to be acceptable to the admin that closes this AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Quasi Montana's concern has been addressed. 173.145.247.35 (talk · contribs) has changed their previous !vote added under 173.101.33.49 (talk · contribs). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect edited to change recommendation. I agree with Quasi Montana's recommendation. This topic would work best as a subheading under an SHG page. Andada79 (talk) 22:00 , 12 December 2011 — Andada79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: Redirecting to a nonexistent article is not likely to be acceptable to the admin that closes this AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can someone clarify the reasons this article is being suggested for deletion? As stated above, the initial nominee did not follow the process and they put forth vastly different reasons than those listed above.Druidelias (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer The original reasons dealt with a lack of resources, "promotional bias", and claimed that the article does not meet Notability Guidelines. No actual supporting evidence has been put forth on any of these topics except for a rebuke regarding an old review of the game posted in the talk section of the SP page. (Captain Waffles) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.101.33.49 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please read your IP's talk page, someone left information on how to sign your comments yourself...consider creating an account as well Quasi Montana (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Am I mistaken or is the originator of the deletion request an anonymous user with no other posts or contributions? If so, I ask for some verification of their qualifications for the statements made as they appear to be based upon prior experience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.102.55 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Redirect I agree Quasi Montana's suggestion of a SHG page is the logical solution for the reasons that Quasi has posted.

Previous CommentCriteria for speedy deletion indicate that it is to be used sparingly and in specific cases. "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." & "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." --> this should not be applied as there is a discussion here with mixed opinions here. Using speedy deletion is incorrect as it is not a foregone conclusion. "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below." furthermore "WP:BEFORE C.1.If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." --> The stub/promotional nature of article is evolving rapidly since Dec 9th. I would conclude that while the article needs to evolve, the article is not a Candidate for Speedy Deletion. Clearly at the very least this article does not fall under "the most obvious case" that cannot be "fixed through normal editing". StarBaby5— StarBaby5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - but this is not speedy deletion? This is AfD. "Speedy" criteria don't apply here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the comment. It's confusing as under the discussion area of the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Pirates, the initial nominiation by "88.217.109.248" was "Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star_Pirates Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7 and CSD G11) Reasons: No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)."

I am the game creator, (as I have tried to clearly state). I've edited articles under long forgotten logins, but this is the first deletion I've been involved in. I realise my opinion is not critical to decision making here, and even likely biased, but I'm confused why the initially rough article isn't given a chance to evolve. There are various guidelines indicating that's a prefered path "WP:BEFORE C.1.If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." & "before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." --> If it isn't a proper article then it shouldn't be live, but can you clarify why those guidelines wouldn't apply please? Thanks! StarBaby5 (talk

Note: Redirecting to a nonexistent article is not likely to be acceptable to the admin that closes this AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not promotional in any way that I can see it merely documents a game that many people play, with discussion about its mechanics and game back story. 1100 daily players of a game may not be considered very "Notable" but Ive seen articles on Wikipedia that might interest at most 10 people and are not considered for deletion. Just because an article on Wikipedia does not meet with your personal tastes is no reason to remove it. If this article is deleted then every single article bout any game even something like Call of Duty needs to be removed, fairplay is essential. MykeyFinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.161.161 (talk • contribs)
- No, Call of Duty is clearly notable and has the references to prove it. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reliable sources establishing notability, nor can I find any. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many reliable sources outlined in the External Links and the References Pages. Let's see, there is an interview from thespec.com (a local newspaper), EO gamer, Apollo Fireweaver, Comp Talks (Yes, a little outdated, but still a review), TGT Media, Best Browser Games of the Year website, and the Daily News from McMaster University.Shinobi1991 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of these are not, in fact, reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recess I think we need to sit out for a little while. I haven't seen anyone new since the start of this page, and both sides are very clearly biased. We have players, and ex players, along with an admin. An Objective opinion is needed, so I vote further discussion be with held until a fresh and unbiased viewpoint can add something to the discussion. The debate in this section has made little progress and hinges off the same points on both sides. (Captain Waffles) 173.101.33.49 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree HOWEVER, I don't know of anyone who has been identified as an ex-player, once again you are making assumptions without any evidence to back it up. I would ask that you refrain from making such assumptions, which amount to borderline personal attacks, in the future. There are already several "neutral", WikiPedia editors who have weighed in on the subject on the "Delete" side, and what amounts to outside influences recruited from the subject of the article nominated for deletion on the "Keep" side which will not reflect well on your argument to Keep.Quasi Montana (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do not attempt to slander me. I mentioned no names, and there is nothing in my remark that could be considered "Personal" by even the most stringent standards. As well, there is no "Meat Puppetry" here. Everyone in this discussion had been making edits or watching the updates on the Wikipedia page before this one was even made. We are the SP community and therefor the leading experts on the subject, many of us were not editors before the page was made but joined in to help improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.101.33.49 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1100 people is not noteable, even if these 1100 are very "active". (Enthusiasm does not increase numbers if I may say so) mmohut website seems to have a more solid view on this than the players. Neither does the claim mmohut would be outdated cut it. Looking at the revision history of said article I notice an explosion of edits in a very short time. Looking at the editors I can not help but get suspicious of Sockpuppeting. Therefore I raise the question of Sockpuppeting. There are a lot of newly registered wikipedia users, including an Admin of the game Star Pirates (see Discussion page of the article) as StarBaby5. I also notice that on this page (AfD:Star Pirates) that most delete votes come from longer time wikipedians who do not seem involved with this game while the keep votes seem to be from active players. Also, from a first hand try myself I have to make it clear that the 60000 number indicates the amount accounts in the game. It does not indicate how much use these accounts got. So someone at level 1, quitting after 1 minute and never coming back, those who are banned and retired are also included in that number. This does not increase the credibility of those promoting 60000 as a "not low player count" opposed to the 1100 number. (Incidentally I noticed players named Captain Waffles and Shinobi while there at Star Pirates). I think the original points for my nomination still stand. For example a link/reference to advertisment does not indicate notability, e.g. the paid Drive Comic post as referenced in the article. On the contrary, I think the external link to SpyBattle, another game run by Snakehead Games that is now included in the article strengthens the point that this article is motivated by marketing. I am the anonymous IP editor that nominated said article for removal. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.110.241 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for follow up posting 88. I think the community of SP was upset because you asked for Speedy Deletion while the page was a stub. When we ban trolls from StarPirates we often have those former players promising eternal revenge so the aura wasn't good. Now that the SP page has had a few days to germinate, it's not perfect, but if the long time editors are saying it's not Wiki quality then so be it. It's good to know, and I'm glad that they are spending the time to indicate why. It seems game review sites are not considered reliable sources (they are true domain experts although generally not in Google News or Scholar). The challenge is that if that's the case then interesting Indy games, no matter how popular, will never make it into Wikipedia because to get newspaper widespread newspaper coverage you have to sign a gaming distribution deal. Not always, but that's the general rule.

I haven't checked in a while, but I believe about half the players did actually play the game to level 3 or up. So I'm pretty comfortable with the 62,000 number. I have a lot of console games that I've never even opened the packaging.StarBaby5 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can confirm that there is no factual basis for any accusations of sockpuppetry, to the best of my knowledge all of the editors involved on the "Keep" side are individuals. A case could be made for what I would call Involuntary Meatpuppetry, as it is a fact that SP players were recruited to "Save the SP Wikipedia page", but the primary thrust of that effort has been, as is quite proper, the improvement of the article in question, and the initiator was not an SHG employee or functionary, but a player, so allegations that this was initiated by SHG and motivated purely by promotional considerations are also without merit. As to the quality of the article, I don't think it is relevant, and it isn't the main reason why the experienced editors are saying the article should be deleted. You could raise the quality of the article several orders of magnitude, Star Pirates notability wouldn't change, and it is the lack of notability that is informing their decisions. I can sympathize with your frustration that "Indy games" have an uphill battle when it comes to being included in WikiPedia, but WikiPedia is not a guide to interesting or popular Indy games, it is an encyclopedia. Having attempted to rebut some factually incorrect allegations made against you I would also ask that you grant me the same assumption of good faith and refrain from mischaracterizing my positon and actions in this matter, here and elsewhere. Quasi Montana (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are game magazines and well known games sites which could serve as RS for these kind of games (if they deem them worthy of a review). The big mass media sources hardly ever cover games, generally only when there is a "scare" surrounding them and they can get someone Jack Thompson to comment on it. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 14:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most game magazines and "well known games sites" don't focus or indeed cover the "Casual Browser Based MMORPG" genre, and many times their editorial practices are highly influenced by advertising revenues coming from the same companies whose products they review, they have no vested interest in covering a self-described "Indy" game. And outside of the most well known of games sites, its difficult to distinguish between a professional review site by those given the presumption of reliability, journalists...and what would be considered a self-published site, which is not considered "relaible". But yeah, its a sad fact that one of the best ways to gain "notability" would be to become involved or implicated in some tragedy or lawsuit.Quasi Montana (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well that's a sad state of affairs then (I already knew the media is increasingly being influenced by creeping commercialism). We should then be especially careful in using these magazines and sites as a source for articles about videogames and get as sources as possible to prevent advertising dollars from indirectly influencing Wikipedia content. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of off-wiki conduct/personal attacks are not acceptable for Articles for deletion.
Comment. '88' - You're also a multiaccounter and cheater. When you failed to harm Star Pirates from within and the admins banned you, next you jumped to Wikipedia as a vendetta. You should be more honest with your conflict of interest. Wikipedia should be above that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.102.55 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I didn't want to mention that as it seems overly personal and perhaps irrelevant, but yes, as the game creator I can confirm that's true. StarBaby5 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of off-wiki conduct/personal attacks are not acceptable for Articles for deletion.

Comment. '88' - You're also a multiaccounter and cheater. When you failed to harm Star Pirates from within and the admins banned you, next you jumped to Wikipedia as a vendetta. You should be more honest with your conflict of interest. Wikipedia should be above that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.102.55 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't want to mention that as it seems overly personal and perhaps irrelevant, but yes, as the game creator I can confirm that's true. StarBaby5 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have collapsed the above section. Please leave commentary about off-wiki conduct out of the Articles for Deletion. Such comments are not helpful to gaining a consensus at the Articles for Deletion. Please keep all discussions on the AfD focused on the game as it pertains to Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of off-wiki conduct/personal attacks are not acceptable for Articles for deletion.
Comment. This is again the anonymous IP editor that nominated said article for removal, maybe referred to as "88". I am a bit shocked about the reaction on my "delete section". Thank you Gogo Dodo for stepping in. Well, I could not restrain myself from reacting to this at all by writing these 2-3 sentences, but I can restrain myself to end it now. About these numbers and the belief that 30000 accounts are level 3 or higher and to be comfortable with that: From another first hand try I can tell that you need 2 clicks on a link in your browser (Asteroid Belt) to reach level 2 once you are through the introduction. From there you need 5 more clicks to reach level 3. This all can be done within 1 minute. A mere 8 clicks later you are level 4 and are presented the rules of the game. You are allowed to continue playing only if you click on agree there. So you can reach level 4 within 3 minutes. The number of players that did log on within the last 2 months (game criteria for being "active" player) seems to be in the low thousands. However I have to admit (I actually read the rules) that I am now a multiaccounter deserving a ban. I used the account named "wikidude", not to be confused with wikidude1000. About that "Involuntary Meatpuppetry": While I was there I read the thread "Save the SP Wikipedia page" and I feel obliged to give a short trip through it: It starts with a player calling for help "to prove ... "that we are awesome". Then game creator AdminArrBilly (here registered as StarBaby5) is "asking for A large grouping of edits from a lot of community members is the best way, I hope, to see this stay live." besides asking if anyone did post pictures or wants to do a write up and he is providing some links afterwards. Next are instructions to "Players: please ignore the troll "Quasi Reality Event" on Wikipedia. There is no point in responding to him." Finally there is some ranting about Wikipedia as "Wikipedia seems to have become rather byzantine with layers of confusing and potentially contradictory process." This trip is focused on admin post, but also reflects how the players contibuted to said forum thread. Please note that I did not ask for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.114.153 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] So after an admin requests for no commentary about off-wiki conduct, you proceed to go after the game's entry levels? How exactly is that following the guidelines? And for the record, your post on the talk page of Star Pirates begins "Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star_Pirates Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7 and CSD G11)," (linked here). So even though you didn't follow the guidelines properly, you did request that.--Druidelias (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of off-wiki conduct/personal attacks are not acceptable for Articles for deletion.

Comment. This is again the anonymous IP editor that nominated said article for removal, maybe referred to as "88". I am a bit shocked about the reaction on my "delete section". Thank you Gogo Dodo for stepping in. Well, I could not restrain myself from reacting to this at all by writing these 2-3 sentences, but I can restrain myself to end it now. About these numbers and the belief that 30000 accounts are level 3 or higher and to be comfortable with that: From another first hand try I can tell that you need 2 clicks on a link in your browser (Asteroid Belt) to reach level 2 once you are through the introduction. From there you need 5 more clicks to reach level 3. This all can be done within 1 minute. A mere 8 clicks later you are level 4 and are presented the rules of the game. You are allowed to continue playing only if you click on agree there. So you can reach level 4 within 3 minutes. The number of players that did log on within the last 2 months (game criteria for being "active" player) seems to be in the low thousands. However I have to admit (I actually read the rules) that I am now a multiaccounter deserving a ban. I used the account named "wikidude", not to be confused with wikidude1000. About that "Involuntary Meatpuppetry": While I was there I read the thread "Save the SP Wikipedia page" and I feel obliged to give a short trip through it: It starts with a player calling for help "to prove ... "that we are awesome". Then game creator AdminArrBilly (here registered as StarBaby5) is "asking for A large grouping of edits from a lot of community members is the best way, I hope, to see this stay live." besides asking if anyone did post pictures or wants to do a write up and he is providing some links afterwards. Next are instructions to "Players: please ignore the troll "Quasi Reality Event" on Wikipedia. There is no point in responding to him." Finally there is some ranting about Wikipedia as "Wikipedia seems to have become rather byzantine with layers of confusing and potentially contradictory process." This trip is focused on admin post, but also reflects how the players contibuted to said forum thread. Please note that I did not ask for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.114.153 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So after an admin requests for no commentary about off-wiki conduct, you proceed to go after the game's entry levels? How exactly is that following the guidelines? And for the record, your post on the talk page of Star Pirates begins "Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star_Pirates Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7 and CSD G11)," (linked here). So even though you didn't follow the guidelines properly, you did request that.--Druidelias (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I collapsed the above for the same reasons GoGo Dodo did with the previous comment. If this was an incorrect action, please reverse it, delete this comment. HumanThesaurus (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a long time Star Pirates player. While I love the game, I can't honestly say that I think it's notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article. Only a few of the current references in the article are independent; a large majority are to content created by Snakehead Games or by players. This says to me that while SP has a very active and motivated community (as I well know), it hasn't attracted much attention from the world outside its player base, and therefore probably is not sufficiently notable. Incidentally, I don't think there's any need to assume sockpuppeting, as the person above me suggests. As I said, the SP community is active and motivated, and the "Save the SP Wikipedia page" thread in the SP forums has over 70 responses. It's not hard to believe that a whole bunch of players have joined in to flesh out the article. I'm... just on the other side of the issue. I expect you can understand why I'm leaving this unsigned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.197.129 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. edit= Redirect I agree with Quasi Montana. Create the page and make a redirect.Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Redirecting to a nonexistent article is not likely to be acceptable to the admin that closes this AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The WP:Notability page's General notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It seems to me that WP does not merely cover items of international significance, but can and does carry notable pages that are mainly of interest to people located in a single metropolitan area. So, which part of the guideline is being questioned? Is this only about the significant coverage issue? I note that "significant coverage" does not set a minimum threshold for how much coverage exists or how widespread it is (though more is certainly better), but whether it is trivially mentioned or covered in some detail by reliable independent sources. Based on the coverage by the Hamilton Spectator and the McMaster University Daily News links referenced, doesn't this page at minimum meet the "significant coverage" standard in "reliable independent sources" for locals in the Greater Toronto area? (Disclosure: I am not unbiased, and am a Star Pirates player. I am flummoxed as to why this is up for deletion and not notable or of unclear notability, hence the questions. I'd "vote" to keep, but this is not a majority rules situation.) - HumanThesaurus (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See: WP:USEPRIMARY section: Secondary Sources for Notability, specifically, as the subject of both articles is SHG and the Ferguson Brothers, and Star Pirates itself is mentioned briefly in each: However topics that are only covered briefly...in...secondary sources may not meet the general notability guideline. I believe both articles would support the notability of Snakehead Games and have changed my vote to reflect the option of redirecting the Star Pirates article to a subsection of a Snakehead Games page, not currently extant. Other current subsections of the current Star Pirates article could easily be included as subsections of the Snakehead Games page, for example the StarCrash Universe, Spy Battle, SHG's partnerships with Webcomic creators, however avoiding the appearance of impropriety will dictate a not insignificant amount of pruning. I encourage you and other parties interested in maintaining Star Pirates on Wikipedia in joining in what I believe is the best and most appropriate possible consensus given the current guidelines referenced above.Quasi Montana (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find sources to justify notability, and it appears some of the references in the article do not support the statements being made. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Clovis, can you elabourate what references you're refering to? Thanks!

Comment 'The game was launched April 24th, 2008 and has had over 60,000 players' is not in the reference cited. Also regarding a redirect, Snakeshead games does not appear to have the broad coverage that would enable it to meet notability criteria. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The exact newspaper quote in the reference pointed to is: "Snakehead Games Inc....attracted more than 100,000 gamers". Please re-read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.102.55 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point exactly - There is nothing in the article about Star Pirates and 60 000 gamers at all. Snakeshead games are not the same as Star Pirates. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The game of Star Pirates is more than a stand-along online game. It has close, strong and personal ties with several webcomics and their communities in ways rarely seen with online games. Both parties has one several occasions evolved a symbiotic relationship. LPHogan (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The game has ties to web comic in so far as these were/are used as marketing channel. Neither is a link (e.g. the link to Legostar Galactica) to such a promotion page a valid reference nor does it increase notability. As success of such a marketing channel there is a increased number of players who also read said comic, but again this does not provide notability nor a reference. If you sponsor a site for 1 month, then it is exactly that: Sponsoring. Analogous appliance if a comic is specifically created for a Star Pirates Advertisement. While talking about references I noticed that the unreferenced tag was removed from said article, which strikes me as unjustified. There are identic "references", "references" that are deep links into other "references", "references" to other (even less notable) products of Snakehead Games, etc. All in all, if you click through these reference little remains, mostly the aforementioned local newspaper article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.114.153 (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC) 88.217.114.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Allegations of off-wiki conduct/personal attacks are not acceptable for Articles for deletion.
Comment The newspaper in question is notable enough to be within Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hamilton_Spectator. As you're aware from your time playing Star Pirates before your ban, Fleets and organizations within game aligned to webcomics are quite vibrant in-game. Dismissing as mere sponsoring is somewhat misinformed. Your comment may be irrelevant as it appears focussed outside of Wikipedia (I remind you of the two prior requests to remain focussed within, not off-wiki conduct). Let's keep this within those bounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.102.55 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of off-wiki conduct/personal attacks are not acceptable for Articles for deletion.

Comment The newspaper in question is notable enough to be within Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hamilton_Spectator. As you're aware from your time playing Star Pirates before your ban, Fleets and organizations within game aligned to webcomics are quite vibrant in-game. Dismissing as mere sponsoring is somewhat misinformed. Your comment may be irrelevant as it appears focussed outside of Wikipedia (I remind you of the two prior requests to remain focussed within, not off-wiki conduct). Let's keep this within those bounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.102.55 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Allegations of off-wiki conduct remain inappropriate and the case for user "88"'s Conflict of Interest has been covered, alluding to it in a sidewise manner diminishes what might be a relevant comment. Its also pretty hypocritical, considering the balance of the comment. Quasi Montana (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 15:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AppLabs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Indian software company of no clear notability. Tagged for notability for over two years, an inconclusive AfD a year ago. No refs, 4 ELs, two of which are clear SPS, two are advertorial interviews in trade magazines. This company exists, but so do a great many other non-encyclopedic companies. This article might be adequate for a business directory, but it is far from being appropriate, in either quality or sourcing, for an encyclopedia.

