< 16 July 18 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Laszlocser but the consensus is that they still do not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La Caffettiera Stioppeta[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Only reference is not significant coverage. Google searches do not provide anything better. Disputed Prod. noq (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a brief mention, and does not meet WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), and certainly does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. - SudoGhost 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, an extremely trivial mention. The article is about a completely different (and equally non-notable) youth choir and mentions that they were participating in some kind of cultural exchange involving two other youth choirs, one of which was La Caffettiera Stioppeta. It doesn't come close to meeting the requirements for significant coverage. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: Which criteria of WP:MUSICBIO does it now fulfill in order to be an article on Wikipedia? It still doesn't meet #1, as all of the references still appear trivial. - SudoGhost 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nr. 12. The performance on 29.05.2005 at the Hungarian National Gallery was recorder by the National Radio as part of the Series "Hangverseny Délidőben"(=Concert at noon). The recording is avalible at the archive http://www.radio.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=69&Itemid=124 and can be ordered here: http://www.radio.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=59&Itemid=89 Order form: http://www.radio.hu/down/Megrendelolapok.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laszlocser (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2011 User talk:Laszlocser 9:32 PM 23 July 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to fulfill Criteria #12 of WP:MUSICBIO. Being recorded and available for sale isn't the same thing as being the featured subject (not one of many) of a substantial broadcast segment. - SudoGhost 21:44, 23 July 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. If anybody comes up with anything else let me know and I'll be glad to userfy or incubate this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. M. Alauddin[edit]

Dr. M. Alauddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This position does not seem to be verified by any sources. I admit that I'm not familiar with this field, but it seems odd that a person can be the president of so many things simultaneously. - SudoGhost™ 03:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to their website, the Society of Otolaryngologists and Head Neck Surgeons of Bangladesh has about 36 members, so being elected President is not overwhelmingly prestigious. WWGB (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
is it the leading national society in the profession? if so the society is notable and the head of it is as well. Or on what other basis of personal knowledge do you assert non-notability? There are many notable people and organizations in the US I've never heard of either. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is any kind of definitive evidence against the notability of the organization, but according to the website's whois, the website didn't exist until October 2010. I may be reading it completely wrong (again, not my area of knowledge), but the website's About Us page seems to assert only inherit notability from doctors of established ENT departments (the very last paragraph seems to be the only one that addresses the "Society of Otolaryngologists & Head Neck Surgeons of Bangladesh" itself). But again, this is an observation from a person that knows next to nothing about the subject matter itself. - SudoGhost 00:40, 23 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Pang[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable local politician in San Francisco. She might, in time, become notable but not yet - clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and IMHO WP:GNG as well despite one lurid event in her career. I tried to redirect the article to San Francisco mayoral election, 2011 but this was contested so here we are at AfD. I'd be happy with either a deletion or a redirect. andy (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) andy (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are bazillion sources, more than enough to meet WP:GNG. It does fail WP:POLITICIAN, but if it meets WP:GNG we don't even get to WP:POLITICIAN, which is only for those who fail GNG but are indeed notable under POLITICIAN. --Cerejota (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your "bazillion sources" (actually 47, not all of them Reliable Sources) are mostly passing mentions - mostly in connection with her unsuccessful runs for office. They are not "significant" coverage as required for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If 47 sources spread over a period of years are not significant coverage, what is "significant coverage", then? The question is not rhetorical, the closing admin will have to answer it convincingly either way s/he closes. Certainly most of the press coverage is related to running for office, but htta is inmaterial, a person can meet GNG as a political figure while not meeting WP:POLITICIAN - which is the case of nearly all third party candidates in the USA, or with members of political fringe/extremist groups. However, looking only at news ignores other sources. I think in this case quantity acquires a quality of its own. --Cerejota (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you change your opinion if significant changes happen to the article? I agree that as it stands it is badly done for a BLP, but I think it warrants fixup, not deletion...--Cerejota (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the changes demonstrated "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then yes. If it were simply 'rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship', then no. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not how the article is written, it is notability. But if you can make her notability clearer by rewriting and adding references, go ahead. I will re-look at it with an open mind. --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the issue is notability, which is not expressed in the article, because I totally see it GNG. Am working on it.--Cerejota (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you do understand the issue, based upon edits to date. Student newspapers and internet television channels really don't cut it as sources for a BLP, nor does an apparent complete lack of coverage from beyond San Francisco. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but does it make it notable for wikipedia? It would help if you could relate this to guidelines. andy (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe YOU should read WP:POLITICIAN. It grants notability to:
*Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
*Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
*Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
*In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.[13]
Bottom line, she does NOT qualify under WP:POLITICIAN; however she might qualify under WP:GNG, if her press coverage is found to be significant enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." She meets that just fine. Dream Focus 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? That paragraph discusses "mayors of cities" and "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city". How does that apply to her? As far as I can tell she's never held any elected office anywhere. andy (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's actually a minor local political figure - not a major figure as in that policy - but the bottom line remains the requirement for "significant press coverage". That's not unique to WP:POLITICIAN - it's the requirement for any individual, per WP:BIO, unless a guideline like WP:POLITICIAN grants an exception (as for example a state legislator). --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that she meets WP:POLITICIAN, because she is not a major political figure, but a minor one. She does, however, meet WP:GNG for coverage in multiple reliable sources, and exceeds WP:BLP requirement on being notable for more than one event, as she is notable in a few fields and for more than one event, and WP:VANITY and WP:ADVERTISING in that uninvolved editors are making a good faith effort to bring the article to at least start quality. Her notability is marginal, but notability has long been understood to be a pass/fail not a grey area, and she is firmly in "pass" due to significant WP:RS coverage. Protestations in this regards sound to me like WP:IDONTKNOWIT than a serious examination of sources taken as a whole. THis is not a GA review, this in an AfD, and we do need a quality article, we need a notable one.--Cerejota (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you back to MelanieN's earlier comments about your "bazillion" reliable sources that prove GNG. They're not substantial, they're not all reliable, and they prove nothing. In fact, if that's all there is about her on the web then it actually shows that she's not notable! andy (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was an article for political figure [3] but it now redirects to politician which explains you don't have to be elected to be a politician. Dream Focus 17:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever, but you said "significant press coverage". Please give some specific examples that add up to significance because I can't see them and neither can other editors. All we can see is a rather small number of rentaquotes, peripheral mentions and so on. andy (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And other editors do see the significant press coverage - and provided it. You see "peripheral mentions" and "rentaquotes", we see evidence of a notable person in a major metropolitan area with significant enough notability within one of the largest Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking communities in the US. Tens of thousands of votes in at least one election, multiple quotes in the media on unrelated matters, significant mention in journals focusing on cultural work, all of these measure up to notability. I offer that not seeing her as notable is an indication of unconscious systemic bias at work - notability is relative to the topic and no one here claims that she is a world-wide leader in a field, so the notability is marginal. But notability is pass/fail, and she passes. --Cerejota (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, you have worked hard on this article trying to establish notability, and I promised to look at the revised article with an open mind. I have done so - but I'm afraid it still doesn't add up. The references are either not significantly about her, or they are from fringe/nonreliable/non-independent sources. (Example, the Guardsman, which is the college paper at the campus where she teaches.) She still has only one SIGNIFICANT article from a SIGNIFICANT source, namely. the SF Chronicle piece about her campaign funding. The requirement for significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources has not been met. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 25 July 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. Courcelles 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doh-Doh Island Adventures[edit]