There are two related articles on the founder and president Sashi Reddi & Makarand Teje. I would consider these for AfD too. Makarand Teje was already converted to a redir by the previous AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The company is a leader in the software testing industry but the article needs additional details and in-line citations to help establish this notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are they "leaders"? Technically they're way behind good practice and are still heavily dependent upon the "infinite number of monkeys" method of lots of manual typing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources appear to be those reprinting press releases announcing the company had been bought by CSC and some very minor mentions. It takes more than this kind of routine coverage to meet WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 15:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gartner (racing)[edit]

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

WP:Notability. Gartner's achievements are well below threshholds established for notability and by WP:Athlete. Falcadore (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. If he makes it to V8 Supercar, he'll have a notability case, but not now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Based on the article creator's comments -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holopedia[edit]

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

This article simply promotes someone's patented idea for a software environment. Searching Google yields only 13 results, all of them trivial. Fails WP:GNG. andy (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following article, which is pretty much a duplicate:

andy (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I examined the google search results. This seems to be one of those inventions that has potential to one day be notable but isn't notable yet. Claret Ash 11:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE But wait, I specifically started the other article (for "GHCAM") so that the information could be put in its proper place, to be filed under the category of electronic file formats, and in keeping with the guidelines. (and under the presumption that the first article (for "Holopedia") might or might not be kept.) But it is a separate page, and it should be considered separately, and discussed and decided upon separately. Here I see the two are bundled together for deletion... I am new here, so I do not totally understand your protocols, forgive me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The relevant guidelines are to do with notability, specifically WP:GNG. In a nutshell, almost nobody has heard of your idea and there are no reliable sources that discuss it (see WP:RS for a definition). It really doesn't matter how many articles are involved - they're all about the same thing and that thing does not meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Sorry. andy (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION So then the final question is "Does a published patent count as a reliable and noteworthy source? Why or why not?" This is an important question. What is the difference between a patent and a peer-reviewed journal article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yes, I believe a patent can count as a reliable source when discussing the subject that was patented. However, it does not count to establish notability because it describes but does not discuss. In other words, the difference is that, to be patented, an invention merely needs to exist but, to be written about in a peer reviewed journal, it needs to be worth writing about and, more importantly, worth reading about. If no one is talking about it outside of Wikipedia then how can an encyclopedia entry be justified? Claret Ash 16:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FINALE OK, fair enough... You should add that to your policy pages. And naturally, the reason it is not famous is that it has been held as a trade secret until the patents were published, at least provisionally. In the end, I realize it would be foolish to make a page, because then we would just have to police it for vandalism. Good Luck to you all, and thank you for your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A QUOTE FROM THE GUIDELINES In looking through your guidelines more deeply, I have found the answer... "I'd like to point out that non-notable programming language pages should not be simply deleted, but the contents, or at least a summary, should be moved to an appropriate list. I know this is probably done anyway, but it might be appropriate to mention it somewhere in this list. MagiMaster (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)" So I should simply add a line to the list of file formats, right? --The real indy (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)— The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

FOR THE FUTURE How many journal articles or magazine articles are usually required for inclusion as a stand-alone article? What about awards for excellence in educational programming from institutions? How many awards would be required? We are confident that we will win more than several within a few years. --The real indy (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)— The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

ADDENDUM According to Google, Wikipedia functions as the most popular 'laundry list' of file formats. Programmers and users need to refer to it to find a file format, or to know if an extension is currently in use. There are well over a thousand of them, notable and non-notable alike, and only about the most popular five percent or so have pages unto themselves. So, the guidelines I quoted above make perfect sense... I should simply add a single line of text to the existing pages for "List of File Formats" and "List of File Formats (alphabetical)", correct? --The real indy (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)— The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Just as a note, be aware that WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good argument for keeping or including any mention of an article. Whether or not Holopedia merits a mention or not, stating that WP:ITEXISTS and that it'd be useful for X amount of programmers does not show that it's notable. There's been a lot of useful entries that didn't meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Not for or against this page being on here, just letting you know (since you're new) that these arguments do not count towards Holopedia's inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, while you didn't quite mention this I thought I'd also mention that google hits do not count as proof of notability (WP:GHITS. The only way to ensure that Holopedia remains on Wikipedia is to find reliable sources per WP:RS that show how this software is notable. Like ClaretAsh said, a reliable source would be a news article or journal entry from a notable source that talks about the software. Blog entries (unless by a notable persona or company), brief mentions, or anything put out by the software creator and anyone closely related to him (agent, family, friends, etc) would not count as a reliable source. Promotional materials also do not count as reliable sources. Hope this helps clarify some things for you!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
As far as awards go, all it takes is one notable (read major) award. For example, if I wrote a program and it won several small and non-notable awards it wouldn't be considered notable enough to pass notability guidelines. Winning one major award would give you notability regardless of whether or not you had any articles written about the software. As far as reliable sources go, it's generally considered that you should have at least 3-5 reliable sources, although sometimes you can squeak by with less if the sources are big and reliable enough. (Like for instance if PC Magazine did an article on the software and nothing else, that would help immensely.) It's pretty much assumed that if something is notable it will be covered in multiple reliable sources. The problem with only having one source is that if nothing more is added, concerns can be raised that the product isn't notable, so that's why I say that generally you need at least 3-5. The big problem with saying that your software will eventually get more notice and awards is that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTALBALL). We can't keep a page up on the hopes that the software will one day become notable. Also, a big problem with just listing the software on one of the pre-existing pages is that you still have to show at least some notability through at least one reliable source. I know it's hard for any program or software to accomplish this since it's not as eye-grabbing a topic as a book or latest celebutart, but it's still necessary. What I might recommend is that if this gets deleted, you should look into seeing if you can userfy (WP:USERFY) the articles until/if the day comes when they meet notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Response, Clarification, Summary Hi TokyoGirl, and thank you for the long and thoughtful response... but I think you are misinterpreting a few things.

The original issue was whether published patent documents from the UN-WIPO or international government offices should be counted as RS.
The reason there are no Google hits or articles on this is intentional. It has been tightly kept as a trade secret until now.
I submitted this page as discussing a file format, and not about the program, nor as a company, or about the future.
We are talking about placing GHCAM as a one-line-entry on the existing page for "List of file formats (alphabetical)", e.g.
In the end, the guidelines say clearly that "non-notable programming language pages should not be simply deleted, but the contents, or at least a summary, should be moved to an appropriate list. I know this is probably done anyway, but it might be appropriate to mention it somewhere in this list. MagiMaster (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)".

Hope this clarifies! =) --The real indy (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Just to re-emphasize, these guidelines are about the handling of "NON-NOTABLE programming language pages"!

And thank you for all the info! 07:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs)

Comment. I'm afraid you're mistaken. You're quoting someone's opinion from a talk pages, and anyway it's about languages not formats. FYI the main page says "Programming languages are usually kept if widely used." You've told us that your file format is not widely used. andy (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hmm, no, I believe I got it from one of the "Help" pages, which are posted in the form of helpful opinions, which I assumed had some authority. It is not from a "Talk" page. OK, So that brings us back to the general policy on patents. ClaretAsh's opinion is very interesting, but then it is just one opinion, as you say, and there is a gray area here. Wikipedia needs to decide if a patent is considered to be a reliable source for notability. If there is a clear policy, then cite it. If there is not a clear policy, then the Wikipedia Community needs to create one, post it, and stick to it! --The real indy (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of lawyering really doesn't help. As a matter of undeniable fact, however, this was on a talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Non-notable_Programming_Languages and it is not relevant to your article or to your file format. andy (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are debating a relevant issue with regard to a specific class of sources, not "lawyering". Also GHCAM is a language with a syntax unto itself, so this comment, wherever it originated from, and although I could not find again it when I searched for it on your site, is still a perfectly relevant comment to the discussion. --The real indy (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for sourcing that quote properly for me. Much appreciated. --The real indy (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure of the authority level of the statement, so I simply referred to it as "the guidelines/these guidelines". At the Patent Office, "The Law" is the highest and most formal level of authority, "Statutes" are the next level of authority, the "rules" are next, and then "procedures" and "guidelines" refer to most informal but still standardized level of protocol. I am sorry if I am not familiar with Wikipedia lingo yet. --The real indy (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can a patent be considered a reliable source for notability? The short answer is no, patents cannot be considered acceptable. Admittedly, that may just be my opinion but it is based on the general notability guideline which clearly states that, to satisfy inclusion criteria, a topic should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A patent is not independent of the subject, therefore it shouldn't be counted. And this isn't to mention that a single patent, or even a few, can hardly be considered significant coverage. Claret Ash 10:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the procedures governments use for judging a patent? In order to reach the examination and publication phase, a patent must be judged by one or more government agencies to be an innovative contribution to a technology or an industry. They are judged on their contributions, innovations, and merits extremely strictly by experts in the field. All applications are compared to similar documents submitted by experts in the field from every nation on earth, in up to eight or twelve languages, in a process that takes a minimum of two whole years. It is a peer-review process that is more strict and more demanding than any academic peer-reviewed journal or an industry-specific journal ever requires. Therefore, there is a perfect argument to say that patents are akin to a peer-reviewed journal or an industry-specific journal, and should be treated as such as sources. Also, specifically, we are talking about five patents published in eight languages in 48 nations (counting every nation that works with the EU and the European Patent Office individually). I hope that answers your challenges. --The real indy (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, we see in Wikipedia:Notability (books) that a book is considered to be notable and worthy of an article page unto itself if it meets just one of the five stated criteria. Criterion number three states that "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." In that sense, the subject of a published patent should considered notable and worthy of an article page if it has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant innovative contribution to a technology or an industry. --The real indy (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andy, et al. OK, Yes, after reconsidering, I think you are right. You can go ahead and remove the pages for "Holopedia" and "GHCAM" immediately. I have copied the text, so you can go ahead and remove and delete both pages entirely... Thank you! I will check back in about 24 hours or so to verify that they have been deleted, Thanks again! =) --The real indy (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 15:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weather of Armenia[edit]

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

We do not have this kind of articles for other small countries. Most "climate of.." type articles redirect to the geography section in the article about the country. This article can be deleted and redirect to Armenia#Climate MakeSense64 (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I dunno - we have Weather of Olympia, Washington which is a heckuva lot smaller and less significant than an independent state. I don't have a problem with an article on a country's weather, although individual cities (even state capitals) seems a bit much. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few "weather in.." articles. The better name is "climate of..". There are only 44 such articles in this category: Category:Climate by city. I think they are unnecessary content forks. Pages like Climate of Sweden, Climate of the Netherlands and Climate in London all redirect to the main article about the country or city. Then why do we need standalone articles like Climate of Nawabshah and Weather of Armenia? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "climate of.." is better than "weather in..". Note that Category:Climate by country is well populated. As for the Climate of Nawabshah article, while I agree that the climate of a city is pushing the boundaries, but if it is a notable topic and can be referenced and can justify a stand-alone article then that is acceptable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what we consider "well populated". I see some 50 countries in that category. But there are about 200 countries in the world. So this implies that 150 countries do not have standalone "Climate of ..." articles. I think a standalone climate article makes sense in some cases, e.g. where a country stretches through many different climate zones. Russia is a good example. But for places like Holland, there is only one climate zone, so it easily fits in the article about the country. While Armenia has a few climate zones, the Armenia article is not that big that it needs to split off a climate article.

For the "Climate by city" articles I intend to look which ones can be merged into the main city article. I do not think there are (m)any keepers there, since even Climate of London redirects to London. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but redirect to Climate of Armenia (itself a redir) and rewrite to improve the tone. "Weather of Armenia" is a valid search string, and the climate rather than weather for a country is a notable topic. Have a look at the contents of Category:Climate by country - it is well populated. Note to nominator: not having equivalent articles is not a reason for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but not having equivalent articles is also not a reason to keep. And maintaining some consistency throughout an encyclopedia is also useful. So we now find the weather/climate of Armenia in three different places: Geography_of_Armenia#Climate , Armenia#Climate and Weather of Armenia. Doesn't that mean we can delete the latter one, especially since it is poorly sourced, and as you point out: it is "climate" that is the more notable topic? MakeSense64 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the need for consistency. Once this article is moved to Climate of Armenia both Armenia#Climate and Geography_of_Armenia#Climate will have a ((Main)) template followed by a summary. That is how is done everywhere elese in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should also delete Weather of Olympia, Washington. It seems rather pointless and chocka-block full of trivia & niché statistics. E.g: who on Earth cares whether January 1 is or isn't the "Statistical coldest day of the year" in Olympia?--Coin945 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will put it up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 15:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rhodes Project[edit]

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

Non notable English and Welsh charity, Fails WP:GNG Mt king ^(edits) 09:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm stopping short of delete, because although the coverage in third-party sources is minimal (the only one of any standing is the Huffington Post), the project does seem to operate on a substantial financial scale, providing scholarships to about 1,00 women worldwide. However, the phrase "which aims to advance the public acceptance of the notion of female success" is questionable. As the project's own website doesn't state that as an aim, this is unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have clarified my language in the aforementioned sentence, which reflects work shown on the project's website and blog. I do think, however, that because this is the first study of its kind, and the only one to pay any serious attention to this group of women, who symbolize the accomplishments of second wave feminism on an international scale, the Rhodes Project is notable and deserves an entry. Bootslewis (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sufficient references and association with notable people kind of make this article pass WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable charity. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage in third-party sources to pass the notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Joke Book[edit]

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

Article about short film that does not demonstrate how the film is notable. The three references supplied are not independent, published sources. Simply being shown at two local film festivals does not meet WIkipedia's notability standards. Prod was contested on the grounds that the stills demonstrated notability, which they do not, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources in searches. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Article appears to have been improved since nomination and meets notability guidelines. Some discussion on merging has taken place but a merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. v/r - T P 15:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water retention on mathematical surfaces[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The topic is one problem from a programming contest. The contest itself seems non-notable (the website is down so difficult to be sure), and one problem certainly is. No reliable sources, just unreviewed papers and unreliable web sites. COI issues the page by a contest participant and an author of one of the sources. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author replies: The article was posted in a very preliminary state - much is being added to it, but to gain input from colleagues interested in it, I am posting it as I go. Evidently Al Zimmerman's webpage went down and he has not time to get it back up. But in the computational community, it is considered to be one of the top programming competitions, and is discussed in numerous places on the web, a few of which are cited here. Of course, magic squares are among the most studied objects in the area of recreational mathematics, and there is a Wikipedia page devoted to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rziff (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article essentially rests on a single source, a competition, with two primary sources of mathematical research on water retention models (not on magic squares). This is a typical pattern of sourcing for Original Research (WP:OR). There is interest here for a mathematical column in New Scientist or Scientific American, perhaps, but not for Wikipedia, at least not until the topic is reviewed in "reliable, independent" secondary sources. Fails Notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chiswick Chap. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This doesn't seem like a non-notable problem, but more sources should be cited. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The question is certainly interesting and it would be a pity to lose it on a strict construction of notability. Something needs to be done about the title, though; I've never heard of water pooling on an abstract object before. --Trovatore (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Water retention on magic squares is one among millions of combinatorial problems which may be considered. In this case, it seems that the provided solutions involve only brute force and, may be, clever programming. Thus there is nothing to put this problem among the notable problems. On the other hand, water retention on random surfaces is a part or an extension of Percolation theory. As water retention theory seems not well established (no true application, not really a new theory), it deserves, at most, a mention of a few lines in Percolation theory and a redirect to this mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs)
Weak Delete:The magic square problem is basically an exercise in computer programming and this is reflected in the nature of the sources given. The material on random surfaces may have a bit more traction though. Mandelbrot talks about the boundaries of watersheds (very briefly) in his book and there seems to be sporadic research interest in the subject since then; the Fehr article is an example of this. I don't think Arxiv.org should be regarded as reliable, not only is the material unreviewed but it seems to be a haven for amateurs wanting to self-publish. That leaves the Tetzlaff paper but it only seems to be used to support a more or less self-evident statement on the nature of hydrology, so it may be a reliable source but it I don't see how it supports notability of the subject. When all the unreliable and unencyclopedic material is removed there is only a sentence or two of material from a primary source remaining, not enough to justify an article. I'd suggest, if there is someone with some expertise in area, creation of a 'Mathematical modelling' section in the Drainage basin article as an alternative.--RDBury (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Watershed (image processing). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
??? Relationship? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? They're both about the same problem, computing watersheds on discretized elevation data. In the case of the present article the elevation data is synthetic but so what? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet notability guidelines. The article isn't in great shape but it's new; give it some time to develop. This isn't the first time I've seen these problems. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now at least). I agree with Michael Hardy, Trovatore, and CRGreathouse. This problem is notable (although more work is needed on both sourcing and writing). Some kind of merge with the article Watershed (image processing) seems possible, but that would require generalizing the subject of that article I think. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note about sourcing -- Ref. 12 has been accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters, so that should address the notability questions. Rziff (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge per David Eppstein. Both deal only with discrete surfaces. There should be results on smooth surfaces. Maybe the article title should reflect the fact that this is only about the discrete case. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article as it stands concerns a discrete surface, though the heights can be continuous. However, the basic water retention question can be asked for a continuous surface as well. I will clarity that in the article. Rziff (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article has been improved since it was nominated, and there seem to be enough sources to establish notability. But it seems to be substantially the same subject as Watershed (image processing). Jowa fan (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some relations to the Watershed (image processing) page but I don't think results on magic squares, percolation, watershed fractals, etc. would fit in there. I have added a link to that page, as the algorithm that is used is similar to one that is discussed there. I (and perhaps others) are planning to make this page substantially longer which would also argue against merging. Rziff (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International Cadet Australian Championship. v/r - T P 15:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50th Redlands International Cadet Australian Championship[edit]

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

Per issues raised on talk page, this is relating to a single possibly non-notable event and is of trivial interest only to involved people. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the articles creator of this article aswell as a competitor and state representative to the 50th Redlands International Cadet Australian Championship which the article refurs to. To adress your initial concrens brought up on hte talk page. This is not a school event. This is an indipendant events organised by an indipendant body. Redlands is one school out of many in this huge national event. The only reason their name is in the title is because they payed a whole heep of money to be the major sponseer, as seen in previous years, and as seen in many major sporting events these days. Now on to notability. It, if you have not been to a cadet nationals and have not seen the scale of the event, is very easy to discount it as unnotable. But I assure you it is anything but. Each year the cadet nationals has somwere from 60 - 100 boats, each with 2 crew members, competing and over 500 people involved with the event. For sailing events in Australia this is comparably large and means the event is economicaly significant. Each year both minor and mayor sponsors have got on board with the natinals, each paying a considrable amount of money to do so. The major sponsors at the last 4 nationals have been Redlands, Ronstan, Air Warfare Destroyer Aliance and Cabcharge. But it is not only the sponsors who see the economic significance of the event. Each year local councils pay huge amounts of money in an effort to be able to host the event. After the Port Lincoln Council bidded for the 2008 - 2009 nationals and were sucesfull all rental acomidation was fully booked in the entire city, all charter boats were filled to watch the event and torist sites such as tunna fishing sites and oyster farms got a huge boost in revenue. When a new national champion is crowned they are often quick to get sponsered by a major company, as seen after the recant Melbourne nationals. As you can see the event has econimic significance but it also takes a high priority in the lives of those involved. Competitors will train for six months a year with the primary goal of improving their result at nationals. This can often be in the form of up to 5 training sessions a week with very high quality coaches. The nationals are also seen as inportant by all the hard work and dedication that is put into organising the event. An organising commitee is set up two years prior to the event and the location of the event is often finalised soon after this. Fully paid international judges, race marshals, ambulances, saftey boats, measures, guest speakers, registration officers, caterers and beach marshals all have to be organised. Much dialog goes on between the organising comitee and local authority. The nationals also has importance as it is a qualifier to other events. Each year the top 7 boats are sent to the world championships in places such as Poland, Argantina and Spain. This means this domestic event has big reprocusions on the international stage. The event is also significant as it is a national championship with boats from all across Australia. This means that sailors make the effort to drive across the nation and that the national authority, Yachting Australia, reconises the event. Seeing that the event has been going on for 50 years it means that this event has history and is not just a one off get together. I therefore think that this article is notable as the International Cadet Australian Championship has strong demoghrphic and economic credentials, is placed at a high priority in competitors lives, is organised with a high leval of effort, is a qualifier to international events, is a national leval event and has a long history. N.B. This is my first article and I thought Wikipedia had a "Do not bight the newbies" policy. Sorry for my spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris.obrien (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Tris.obrien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am going to compete in the nationals and I am from NSW. This is a good article. It doesn't just affect a small community. It creates a way to watch young sailors have fun, and do there best, and be a good presentation as they move to higher levels in there sailing life. And by the way, this is not an event just for one school, it is not just for Redlands, it is for all of Australia. Redlands is simply this years major sponsor. They are hardly noted in the article except for in the title were, like in other sporting articles in Wikipedia, a clear precedent has been set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossige (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Ossige (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am also a compettitor for the Australian cadet nationals and agree with the creator that this is a national if not, global event and envolves hundreds of competitors each year. It has signifigent relevence on me and my team and I dont think that this would be an understatement if I said it changed lives. I strongly beleive that it deserves its own wikipidia page since it dose envolve so many people a year and is a majour sailing event. Its not just a school thing, its all of Austrlaia, the schools just the people sponsering it this year and it would really be a waste of time, effort and spirit to close this site. Phenellaphant out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenellaphant:) (talk • contribs) — Phenellaphant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Leaving aside apparent issues of WP:COI, I'm a bit concerned about possible sock/meatpuppetry indicated by the recent registrations of the above two users and the fact that their only contribution thus far has been to vote here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is true that these are newly registered users. These are people who personaly cantacted me telling me of how much they liked my new wikipedia article and when I told them it might be deleated they were outraged and demanded to take action at somthing which will help so many. The reason you put this page up for deletion is because you said it was exclusive to the school, which has been totaly disproven. Apart from your remarks at user validility you have no substance. Please tell me why this, in your view, must be deleated, sugest another course of action or please just stop bullying the newby.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris.obrien (talk • contribs) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply that it related to the school was one of the reasons, and was in fact the more minor reason against the fact that it seems to be in breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTNEWS because WP:WPSCH/AG are just guidelines. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, uncategorized and just not sufficiently notable. Appreciate marshalling one's mates to turn up and vote against the AfD for their single edit on Wikipedia shows endeavour, but it doesn't imbue the subject with notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You say this is unsourced but the article has sourses. You say not notable but I have shown why it is notable. If it is still not please provide your examples. Because I'm new to wikipedia I don't no what uncatigorised means. Insted of telling me to delete the article I worked so hard on please tell me how to improve my article, provide examples of your points or sugest another course of action. Please do not have a go at users who were conserned about a good article, which could be used by them and their freinds, being deleated..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris.obrien (talk • contribs) 09:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply if you genuinely feel that this subject is notable, then WP:USERFY the article, work on it as a draft in your own userspace and then get more experienced editors to review it for you. If you need help with this process, I'd be happy to do it for you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New users, welcome.
This is a deletion discussion - it is not a vote.
Please note that the only really important thing here is, "Is there significant coverage in independent reliable sources" That means, coverage in e.g. newspapers writing about the event, or a trusted, respectable news website.

By "significant" coverage, we mean actual details about the thing. The current references do not show that. And that is why it is in danger of deletion.
Because this event is in the future, I doubt that there is enough coverage out there; possibly after it has happened, it might appear in some newspapers. But certainly, this Google News search indicates it is not, at this time, "notable".
Also, please note that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to display the results of the event, unless the results are published in a reliable source.

It would be helpful if you could read some of our guidelines; the General notability guideline; What Wikipedia is not. Chzz ► 12:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be possible, perhaps, to write an article about the "International Cadet Class Australian Championship" (or whatever it is called) in general, rather than this one single event; I'm seeing at least some coverage, [43] [44] [45] though of course it is about previous events. And one of the references used [46] is about the previous event, apparently. If there were an article about the actual annual event, then it would probably be fine to just mention the date of the forthcoming event. However, it is unlikley to be appropriate to add the results 'as they happen' - that isn't what Wikipedia is for. Chzz ► 13:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I think the article should be userfied so that User:Tris.obrien can improve it, and write in those results s/he wants. Shouldn't be a problem to find someone to review it, then move it back to mainspace. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no significant or extended coverage, only some minor mentions sailing mags and local papers and much of the sailing mag stuff is event listing. Even the links provided by Chzz are "15-seconds-of-fame" stuff. I'm not much of a believer in the philosophy that everything there has ever been a minor newspaper article about should be listed in Wikipedia - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable things, and this does not appear notable. A single paragraph at Cadet (dinghy) (which has a little mention of the world championships for this class) would be more than this event warrants. --ClubOranje^T 19:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. fails WP:SPORTSEVENT not to mention WP:CRYSTAL concerns. also too many single purpose votes for my liking. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You say it fails the sports event test but I quote from the article you refur to, "A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable. A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable." This is a national championship at the top leval. It qualifies into the world championships. As for crystal ball this is not the case as this event starts in less than two weeks time. I can assure you that this event has been planned now for over two years and volenteers right at this moment are setting up the sailing club to host this huge amount of people.

a simple gnews search will reveal zero coverage [47], thus failing WP:GNG, not to mention WP:COI concerns here. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the background section to Cadet (dinghy)#Events. I agree that the event isn't notable enough for an article alone, but there's useful material that Tristan has written that could be moved into our article on the Cadet class. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. It looks like a better merge target has been found and acted upon: International Cadet Australian Championship. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to International Cadet Australian Championship. After discussions with the initial author, I've created the new article and done a (possibly temporary) merge of the contents. If the article is kept, then I'll happily change that to a hatnote for the section to the main article, otherwise I think the content would be better residing in International Cadet Australian Championship. The event itself is notable - almost by definition, a national championship that has been running for 50 years is likely to pass the GNG, and I think I found enough to establish the new article. Whether or not the 50th event is able to garner enough attention to warrant a separate article is something that we won't know until after it occurs, but if that's the case it can be spun out again in a month or so, or left in the new article if sufficient coverage doesn't eventuate. - Bilby (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great idea. I would be good to keep the page about general cadet championships but then, if enougph intrest is generated, move to having an individual page.Tris.obrien (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby True[edit]

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

found at BLP Prod, but has references of sorts. Although not my usual field, does not seem to meet the standards for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not my field either (and I wouldn't admit it if it was), but not seeing sufficient notability claimed or assertable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramaksoud2000 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor subsequent research presented on the subject demonstrate that she is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable (poor references). --Greenmaven (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singaravelan (2011 film)[edit]

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

This project dropped and 'Hero' started instead by Diphan and Prithviraj.
Anish Viswa 04:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Not quite WP:CRYSTAL but you know what I mean - aborted film project that probably should never have had an article even prior to being aborted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - --...Captain......Tälk tö me... 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Play Station 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Play Station 4

Articles for deletion/PS 4

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Likely a hoax. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is a hoax. The picture is one of the many fan made concepts around the internet. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 06:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia Is Not A Crystal Ball. JIP | Talk 06:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3 - a blatant and obvious hoax. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Hoax. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 14:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amma Manas Nanma Manas[edit]

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

the project was dropped
Anish Viswa 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Not quite WP:CRYSTAL but you know what I mean - aborted film project that probably should never have had an article even prior to being aborted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not provide and I cannot find evidence that this film project is or ever was notable. Mentions are mostly directories, social media, and a little bit of blog notice. Searches under article's original title, Ammamanassu Nanmamanassu, did not help, either. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 14:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Sri Lankan kingdoms and Capitals[edit]

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

Not really needed. Blackknight12 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly a worthwhile list, but much of the table is misformatted and I don't understnad why some of the kingdoms have decimal numbers. (Not to mention that contemporary Sri Lanka is on this list, but it's not a kingdom.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I created this a very long time ago and looking back at it, its not really that important. Ive created the Template:Sri Lankan former states, which does what this article does but much better, so it is pretty much obsolete, and I dont think this article gets that much attention anyway.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blacknight12. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Sakellis[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE, player for an amateur league whose team and league don't have Wikipedia articles Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. His league is not listed at WP:FPL. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May become notable in the future. For now the article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FOOTY. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: shouldn't it just have been speedied as A7 - no credible assertion of significance? PamD 08:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE to Sentence (linguistics). TigerShark (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence length (linguistics)[edit]

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

PROD was placed on the page after a previous PROD had been disputed. The original PROD rationale was, "Article is on one facet of linguistics and should be merged into that article." Disputing editor noted, "let it develop. Separate facets of major subjects get separate articles." The second PROD rationale was, "Unencyclopedic assemblage of Google hits, not an asset to the encyclopedia." Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gather this is a technical nomination by Cnilep upon encountering the second prod. The first delete reason was given by ScottyBerg (and I removed it) the second by PamD; I see Cnilep notified both of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DGG. That is just what I had in mind. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion. The first deletion reason given was and said it was actually an argument for merge, not deletion. They second is not the case: there is a forum post on a professional forum, two tweets in response to it -- which taken together are by themselves very dubious in proving notability , and 2 good articles in peer-reviewed professional journals, which are not at all dubious, or random. By random must have been meant, the contributor looked for sources and found some on the internet. That's a first step, to be continued in professional indexes and books. But random to me means taking items where the word occurs, but nothing substantial is actually said about the subject--a chronic method of doing bad referencing here and elsewhere. In this case, however, all of the items are directly on the specific subject of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sentence (linguistics), which already has two External Links about length and could perhaps benefit from a section entitled "Sentence length". PamD 07:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, I should probably have checked the history and spotted the previous PROD before I PRODded this stub. But I came by it to stub-sort it and had already (a) moved it to a correctly formatted title (lower case "l" in the disambiguator), (b) observed that the creating editor had not provided any link from Sentence length, which at that time redirected to Deterrence (legal), and (c) lost heart over the general sloppiness, absence of any wikilinks, etc, which characterised this editor's work at the time this stub was created. That lot may have coloured my judgement. I created a slightly WP:IAR-ish dab page at Sentence length to replace the redirect: if this article survives AfD then it needs to be linked from that dab page. (And it also needs links to and from Sentence (linguistics) if my merge suggestion, above, is not taken up.) PamD 08:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - whatever the procedural history, this article has two kinds of citation: a) non-notable (forum, twitter); b) primary sources. That makes this non-notable Original Research (WP:OR). However the material could form a brief paragraph in Sentence (linguistics) where it belongs; perhaps one day secondary sources will emerge to increase its notability, but at the moment it falls well below threshold. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The non-forum/twitter sources are certainly not primary. Primary sources for this subject would be corpora of actual sentences of various lengths. Articles in peer-reviewed journals are the very best kind of secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per PamD. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything verifiable and non-original to Sentence (linguistics). Angr (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvageable to Sentence (linguistics). ScottyBerg (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are definitely out there, and although the actual maths behind it all is a bit confusing to understand, I have made an effort to add other sorts of information from a variety of sources to help show the scope of what information is out there.--Coin945 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sentence (linguistics). The target article is relatively short, and would be helped by having any relevant material from this one made into a section there. Readers would be much better served at this point with one comprehensive article. When that article gets too long (WP:Article length), a WP:Summary style article(s) could be split off. It might also attract the attention of people who know the subject enough to make this content readable and relevant. First Light (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm just not convinced that this is the right path to take. Once two concepts are joined together, I wonder if they ever really do split apart again. Granted in this case it's not two similar but different concepts stuffed into the same page, but can you provide a few examples of where this course of action has worked successfully? I just have doubts that a merge is the best thing for this budding article.--Coin945 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~keep~~ no consensus. This is a controversial AFD, but there is little evidence of a significant sea change that would be necessary to overturn the previous AFD so quickly. It may have been better to do a deletion review first if there were objections to the prior deletion discussion. causa sui (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Marines[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)).

Closing admin

See Wikipedia:ANI#Edit_war_at_Occupy_Marines Hipocrite (talk)

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was previously nominated and there was significant support to keep. However, on reviewing it I felt that the reasoning of most of those !voting "keep" was contrary to deletion policy. Occupy Marines fails GNG in that it does not receive significant coverage, and the few sources that do mention the movement never do so separately to the occupy movement in general. The article is currently highly promotional of the subject (as can be seen from the fact that it consists mainly of a lengthy mission statement) and is a clear attempt to arouse support for it, despite the fact that Occupy Marines is essentially little more than a cartel of posters on twitter. In discussing this deletion, please remember that just because the subject of this article is real, in the news, has an admirable cause, is popular, or is related to another notable topic (the Occupy movement in general), this does not necessarily mean it is notable. Sorry to be pedantic, but all of the preceding were arguments used in the previous discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the preceding entry unsigned? JohnValeron (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, am I correct in understanding that this AfD will remain open for seven days of discussion? If not, please advise when it will close. I would like to express a preference, but prefer to wait until I've read what others have to say. Thanks! JohnValeron (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sysop, and so I have little bearing over how long the discussion will continue for. Deletion discussions usually last for 7 days, but may be longer. Please see WP:Deletion Policy. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for exactly the reasons Basalisk mentions.--v/r - T P 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never before participated in a Wikipedia deletion nomination discussion, but would like to do so now. However, I must beg your indulgence if I ask questions that don't conform with protocol. You note: "This page was previously nominated and there was significant support to keep." What you don't mention is that is it was nominated just 2½ weeks ago. In law there is the principle of stare decisis, from the Latin meaning to stand by existing decisions. Perhaps Wikipedia ought to have something similar. We're spinning our wheels by conducting the same debate every 2½ weeks, and refusing to abide by a decision that a few of us don't like. JohnValeron (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a policy that says an article cannot be nominated immediately afterwards, but it is an unwritten rule. I was actually coming back to edit my comments to recommend nominator go to WP:DRV instead of renominating. Other than that, I support the nomination.--v/r - T P 03:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is significant coverage in the new stories directly addressing the topic. AFD is not cleanup--if there are problems, fix them. I note that the last AFD closed less than two weeks ago, if the closure is disputed, DRV is thataway, renominating an article so quickly is not exactly good form. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE The only coverage is anecdotal, and of passing relevance. There is NO notability at all. At most it exists, and it's had it's tweets and facebook posts mentioned in passing on other stories. It's had NO substantial independent coverage of it's own. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 72.152.12.11 (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"In passing"? I see multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IN PASSING. You seem to be confusing quantity with quality. Considering the majority of those paragraphs are reprints of tweets or facebook posts, when you take them away, you're left with the actual content of the reporting. That boils down to 'there is also this facebook group and twitter page about it as well, and they said something'. You may not have noticed but thats the direction of 'news reporting' these days, to use such things as filler. 99% of the notability for this group is because of the actions of two Marines, who are not even affiliated with the group. There is NOTHING notable about them, any more than the twitter accounts which had their questions asked in recent Republican debates are notable. Actually, those twitter accounts are more notable, since they had a direct participation in an event that was widely covered, including their participation. The question is, how many articles are specifically about OccupyMarines? I believe it's one. If the news media don't find them as notable (perhaps because they've done nothing) then they're not notable at all, really. Just background noise, wikifiddling. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After four years of heavy contribution here I'm pretty good at figuring out the difference between quantity and quality. I looked at the CBS, ABC, The Nation, etc. sources and I saw enough quality to keep this article. Your position that tweets and facebook postings quoted in news stories should be discounted is not based on policy. In fact, tweets and facebook posts are given notability if they are quoted in news stories. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to lack notability as such fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note : User:JohnValeron would appear to have gone on a canvassing spree - see Special:Contributions/JohnValeron. Mt king ^(edits) 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

That's exactly what I did. I simply notified those involved in the discussion re deleting this article only 2½ weeks ago that it was again under the gun. I made no attempt to influence anyone as to how they should participate in this new debate. Are you now trying to limit participation? JohnValeron (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Agreed that would be acceptable, but when you appear to only ask those who !voted keep and failed to inform those (for example User:Cox wasan) who !voted Delete it looks like unacceptable canvassing. Mt king ^(edits) 06:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see now what happened. I overlooked both of those who voted last time to Delete. Please accept my apology. JohnValeron (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because you didn't notify the third person, who was cited as an example when you were called on the very one-sided canvassing? Don't worry, I took the liberty of notifying them. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

SUPER EXTRA STRONG KEEP The opposition to this page is ridiculous. To raise a second objection when there has already been discussion and a decision to keep the entry so recently smacks of political motivation. You repeatedly raise the issue of GNG. Instead of throwing out an acronym say General Notability Guidelines and then say this entry doesn't meet that requirement...

...now say it again with a straight face. How about instead of trying to detract from the available information try contributing to the entry itself. Syrmopoulos (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Syrmopoulos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Syrmopoulos (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Toby Esterhase: "Peter this information is ultra, ultra sensitive" Peter Guillam: "Well in that case Toby, I'll keep my mouth ultra, ultra shut"" LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason why this article cannot exist in compliance with Wikipedia protocol. It seems like people are attempting to disrupt the dissemination of information, without respecting the process of evolution. Occupy Marines is a concrete entity, as real as Occupy Wall Street, and any of encyclopedia'd organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.148.179 (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — 174.25.148.179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong KEEP. Article does in fact meet WP:GNG. CBS news, Marine Corps Times, Business Insider and ABC News are NOT trivial sources. Are they, "tweets and facebook posts"? No, not at all! This entry also meets Significant coverage, Reliable and Independent of the subject Yes, that is WP:GNG. Also, this article meets Depth of coverage, Audience and Independence of sources. External links could use a clean up per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Planetary ChaosTalk 07:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see nothing wrong with JohnValeron's notifying interested projects and editors. Infact, this is allowable as there seems to be no apparent bias. Definitely not canvassing. Planetary ChaosTalk 07:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no apparent bias - like only notifying those who !voted Keep. Mt king ^(edits) 07:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that above. I overlooked the two who voted Delete, for which I apologized. Why must you continue assuming bad faith? JohnValeron (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because AGF is not a suicide pact. If "I notified everyone who !voted X, but overlooked everyone who !voted Y" were to be a valid defence against CANVASS, we might as well throw the policy away, because nobody would ever be guilty of breaching it. You were canvassing – whether though intention or carelessness doesn't matter – so cop the plea, and stop trying to defend an indefensible action. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are flat wrong. WP:CANVAS says nothing about carelessness. It states: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That is exactly what I did. My intention was fully compliant with this policy. You simply cannot know otherwise, although of course you and your Wiki-ilk are free to make that unsupported accusation as often as you like. JohnValeron (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - if you insist, I'll support my accusation. You canvassed the editors who agreed with you. In your canvassing notice you say "Of 26 respondents, 24 voted to Keep; only 2 voted Delete"(an example). It is abundantly clear that you were aware of those who disagreed yet did not notify them. To claim that you "overlooked" just them insults anyone's intelligence. There's a less than 1 in 400 chance that that missing 2 out 26 just happen to be a given 2. The presentation you used in your canvass notice was not neutral, which makes you guilty of Campaigning as well as Vote-stacking in the terminology of WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification. If you actually read WP:Votestacking, you'll see that there is no mention of intent, let alone an exemption on those grounds. The description of "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" matches your actions exactly. You have no defence and ought to be ashamed of wasting other editors' time by trying to justify your disruptive actions. --RexxS (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The coverage in the ABC News article is trivial: it consists of a short paragraph that could be summarized as "there's a group that calls itself 'Occupy Marines'". The Marine Corps Times article is 404, so I can't evaluate it. The other two articles do have a little bit of depth to them, but not much. --Carnildo (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB since there are no articles primarily about it. Shii (tock) 07:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see how WP:WEB would have anything to do with this article. The article is not about a website. Planetary ChaosTalk 07:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the article: "Occupy Marines (styled as OccupyMARINES) is an online entity". It has no real life manifestation. It is a website. Shii (tock) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy close. The last AFD for this ended on December 1st, that 11 days ago! You can't just keep nominating something until you get the results you want. The overwhelming consensus was obvious. No sense everyone having to come and copy and paste their same arguments here over again. Dream Focus 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. since we're going to have to go through this again, many of us stated last time that the coverage was significant to prove it was notable. [48] [49] [50], etc. Dream Focus 15:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dream Focus (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