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

No citations and nothing on google shows sources have given it coverage to be notable St8fan (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 July 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. Courcelles 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Brandy Norwood songs[edit]

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

Unverified lists like this are massive copyright violations. Note how many of the references link to blogs (unreliable sources), and YouTube. Much of the information is speculated and not notable under WP:NSONGS. Any notable songs would have been mentioned in the discography of the artist and/or relevant pages. This page is nearly entirely constructed by searching ASCAP/BMI and listing all of the songs which come up. In reality this is not WP:V and not factual thus it does not have a place in an encyclopedia. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that a lot of these are sourced from blogs. ℥nding·start 20:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because those which are featured lists, use much better sourcing than the junk listed here. In fact the Britney and Michael Jackson list use biographies amongst various other published materials. This does not. WP:WAX. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a blog or publishing database is no source?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Delete.

The result was complex, and clearly from the debate below will be polarising.

Starting first from the nomination:

The debate was marred by a large number of comments that did not address these issues, or made statements that called on facts not in evidence. This is really unfortunate. All deletion debates should be run as rational polite discussions where competing facts are presented collegially, those of living person's even more so.

Finally, to the content of this debate. (Please note that I'm totally ignoring any argument not based in policy, such as "we have these other articles.")

Speaking broadly, the keep argument was that there existed sufficient independent coverage of the article's subject to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Many of these arguments, however, fail to address any of the rebuttal points raised. Working up from the bottom to give a small sample:

That these later comments failed to address the problems raised with these sources is sub-optimal. If you come late in the debate, make some effort to make it clear that you've absorbed previous arguments and respond to them. Otherwise the closing adminstrator may take less from your comment than you intended.

Speaking broadly again, the delete arguments focused much more specifically on the sources provided, and in doing so demonstrated that significant coverage on the article's subject independent of his wife did not appear to exist.