For the record, it should be noted in this stream that user Dream Focus, who was allegedly "canvassed," removed the foregoing accusatory template, commenting in revision history: "There is no possible justification to have that there." Nevertheless, user Mtking reverted Dream Focus's change, insistently assuming my bad faith even though I've repeatedly explained that in my notifications I mistakenly overlooked two who had voted to Delete, and for which I apologized. User Mtking is waging a vendetta against me out of spiteful pettiness, and will not be deterred even by those who he falsely claims have been victimized. JohnValeron (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave "personal vendettas" out of this; let's stick to the deletion discussion. I'd just like to answer Dream Focus' concerns: I nominated the article after it came to my attention at ANI. I wasn't a part of the original deletion discussion, but when I read it it was clear that the decision to close as keep was faulty, as virtually all the "keep" !votes were based on the faulty arguments I discussed in the introduction, and so I decided that a new discussion was appropriate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so let's deal with those sources, Dream_Focus. Business insider piece (your link 1) deals with the topic. It does hwoever, mostly parrot a primary source, with no verified details. It basically copies and pastes the website and social media sites of the 'group'. Clearly BusinessInsider didn't think they were notable enough to spend any time speaking to or researching. the CBS link is likewise, but half the article talks about Sgt. Thomas. Finally, the Nation piece you reference has it mentioned in one Paragraph of 16, and again it's a website quote. The thing they have in common is that there was no substantive reporting, only parroting off social media. The only clear inference is that those sources you're quoting didn't find the group notable beyond being a reactionary internet protest group. Are you going to write pages for all the other facebook protest groups out there? If so, start with the 'put facebook as it was' groups, they're a LOT more popular, and have had a lot more mention over the past 5 years in the news, where some Original Reporting has been done by a media that considers THAT notable enough to do it. End of the day, they're a footnote tacked onto Olsen and Thomas, of fleeting interest as a story side-note, and nothing more. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like how they cover it, and you mistakenly believe your personal opinion matters. Many people might object to anything in the newspaper they don't agree with, but that isn't how Wikipedia works. These are reliable sources, and they have given significant coverage to this. The CBS news article [51] is specifically about this organization, as is Business Insider's. And while the article in The Nation didn't mention "Occupy Marines" by name until they end, they did talk about them. There are other places mentioning them as well of course, [52], but I believe this is enough. Dream Focus 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; appears to fall short of the GNG. Also, I'm usually wary of playing the recentism or notnews card, but does anybody really believe this is a topic of enduring importance, rather than just a me-too facebook group following in the wake of other - more notable - recent events? Plus, microstubs on controversial political topics tend to be a magnet for problematic editing... bobrayner (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or DRV - the article as written lacks evidence of Notability, with weak citations (and a broken one), and there is worrying evidence of canvassing in the previous AfD. The tone of the article is essentially marketing a political movement. A DRV would seem to be absolutely in order. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The canvassing for keep votes is a serious concern; it's a shame to see another AfD turn sour. bobrayner (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except there was no canvassing. JohnValeron (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Occupy Marines official website Planetary ChaosTalk 08:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A wordpress blog! Surely the cornerstone of any truly notable organisation. bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not a WordPress blog. JohnValeron (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- bobrayner, the official website meets WP:ELOFFICIAL. JohnValeron, it shows up for me. Also for Marine Corps Times, I'm not seeing 404 error. If you seen a 404, try clearing your cache . Here is a snippet of what it say's, By Jon R. Anderson - Staff writer Posted : Friday Nov 18, 2011 15:03:24 EST Former Army Spc. Jorge Gonzalez said he’s not proud of his participation in what he calls the occupation of Iraq. But he’s now doing everything he can to help the Occupy Wall Street movement. Also, if you search the site, you get this. Planetary ChaosTalk 08:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JohnValeron, in case you hadn't previously noticed, the website has the wordpress toolbar, a generic blog structure, and "Proudly powered by WordPress" at the bottom. Although it's conceivable that somebody might arrange a serious CMS and then make it look as though it were a free blog-based system, that would not be a sane move for an organisation which wants to be credible. bobrayner (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. You are right. My bad. Thanks for explaining it to me. JohnValeron (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does, however, have the look and feel of a legitimate web site, albeit a small one. Anyhow, I don't follow why it's grounds to delete this Wikipedia article just because OccupyMARINES uses WordPress. JohnValeron (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotion of a not notable web group. As per Legis's comment below, no objection to a redirect.Youreallycan (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. Calm down children. For fairly obvious reasons whenever temporary causes come up, those supporting the cause fervently oppose the deleting of the standalone article. However, fervent support for a temporary cause does not constitute notability. It can't stand alone, so it needs either to be deleted and redirected with a small (and I mean small) comment on the main article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete on the basis of the detailed analysis I carried out on the article's talk; a handful of sources make brief, passing mention of "Occupy Marines" over a 3-4 week period, including one stating they "were not available for comment". None of the earlier sources that mention "occupy Marines" in passing have done any follow-up whatsoever. A redirect may be appropriate, but the article is not. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"In passing"? I see multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources. No followup is required to meet WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources already in the article in my view enable GNG to be satisfied. Very disappointing that another AfD has been opened up so soon. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This looks like "Occupy Wikipedia" to me. It is described as an "online entity", but a google news search gives me only three hits, none of them related to this "entity". Is just a wordpress blog and fails NWEB. Reminder to the keep voters: it is not the votes that are counted in an Afd, but the number of policy based arguments that support the article or not. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG keep The joining of the OccupyMARINES to the Occupy-movement is a HIGHLY significant milestone for the Occupy-movement! That alone should be reason for this article to stay and be expanded rapidly to do just to the significance of their existence. In fact, I will request our media team to do so. 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.204.103.94 (talk) — 82.204.103.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This says it all. All my concerns about this article summed up in one comment – this article is just a publicity stunt for an online group of protesters. Just because this article exists and is related to the Occupy Movement, this does not confer notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More canvassing Which one of you posted a link to this AfD on the Facebook group? bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean. Yeah I agree with MakeSense. This does seem like an Occupy Wikipedia discussion, but I've found sources on this topic on ABC News, BusinessInsider #1, #2, and CBSNews. The fact is that this topic has enough to coverage to qualify as its own article, yet still keep a section on the Occupy movement page. I'm getting the feeling from what I'm reading that that more coverage will be in the future so a separate article is appropriate.Silent Bob (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is still just a handful of news articles, most of which mention Occupy Marines in passing. As for future coverage, that is to be considered in the future, not now, as per WP:CRYSTAL. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In passing"? I see multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but close There should be no need for a discussion on this. Several notable news sources have covered the topic extensively. If this article is deleted, then Occupy Wall Street should be as well. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Surely you mean "~~Several~~a handful of notable news sources ~~have covered the topic extensively~~mention Occupy Marines in passing. Your argument that if this is deleted, Occupy Wall Street should also be deleted is a classic example of a logical fallacy and has no bearing on this discussion. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep, Citizen journalism through blogging is a verifiable source. People submit videos, and the mainstream media uses these as well. If people are concerned about bias in an article, it can be edited, it need not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Challenging Duelism (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Challenging Duelism (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The vast majority of blogs are not credible sources. Your mention of user-submitted videos is misleading, no videos of members of Occupy Marines have been posted— they have attempted to piggy-back on ex-servicemen being videoed at Occupy protests who have zero affiliation with their website. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the above "parachuted-in" remark about blogs and videos, virtually all keep arguments put forward so-far break down as-follows:

"significant coverage in the news articles directly addressing the topic" (WP:GNG/General Notability).
False. In actuality, a handful of source mention this as an aside in articles on veterans' participation in the wider OWS movement. None of the named ex-military in those cited articles have espoused any association whatsoever with Occupy Marines. It is those individuals are the main focus of reliable sources cited to support this article's continued existence. Remove those cites, and all arguments to keep this fall apart.
"Occupy Marines is a concrete entity, as real as Occupy Wall Street".
False. Occupy Marines have not been seen at-all in the real world, and self-describe as an online entity. Not to mention their interaction with the media: "not been able to secure an interview with members of Occupy Marines despite numerous requests."—Camp Pendleton Patch, "a Facebook support group that did not respond to calls"—USA Today.
"it meets WP:ELOFFICIAL".
False. The second requirement listed there includes the prerequisite that the "subject is notable"; that is, to put it conservatively, in doubt.

That's it, that is every single one of the arguments given for the retention of this–and none of them hold water. I assume the remainder of the 'keep' side of the discussion will be Argumentum ad populum, Argumentum verbosium, Plurium interrogationum, and a side-order of the Chewbacca defense, no?

But nevermind, the drones will be in from Facebook and Twitter soon to try and stack the vote. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Drones! Have they arrived yet? Your contempt for free and open discussion is demonstrable. JohnValeron (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, will you drop the personal attacks? Even where someone declines to log in and post under their name or pseudonym? You've been proven to canvass on this (until called on it, you selected to only notify those who voted keep; when called on it, you still omitted someone who previously voted delete). Then, when the discussion was leaning heavily towards deletion, someone magically posted on the OM twitter/facebook feeds regarding this discussion. Wasn't you, was it? A cynical comment about canvassing outside Wikipedia certainly is not "contempt for open and free discussion"—so drop the personal attacks against an IP address.

Anyone, like myself who has observed, and irregularly contributed to, Wikipedia over the last 7-8 years knows full-well the fate of articles like this. If they're not constantly watched they get filled up with utter hogwash that is so bad it pulls down the average quality of Wikipedia entries. Your original edit war with anons, and problems with ownership raised on ANI, prompted this 2nd VfD. One can assume when the heat has died down from this discussion, you - or someone else who cherishes this dreck - will again fill it out with self-serving puffery.

What's worse, is the standalone existence of this article may encourage mainstream media to see Occupy Marines as 'credible' and give them more coverage that is unwarranted. They're not notable, or they would have been in at least 20-30 mainstream media articles by now. They're riding on the coattails of one or two ex-military who have gotten themselves involved in OWS (And, I stress "involved in OWS", most decidedly not Occupy Marines). Recent coverage? Not a squeak in nearly a month—whereas OWS continues to hit headlines.

In some ways I'm impressed how a couple of people in their basements can cause so much discussion on Wikipedia—they've certainly not been photographed or observed at any Occupy protests. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect - we don't need articles for every occupy location. Unless something important happened there (major violence making national news, extremely large size, etc), the occupy articles could stand to be merged/pruned. My own city has about ten people a day occupying it. The local news has covered them - do we really need an article? --B (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the most sensible suggestion yet. A redirect/merge would be a good outcome. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - (note - you can only vote once - second vote removed by User:Youreallycan) - I am sick of seeing the word canvasing tossed around in this discussion. I feel very strongly that this article should be kept, and should not simply become another redirect. If anything those opposed to keeping this article have done some canvasing of their own. I base this opinion on a clear distinct change in the tone of discussion. DO NOT LET THE VOCAL MINORITY RUN WIKIPEDIA OR IT WILL BECOME USELESS!!! Syrmopoulos (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) --->If you say this response was canvased you prove my argument.[reply]

A rational break-down of your answer for everyone else: 1) Keep !voters should be able to canvass wherever they want for this discussion, even on the facebook page; 2) There are more people arguing to delete than last time, therefore delete !voters must have been canvassing; 3) I think this article should be kept (for no stated reason). Do you even have an argument for why this article should be kept? As for your last statement, please see WP:DEMOCRACY. This has nothing to do with majorities and minorities.Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for implying that people can't read on their own, but since you feel the need to explain what YOU THINK I MEAN let me help. 1) I don't have a problem with canvasing 2) I think those opposed to this article are hypocrites for "accusing" others of canvasing while at the same time clearly doing it themselves 3) I will say it again IF YOU USE THE WORDS GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINES instead of throwing around acronyms, it begs the question "How does this NOT meet those guidelines?" ALL OPPOSITION TO THIS ARTICLE IS PURELY POLITICAL AND THINLY VEILED!!! Syrmopoulos (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is absurd. Whether or not you have a problem with canvassing, it is not permitted on wikipedia. In terms of delete !voters canvassing, the only evidence you have provided for that is "they must have been canvassing, because there are other people !voting delete". You haven't provided a single diff. I can't speak for other editors, but as the nominator I can confirm that the only place I have mentioned this discussion other than at AfD is at the ANI discussion mentioned in the notice at the top of the page. Acronyms are perfectly allowable, and as per linking guidelines I wikilinked the first instance of the usage of "GNG" in the introduction.

With regards to GNG, this article does not meet those guidelines. The news articles provided by keep voters either mention Occupy Marines in passing, or are news articles simply documenting the presence of veterans at the Occupy movement being misconstrued as articles distinctly covering OccupyMARINES. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources, your observation is incorrect that the topic is covered only in passing. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect, probably to Occupy Wall Street unless there's a better target that I'm overlooking. There is some reliable source coverage, but it doesn't look that significant, so I think it would be better to include it on a larger page. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think one of the fundamental issues here is that sources referring to the presence of veterans or marines at Occupy movements are being confused with sources actually documenting the OccupyMARINES movement. Just because a news article mentions that there are veterans present at an Occupy movement, this does not mean that a cabal of twitter posters called OccupyMARINES is notable. For example, I could provide several sources documenting the presence of ethnic Native Americans living in London, but this wouldn't make a facebook group called !NativesinLondon! notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: My arguments for keeping the article have not changed in the last 3 weeks. Even the attempt to refute the arguments for keeping rely on news reports about Occupy Marines, which seems to self-refute the idea that the group fails to meet notability requirements. Nor are concerns about the article's current POV grounds for deletion: if Basalisk feels it favors the group rather than give a neutral presentation, they are free -- and encouraged! -- to improve the article.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reproduce those reasons here? Thanks Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is clear, claims of flawed writing on the page are cause for rewrite, not deletion, no valid and substantiated cause for deletion has been stated. You yourself assert there isn't "enough" secondary source coverage to show notability, I assert there is. GNG itself declines to name a quantitative threshold of sources, and you have not provided any basis for how you decide what "enough" sources is.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Covering the facts in a NPOV way. "OccupyMarines is an online group of unknown backing. They have a facebook page, twitter feed and their own website, and claim to support Marines involved with the occupy protests" That's the article written in a NPOV manner, using all the FACTS that are known. Anything beyond that is speculation or self-sourced. Or are you privy to additional facts from secondary sources? That is, after all ,the major issue. There are no facts, because there's no secondary sources, because it's not notable. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Handily meets WP:GNG by being covered in The Nation, ABC news, CBS news, Business Insider, and the Marine Corps Times. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned, and being covered are two different things. In those stories, if you take out the OccupyMarines specific content out, asre you left with a story? Yes. Is the object of the news story significantly changed? No. In that case, they're a tangential reference, one made in passing, and not the intent of the story or what it's covering. What you are left with then is one, maybe two pieces if you stretch things, and that's a far cry from the notability you're talking about. Even if we take your claims at face value, 5 publications in 2 months on a high profile event, isn't all that notable, is it? 72.152.12.11 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're making up rules! There is no test involving whether or not a news article is rendered unreadable if the topic coverage is removed. No, a news article can conceivably cover several topics of interest, each significantly, as we have in our mainstream sources. Five publications in national sources is quite clearly enough to meet WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Delete. By definition, blogs are an WP:SPS and not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. Clearly these do not fit into the Subject Matter Expert caveat in the guideline; the comments about "citizen journalism" are clearly made in ignorance of policy. The "group" appears to be little more than a few individuals on a facebook page and does not meet notability guidelines. Per WP:NOTNEWS I do not consider this is worthy of an article in its own rights and at most would merit a footnote on the article dealing with the Occupy protests. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How does SPS apply? That would be an issue if the blog were used as a source. In this case we have five arguably reliable sources that cover the topic of the article, so the question is, I think, just one of whether the coverage is significant enough to meet GNG. If a single person running a blog on a deserted island receives significant coverage in reliable sources, they are notable, and not because of the blog. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply You have picked on just one of the reasons that I quoted for suggesting it is a clear delete, for future reference trying to attack an argument by not addressing the broad points raised is not a good debating device but an indicator that your premise is weak. This is not an example of notable coverage in the media, its a singular event where reliable sources cover the subject in passing, where the articles actually refer to other individuals. At present it is nothing more than a Facebook page, with a limited number of contributors. This is more a case of wikipedia being used for promotion of a non-notable group; well wikipedia is not a marketing opportunity, its supposed to be an online encyclopedia. The vicious and highly personal comments directed at anyone who states this should be deleted, not to mention the concerted lobby effort to have the deletion discussion stacked has instead convinced me this is a non-notable group that does not merit coverage according to WP:GNG. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Add Btw it may have escaped your notice but though I would delete the article, I would merge the content with Occupy Wall Street. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Entry is in compliance with WP:GNG:

' "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.':

Cited coverage is from credible organizations and specific to OccupyMarines.

' "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.':

CBS, Marine Corps Times, BI, ABC, etc.

' "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.':

Again, multiple sources, multiple authors, etc.

' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.':

CBS, ABC, etc are obviously not "part" of OccupyMarines.

' A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia.':

Not only does the entry satisfy one of the criteria, it satisfies all of them.

In summary, it doesn't really matter who's behind it, how many of them there are, etc. This article meets WP:GNG as specified by the GNG, itself. Keep.

Jcgentile01 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— Jcgentile01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The vast majority of the sources you're referring to either mention Occupy Marines only in passing, or mention only the presence of veterans (who have no affiliation with Occupy Marines) at Occupy protests. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a vast majority offer one, then it's safe to say a small minority offer the other. Majority or minority, I think, don't make a difference. If the mention is there, anywhere, then it is there. Whether any of us like it or not is irrelevant; the entry is in compliance with WP:GNG. Opinions aside, this complies with the requirements. Jcgentile01 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the phrase "vast majority" to indicate that there is a dearth of appropriate sources, implying that the article does not satisfy point 3 of GNG. There simply aren't enough secondary sources directly and exclusively documenting this group to make them notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is a reference for exactly how many secondary sources are required to make this group notable? (Edit: I'm sure a quick google search of "OccupyMarines" will reveal many more sources that may be used as secondary sources.) Jcgentile01 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need "multiple," so the bare minimum would, in theory, be two. I think the question is the nature of the coverage. A "mention" is not "significant" coverage. That said, the CBS News and Business Insider articles are more than mere mentions. The other sources seem, to me, to be very insignificant coverage -- that is, the other sources are more about the phenomenon of military personnel/veterans involves in the OWS movement, and mention Occupy Marines only as an example of the phenomenon. But CBS/BI are worthy, in my opinion, and if the scope of the argument is limited to finding more than one reliable source covering Occupy Marines directly and in significant detail. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jcgentile01, you may care to refer to the far from casual Google search I carried out, and documented, on the Occupy Marines talk page. The many more mentions that turned up are predominantly linkspam on OWS-related blog entries and news articles; the far-and-away majority of direct mentions in legitimate mainstream sources (which are in mid-single-digits) are a very brief side-note on either there being an OccupyMARINES Facebook page or twitter feed. Two of those more mainstream mentions of Occupy Marines go out of their way to highlight they tried to contact whoever-they-are for comment, and got none. Just look at the Occupy Marines wordpress blog/website, it seems far from unreasonable to assume this is someone who considers themselves part of Anonymous running another Occupy Wikipedia stunt. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"...predominantly linkspam..." assumes that some of them are not linkspam. All of this may be, but we're getting away from the original topic. This article flagged for deletion citing WP:GNG, which it does not violate. The requirements are in black and white, and this meets them. Jcgentile01 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep I think some people are being overly hasty in dismissing some of these sources. Specifically, the CBS News and Business Insider articles are almost entirely about Occupy Marines. That said, I think the organizations notability is entirely within the scope of OWS. It has no separate, independent notability. I also highly doubt it has any lasting notability, although that is not entirely necessary. Given that we really only have good coverage in two sources (the other sources mentioned really do only give the Occupy Marines movement very brief attention; they're more about veterans in general), and given my other concerns, I think this is a delete. Definitely doesn't seem to me a slam dunk delete, but the nature of the organization and its notability gives me serious pause. After thinking about this more, while my gut tells me that this really ought to be merged elsewhere, I've been more careful in the past to hew closely to GNG, which does tend to accept this article on the strength of the CBS and BI sources. I'd really like to re-review this in 6-12 months time to see if notability has shifted (which happens). Regardless, changing vote to weak keep, whatever "weak" means. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I managed to find this discussion after seeing the notice on the article ~~(which unhelpfully links to just the general deletion category, and not here)... isn't it strange there's no link from the primary article?~~ I created a link from the talk page, so that more people will be able to easily find it. Further, I did a quick google search and did find them mentioned on major news outlets... this portion of the OWS movement appears WP:NOTABLE enough to me. -Kai445 (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my bad. This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and the process is new to me. Thanks for your help. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that, the link at the top of the article works just fine. I don't know what link you were clicking, but clicking the text "this article's entry" in the deletion notice is linked to this discussion. Thanks anyway Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, looks like I clicked the wrong thing. My bad! The talk page link still 'ought to help some folks. -Kai445 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kai445, I slogged through 100+ Google hits looking for significant coverage from major news outlets. I documented the results on the Occupy Marines talk page, and I do not agree that they support a claim to notability. You will certainly see a significant number of other hits hosted on mainstream news sites in those 100+ hits, but those listed on the talk excluded, the rest are comments on the articles, blogs hosted on said news sites, or the news articles have had the Occupy Marines content removed post-indexing (strongly suggesting some of those mainstream outlets have decided, with hindsight, that Occupy Marines is not notable). --77.100.209.249 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The CBS News and Business Insider articles are dedicated to the group; they would not exist if the group content were removed. The ABC News and Marine Corps Times articles devote a large part of their length to it. Wikipedia:Notability is met. --GRuban (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in major media to establish notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough WP:RS that aren't primary sources or passing mentions to pass any sort of notability guideline. The only notability it does have is from the Occupy Wall Street movement. This is simply Wikicanvassing and nothing more. Lithorien (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AfD clearly established that the subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've posted several comments and asked a few informational questions on the foregoing thread, but have not expressed a preference as to Keep or Delete. As stated above, I prefer to wait until I've read what others have to say.

Nevertheless, in light of the first 24 hours of discussion on this AfD, please allow me to offer an observation. The commenters favoring Delete have been consistently nasty and condescending, officiously spouting Wikipedia policies as if those were the Ten Commandments and the rest of us are unwashed heathens.

In particular, they repeatedly cite WP:DEMOCRACY to the effect that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that this AfD will not be decided on a vote. At the same time, they cry bloody murder because I adhered to WP:CANVAS and notified other editors of this ongoing AfD "with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Somehow, those favoring Delete have divined that my intent was to stack votes—even though, they tirelessly remind us, votes don't count for shit in this debate.

Without judging the substance of their arguments, I simply want to make the point that these patronizing and discourteous Deletionists reflect badly on Wikipedia's editorial community. JohnValeron (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that this comment has nothing to do with this discussion and so I don't really see why it's here. But what are you complaining about now? Are you actually upset by the fact that there are people who disagree with you passionately? If you don't like the heat of debate then perhaps AfD isn't the place for you. Also, you might want to be careful about making broad personal attacks, such as calling all the people who disagree with you in a particular discussion "patronizing and discourteous". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell, JohnValeron? You are taking entirely too wide of a brush to paint those of us who are !voting delete with, and that reflects very poorly on you as an editor - not us. Watch your personal attacks! Lithorien (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although i disagree with the occupy movement, it seems to me that this article meets the GNG standards and should be kept. --TheRico152 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant interpersonal squabble ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - Visitors to this page, please understand that your input on this Article for Deletion (AfD) is futile. First Basalisk instigated this article's second AfD nomination within the span of just 2½ weeks because he refuses to accept the outcome of the first nomination, which was to Keep this article on Wikipedia. Next Basalisk autocratically declared: "I will not allow the closing admin to close as 'keep' this time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#AfD_canvassing. Since the conclusion is foregone, any attempt to further discuss this AfD is a waste of our time and energy. Wikipedia should close this AfD now and be done with it. JohnValeron (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] According to the aforementioned discussion, an exact quote as Basalisk's text appears now is "I will not allow the closing admin to close as keep this time if the keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS" - a conditional statement that is not contextually reflexive of the assertion being made here. Regardless, no individual contributor has the authority to unilaterally predetermine and override the outcome of any consensus-based proceeding—not him, not you, not me, and not anyone else here—so you can rest assured that valid arguments will not fall on deaf ears. Whether or not such a declaration has been made in advance is wholly extraneous to this process and the debate at hand. Lastly, and most importantly, you should always assume good faith and refrain from reciprocating belligerence—be it perceived or real—with fellow contributors; such devolution is generally neither conducive to nor advantageous in reasoned discourse. — C M B J 07:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] C M B J , that is sophistry and you know it. Who determines, in Basalisk's view, whether or not the Keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS? Why, Basalisk does, of course. And, given his predisposition of this matter, what is the probability of Basalisk finding that the arguments are not WP:ITEXISTS? Try zero! Since he is now on record as declaring that he will refuse to accept the outcome of this AfD if it goes against him, Basalisk will continue nominating this article for AfD every couple of weeks, as he has done in this instance, until he gets the only decision—namely Delete—that he finds acceptable. Like I said, an exercise in futility for the rest of us. Using this obstructionist technique, Basalisk doesn't have to be in a position to make the final decision himself. He simply keeps gaming the system until it comes out the way he wants it to. JohnValeron (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] John, this is ridiculous. Firstly, if you can't make your point without misquoting others to skew perception of what was actually said, then perhaps said point is invalid. Secondly, I wasn't even a part of the first deletion discussion, so how you can say I'm bitter about its result is beyond me. I came across it after it was mentioned at ANI and felt that the outcome didn't reflect policy, and was kept on the basis of a bunch of SPAs showing up and shouting but it's true! It's true!, which is not in line with wikipedia guidelines. True to form, you then embarked on a canvassing campaign when the second discussion started and another posse of SPAs come out of the woodwork and make the same argument. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Misquoting, you say! Basalisk, you're the one who's doing that. I never stated that you were part of the first deletion discussion or that you are bitter about its result. Here's what I actually wrote: "He refuses to accept the outcome of the first nomination, which was to Keep this article on Wikipedia." What part of that is untrue? JohnValeron (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sigh. I couldn't be misquoting you, as I didn't quote you at all. You selectively quoted me from ANI to make it appear that I have a chip on my shoulder, in a hope to undermine my argument because you're scared of your beloved Occupy-related article getting deleted. Look, I acted in good faith. There's nothing in the deletion policy saying you can't nominate an article for deletion within 2 weeks of a previous discussion, and I felt there were problems with the previous close and so I opened a new one. I have since then realised that WP:DRV would have been a better avenue to explore, but there we go. I don't have any personal interest in this or any other Occupy article; a quick look at my contribs will tell you that. But that will not deter me from seeing this discussion to its conclusion – I wouldn't have nominated the article if I didn't have an opinion about its notability. Reading your comments, one could swear having such an opinion is a crime. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] No, that's not sophistry; it's an outline of several core principles on which this project is based. Again, the personal views of an individual contributor are irrelevant, because a consensus determination will made by someone independent of this discussion. When you object to the premise of someone's argument, the best course of action is to dispute, refute, and remain resolute. If you're correct in your reasoning, then you will almost certainly emerge exultantly, even if against all odds. — C M B J 10:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please dont encourage battle ground behaviour by using language like "emerge exultantly, even if against all odds". It often makes for a better discussion if folk try and keep an open mind rather than "remain resolute". If editors are willing to let themselves be persuaded when better evidence is presented, everyone can be a winner. Also, if youre going to ~~play moderator~~ intervene and take someone to task for a passionate response, it might be best if you dont focus just on a good editor like JohnValeron and instead also remonstrate with the more objectionable delete voters, who seem to be the ones who originated the aggression and despicable condensation that has marred this debate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] John is the only editor in this discussion who has resorted to personal attacks. You might also like to notice how the discussion only became heated after John posted several comments in the discussion for no reason other than to misquote and criticise a comment I made on a different discussion board (ANI). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] The point was not to frame debate in win-lose terms; rather, to encourage constructive behavior in a way that is relevant to the pitfalls of this particular situation. A casual reiteration might go something like "if you're making a good point, consensus will eventually turn in your favor - even if you're getting railroaded initially." Close-mindedness is not requisite of diligence, and there's no shame in sticking to your guns just because you're outnumbered. This was echoed by detailed advice subsequently posted to the user's talk page. — C M B J 00:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant interpersonal squabble ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment - Visitors to this page, please understand that your input on this Article for Deletion (AfD) is futile. First Basalisk instigated this article's second AfD nomination within the span of just 2½ weeks because he refuses to accept the outcome of the first nomination, which was to Keep this article on Wikipedia. Next Basalisk autocratically declared: "I will not allow the closing admin to close as 'keep' this time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#AfD_canvassing. Since the conclusion is foregone, any attempt to further discuss this AfD is a waste of our time and energy. Wikipedia should close this AfD now and be done with it. JohnValeron (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the aforementioned discussion, an exact quote as Basalisk's text appears now is "I will not allow the closing admin to close as keep this time if the keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS" - a conditional statement that is not contextually reflexive of the assertion being made here. Regardless, no individual contributor has the authority to unilaterally predetermine and override the outcome of any consensus-based proceeding—not him, not you, not me, and not anyone else here—so you can rest assured that valid arguments will not fall on deaf ears. Whether or not such a declaration has been made in advance is wholly extraneous to this process and the debate at hand. Lastly, and most importantly, you should always assume good faith and refrain from reciprocating belligerence—be it perceived or real—with fellow contributors; such devolution is generally neither conducive to nor advantageous in reasoned discourse. — C M B J 07:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C M B J , that is sophistry and you know it. Who determines, in Basalisk's view, whether or not the Keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS? Why, Basalisk does, of course. And, given his predisposition of this matter, what is the probability of Basalisk finding that the arguments are not WP:ITEXISTS? Try zero!

Since he is now on record as declaring that he will refuse to accept the outcome of this AfD if it goes against him, Basalisk will continue nominating this article for AfD every couple of weeks, as he has done in this instance, until he gets the only decision—namely Delete—that he finds acceptable.

Like I said, an exercise in futility for the rest of us. Using this obstructionist technique, Basalisk doesn't have to be in a position to make the final decision himself. He simply keeps gaming the system until it comes out the way he wants it to. JohnValeron (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, this is ridiculous. Firstly, if you can't make your point without misquoting others to skew perception of what was actually said, then perhaps said point is invalid. Secondly, I wasn't even a part of the first deletion discussion, so how you can say I'm bitter about its result is beyond me. I came across it after it was mentioned at ANI and felt that the outcome didn't reflect policy, and was kept on the basis of a bunch of SPAs showing up and shouting but it's true! It's true!, which is not in line with wikipedia guidelines. True to form, you then embarked on a canvassing campaign when the second discussion started and another posse of SPAs come out of the woodwork and make the same argument. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misquoting, you say! Basalisk, you're the one who's doing that. I never stated that you were part of the first deletion discussion or that you are bitter about its result. Here's what I actually wrote: "He refuses to accept the outcome of the first nomination, which was to Keep this article on Wikipedia." What part of that is untrue? JohnValeron (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I couldn't be misquoting you, as I didn't quote you at all. You selectively quoted me from ANI to make it appear that I have a chip on my shoulder, in a hope to undermine my argument because you're scared of your beloved Occupy-related article getting deleted. Look, I acted in good faith. There's nothing in the deletion policy saying you can't nominate an article for deletion within 2 weeks of a previous discussion, and I felt there were problems with the previous close and so I opened a new one. I have since then realised that WP:DRV would have been a better avenue to explore, but there we go.

I don't have any personal interest in this or any other Occupy article; a quick look at my contribs will tell you that. But that will not deter me from seeing this discussion to its conclusion – I wouldn't have nominated the article if I didn't have an opinion about its notability. Reading your comments, one could swear having such an opinion is a crime. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not sophistry; it's an outline of several core principles on which this project is based. Again, the personal views of an individual contributor are irrelevant, because a consensus determination will made by someone independent of this discussion. When you object to the premise of someone's argument, the best course of action is to dispute, refute, and remain resolute. If you're correct in your reasoning, then you will almost certainly emerge exultantly, even if against all odds. — C M B J 10:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont encourage battle ground behaviour by using language like "emerge exultantly, even if against all odds". It often makes for a better discussion if folk try and keep an open mind rather than "remain resolute". If editors are willing to let themselves be persuaded when better evidence is presented, everyone can be a winner. Also, if youre going to ~~play moderator~~ intervene and take someone to task for a passionate response, it might be best if you dont focus just on a good editor like JohnValeron and instead also remonstrate with the more objectionable delete voters, who seem to be the ones who originated the aggression and despicable condensation that has marred this debate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John is the only editor in this discussion who has resorted to personal attacks. You might also like to notice how the discussion only became heated after John posted several comments in the discussion for no reason other than to misquote and criticise a comment I made on a different discussion board (ANI). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point was not to frame debate in win-lose terms; rather, to encourage constructive behavior in a way that is relevant to the pitfalls of this particular situation. A casual reiteration might go something like "if you're making a good point, consensus will eventually turn in your favor - even if you're getting railroaded initially." Close-mindedness is not requisite of diligence, and there's no shame in sticking to your guns just because you're outnumbered. This was echoed by detailed advice subsequently posted to the user's talk page. — C M B J 00:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the notability of the article's subject was established just a few days ago. In this discussion (as in the previous one) I see many WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but, considering the sources this is (and remain) an easy keep per GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability seems to have been established, when full articles are written on a subject it seems a bit of a stretch to question GNG in good faith. u n☯mi 12:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As even one of the delete voters admits, two of the sources are entirely about Occupy Marines: ABS & businessinsider Even if not for this, much of the delete arguments are clearly not based on policy. They've been arguing as though we need sources entirely dedicated to a subject in order to keep it, but WP:GNG specifically rejects this "...it need not be the main topic of the source material." After reviwing all the sources in the article, this important and worthy topic seems to have sufficient coverage to meet GNG several times over, so agree its an easy keep. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the requirement that the subject be the main topic of the cited sources comes from WP:WEB, rather than WP:GNG. However, I see your point, and for the benefit of others in this discussion I concede at this point that consensus is to keep. I will not be arguing for a deletion any further. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems most collegial especially as you make a good point about WP:WEB. I can see why some think it may apply, but it looks to me like Occupy Marines has had considerable real world impact, encouraging veterans to physically support the movement. Whether or not the organisers are real x-marines, they seem to have had an important and valuable real world influence, helping the whole of occupy in its US heartland. As it says in the Nation source. "With IVAW, VFP, Occupy Marines and other veteran organizations pledging their support for Occupy Wall Street, the movement continues to grow and gain legitimacy." FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I gave an opinion of keep in the previous delete proposal, but I've changed my view a bit because:

1) One of the reasons the notability guideline gives for establishing the extent of coverage (which I missed before) was so "we can be confident that we're not...perpetuating hoaxes..." Not sure there's been enough depth of coverage to make it reliable that this isn't a hoax. NB: other guidelines also seem to point out that hoaxes can be covered on Wikipedia if they were considered notable (considered as hoaxes or not at the time). NB: not talking about hoax articles, just articles about hoaxes.

2) The notability guideline says "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." This point was made before I think re. the coverage really only being incidental to the news event of Sharmar Thomas's action. Maybe, and I'm not sure what is meant by 'routine' reports, but I do think that the coverage of OccupyMarines was about the event that was their appearance, mainly published back in October. It doesn't seem that the sources have published much further about them as an ongoing concern of note. There are two in november, however, one in passing when notes how many Facebook likes they'd received, & one in passing goes back to their originally starting up and quotes what they said (or put on the web) then. Maybe that's enough, I don't know.

3) Similarly, "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". It seems to have only been a one-off interest for each of the publications that have covered it. But then again, two have picked it up (briefly in passing) in November, and it's only been a few months since they appeared on the web.

4) WP:CLUB says "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources." The sources have reported that the organisation hasn't been around long, and that it was yet to be seen how many members it would attract. EverSince (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reluctantly. There's really no credible argument to make against the ABC and Businessinsider coverage, but this thing...and really all the Occupy pages in general...need to be watched closely to ensure they do not become PR arms of the movement itself. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the ABC source is pretty much the only source where there isn't a barely incidental mention, and even then it's mostly about the one individual marine.
This is nothing but another attempt at creating notability for a movement by misusing Wikipedia's visibility and exposure. We are an encyclopedia, people, not a marketing platform. Abusing our project's visibility in order to invent credence for your pet cause is destructive and goes against what we are. — Coren ^(talk) 23:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a poisonous response, Coren. I have no horse in this race, no "pet cause", yet I !voted to keep simply because I found significant coverage in the ABC News, Business Insider and CBS News sources. Two such sources are all that's required to meet WP:GNG. Please aim your guns at the specific editors who are activists, not at the article, or at good faith editors who are making fair judgments based on notability policy. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not poisonous at all. Assertions that two Internet writes on a news feed topic is sufficient for publishing a promo activism article via wikipedia is detrimental to the foundations NPOV ambitions and also imo demeans the whole project - experienced contributors are expected to take such considerations on board. Youreallycan (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your term "promo activism article" sets it up for destruction, but you ignore the fact that an article can be trimmed of "promo activism" to become neutral and encyclopedic. Again, the stick should be brought down upon the backs of activists, not upon articles that can be written innocently and neutrally. This one should be reduced in size and scope, trimmed of all primary sources, but not deleted. Activists who are trying to expand it with shite sources should be disciplined. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the sources presented so far strikes me as "significant third-party coverage". --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Few of the !votes here are policy based, except mostly from names I recognize as frequent contributors to AfD discussions. When someone sharp and deletion-minded like Tarc opines keep, even reluctantly, there is no way such an article will ever be deleted. Why? Because it meets WP:GNG. In six months, we can revisit whether organizationally it makes sense for this to have its own page or be addressed someone else in the Occupy-related coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced to CBS News, ABC News, The Nation magazine... What kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT disruption is this?!?! Snow this shut. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Occupy Wall Street. There is some independent coverage and it is arguable whether that is actually significant, so it is by no means certain that it meets GNG. The mistake in most keep rationales (even Tarc's) is to assume that every subject which might meet GNG must have a stand-alone article. BLP1E is the analogy that immediately springs to mind, where we offer clear guidance to place people within a larger, more developed 'parent' article. In the same way, the lack of reliably sourced content (meeting GNG or not) for "Occupy Marines" strongly suggests to me that its coverage in Wikipedia makes far more sense within the Occupy Wall Street article where it can be seen in context. As ever, should a considerably larger number of reliable sources cover it in future, that would be the time to consider splitting off a daughter article. At present, these sort of thinly-sourced, single issue topics present an irresistible coatrack for proponents to use for promotion; whereas placing them in a larger article will always benefit from the attention of a greater number of editors. --RexxS (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine we'll get a consensus re a merge target in this AfD with already such a long and belabored discussion, and there's no reason to have this discussion now. Nominating this article for a 2nd AfD so soon after a strong keep close was DUMB. This should be closed immediately as keep without prejudice to revisiting in six months so we can actually do worthwhile editing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the fact that everyone who has !voted merge has mentioned Occupy Wall Street as the target seems to indicate that we would have strong consensus for that target, especially as this article places itself in the context of OWS in the very first sentence. The very large amount of discussion here shows that there are good reasons to have this discussion. It may be worth considering that only a handful of editors have more than a couple of edits to this article, so it's not exactly a magnet for editors to come along and improve it. No, this really ought to be closed as an obvious merge without prejudice to revisiting that in six months, on the off-chance that it's going to be expanded beyond its present stubbiness. Editors are just as capable of making worthwhile improvements to it as a section of OWS, with rather less chance of having it hijacked by promotionalists - which seems to be what sparked off the second nomination and this debate. --RexxS (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your assertion that the second nomination and this debate were sparked off because Occupy Marines was "hijacked by promotionalists." What is your evidence for that inflammatory charge? JohnValeron (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ANI#Edit war at Occupy Marines, a report that you initiated. Note particularly comments like Tarc's "Geez, that thing is a bad joke of an ad campaign masquerading as a genuine Wikipedia article" and your own "you'd find multiple edits in November by a user identified as OccupyMARINES, suggesting that entity was allowed to contribute repeatedly to an article about itself", not to mention "some people would rather talk the hind legs off a donkey than be a little ruthless and slash out obvious self-promotion" from 77.100.209.249. There are more, but I assume you get the message that quite a few people, including yourself, thought that there was far too much promotion in the article. You don't have to read much further to see Basalisk's "I'm tempted to open another deletion discussion" - which he did. So which part of "the second nomination and this debate were sparked off because Occupy Marines was hijacked by promotionalists." did you want to Wiki-lawyer over now? --RexxS (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First off, this is a bad AfD nomination. If the nominator had an issue with how the prior AfD was closed (only a few short weeks ago), then they should have taken it to WP:DRV. But, I doubt that would have done anything, as the coverage of this group appears to be extensive, which i'll list below.