Finally, the Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people instructs us to pay "special attention to the principles of neutrality." This is also important when considering Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Given the dearth of independent material on this article's subject I am deleting this article.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Bachmann[edit]

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

I've never been accused of beating around the bush, so let me say that what we have here is crystal-clearly following in the footsteps of Campaign for "santorum" neologism; editors are creating WP:BLP articles on marginally-notable people that they don't like, so that said article will become a platform from which to criticize the subject. Not a single thing this man has done on his own meets our general notability guideline. He is the spouse of a current presidential candidate. He is the head of a religious clinic that attracted some press for offering conversion therapy. If the only things you can say about a person is that a) they have a famous spouse, and b) there are ideological outcries over a service that his organization offers, then that doesn't comes within a mile of the WP:GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. BLPs cannot be allowed to serve as a coatrack for perceived anti-gay religious groups. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC, I think it's good that you found more mainstream media sources that address the subject in his own right, but I think that it's important that we avoid WP:SPECULATION and stick to verifiable facts for a BLP. --David Shankbone 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm glad we have this opportunity to work together again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So 'where this article is heading' is an attack on the subject's personal mannerisms and a series of evidence-free sneers that he's lying about his sexual orientation? Wonderful. Hope everyone who is voting 'keep' realizes what it is they are assisting. →StaniStani  06:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these people listed actually won their parties nomination for president or vice-president. But we don't have an article on, say, Conrad Chisholm, just because his wife ran for her party's nomination. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good observation. Add Elizabeth Kucinich to the above list. Dennis did not win the nomination in either 2004 or 2008, yet she has a Wikipedia page because she has received media attention. Her article survived 3 AfD's. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How could I forget Callista Gingrich? Shame on me!! Victor Victoria (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Gingrich's page contains no unflattering information and was probably written by her publicist. It is not fair to compare it with the Marcus Bachmann article. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Callista's page was indeed likely created by somebody who is close to her, as it was created by an SPA account who has done no other edits -- but that's irrelevant. The community has accepted the page and to date has edited it 219 times. Positive or negative is also irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether the information is properly sourced and if the subject meets the notability criteria. Since both have been met, that's why I !voted for a speedy keep because the nomination is so flawed. The nomination is essentially an WP:IDONTLIKEIT because there is negative information on the page. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing where he is covered in his own right," eh? I guess you missed this 4-page Washington Post profile, and this Associated Press piece, and this from the Minnesota Post, as well as the numerous articles about his clinic and his alleged "barbarians" remark. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how NOTINHERITED works. No one's making the argument that the subject is notable because his wife is notable. The subject is notable because he has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage probably would not have come if his wife were not notable, but it is coverage all the same. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, I don't think it does your argument any favors to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. There's no evidence anyone has any interest in using this article to attack the subject. As it is written, it is neutral, informative and reliably sourced, and I have no more to add to it. We are all committed to WP:ENC and it's a shame you disparage. --David Shankbone 01:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, David. Tarc has let his emotions get the better of him here. For the record, I disagree with Roscelese's statement that Marcus Bachmann has "received significant coverage" in RS. The majority of the source coverage is about his relationship with his wife and the controversy over his business practices. This has less to do with Marcus and more to do with his wife and business. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what she's trying to say is that: yes, Marcus is getting all this attention because he's married to Michelle, but the attention is now on him nonetheless. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty good explanation of my position. Not every shady counselor gets national news coverage - this one happens to have got it because he has a notable wife whose campaign his shady counseling will affect, but it's still coverage of him, not of his wife. We don't decide that people are notable because of their relatives (ie. NOTINHERITED), but if reliable sources do so and consequently give them significant coverage, we go along with them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My emotions are just fine, sport, so kindly take your armchair psychoanalysis to someone who cares. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I will not give it where there is clear evidence of bad-faith editing. This article was created in bad faith. Those who are calling to keep it are acting in bad faith. Period. The "OMG RELIABLY SOURCED" argument is not the be all and end all of determining who gets a wikipedia article and who does not. When we have a case here where the man is only being talked about because of a famous relative, then we should consider not having an article. How many dozens or hundreds of conservative christians run these sorts of therapy clinics in the country? How many of them are married to a political candidate? Tarc (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's evidence that David Shankbone or anyone else is acting in bad faith, then present it in an RFC or to Arbcom, please don't sidetrack this discussion with irrelevant personal accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "OMG RELIABLY SOURCED" argument is not the be all and end all of determining who gets a wikipedia article and who does not.. You are absolutely wrong, Tarc. See Jimbo's statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Wikipedia is therefore supposed to have an article on anything and everything that is notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Vic, argumentam ad Jimboem doesn't carry a shred of credibility, so please don't waste my time with such nonsense. Your "you are absolutely wrong" pontification is demonstrably false, and I can point to many, many articles that I have had a hand in deleting as proof. Do we have an article about the woman fired from her job for having large breasts? No. Do we have an article on the reporter who suffered a mild aphasia episode live last year? No. Do we have an article on the JetBlue attendant who went on a tirade? No. Do we have an article on Daniel Brandt? No. Do we have an article on the time Barack Obama swatted a fly during an interview? No. This is an encyclopedia, not a vacuum cleaner. We choose what to chronicle and what to discard. every day. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, would you please take a step back or tone it down? You're the only one in this discussion on either side who is gnashing teeth, making the questioning of others' motivations your central argument and being uncivil. The rest of us are discussing it calmly. I also ask you to please do the same on Talk:Marcus Bachmann. Comments like these[5][6] aren't helpful. --David Shankbone 23:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silence, Shankbone. I will discuss the topic as I see fit. Your use of the Wikipedia to denigrate living people is far, far worse than me puncturing some thin-skinned egos. Stop wasting AfD space discussing me; discuss the topic. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh--you're right and I apologize that your wild-eyed frothing distracted me. --David Shankbone 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that characterizing intense debate as 'wild-eyed frothing' is over the edge of civility, David. Care to strike? →StaniStani  01:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion jumped over that edge a long time ago. Gamaliel (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the duplication of what appears in the article on Michele Bachmann - I actually see this as a positive thing. It means that we will be able to simply link this article and trim the content in the Michele Bachmann article to a short summary. Otherwise, we run the risk of making the Michele Bachmann article a coatrack for information about Marcus's shady practices as more and more stories about him hit the national and international news, whereas if he has his own article, we can keep the Michele article about Michele. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter "if it weren't for his wife running for president". Fact is, she *is* running for president, which has drawn attention to him as well. Attention completely unconnected to her campaign. 01:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The notion that the recent media attention Marcus Bachmann is receiving is "completely unconnected to her campaign" is, to my mind, just patently false. Bachmann announced her campaign officially, began rising in the polls, and then we had stories about things that Marcus Bachmann had been doing for years, but which had received very little attention prior to that. To me this fact goes to the heart of the matter when it comes to these kind of debates and our BLP policy in general.
I think it is a terrible idea to get in the habit of essentially saying "look, this one person is very notable, and now this other person associated with them is being covered in the context of the thing the actually notable person is doing, and there are clearly a number of news articles mentioning the not-really-notable associate, so we have to have a BLP." No, we don't. We can cover everything we need to about Marcus Bachmann in his wife's bio or her campaign article--easily--and that's exactly what we should do for now. For all we know, Michele Bachmann will drop out of the race and resign her seat in the House next week and all of this will be forgotten (to make an analogy that I hope gives some keep !voters pause, imagine if Christine O'Donnell had a husband who made it into the news repeatedly, for some relatively peripheral matter, during the month or so last year when Ms. O'Donnell dominated all news outlets and we then created a BLP on him, after which he retreated completely from the spotlight and we never heard from him again--would we be happy with the existence of that article today?). Alternatively, Bachmann will get the nomination in which case of course we will have an article on her husband. We don't know and the basic idea behind WP:CRYSTAL is also somewhat relevant here.
Mainly though, aspects of WP:BLP1E, WP:INHERITED, and WP:EVENT should be guiding our thinking, which to me means we should be cautious about having an article about a man whose name has only been known nationally for a matter of weeks, at best, almost solely because of one particular thing his wife is doing. To me one of the reasons BLP exists as a policy is to prevent creation of full-blown articles like this before that is warranted, which is to say at a point when we can cover all of the relevant information in articles that will not follow the person in question around for the rest of their lives. Also, since this is a threaded reply, I want to actively disassociate myself from the last sentence of Lionelt's comment, even though we are largely on the same side of this discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Presidential politics makes him notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we can find thousands of sources discussing Mary that don't even mention her son (although the vast majority do). That's not the case here, though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many sources about Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, or Barbara Bush don't mention their famous husbands? All that we requires is that subjects are notable, not that they are independently notable.   Will Beback  talk  07:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We even have an article about Bill Clinton even though it was his wife who was President for 8 years (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we follow your line of reasoning, all the first ladies of the United States (except for Hillary Clinton who became notable in her own right as a US Senator and then Secretary of State) should be merged into their husbands' articles. WP:NOTINHERITED applies to Wikipedia. If Marcus Bachmann inherited his notability outside Wikipedia, then he becomes notable in his own right within Wikipedia. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually did follow the line of reasoning, then you wouldn't have arrived at such a ridiculous "OMG all the first ladies lose their articles?!?" conclusion. The spouse of the President of the United States is notable in itself. Period. Full Stop. They take on a life of their own upon the spouse taking office, often taking on well-publicized causes and programs. If Michele somehow wins the presidency, Marcus qualifies for an article immediately, even if he never utters so much of a peep from now until inauguration day. At this time, however, his notability is derived completely and wholly from who he is married to. There is nothing more to this argument. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty Dukakis, Ann Romney, Sarah Hildreth Butler, Chuck Hunt, Susan Roosevelt Weld, John Zaccaro, Todd Palin, Eleanor "Sis" Daley, Richard C. Blum. There are many articles on people who are famous chiefly for being married to politicians.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The spouses of governors are, like the spouses of presidents, inherently public figures. It's part of the job description. They do not suddenly become notable simply because their spouses run for president. Also, don't confuse gaining notability with piquing the interests of Wikipedia editors.Griswaldo (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And spouses of mayors and senators? People are notable when they're noted. If a subject gets enough coverage then they're notable regardless of who they married.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard C. Blum is notable on his own because of his career. Eleanor "Sis" Daley is notable because she was the matriarch of an infamous political dynasty in Chicago, not simply because she was some mayors wife. That leaves John Zaccaro as the only other non-Governor's spouse, and frankly I don't know what makes him notable. Do you want to start the AfD Will because I'll be right behind you. Oh and btw, have you ever heard of something called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you haven't I suggest that right now is the right time for you to read it.Griswaldo (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this source, as an example, not entirely about Marcus? It has a very brief half sentence at the beginning that clarifies who he's married to and the entire rest is about Marcus and just Marcus. It's titled "The Education of Marcus Bachmann", for goodness sake. SilverserenC 01:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In how many reliable sources can you find coverage of Stephen Slater, Al Gore III, or Debrahlee Lorenzana? Where are their articles? Oh. Nowhere? I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but the article rescue squad's Holy Grail of article retention, WP:RS is not the sole arbiter of article-worthiness. Tarc (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Slater's article was made into an article about the event, because it was the event that was important, he was just the one that created it. Al Gore the III was largely just a BLP1E about his criminal activities and the sources showed that. Debrahlee as well. Marcus Bachmann, on the other hand, has a number of sources discussing him and specifically him, not in the context of an event (unless you consider owning the therapy place as an event). He has sources discussing him for a variety of reasons and various things. So he's not an event like those other people were. SilverserenC 02:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me this is one of the biggest problems when it comes to interpreting BLP1E as a guideline. The "event" in question need not, and in this case should not, be thought of in terms of very specific, discreet occurrences (Marcus Bachmann started a clinic, Marcus Bachmann said something controversial, Marcus Bachmann commented on his wife's political career). Rather the "event" in question can be a bit broader as I think it is here: Michele Bachmann is running for the presidency and is drawing a lot of attention, i.e. this is the event. Were that not occurring, something close to none of the coverage of her husband would ever have existed. "Events" don't just last for a few hours, they can go on for quite some time--imagine a horrible crime and ensuing trial, media coverage, etc. as an obvious example--and thus the part of BLP1E that says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them" absolutely applies here.
Marcus Bachmann is someone who has stayed out of the spotlight, as others have pointed out and the article text acknowledges. I actually hail from Minnesota originally (the following is obviously just anecdotal) and a number of my politico nerd (that's a compliment!) type friends from there are very familiar with Michele but knew basically nothing about Marcus until the last couple weeks or so. Neither did I and I've known about the congresswoman since a bit before she was first elected to the House. Now that he has attained some "notoriety," so to speak, of course more stories are coming out. But little to none of it is outside the context of his wife's campaign. I think a major point of our BLP policy, which some people admittedly do not like, is to avoid having these kind of articles, and if we redirect for now and merge any relevant information it will be very easy to recreate this if and when that's warranted, which it very well might be.
I just don't understand the objection to that option when we think in terms of balancing our desire to inform readers with our desire to hold to our core BLP policies which, it should be clear, are not negotiable—both of them are served by retaining information but not a full article, again just for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the hypothetical trial that you mentioned, that would fall under WP:PERP and the perpetrator of the crime could be notable, depending on whether they meet the guidelines. Furthermore, one of the main reasons that help in supporting a separate article is information about the subject that is not information about the crime. For Marcus Bachmann, we have that, for example the link I gave above. We have a significant amount of information about him outside of his wife's campaign. The fact that the campaign instigated this information being published is irrelevant, all that matters is the information itself and the fact that he is covered in detail by highly reliable sources. To continue the hypothetical example, this would be the same for the perpetrator. The action of committing the crime would instigate press about it. If the press included extensive information about his life outside of the crime, then he would quality for notability in a separate article under the guidelines for such a subject. Marcus Bachmann has information about him in sources that is not about his actions in the campaign, which is what we need for notability. And we have that. SilverserenC 04:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a pretty long comment about how to think about WP:EVENT in a general sense. I'm not really interested in your reply to my parenthetical and explicitly "imagined" point--which, I know, is covered by the guideline WP:PERP--because it is a pretty textbook example of cherry picking on your part. I'd be far more interested in a response from you that speaks directly to the last paragraph I wrote, i.e. being real about the heart of the matter. Why do we need/want an article about this fellow when we can redirect and merge for now, and then figure it all out later? Why is that not a good point to reach in terms of consensus, which is of course our objective in this discussion? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ecYou mean the article that has a picture of them together, with the caption which starts "Representative Michele Bachmann and her husband", showing them at a campaign stop, and which implicitly explains in the first sentence why anyone cares about all this stuff? Hmmm...let me think...LedRush (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean how it specifically states in the first sentence his relationship that you would know about? Yes. News articles do that all the time. Even if they're discussing a person for their own notable actions, they will still mention their relation to other notable people so that you understand who they are. That's a press thing, it has nothing to do with the coverage. SilverserenC 02:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Well first I would say that, per the BLP policy and particularly BLP1E, it can very much be our job to judge why reliable sources cover a subject. If they do so largely or exclusively in the context of a single event, as I think is the case here, we generally do not have an article about them. But let's kind of leave that to the side. Given your thinking on this and that you are a bit "weak" in your keep position, I'm wondering if you would object to a redirect/merge. This is basically your "we can delete it later" point inverted, which is to say that we can merge relevant info and redirect for now and then recreate a full article later if and when that is warranted. To me it makes far more sense to hold off on creating a BLP that, I think everyone agrees, is going to be a magnet for defamation until we are sure the person is notable beyond what many of us think is a single-event context. To me such an approach makes sense as a sort of compromise position, not just for this article but for similar BLPs as well. The reader will still get most or all of the relevant information if they type "Marcus Bachmann" into the search box, so there's little or nothing of value that is lost content wise and we basically get to sit back and see whether his notability becomes stronger over time, or whether he quickly fades into obscurity because his wife drops out of the race in three months. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know that the media covers him mostly because he is the husband of a presidential hopeful but the coverage is not related to his wife's presidential ambitions, so redirecting/merging it to the article about her campaign is not correct and would only make it more confusing. As such, I'm uncomfortable to apply BLP1E/ONEEVENT to this case. He is not notable for one event (i.e. his wife's presidential campaign) but instead is notable because of what he did and the aforementioned event only served as a catalyst to trigger the coverage. So yes, why sources cover him might be relevant but only when the coverage is related to the reason of the coverage. In this case, it's not, so our guideline to determine his notability and thus whether his article should be deleted is WP:BIO and I think the amount of coverage does indeed satisfy those requirements. The prefix "weak" in this case was meant to indicate that I think the coverage, while sufficient, is (as previously pointed out) possibly temporary. Since we cannot see into the future though, we have to judge it by today's facts and those facts say he meets the relevant guideline. The same context applies to my "we can still delete it then" comment, since Wikipedia is based on the principle of being able to fix things as the facts change and if they change, then deletion might be warranted. As such, I don't think redirecting/merging is the correct way to handle this at this point in time, although it might be the correct solution iff facts change. In that case though, there still is no valid target to redirect/merge to, since the target would have to be coverage on the reasons that make him notable, not the reasons that make his wife notable. Regards SoWhy 10:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you ever stop being a jerk, Tarc? I mean, really. SilverserenC 00:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A jerk? I think he's calling a spade a spade after the spade said, "Hey look at me I'm a spade." There already is an arbcom case in the works, in the wake of the Cirt RfC which is aiming to deal with these issues broadly speaking. It looks like this example is fair game, with the exception that editorial misconduct wont be looked at. In other words Shankbone wont get dragged into it, but this article will.Griswaldo (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't excuse Tarc from attacking multiple editors throughout this entire AfD. As I said on Jimbo's talk page, "See here for one example and here for accusations of "personal crusades". And i'm surprised you don't remember him being condescending toward you, Viriditas, right here. If you consider "raising legitimate concerns" to be insulting and denigrating other users, then sure, he was raising legitimate concerns, he was raising them all over that AfD." SilverserenC 00:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. His behavior is rather rude. [12] Dream Focus 00:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I regularly invite people to follow the appropriate avenues such as WP:WQA if they truly have a beef with something I have said, yet many decline to do so. They...or in this case, you...choose instead to load up the buckshot and fire random blasts in the course of discussions such as this. At some point I usually call them out on this...a "put up or shut up" moment...where they invariably choose the latter. As for this specific tangent, our esteemed Mr. Shankbone baldly stated that he feels the article's is important because of the extreme conservative positions of the subject; I quote "it's important we have a Marcus article because...we have a contender for the Presidency who has stated she is Biblically commanded to be submissive to her husband." Call me crazy, but I don't think we have a notability guideline along the lines of WP:BIBLICALLYSUBMISSIVE. Shankbone has created this article because he thinks it is important that the public knows The Truth(tm) about the Bachmanns. That is not honest or good-faith editing, and I happily call out an "I told ya so", because that is precisely what I said in my nomination. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what Shankbone meant was that, much like people originally thought about Hillary Clinton (but which is clearly not true with her strong personality), because Michele has stated that she will be deferring to her husband, if she achieves the presidency, then it will actually be Marcus running everything from behind the scenes. Thus, this means that he is just as important to her nomination as she is to it herself. SilverserenC 00:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tarc: What does any of that have to do with the fact that this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (i.e. notability)? Can we please stay focused on the issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tarc, you have assumed bad faith about my motivations from the get-go, so it's not a surprise that you take the worst possible interpretation of what I wrote. Marcus Bachmann has received enough coverage in his own right for multiple issues (farm, clinic, and views on homosexuality). I have made no judgment on his views and background, but those views and his background are pertinent to Republican primary voters now and our readers in general. This is our purpose, to educate. Outside of your head, these aren't controversial statements, nor do they hint at a nefarious effort to tar