And that's just what I found after a quick Google search. I know I can find more if I dig deeper. Silver seren^C 03:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Did you look at those sources? The Blaze and the Daily Kos are blogs, as WP:SPS we would not consider them reliable sources. Aside from a brief mention when the press release came out, there is no coverage of this group. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - [53] USA Today Occupy Marines, a Facebook support group that did not respond to calls, has been urging vets and active-duty personnel to show up at demonstrations, but not in military uniforms. Not exactly establishing notability, a Facebook page where the group didn't respond to a press query. Its mentioned obliquely in passing. The coverage in each of those sources is minimal, this is not extensive coverage. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is coverage. But not enough to pass WP:GNG. If the website takes off we can always recreate the article. But as of now... Let's delete. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you define as "enough"? Are the requirements for GNG now 10 or even 20 in depth sources? Silver seren^C 03:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's about we start with more than just one or two that only cover it in reference to a single 'event'. That was their 'we exist' articles, but there's no 'we're notable' articles. If you've ever worked any kind of news, you'll know that something newsworthy (aka 'notable' gets covered by multiple places at the same time. The fact you DON'T have multiple sources, but can only muster a total of 5-6 TOTAL, and 2-3 that have anything beyond a passing mention means news don't consider it notable. For contrast, check out how Many covered Sgt. Thomas' rant. Then check how many covered Olsen. In the last 48 hours Google News lists over 2000 stories related to Olsen, because of his march leading in Oakland. THAT is notable. Shamar Thomas has articles ongoing centered on him. Occupy Marines? I got only a handful, all old, or incidental remarks. Face it, they're not notable. Or, I tell you what, I've had more coverage of ME in verified sources, over a much greater period of time than OccupyMarines (and I've not had to jump on someone else's coattails to do so), so do I meet notability? According to you, I exceed it, but I know I'm not notable at all. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes down to that I disagree with you in terms of the extent of the coverage. I consider this coverage to be enough for there to be a Wikipedia article on it, especially since, beyond the coverage, it has actually made an impact in regards to the Occupy movement. Remember that reliable sources (or WP:V, as they represent) doesn't have anything to do with WP:N, beyond that they are supposed to be a verification or representation of notability. But true notability is actually in regards to impact, which is why articles on topics like Nobel Prize winners and their work are made before even any news sources are made on the subject, since the impact has already been established that such topics are notable.

In this case, the sources assert some information in regards to Occupy Marines' impact that I feel meets the notability requirements. Silver seren^C 08:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting this nonsense as it was hatted before Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment There's been a peculiar development buried among the comments here that should not be overlooked. First, by way of quick summary, we are discussing the 2nd nomination of this Article for Deletion (AfD) within the span of 2½ weeks because Basalisk refused to accept the outcome of the first, which was Keep. Accordingly, on December 12, he re-nominated this AfD. Later that day on another page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#AfD_canvassing), Basalisk autocratically declared: "Wikipedia is not a democracy and I will not allow the closing admin to close as 'keep' this time if the keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS." (Boldface in original.) Who determines, in Basalisk's view, whether or not the Keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS? Why, Basalisk does, of course. And, given his predisposition, what is the probability of Basalisk finding that the arguments are not WP:ITEXISTS? Try zero! This effectively renders input from the rest of us moot. Since he is on record as stating he will not accept the outcome of this AfD if it goes against him, Basalisk can continue re-nominating this AfD every couple of weeks until he gets the only decision—namely Delete—that he finds acceptable. It's actually a clever strategy. Using this obstructionist technique, Basalisk doesn't have to be in a position to make the final decision himself. He simply keeps gaming the system until it comes out the way he wants it to. The latest and potentially most misleading development, however, comes in a comment posted above by Basalisk on December 13: "For the benefit of others in this discussion I concede at this point that consensus is to keep. I will not be arguing for a deletion any further." Thus, within the vast timeframe of 48 hours, Basalisk has gone from being so unhappy with this article that he urges its deletion and refuses in advance to abide by any future closing Admin's decision to Keep, to prematurely conceding that the consensus is to Keep and vowing to argue no further for deletion. That would be significant except that Basalisk has not renounced his defiant refusal to accept a Keep decision, nor has he pledged to not re-nominate this AfD as soon as the present one is decided. You know, a cynic might reasonably infer that Basalisk is still gaming the system. By abandoning what he has concluded is a lost cause, Basalisk may hope to curtail interest, facilitate quick closure, then quietly re-nominate this AfD once the dust has settled. Again, a clever strategy. The only question is: will we fall for it? JohnValeron (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Talk about Long-winded. All this coming from a guy that kept reverting ANY changes, and kept pushing to include their own press releases, and the fact that they've linked to their own wikipedia page as being a good thing, and even broke 3RR trying to keep it the way you wanted. I think it's clear now to everyone how obsessed you are with keeping this article, despite the fact that anyone can see that there just isn't enough to support an article. 2-3 articles about it, and a half-dozen other mentions TOTAL. A waterskiing budgie gets more press coverage. Car crashes have more detailed news reports. How else can it be put? This is NOT Newsworthy, else you wouldn't be able to count the number of articles that even MENTION it on your fingers. It exists, we get it. They formed after Sgt Thomas had his rant, check. They've got a website, a facebook page, and a twitter stream, roger that. They support Marines in the Occupy movement, okie dokie. And what else have you got? Nothing. That's it. There's no facts, or anything noteworthy, about them at all. They're a very minor footnote at best, in the occupy movement. Think objectively, instead of emotionally. Notability? It has NONE.72.152.12.11 (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] You're repeating yourself. JohnValeron (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ignore the sock puppets. Not considering his only contributions started three days ago and are all in this AfD and in the Occupy Marine article, have you ever seen a newbie that use a WP:SOAP argument in his second contribute to WP? Cavarrone (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] JohnValeron if you think by just repeating yourself over and over again people will all of a sudden say "Oh Yes" you are mistaken. Mt king ^(edits) 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm not gaming the system, John. Nominating an article for deletion is not "gaming this system". I'm going to come to you for advice the next time I'm choosing a job as you seem to know what I'm going to do before I even do, as you're so determined that I'm going to re-nominate after this discussion closes. You're inferring a trend from a single event (seeing as I wasn't involved in the first discussion). And no, I don't define WP:ITEXISTS because it's description is not subjective. Everyone can see what's going on here by now; you're terrified this article will get deleted because you have massive ownership issues with it. You seem to have some kind of obsession with the Occupy movement, and are determined for the Occupy Marines article to read according to your own opinion and will stop at nothing (such as inserting this edit sourced to the Occupy Marines official website(!)) to get your way. You're now resorting to attempting to derail this discussion because of your own personal investment in an article which is essentially a soapbox. However, if it makes you more comfortable I will make it clear that I will not be re-nominating the article immediately (I thought I made that clear with my last comment); but I will ask for a review sometime after six months from now. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting this nonsense as it was hatted before Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment There's been a peculiar development buried among the comments here that should not be overlooked. First, by way of quick summary, we are discussing the 2nd nomination of this Article for Deletion (AfD) within the span of 2½ weeks because Basalisk refused to accept the outcome of the first, which was Keep. Accordingly, on December 12, he re-nominated this AfD.

Later that day on another page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#AfD_canvassing), Basalisk autocratically declared: "Wikipedia is not a democracy and I will not allow the closing admin to close as 'keep' this time if the keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS." (Boldface in original.)

Who determines, in Basalisk's view, whether or not the Keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS? Why, Basalisk does, of course. And, given his predisposition, what is the probability of Basalisk finding that the arguments are not WP:ITEXISTS? Try zero!

This effectively renders input from the rest of us moot. Since he is on record as stating he will not accept the outcome of this AfD if it goes against him, Basalisk can continue re-nominating this AfD every couple of weeks until he gets the only decision—namely Delete—that he finds acceptable.

It's actually a clever strategy. Using this obstructionist technique, Basalisk doesn't have to be in a position to make the final decision himself. He simply keeps gaming the system until it comes out the way he wants it to.

The latest and potentially most misleading development, however, comes in a comment posted above by Basalisk on December 13: "For the benefit of others in this discussion I concede at this point that consensus is to keep. I will not be arguing for a deletion any further."

Thus, within the vast timeframe of 48 hours, Basalisk has gone from being so unhappy with this article that he urges its deletion and refuses in advance to abide by any future closing Admin's decision to Keep, to prematurely conceding that the consensus is to Keep and vowing to argue no further for deletion.

That would be significant except that Basalisk has not renounced his defiant refusal to accept a Keep decision, nor has he pledged to not re-nominate this AfD as soon as the present one is decided. You know, a cynic might reasonably infer that Basalisk is still gaming the system. By abandoning what he has concluded is a lost cause, Basalisk may hope to curtail interest, facilitate quick closure, then quietly re-nominate this AfD once the dust has settled. Again, a clever strategy. The only question is: will we fall for it? JohnValeron (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about Long-winded. All this coming from a guy that kept reverting ANY changes, and kept pushing to include their own press releases, and the fact that they've linked to their own wikipedia page as being a good thing, and even broke 3RR trying to keep it the way you wanted. I think it's clear now to everyone how obsessed you are with keeping this article, despite the fact that anyone can see that there just isn't enough to support an article. 2-3 articles about it, and a half-dozen other mentions TOTAL. A waterskiing budgie gets more press coverage. Car crashes have more detailed news reports. How else can it be put? This is NOT Newsworthy, else you wouldn't be able to count the number of articles that even MENTION it on your fingers. It exists, we get it. They formed after Sgt Thomas had his rant, check. They've got a website, a facebook page, and a twitter stream, roger that. They support Marines in the Occupy movement, okie dokie. And what else have you got? Nothing. That's it. There's no facts, or anything noteworthy, about them at all. They're a very minor footnote at best, in the occupy movement. Think objectively, instead of emotionally. Notability? It has NONE.72.152.12.11 (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating yourself. JohnValeron (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the sock puppets. Not considering his only contributions started three days ago and are all in this AfD and in the Occupy Marine article, have you ever seen a newbie that use a WP:SOAP argument in his second contribute to WP? Cavarrone (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JohnValeron if you think by just repeating yourself over and over again people will all of a sudden say "Oh Yes" you are mistaken. Mt king ^(edits) 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gaming the system, John. Nominating an article for deletion is not "gaming this system". I'm going to come to you for advice the next time I'm choosing a job as you seem to know what I'm going to do before I even do, as you're so determined that I'm going to re-nominate after this discussion closes. You're inferring a trend from a single event (seeing as I wasn't involved in the first discussion). And no, I don't define WP:ITEXISTS because it's description is not subjective.

Everyone can see what's going on here by now; you're terrified this article will get deleted because you have massive ownership issues with it. You seem to have some kind of obsession with the Occupy movement, and are determined for the Occupy Marines article to read according to your own opinion and will stop at nothing (such as inserting this edit sourced to the Occupy Marines official website(!)) to get your way. You're now resorting to attempting to derail this discussion because of your own personal investment in an article which is essentially a soapbox.

However, if it makes you more comfortable I will make it clear that I will not be re-nominating the article immediately (I thought I made that clear with my last comment); but I will ask for a review sometime after six months from now. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Merge - seems a bit of a puff piece, the group has minimal notability right now (it might improve) and is best dealt with in the context of the OWS article (a paragraph etc.) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ relevant information to OWS for now per Errant. Now: first the nom shows very poor form in bringing this here a scant few weeks after the previous closure rather than seeking a DRV. Second: While there are quite a few sources being bandied about which document perhaps a valid article on Marines and the "Occupy" momement(s) .. this current article is not it. The article as it stands discusses a facebook group, while the sources discuss how various military and police forces are involved in these occupy movements. While an occasional reference to a twitter or facebook page may be mentioned; the reliable sources are not documenting what this current article is attempting to put forth. Worth a mention? sure, in the right place with proper sources. — Ched : ? 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rewrite article to incorporate ALL the "occupy Marines" material. after further consideration (and a bit of discussion) I think this article as it is written is simply a "no go". An article about a facebook page? .. really? .. are you serious? People have pointed out some sources that discuss the "Occupy Marine" movement/group/whatever that do indicate a notable topic - but I'm sorry .. as it stands ... there is no flow to the article .. it's simply a mish-mash of soundbytes that present no discernible or coherent subject matter. A LOT of work from multiple editors has gone into this, and it would be a shame to lose all those edits - but if folks can't compromise and find a middleground then how do you expect us to support this as is? Is the subject matter notable? yep! Is this the article that presents that subject matter .. ABSOLUTELY NOT! just IMHO. — Ched : ? 02:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about DRV. This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and I was not familiar with the DRV process. Mea culpa. I'll know in future. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, have you evaluated all the sources? Two of the more reliable sources are almost entirely dedicated to Occupy Marines – I and others have specifically linked to them several times in this debate. Granted, an article about the involvement of Veterans with the Occupy movement would be even more noteable, and Id have no objection to such a merge if someone creates the new article (as long as other keep voters agree). But am strongly opposed to a merge to OWS. Too much information could be lost, as that article is already cramped. A review of all the reliable sources show Occupy Marines easily has enough coverage for a dedicated article, per our GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Basalisk: .. not a huge deal as far as I'm concerned, we're all trying to do what's best for the project I'm sure.

@Feyd .. replied on your talk - hopefully we can work out a solution that acceptable to everyone. — Ched : ? 16:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I also thought about a merge to Occupy Wall Street but, I had the thought that the article would be too long so I scratched that thought. As noted, I would think a rewrite would be in order to more accurately reflect on the sources and to become more inline with Wikipedia quality standards. Planetary ChaosTalk 18:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I promised in the previous discussion that I'd stay out of it for now. The situation hasn't really improved. We still don't know for sure who these guys are. We can only infer that it's these two shady former (or perhaps in this case "ex-") Marines, only one of whom has his name in the article. I don't have any expectations for this group ever achieving anything notable. They said they'd provide security but I don't see them being mentioned in the news stories whenever one of these rape incidents occurs. The entire Occupado movement may wither away before we know something about them that's worth having an article about. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, I'm trying to understand your comment, but need your help to clarify. By "two shady former (or perhaps in this case 'ex-) Marines," are you referring to Shamar Thomas and Scott Olsen? If so, I've seen no claims anywhere that either man is connected in any way to Occupy Marines. Have you? If so, please provide at least one reference. Thanks. JohnValeron (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are the two I am referring to.

You're right that there are no claims that they're associated with the "organization" but those are the only two names we have. If they're not the founders, then that's even worse. At least with Thomas and Olsen we know for certain that they were Marines at one time. For all we know, whoever is behind this group could well be another Jesse Macbeth.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, thanks for the link to Jesse Macbeth. It's a fascinating story, and this is the first I've heard of it. However, I note several References in that article from recognized third-party sources, such as ABC News, that document Jesse's being a fake.

There are no such references in the article under discussion, Occupy Marines. We have no way to validate your suspicions as to this group's legitimacy, and you've not provided any.

So your argument is not persuasive as to why Occupy Marines should be deleted from Wikipedia. Indeed, your argument doesn't even appear to be relevant to the AfD.

Perhaps I'm missing something. If so, please explain. JohnValeron (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that this is another Jesse Macbeth. I said "for all we know" he/she/they could be. The point is that we don't know.

Actually, if it was another Jesse Macbeth-type then that could make him notable. After all, Macbeth is notable for his fakery.

I look at their twitter followers, and very few of them appear ex-military. Most of them look like they'd never make it. One of them is OccupyAllWater. Should they get an article, too?

Right now, most of the Occupy Marines story is about what they're going to become one day. They need to hurry it up.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your mischaracterization. Most of Occupy Marines is not about what they're going to become one day, but about who they are and what they've been reported—by reliable third-party sources—as having done. JohnValeron (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just took another look at the article. It still doesn't say they've done anything other than get a web site, facebook, and twitter accounts -- most of whose followers are probably non-veterans.

If they've done anything other than talk about what they're going to do then the article should say that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must be looking at the wrong article. Occupy Marines makes no mention of Twitter. JohnValeron (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the article didn't mention that. I got it from their website. I'm fixing it here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add an External Link to Twitter at Occupy Marines but not to Facebook? They are, as the article's lede states, primarily a Facebook support group. If you link to Twitter, shouldn't you also link to Facebook? JohnValeron (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because 1) I was in a hurry when I did that; 2) I didn't know the URL or the syntax for the Facebook template; and 3) I'm lazy. -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter whether we know who these guys are, or what our expectations of what they may or make not accomplish? It seems to me that the key issue is whether the reliable sources (as reliability seems not a question) have provided enough coverage to qualify to meet GNG, and we should focus on that issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is whether or not they're a fly-by-night organization.

They said they're going to provide security but we haven't seen that reported. At the moment, they're WP:WI1E.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WI1E is an essay, not a policy, and pertains to BLPs. A better argument would be based on Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS, I think, but not one I would agree with. I would also suggest that it does not matter what they've said (indeed, if what they've said affected notability, we'd use SPS in notability discussions, and we tend to not do that), nor whether "they're a fly-by-night organization" (since if such received sufficient coverage in reliable sources, they'd meet GNG). --Nuujinn (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a point which is relevant is that there needs to have been enough coverage so that "we can be confident that we're not...perpetuating hoaxes" The coverage doesn't have to identify who's behind the entity perhaps, but since the entity claims to consist of former marines I suspect the coverage should really be deep enough to have at least pointed out whether any substantiation of that had been provided or not. Which is tied to the other issue about whether there's been enough returning coverage to demonstrate that it wasn't a "mere short term interest". EverSince (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EverSince, you've made this point before and I've grappled with it but still don't understand. Please be patient with me. "The coverage," you write, "should really be deep enough to have at least pointed out whether any substantiation" exists as to whether or not Occupy Marines consists of former Marines. But that gets us back to the thorny issue of a Wikipedia editor conducting Original Research to determine the quality of coverage. Not to ascertain if there's been coverage by reliable third-party sources, but how "deep" that coverage is—a subjective value judgment by the Wikipedia editor that is, I submit, entirely out of place in this AfD discussion. JohnValeron (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only concur with the above comments that "who these guys are", or the truthfulness of what they have to say has little to do with WP delete/keep procedures. The only thing that should matter is if this renomination was valid, and if so what should be decided. Reading through this page, I have a hard time finding any argument that this was a valid renomination.Belorn (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good faith position is that the wrong result was returned at the first deletion discussion. There are a fair few accounts that are Single purpose or new accounts that joined in the discussions. Some users (myself included) see this group as pretty much not actually existing, and more like a self promotional arm of the anonymous activist group. The whole thing seems to revolve around a single news story about a demonstrating ex marine in new york. The OccupyNavy and OccupyMarine that is advertised on this groups internet page don't exist. The group don't seem to really exist in a real notable way or to be giving interviews or doing the things it said it was going to do. A few news reports about a single incident only, the rest is self promotional. Wikipedia should not be used to promote anonymous activism groups of minimal note. Youreallycan (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JohnValeron, on checking again I see the point about hoaxes is made re need for reliable sources, rather than re depth of coverage, and I concede that the publications being used are considered reliable. But I think your general point is wrong - the notability guideline does make several points about the need to evaluate the coverage e.g. "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources", they must "address the subject directly in detail", there must be evidence that it's not "a mere short-term interest". I wasn't suggesting we need to do our own research, just that none of the coverage even mentions whether any substantiation has been provided for the claim of being veterans (or even whether the claim is made coherently in their own statements) - which perhaps editors might reasonably conclude is a sign of a lack of depth or persistence to the coverage. EverSince (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EverSince, you are mistaken in charging that none of the coverage contains a "coherent" claim by Occupy Marines of being veterans. "We are a collection of prior service Marines intent on protecting American citizens and their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights," a spokesperson for the group said, according to the ABC News story cited in our Occupy Marines article. That's coherent enough for me.

But again, so what? Even if they are not veterans as they claim, that's no reason to Delete this article. JohnValeron (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I was thinking really of the self-published claimed interview document which makes incoherent claims about how long they've allegedly served for. But the key point remains that none of the coverage, as far as I know, so much as mentions whether or not any substantiation has been provided for the claims. Which doens't indicate depth or detail of coverage or sustained interest. And means Wikipedia can't make it clear to readers that it is not even known whether any substantiation of their claims has been provided. EverSince (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the central argument for this renomination is that WP:SPA and WP:SOCK was involved in affecting the decision of the previous nomination, I assume the accounts in question has been tagged with the SPA tag? That there is a WP:SPI going on about them? Maybe someone did a WP:CHECK to support/deny the claim? Im not trying to be picky, but there is plenty of tools to handle the issues of SPA and SOCK, and from what I can see none of those has been used, and instead we have this renomination which kind of looks a bit odd. Belorn (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belorn, I'm not trying to be picky either, but is the fact that "this renomination kind of looks a bit odd" have any bearing on an Admin's disposition of this 2nd AfD? I know far less about the process than you do but am trying to learn, so please bear with me. Let's say the accounts in question were not tagged as SPA, that there is no WP:SPI going on about them, and that no one did a WP:CHECK to support/deny claims about WP:SPA and WP:SOCK. Would all of that be grounds for Keeping this article? JohnValeron (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will play a role at this point, since we've been discussing the renomination. I think there's no question that the better course would have been DRV, but the nomination was made, and editors appear to be discussing this in good faith. I do not think there's a policy specifically forbidding such a quick renomination, but waiting a longer period is easier on everyone's nerves. Socks and Spas show up regularly at contentious AFDs, but running those down, at least in my opinon, is balanced by our assumption of good faith and not wanting to overburden the clerks who run checks. EverSince's point is spot on, IMO, as we have coverage, it spans 2-3 months, it goes into some depth--the question is, is it enough to justify a stand alone article. I think it is, but others disagree, and that is both normal and fine, and I think this particular article is in a grey area regarding GNG, since it's only been around a short while and is not generating a lot of press. Whoever closes an AFD is supposed to weigh the arguments presented. Arguments well presented and informed by policies carry more weight than ones which are not. Spas and Socks tend to make weak arguments at AFDs. Sorry to ramble, --Nuujinn (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"and editors appear to be discussing this in good faith", that is actually quite a good point. If things are rolling on in good mood then there is no need to stop it. My concern is mostly not to have people turn away from the project because a perceived feeling that decision on keep has less valued and get easily changed then decisions to delete. That said, I agree with your assessment to keep going on with the discussion. Belorn (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just found this, so i'm adding it for consideration. Silver seren^C 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the most related comment in that article to this deletion discussion "Patch has not been able to secure an interview with members of Occupy Marines despite numerous requests." - that is because they almost do not exist - one ex marine camping does not make a real movement. Youreallycan (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what their existence has to do with their notability. If they are a hoax, then we would cover them just the same, but state that they are a hoax. For now, we have coverage of them as a group or movement and it is on those grounds that we are considering it for notability. Unless new reliable info comes to light, their existence is a pointless discussion. Silver seren^C 20:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This webpage is nothing but another front for the anonymous group. There is only limited independent coverage over a news event of that single ex marine video from New York. Anonymous have just created all this as a mouthpiece for their own means, its got nothing or almost totally nothing to do with its original reporting news story notability. Youreallycan (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there has been coverage of Marines joining the Occupy movement. While the Facebook group may or may not have been made to be truthful, the people that have joined it and are using it are making it something real. If it was made by Anonymous (which I doubt), it is out of their hands now and has become an actual movement. And there is significant coverage of the Facebook group (and extensions on Occupy Marines beyond just the Facebook group) anyways, so notability is shown. Again, whether the original Facebook group is "real" or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Silver seren^C 20:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles about the marine shouting in new york do not cut it for me - those article are from over six weeks ago - these nothing fresh because the veterans in some back room building their website, giving interviews, and their group don't exist at all. This is barely over the grass cutting level of independent GNG coverage and in situations like this where there are clear doubts about the groups real existence we should not allow the project to be used to promote such a claimed webpage group. At least they have been forced to remove vague and misleading claims of association to the Marines and their paypal please give money here has been removed so the damage of hosting it here is at least diminishing. Youreallycan (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have to make a counter argument to that. I'm just going to let people read what you just said. Silver seren^C 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good - take it and add it to the opponents of free speechers anarchist attempts to use the wikipedia project for their self promotion trophy cabinet. Youreallycan (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one here can actually prove or disprove the existence of the group, or if the original Facebook group was made with true veterans or not, further discussion to argue the truthfulness of the subject will not result in any great results. Instead, if you think the notability of the subject is lacking, could you specify in what way that is, but in a way so that we do not end up discussing the truthfulness of the group.Belorn (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The truthfulness of the identity claims is relevant as to whether the group has been considered notable enough that those claims have been checked out in any way. Or for it to have even been noted whether any evidence has been provided or not (either way, but noted at least). There doesn't appear to have been any published investigation or analysis or even summary of the various claims of being comprised of veterans of the US Marines Corps. Can at least say that some journalists have reported not being able to contact them I suppose. EverSince (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand the need for truth, remember that Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article (WP:TRUTH). That said, fact-checking is a criteria WP:RS, but to my understanding you need clear consensus if you want to mark a otherwise reliable third-party/s as untrustworthy for a particular subject, and original research that "proves a source wrong" is dubious to use for this purpose. Belorn (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, good - take it and add it to the opponents of free speechers anarchist attempts to use the wikipedia project for their self promotion trophy cabinet." That's a really bad argument to make here, you might consider recasting that one. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do agree that the articles needs some cleaning but I think there is more than sufficient grounds to keep it. Based on the length of this discussion after 6 days my first impulse was to do a non-admin close as keep since there is obviously no consensus to delete it but I decided against it. Maybe I'll swing back by later and do it if someone doesn't beat me too it. --Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, please don't do a non-admin close. This discussion is ongoing and is far from exhausted. Please let it run its course and wait for Admin closure. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia for you to unilaterally preempt further input. JohnValeron (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but with about 26 Keeps, 15 deletes and a few suggestions to Merge and Redirect there clearly isn't going to be a clear consensus to delete the article at this time. I really don't feel strongly about the article either way but as I see it this isn't just a simple matter of majority rules. Rarely do this many folks turn out to vote on an article like this and this clearly isn't a land slide in favor of deletion. Thats all I'm trying to say. Even if it was 26 deletes to 15 keeps I would say it should be kept just by percentage. --Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute your interpretation as to consensus. But please let us proceed with our discussion. For you to do a non-admin close at this point would do nothing more than subvert the process. JohnValeron (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 keeps because someone wrote on a facebook page to come and lobby to keep this article does not represent a consensus to keep. The arguments in favour of retention don't stack up, they're lobbying to keep an article on a Facebook group that got mentioned in a few press articles and that is all, while the article itself is little more than self-promotion. This is clearly a case of wikipedia being use to self-promote a non-notable group, as evinced by their claim to be working with wikipedia. Its a very clear delete and should not be a non-admin close. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I am an author of the Occupy Marines page. I did not create the page, however I have added content and references to it. I am not a member of Occupy Marines. I am not and have never served in the Marines or any other armed force. I was not canvassed. I write and edit sparsely as time permits on a variety of topics that interest me as reflected on my User page. I'm trying to find a way to read the above comment that is consistent with WP:GOODFAITH and WP:AOBF and not having much luck. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only 5 of the Keeps are SPAs, the rest being established users, while 2 of the Delete votes are also SPAs. Regardless of any canvassing, it is quite clear that this discussion falls within the no consensus leaning toward keep end of the spectrum, considering the arguments have essentially boiled down to "the sources meet GNG" and "the sources don't meet GNG". Silver seren^C 09:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not part of any "lobby", and the fact that an article could appear "self-promotional" is not a valid reason for deletion, rather it is a reason to improve it and make it more neutral as possible. Cavarrone (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster, your allegation that we have "26 keeps because someone wrote on a facebook page to come and lobby to keep this article" is absurd. You have no way of knowing that, and to allege such a thing in order to collectively nullify all Keep votes is dishonest. JohnValeron (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cobblers, it was headed for delete right up to the point that a message went out on Facebook lobbying to skew this delete discussion. What is dishonest John, before you stoop to calling people liars, is trying to deny that message ever went out on Facebook. And if you remove the self-promotional crap what do we have. There is a facebook page called OccupyMarines, they got mentioned in a few press articles and they don't answer the phone. What else? Its a very clear delete of a self-promotional puff piece of a non-notable group hanging on to wikipedia's coat tails to make them look more important. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You act surprised! Remember, this is the same JohnValeron that added a self-sourced press release, and kept reverting it back on when it was removed for being unsourced, not NPOV, and failing WP:SOAP. Seriously, This whole article has gotten stuck in a loop, similar to the one expressed in this xkcd comic. Yet instead of a claim on wikipedia starting it, it was some posts on facebook and twitter. Then because there was 'a quote' posted on a reputable news site, it's treated as a verified fact, even though the sources themelves all but say 'this is NOT a verified fact' in the way they present things. Copy-pasting from social media is not reporting, it's not even fact-checking. When the 'verified sources' are clearly pointing out that they haven't verified the claims (by attributing it to a post on facebook or twitter) then they don't stand by the quality of it. In that case, how can it really be a verified source? 72.152.12.11 (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)— 72.152.12.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Lol! The above sockpuppet account is also part of the facebook-lobbying-conspiracy? --Cavarrone (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly he's a part of the anti-facebook-lobbying-conspiracy. (/sarcasm...except not really). Silver seren^C 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try to get back to the issue at hand, by either continue the discussion about WP:GNG or dropping it and simply return back here in 3-6 months if the article has not improved. Ignoring keep comments by turning a blind eye to WP:GOODFAITH, or making comments with a dose of WP:SARCASM will not get this anywhere. Belorn (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We now have 8 solid references that each independently have reported on or cited spokespeople of Occupy Marines. These include USA Today, CBS News, The Raw Story, Marine Corps Times, Business Insider (twice), ABC News and The Nation. That certainly meets general notability guidelines. (full disclosure: I am the originator of the article.)--Nowa (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've contributed frequently to this discussion, but haven't voted because I'm new to the AfD process and wanted to see how it plays out. However, it has now been eight days since this 2nd AfD nomination (which followed the 1st AfD's closure by only 11 days). And the past week has witnessed—as user Nowa points out on a related thread—a "good faith effort that numerous editors have made to help the article comply with Wikipedia standards."

Indeed, I believe that if some of those who voted Delete early in this debate were to go back and look at Occupy Marines with a fresh eye and a fair mind, they'd concede that many of their concerns have been addressed and overcome.

Nobody claims that this article is perfect. But it's worth saving so that we can continue to improve it. JohnValeron (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps this AfD should be run a third time, this time semi-protected. It seems we can't get a proper AfD on this article without widespread on- and off-wiki canvassing. —SW— ^express 18:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good luck to whichever Admin is brave/bored/baked/brewed enough to wade through all of this twaddle. Good God. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Meyers[edit]

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

Sherdog has no record of a MMA fighter with a record of 67-63-4. I can find nothing to verify any information in this article. TreyGeek (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only Kevin Meyers fighter I could find has a 0-1-0, 1-0-0 or 1-1-0 record, depending on where you look. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per foregoing - an unholy synthesis of quasi-hoax, insufficient sources and non-notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no evidence of anyone with that name having 67 fights (or anything close to it). I found no evidence of notability and the article lacks good sources. Astudent0 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced BLP of a person with no supported claims of notability. Sherdog lists 2 fighters with that name--one has zero fights and the other has a loss in his only bout. Jakejr (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JFHJr (㊟) 07:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Haftzah Yazid[edit]

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

no citations I have searched and I can find no mention of this guy except on wikipedia and clone sites J8079s (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It clearly didn't help that the subject's name is misspelled. I found some sources, oddly enough, by searching in Arabic. Good ol' GooBooks led to a more regularized name spelling. I've updated the contents, but if this article lives past AfD, it should be moved to Abu Hafsa Yazid. JFHJr (㊟) 06:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers should be aware that the article has changed substantially since Nom for AfD.

Keep - a notable character in the early history of Islam, with five rock-solid citations. Article should be moved to "Abu Hafsa Yazid" immediately after AfD is closed. Well done JFHJr for fine work - maybe you should cast your !vote though! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and rename per foregoing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I was hoping the nominator would notice and withdraw the nomination. I guess I still hope so. If the nominator wants, I can assist in non-admin closure. JFHJr (㊟) 16:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly withdraw the nomination. Thanks for the help J8079s (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Serato[edit]

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

This is one of ten (only nominating this one for now) bios created from a CNN award for "a normal person, they're doing a normal job," to quote CNN itself. Point is, this is WP:ONEEVENT and also a good example of how widespread coverage in a national publication can still occasionally not be an indication of notability. In fact, I think that this set of articles is the textbook definition of BLP1E.

Of course what these individuals are doing is great, but it can be sufficiently covered in an article about the CNN Heroes series/award. We don't need new BLPs to do that either.

I'm only nominating this one at the moment to make sure my conclusion above is right... but I would be open to expanding it to the others if there's support for that too. Shadowjams (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Clearly WP:BLP1E. Delete per nom, and let's get on with the others too. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Expand CNN Heroes with more referenced content from reliable sources. If the 2011 section there gets too big, then it can be split off to CNN Heroes 2011. If any one person in that new split-off list gets more notable beyond BLP1E, then it can be split off to its own article, but a WP:Walled garden of mini-stubs like these should for now be corralled back into the one article. Filing Flunky (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not a notable person. Vincelord (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I'd argue against adding more names to this nomination; if consensus falls to delete this article, you can always cite that as a precedent in a future nomination for the other non-notable individuals on the list. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just an Average Joe. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Menzies[edit]

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

Not notable, freelance work and minor brushes with the law not notable Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's frequently appeared on national TV (example) even though it's normally as a guest, not host. His opinion pieces have appeared in major newspapers[54]. And, his minor personal life incidents that got mentioned, add up. So, yes, he is notable. --Rob (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does being accused of stealing gasoline and picking fights with Muslim women add to notability and warrant a Wikipedia entry? And in Canada, the Sun News network has minimal viewers and the Sun newspapers are unimportant. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Not a big fan of journalists - by virtue of publishing for a living they always appear more notable than they actually are. Has had some stuff printed in some well know newspapers, guest appearance on TV, and had some encounters with the law in different capacities. It starts to add up, but I still don't see it meeting the notability threshold. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability guidelines look for signifanct coverage in 3rd party sources where the subject of the article is the subject of the coverage. Newspaper and TV appearances where the subject of the article is the author doesn't quite cut it. RadioFan (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consolitis[edit]

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

Non-notable term, not to mention the references are Urban Dictionary and a website that's hasn't been active for three years. A google search turns this article and the references in question. MattParker 119 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Urban Dictionary is a user-submitted website packed full of amusing, made-up stuff, and is pretty much the exact opposite of a reliable source. Then, we have a couple of references to gamer blog posts. Also not reliable sources. The article has a long list of video games that the author thinks suffer from this "affliction". That's all original research as it is all unreferenced. Delete per our guideline on non-notable neologisms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Urban dictionary doesn't cut it for me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTNEO. Lack of reliable sources, the list of games that are included is WP:OR, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Using UrbanDic as a source? Really? Hell, I'm on there, so it's clearly as far from reliable as can be. Salvidrim! 20:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely the description of you is accurate, isn't it, Salvidrim? Precisely how many thousands of sites do you participate in? Do you have time to eat or sleep, or are you a bot? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't sleep. Google suggests About 7,890 results. The top ten include my Twitter, Facebook, G+, Youtube, EBay Wikipedia page (User and talk!) and personal website.... interesting. Salvidrim! 21:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very real problem and should be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.49.83 (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 INCUBATE at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Universe of Metro 2033. TigerShark (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universe of Metro 2033[edit]

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

Community project to write a book. Doubtfull of this is notable. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Bol or a book writing service. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. This article is supposed to be about a book series spun off from a videogame and a novel, but I can't figure out from this article who the authors are or who publishes the books. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate per Legis. The article does indicate who the authors are now, but about 90% of this is still in-universe content with hardly any sources. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. Uncategorised and unsourced, but don't bite the newbies. Someone put a lot of effort into this and I wouldn't want to delete it without a sense of where it comes from and why it is potentially encyclopedic. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously, but needs improvement. One of the top science fiction universes in Russian literature. GreyHood ^Talk 19:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. TigerShark (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Sigma Gamma[edit]

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

Non-notable frat, with only one chapter. I've looked but all I found was hits in directory listings. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although this fraternity only has one chapter now, it used to have more -- as of 1920, it had seven chapters. [55] If the article can be improved, it should be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd have to agree with Metropolitan90; if it seems that this fraternity was at one point notable, and if sources back that up, then an article is warranted. Notability has no expiration date, and we have articles on historic organizations without extensive modern activity. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have worked on the article somewhat and believe that there are sufficient, albeit limited, sources to justify an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic piece, sources showing to meet GNG. Nice work, Metro90. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Eshelman[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)

Does not meet either general notability guideline or notability guideline for biographies, due to fundamental lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Yworo (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR. This author has been writing books on these topics since the 1970's, and is considered an expert in both Sidereal Astrology and Thelemic Magic. His books are highly sought after. One title when it went out of print was selling for more than $1000. Article is important to a community of people interested in the topic the author writes about, this is an important resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augurone (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Augurone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You have not addressed the actual notability issue. We require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If the subject is notable, these should be easily found. From the sources provided, subject does not appear to meet any point of WP:AUTHOR. To establish that he does, again, independent third-party reliable sources must support one or more of the points listed. Yworo (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yworo, You keep deleting 3rd party references, and you are constricting terms. The Thelemic community is not so broad, but within it James A. Eshleman is important as is much so as Grady McMurtry, Phyllis Seckler, David Shoemaker, Aleister Crowley. Do you have a problem with Jim? this link * More on the Caliphate Elections along with this link * Caliphate Election Transcript are third party sources. Published by a legitimate 3rd party * Poetry. Re-published by a 3rd party * Article on Liber AL. Publishing industry sites referencing Jim's work * Author Profile, * Velvet Books
    - You have apparently not read our guidelines on what constitutes a reliable source and what is allowed to be externally linked. Personal webpages, blogs, forums, event announcements, press releases, and self-published material of any sort are not reliable sources. Blogs, forums, livejournal and such content may not even be linked in the external links section. I have left in all the additions you have made which are reliable sources or allowed external links. You are simply dredging the web, that's not where you will find reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - P. R. Koenig's site is a polemic anti-OTO site. This means it cannot be trusted as a reliable source. Since Eshelman is no longer an OTO member, if you can find the same sort of documentation on the official OTO site, that would be an acceptable source. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Goodreads and Librarything are based on user-submitted content. Also not considered to be reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Velvet Books source is a copy of a previous version of this very Wikipedia article, and therefore also not a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you disagree or have further questions about what constitutes a reliable source or want an independent opinions, ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Yworo (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While I can see that this individual may be important to a select group of people, there's just not enough WP:RS available for him to be kept under WP:AUTHOR's guidelines. Lithorien (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Lithorien, above. And WP:TOOSOON. JFHJr (㊟) 02:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above; I looked into it earlier but didn't find anything useful to save the article. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Trouble with Occultism and Thelema is that no one takes it very seriously, so one tends to bash it too readily. Cutting through that, it doesn't look like we get to sufficient notability, although I accept that publishing a few books may be as close as one gets to being the Nobel laureate in this field. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability has still not been shown. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 14:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel Hill and Carrboro Human Rights Center[edit]

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

Unclear what the center makes notable. Seems a part of their battle for survival. Less then 3000 internet hits... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Google hits aren't a reason to delete. But failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG is, and this subject fails both indeed. The most in-depth coverage I've found pertains to the Center having to relocate, from two sources [56][57][58] – that last one is a blog, as opposed to the main local news service, indicating there's a difference. Where this subject fails WP:BASIC over multiple and significant coverage, it also fails WP:ORG. I found lots of other mentions, either in articles written by the Center's founder, in less meaningful passing mention, even in school newspapers. I tried several methods of finding better sources to no avail. If someone else finds them, I'm open to changing my !vote. And for full disclosure, I'm from Chapel Hill. JFHJr (㊟) 02:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JFHJr. Feels like a bit of an attempt to garner sympathy in light of the potential closure. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable and has garnered news coverage because of the human rights violations that are potentially occurring due to plans for further gentrification by indirectly forcing latino immigrants out of the housing complex to market the place for students. Wthomaso (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. With respect to the several SPAs and the possibility of meatpuppetry or socking...I find that Ms. Batfish response to JFHjr and Warden's argument sufficiently countweight the arguments by PhantomSteve and JFHJr. I'm also inclined to agree with Legis that there may be more sources in Italian. This AFD has been relisted several times already and I just don't think a consensus to delete will be achieved. v/r - T P 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Roma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite a long list of references, this organisation does not appear to meet the notability criteria, as the coverage provided is not 'significant' or 'independent'. Analysis of the citations as they currently stand:

Comment: Previously I did not point this out, however, it is important to note that while we might or might not consider the references to Nova Roma 'significant', but they are certainly 'independent', even in the most rigorous sense. The only non-independent reference in the article is one of the two links to the Certamen Petronianum, and the one of the two links to the Nova Roma coinage, only to support the data at the American Numismatic Association and to illusrate better the coin itself, its form, shape and history. --Gonda Attila (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palacios, Juan José: listed in a list of cybernations, single mention in a list, no further coverage
Strmiska: about the Nova Roma adherents in the military, but not significant coverage of the organisation sufficient for an article
Maine Department of the Secretary of State: confirms they exist and are non-profit
Dixon, Suzanne: 2 sentences, basically as an example of creative anachronmism and as a micro-nation
Trinkle, D. A./Merriman, S. A: Listed in a directory of websites
Burgan, Michael: Listed as "further resources", a couple of sentences saying that they provide information on "Roman Way", guidelines for choosign a Roman name, and a calcaltor for converting to/from Roman numerals
Auffarth, Chr./Bernard, J./Mohr, H.: Unable to evaluate as I could not get a copy
Sestertius signum - own website, not independent
American Numismatic Association: confirms micronation status and own coinage, not indepth coverage though
Caporaso, Giovanni: confirms micronation/coinage, not indepth, just a couple of sentences
Vobruba, Georg: confirms micronation status
Margot Adler: A short paragraph about the organisation. It reads like it was submitted by the organisation itself
McColman, Carl: Unable to evaluate as I could not get a copy
Davy, Barbara Jane: mentions in chapter "notes" as references - not substantial coverage. It references a statement about Reconstructionists of Roman paganism - the chapter does not mention Nova Roma itself
Strmiska, Michael: As #2
Joyce Higginbotham: a quotation from someone who says "I am a priest in Nova Roma", but does not actually go into detail. The following sentences are not about Nova Roma, but about other things
"The second Festival of Ancient Heritage in Svishtov": listed on list of organisations who too part in the festival - not indepth
"GLADIATORS TO BATTLE ON ROMAN MARKET DAY": Confirms that they organised the event, but no further details about the organisation ("The one-day event is being organized by Nova Roma, a Maine-based group dedicated to studying the history and culture of ancient Rome. The group has members and chapters across the United States and Canada") - appears to be based on a press release
"Great Caesar's ghost ... ; A celebration of ancient Roman culture takes place this weekend in Hollis.": again, confirms they organised it, but not indepth coverage of the organisation - appears to be based on a press release
"Roman days, Roman nights ; Gladiators, armor and other displays are a few highlights of Wells' annual Roman Market Days": again, confirms they organised it, but not indepth coverage of the organisation - appears to be based on a press release
"Budapesti Történeti Múzeum - Aquincumi Múzeum - FLORALIA": A "What's happening" listing (presuambly based on a press release). Not significant coverage
"XX. Floralia - Roman spring festival": Has no mention of Nova Roma
"Certamen Petronianum": own website, not independent
"Il CERTAMEN PETRONIANUM, un nuovo concorso per i latinisti": confirms that they organised the competition, but no further details about the organisation

I should also add that in the article it says that observers draw the conclusion that it is a micronation, whereas the sources seem to state that Nove Roma claim that status themselves.

To my eyes, this appears as an advert for the organisation, with lots of references added in the hope that people will see the quantity and assume it's notable - whereas in fact the references provide minor coverage of the organisation (one doesn't even mention them at all), and none of them provide indepth information about the organisation.

An article under the name Nova Roma (Micronation) was deleted in July 2004, and the last AfD (link above) closed as 'keep', I think mainly because a lot of references were added. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Keep The sources seem adequate to support a stub and there are reasonable alternatives to deletion such as merger with List of historical reenactment groups. Warden (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acording to the notability guidelines of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:N) , for articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. The large number of references to Nova Roma proves it is a small but relatively notable organization in its own, very mixed, category. It has coverage in press and in books related to the topic. If we define it as a Roman neopagan religion, it is certainly one of the oldest and biggest groups of this type, and it's the one that is international (and the references support it). If we define Nova Roma as a cultural, educational and reenactor society, plenty of the press releases and online news websites and some of the books among the references attest it has displayed a truly international activity from Bulgaria to Hungary, from the USA to Italy. However, if we define Nova Roma as a micronation, it is one of the oldest and most successful ones, with own coinage, international membership, real life activities, and refernced by authors and press. The source ("XX. Floralia - Roman spring festival") which according to PhantomSteve would not mention Nova Roma, does, in fact, mention it. The link referred by PhantomSteve was an older version of the website, since then changed. But there are other sources to confirm that the event has indeed taken place, and Nova Roma was part of it, in every year since 2007. I will add the updated link information to the notes section of the article. See program mentioned on the National Geographic website; these pages of the Aquincum Museum website also confirm Nova Roma is a long time participant in this important Roman themed event of the capital city of Hungary in 2011, in 2009, in 2010. Another independent mention of Nova Roma by the Bulgarian National Geographic website (click on the six photo below where Bulgarian text reads: "Members of the Nova Roma - an international organization that brings together people interested in ancient Roman history and culture around the world - Arthur Minenko of Estonia (in red) and Vladimir Popov from Bulgaria (white) recreate the Roman rite of the ancient agricultural festival of Ulpia Pautalia, held in June 2010 in Kyustendil."). Nova Roma was recently recommended by by the website of CASLS: Center for Applied Second Language Studies. There is a longer mention of and about Nova Roma in Danese's book, Weni, widi, wici : tra 'volumen" e byte, pp.133-134. Nova Roma has been mentioned or listed in several other reliable sources and books, for example, in "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: Metaphysical, New Age, and neopagan movements" by Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft, which lists Nova Roma, and just this alone proves Nova Roma achieved significance in Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. --Gonda Attila (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Gonda Attila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Nova Roma is an international organization and promotes many cultural activities. The arguments used to consider this article for deletion comes from a person who has no idea what Nova Roma promotes. -Psique Delfos (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)— Psique Delfos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please remember to avoid personal attacks and tell us what Wikipedia policy or guidelines support keeping this article. Please try not to make assumptions about the nominator's motivations, that user said that the reason they thought the article should be deleted was because they thought the references given for the article may not be reliable sources, which are required for Wikipedia. They are not making a personal statement about their views on Nova Roma, nor should anyone in this discussion. We are trying to decide whether the article follows Wikipedia's rules. Check out the words linked in blue for more information. Thank you. MsBatfish (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please Keep Nova Roma! I do'nt see any reason for deletion. NR is a lively and slowly but surely growing cultural community and organization having increasing membership in the USA, England western and eastern Europe, with some members scattered even further all over the world, but willing to travel for some of the most important meetings occasions, very diverse which add to the cultural activity developed on line. I think the article satisfies enough notability requiremts The article can be improved and expanded and but, again there is absolutely no reason to delete it. I have seen personally assisted in 2 occasions to re-enactors military parades, and religious cerimonies in Roumania and and I have been invited to conferences Marcus Prometheus, italian in Roumania. -82.137.15.1 (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)— 82.137.15.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the references taken as a whole do prove that the subject is notable enough for an article. Perhaps encourage the main editors to develop the article further, do some more work on making it accurate and neutral, remove un-sourced info and/or find some better sources? MsBatfish (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain my 'Keep': I have now added a few additional sources and references. I support the argument of MsBatfish, Nova Roma may not be well-known, but it is mentioned by the most important printed books dealing with the topic. And there are still references not added to the article, so there is way for improvement here. --Gonda Attila (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Gonda Attila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment. More input from established editors is needed here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MsBatfish's reasoning. Lithorien (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This subject fails WP:BASIC requirements, namely substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Looking into the cites that exist, I agree with the nominator's careful if not overly detailed analysis of the sourcing concerns. This subject also fails WP:ORG notability guidelines as an organization because of the paucity of in-depth coverage in WP:RS. MsBatfish's comment above is essentially a form of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Several others above are essentially WP:ILIKEIT, and should also be discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that my comment was a form of WP:SOURCES, I think it is in line with WP:BASIC, which states "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". WP:SOURCES is talking about when someone just says "Keep: there are lots of sources", when that is either untrue or the sources are not reliable/independent, or they do not (either individually or as a whole) provided enough coverage. If you want to argue that all the mentions in the sources listed so far are too trivial, even when taken together, to meet WP:BASIC, then that is a different matter. I am not un-persuadable. And I do think that one or more sources with more significant coverage would greatly improve the article. Also, I do agree that someone liking Nova Roma is not a sufficient explanation for a "Keep" stance. MsBatfish (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with caveat. Failure of WP:BASIC is pretty core, but is there likely to be more available in Italian? --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reinforce my initial 'Keep' based on WP:BASIC which notes that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This article, in my view, satisfies this criterion, using multiple independent sources to demonstrate notability in the absence of substantial, in-depth coverage. --Gonda Attila (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— Gonda Attila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just noting that I have since then added some new references. --Gonda Attila (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there have been made other new improvements by a number of editors and more references were given, demonstrating this article has future. --Gonda Attila (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fusible.com[edit]

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

For a so important blog, you would expect more then 46.000 internet hits and 8 Google News hits. Looks like promo to me, especially due to the COI. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sufficient WP:RS to support WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.61 (talk · contribs) _{04:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete- Not blatant enough to clear G11, yet the conflict of interest does raise a red flag. A look at the user's talk page revealed the account is blocked indef, apparently for the COI. The main point of the article seems to be that, through the subject website's research, it discovered a secret Microsoft project. Not much at all to assert the subject website's notability. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The intention is not for promo but there are many tech blogs listed in Wikipedia. Go to Google News and enter "Fusible" and there are nearly 200 hits as of 12 Dec 2011. The site is mentioned as the lead source in Techmeme nearly a dozen times and averages 1 to 2 mentions per month on average in Techmeme. http://www.techmeme.com/search/query?q=sourceurl%3Afusible.com It has been cited hundreds of times by Google News Listed sites. See Press Room page for references http://fusible.com/press-room/ Dozens of stories have been broke by Fusible like Google's Photovine, James Bond Skyfall, title and many more stories. Is it not notable to regularly be cited by Google News listed sites and the first to break tech stories on a regular basis? Editing was blocked temporarily because the username has to be changed.--Littledevilmedia (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem with the links on your press page is that most of them are just one-line mentions of/links to the blog. What Wikipedia needs is substantial coverage of the site in reliable publications. It's not an arbitrary decision, it's so we can use it to verify facts about the site. One-line mentions or links don't help us verify anything other than that you get cited by other blogs. Steven Walling • talk 04:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COI issues aside, a relatively new site that has received some coverage, but not enough to be considered significant. Techmeme is a news aggregator site rather than an actual news site and doesn't contribute to any notability. Яehevkor ✉ 20:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Versailles (French band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band and poorly written, unsourced article. Xfansd (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources that show notability. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 17:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Bagby[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG despite the sheer number of sources that apparently support the article: there's almost no significant coverage (i.e., he gets passing mention), and the best in-depth coverage comes from OutSmart, which is not independent of the subject. Campaign managers certainly don't (usually) gain notability through their candidates, let alone to the degree required under WP:POLITICIAN. Most of all, the heap of local (not quite "multiple sourced"), largely in-passing coverage of this subject as a spokesperson/board member doesn't inure to this subject's individual notability. I haven't been able to find much better results after research, and I can't make out any particular claim to this person's notability. JFHJr (㊟) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant delete - much as I admire Brother Burton, and am in awe of his odyssey, I just don't see the evidence of the requisite level of notability. If he were to be elected to office himself, that would be another matter entirely. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think this guy's done some great things in his life. It's just WP:TOOSOON in this case. When it's time, we'll have lots to restore. In the meantime, here's to Texan voters. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure -- Certainly NN as politician; probably as a minister. However, I wonder whether the Hammer award (now linked) is evidence of notability, possibly also his postions on various boards. I am singularly unimpressed by the quality of the citations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't believe recipients of the Hammer award would be inherently notable, and nothing else in the article hints at notability. St Anselm (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Despite a few brief mentions in local news and The Star, the article is heavily promotional and a memorial. One ref even cites Wikipedia. The article could be improved by removing all sections but the lead and "Worldwide charitable services" and deletion is not for articles that can be fixed. However, I think the argument has been sufficiently made that this article, while meeting the letter of WP:GNG, does not meet the spirit of our policy. The coverage received is typical of coverage you'd expect for an "aww that's cute" sort of thing where a husband is doing charity in the name of his deceased wife. I think it's great, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. v/r - T P 14:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of Meghan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This one is kind of odd. For starters, a page with this name was deleted last year following an AfD (here). The current article is better; whether it's different enough that this is not is a G4 speedy I'm not sure (this was the version deleted), but it's re-existed for a while, various editors have worked on it, there're more sources, and the original AfD was not heavily populated, so I don't know as it's a speedy.

But, hmmm. There are refs, mostly unreliable or unnotable, but here's a Toronto Star feature article for instance, and the Star is very notable. So it meets the WP:GNG. But GNG or no, I don't see this as notable, really.

[On consideration redacted a section here (after the first editor had commented) about the content. I'll just say say WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:PROMOTION, and read the article yourself and draw your own conclusions.]

Anyway, not notable, refs notwithstanding. If it is notable, at any rate should be moved to Adam Warner as, for good or ill, the article is about him and his activities going forward in life. Herostratus (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has significant coverage [59] [60]. "GNG or no, I don't see this as notable" is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like it, but that aside, we're not required by GNG to host a WP:PROMOTION just because there's an article in the Toronto Star and the Sarnia Observer. Good for him, but is the rule "You manage to get yourself an article in the Star, you're golden for a Wikipedia article as a free bonus? Herostratus (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is the focus of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources (including MTV News and the CBC) and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This is an odd AfD... partly because at least one of the sources being used to justify its inclusion CITES this very wikipedia article (MTV Canada news that reads like a blog). xkcd is a genius. Digressing... most of the sources don't meet our WP:RS criteria or indicate notability. For instance, funeral home and memorial listings are not indications of notability. Some others are primary sources to the site itself, or their facebook page. Then there's a few blog posts on there. The ones that do meet WP:RS from my brief review are: Alan Colmes interview, CBC interview (the link doesn't seem to be of that video so I can't asses how notable it is), The Observer article, this, and then of course The Star. The interviews are technically primary sources, and some of the newspapers seem like local newspaper stories. However, The Star article is large and has a wide distribution. I think that pushes it into notable territory. I agree with Herostratus' general statement though that any mention isn't enough. There are way too many instances where we have someone who appeared in a hometown paper article and that gets touted as sufficient to be notable. I don't buy that. But here it's a major paper with large coverage and a few other appearances. I think it's borderline but probably just enough. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't enough coverage in WP:RS to justify a keep. Sure, there's mention in The Star - but that's all it is. A mention. There's nothing about this to bring it up to WP's standards of notability. Lithorien (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, it passes WP:GNG according to the letter, but not the spirit - a couple of cute human-interest stories in local papers just don't constitute "multiple" in any encyclopedically meaningful way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lithorien and Roscelese. Not enough WP:RS. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 JVC. v/r - T P 14:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JVC GZ-HD7[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JVC. I found some coverage of the product in Google News archives from 2007, but it doesn't appear to be substantial or from WP:RS. HurricaneFan 25 22:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would give the JVC article undue balance. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. This article has a history of being nominated for deletion (2 previous attempts) and yet it has survived both attempts. Once a deletion nomination fails it should be final. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only see one attempt at deletion - I had previously PRODed it. Regardless of whether or not there is "a history of being nominated for deletion" an article can always be renominated. 18:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment and also, please see WP:NOTAGAIN. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Some weak (but unsupported) assertions of originality. However, originality claimed is only limited and then not supported. I'd go with delete unless someone comes up with some decent sources. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. v/r - T P 14:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Schadla-Hall[edit]

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

Professor of archaeology that does not appear to meet the general notability guideline nor the guidelines of WP:PROF:

Publications in Google Scholar do not seem to suggest he is highly cited in the field. Although he has a number of publications and books, these do not appear to be strongly notable works in the field.
The professor has not won any awards.
He has not been elected to any prestigious organizations, nor been named a Distinguished Professor, and does not appear to have made any great impact outside his discipline.

The only current source on the page is a link to his university profile. Given the above, I support the deletion of the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think Schadla-Hall's editorship of the journal Public Archaeology is enough to pass WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I appreciate the research legwork and finding his editorship (I had no idea). I was going to withdraw the nomination, but I don't think Public Archaeology is a "major well-established academic journal in their subject area" according to WP:PROF. Since its first publication 10 years ago, it has published 60 articles, but articles from the journal have been cited only 27 times. Furthermore, out of all the publications in archaeology, it ranks #45. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think the journal may well be more important in a narrower subject area rather than all of archaeology. That is it might well be a leading journal in the subject area of public policy and archaeology. I am also dubious about figures for citations you quote. I think they are not likely to be correct. I have had a quick look at a few articles and clicked on their citations in google scholar and their citation count sum to 100 which is a lot bigger than 27. Several articles are fairly well cited eg

* Making things public: archaeologies of the Spanish Civil WarA González-Ruibal - Public Archaeology, 2007 33 citations

* Iraq, stewardship and &# 8216; the record&# 8217;: An ethical crisis for archaeology Y Hamilakis - Public Archaeology, 2003 35 citations

* Archaeology from below N Faulkner - Public Archaeology, 2000 29 citations

I think our having an article on the journal is indicative of its notability but I realize such an argument might easily be attacked. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep. Has an h-index of 4, based on GS; which may not be the best indicator, given the subject’s field. Most widely held book in libraries, Art treasures and war (not the lead author on this one), currently in about 100 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The book Tom Sheppard: Hull's great collector, which is cited in the article prominently as an indication of notability, is in less than 20 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The journal Public Archaeology has about 1.62 citations per article on average; not sure if this would qualify under WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal). All in all, probably qualifies under WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), but not in a very strong way.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. –MuZemike 06:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Willem Breure[edit]

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

No clear evidence of notability meeting WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion outweigh the argument for retention given. –MuZemike 19:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Empire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Even though I feel that this should meet the notability criteria, I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The last AfD resulted in no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Documented in sources such as The Knights Next Door: Everyday People Living Middle Ages Dreams and King Arthur in popular culture. Warden (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I don't feel as strongly as he does, but my views mirror Stuartyeates'. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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