Mr. Bachmann. You have failed to provide, after multiple requests, one slur, one biased edit or one factual inaccuracy with what I wrote. --David Shankbone 01:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with Tarc's approach here, so I'm leaving that to the side and responding to David's comment above. There he said "The role he would play in her administration is not insignificant..." (emphasis added). Yes, you are almost certainly right that Marcus would play a key role in her administration, perhaps much more so than other First Spouses. But here's the thing: Michele Bachmann doesn't have an administration. She isn't close to having one, she isn't even close to having the nomination, and any astute political observer knows that the odds of Bachmann becoming the GOP nominee, much less president, are pretty small, because frankly she is pretty far outside the political mainstream and tons of Republicans who might like her perceive her as unelectable and therefore won't vote for her. What you are doing is the worst kind of crystal-balling David because it involves a BLP. You are basically saying "if Michele Bachmann became president this guy will be important, so we need an article." That isn't how it works. Marcus Bachmann will likely never be anything more notable than the husband of a well-known member of congress. That's it. So, for now, we can have a redirect for his name and include a good amount of information on him in his wife's article, and a pretty detailed section on his controversial views in her campaign article. I've put this question to a couple of others in the keep camp without reply so far but I'll ask again--what is wrong with merging and redirecting for now and then seeing what happens later? How is that a disservice to the 3,000 readers who come to the article? It clearly helps us in terms of holding to our BLP policies and keeps our options open for the future, so why not just do that?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shankbone, you have passed judgement on Bachmann just by creating the article in the first place. The slur lies in its very existence, And your purpose is not to educate but to proselytize. In a way, you're quite alike. Perhaps we should encourage Mr. Bachmann to become a Wikipedia article, perhaps he could write an article about you. Oh. Wait. Tarc (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus effing christ Tarc. What in god's name does the endless and very crappy discussion surrounding David's article have to do with what we are talking about here? Nothing, and you damn well know it. You're just taking pot shots now, I have to assume just because you feel like it. It's stupid and is probably actively hurting the cause of getting this article dealt with because people are going to be turned off by childish jabs. I don't really care that you can be a bit irascible and sometimes like to swear and shit like that, but you're pretty far over the line at this point in terms of maintaining at least a pretense of basic civility. You might want to step back from this for a bit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here. Other than the first line where it mentions who he is married to, it is entirely about Marcus. SilverserenC 01:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You basically made Haymaker's point there Silver. It is laughable, or rather it should be laughable, to say that, except for the opening sentence describing him as Michele Bachmann's husband, and the huge picture of Michele Bachmann at the top of the article, the article does not write about Michele Bachmann. Additionally, the whole blog post--that's what it actually is--is expressly a sort of addendum to this article, which is linked in the second paragraph of the blog post, an article which is framed in terms of Michele's run for the presidency. So, again, basically all of the coverage of Marcus is in the context of the "event" that is wife's attempt to become president. Not one keep comment here has refuted that, which is kind of the whole point since we are talking about a BLP. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTP, I wrote the article because Mr. Bachmann peeked my interest, and I wanted to learn about him and try to write about him neutrally. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time, and I've given a lot to it, believe in it, and believe in its goals. By my own experience on here, I felt I wrote the article neutrally, and that it was self-evident that he met our guidelines for notability on its face. People have argued I had an agenda, but can't point to evidence of it. People have argued that this will become a COATRACK or an attack article, which is crystal balling that we will fail to prevent it on this high-profile article. Even saying she won't win the Presidency, as you did, is crystal balling. We have readers hitting his article 3,000 times a day, some of whom are undoubtedly primary voters, who are curious about this man. There were more than enough reliable sources to write about him. I would find the idea of including "He acts gay" offensive not only to him, but to gays, and I would oppose such speculation. But on its face this subject meets ever conceivable criterion we have for inclusion, and I felt I did a decent job writing it. I was grateful for the editors who came in with different perspectives and re-wrote parts. That's how the Wiki works, and it's working here, even on in this AfD. I understand your arguments, and I think they are reasonable; I just disagree. --David Shankbone 02:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, well that's all well and good but doesn't actually speak to the arguments against retaining an article. I asked you above, I think, if/why you think merging/redirecting for now is a bad idea. I think it's pretty clear that this discussion isn't going to end, "clear consensus to keep," right? A number of us don't think he yet warrants a standalone article. Why not temporarily merge for now, and then revisit this down the road when we know more about what is happening? I would say most everything in your first two paragraphs, less the intro, could be merged to Michele Bachmann and the last three paragraphs would basically all go well in Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012 (I actually that's an ideal place for them). We then redirect to one of those two, in fact I'd say you can go ahead and pick it as far as I'm concerned. The 3,000 readers in question would still get the info, but we better hold to our BLP policies. Are you open to that option, and if not why not? Note that if Marcus Bachmann's notability at some point becomes less attached to his wife's run for the president, or if she wins the nomination, I'll be right there with you arguing for a full article, and at that point recreation of a full BLP would be extremely easy. A merge seems like a pretty ideal solution in the meantime. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean to be evasive. I think people are looking for information about Marcus Bachmann, and not solely about him in the context of Michele Bachmann's campaign. He has become a subject of interest in his own right and the 3,000 hits a day confirms that to me. I think we can't do our readers justice by explaining him parsed out among several articles. I believe there are undue weight problems by including him on Michele's article. If the result is "redirect" or "delete" I won't file a DRV, but I still feel an article does no harm and is the optimal solution. Reasonable minds could differ. My position is well-documented on here, Talk:Jimbo Wales and Talk:Marcus Bachmann, and I feel I'm becoming repetitive so I will let this AfD play out without my further involvement. I'm happy to discuss it further on my talk page. --David Shankbone 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, so you're saying that whenever a news article links to another news article, it serves as an addendum to it? So, when the New York Times links to a Los Angeles Times article, it's not serving as an independent article, since it made a single link to another news article? Clearly, this isn't true. It linked to the other page because it has information about the controversy regarding the center. That's all. And, as has been explained above numerous times, it doesn't matter if the coverage came about as a result of Michele nomination, if the coverage is extensive and covers numerous events in Marcus' life, then he is notable. SilverserenC 02:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Everything you said is wrong. First of all, I clearly did not say the thing you suggest I did in the first and second sentence. It's good to not put people's words/thinking in other folks' mouths/brains. The original thing you linked to is not, I guess I need to say it again, a news article. It is a blog post in the NYT politics blog "The Caucus." It had 627 words in it. The fact that it is a quick blog post matters. It describes Bachmann as the husband of Michele, then immediately links to a longer article that appeared on page A14 of the Times, whose very title framed the whole matter in terms of Michele's run for the presidency. That's the point. And you are ignoring my main point. Haymaker asked about "news coverage of Marcus that did not also write about Michelle." You linked to something, I pointed out that Michele is in the first sentence and there is a picture of her at the top of the post. Apparently that doesn't count for some reason, but I think most would find that argument pretty ridiculous.
And, again, you seem to be pretending that BLP1E does not exist. It does, it's important, even if you do not like it. The statement "it doesn't matter if the coverage came about as a result of Michele nomination, if the coverage is extensive and covers numerous events in Marcus' life, then he is notable" is factually incorrect as a matter of Wikipedia policy, and you need to get your head around that. Were your argument correct, BLP1E would not be functional, because it would mean that we would have an article on, for example, Mayumi Heene simply because there were a lot of stories about her and her husband which talked about a number of things in her life after she became notorious for one particular thing. We can quibble with how to interpret "event," but our core BLP policies invalidate your claim that extensive coverage of numerous things in a person's life = we have an article on them. That isn't how we run the show around here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This. It's a source i've already been showing before. The problem with your interpretation of BLP1E is that you're saying that important people who are working for, say, the President aren't notable, since they're obtaining their notability from him. Except that's not how we work. If they get extensive news coverage about them, they get an article. This is an old source about Michele that also has an extensive amount to say about Marcus, the most important part I think is that "At the GOP endorsing convention in May, he worked the floor of delegates for his wife", which means that he is being politically active, he's not just a low-profile figure, no matter what people say, he's been out there politically for quite some time. As for more recent news, I believe that this is of a fair amount of importance. SilverserenC 02:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are not doing it on purpose, but it really gets a bit annoying the way you have of responding to arguments I did not make. Where did I say "that important people who are working for, say, the President aren't notable, since they're obtaining their notability from him"? Nowhere, obviously, and I obviously don't think that—it's an absurd caricature of my argument. My argument, for the twelfth time, is that Marcus Bachmann should not have an article per BLP1E, because basically all of the coverage of him is in terms of one event, namely his wife's presidential campaign. Feel free to disagree, but at least respond to my actual argument.
As to the latest sources you are throwing out--funny stuff there. The first is an interview he did on an AM Christian radio network which happens to be based right by where I grew up. I ain't never heard of it before. I know you linked to this because you think it is all about Marcus. Obviously you didn't listen to it, because the first caller is...drum roll...Michele Bachmann! And they then proceed to talk about Michele going on to ANWR or something and how she will be on their show tomorrow. Again, thanks for making Haymaker's point! Maybe you could stop to think about the fact that you are struggling to find anything about Marcus that doesn't talk about his wife? Doesn't that maybe tell us something?
The City Pages article is a good one, not for you though, because it actually says "Marcus Bachmann has never played much of a public role in his wife's campaigns, and neither her allies nor her detractors seem to know much about him." It's nice that you can find things that say his name and such, but you might want to actually read them, because the source you say "has an extensive amount to say about Marcus" (that isn't true, but whatever) might as well be saying "this guy is not well known, definitely don't have a Wikipedia article about him."
Can you rethink your position here? Or can you at least answer my question about why a merge that retains basically all of the content is not a good idea? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point about the staff is that their notability comes from a singular event, the President's...presidency. (Alliteration bad!) If you're going to say that Michele's entire campaign (which you are somehow including stuff from five years ago as also being a part of her campaign) counts as a singular event, then so does a number of other things, like a presidency, as I was saying, so Cabinet members shouldn't get articles, regardless of how much coverage they get. However, this is clearly untrue, they do get articles if they get the coverage.
Again, then talking to Michele has nothing to do with them talking to Marcus about his clinic. Since Michele was involved in the founding of the clinic, though Marcus was the main founder, why would there be a source that doesn't mention her? If you have two important people that are married, why would any source not mention who they're married to? The news points out connections like that.
The City Pages article is discussing how, before that, he wasn't politically public, but he has become as such afterward, for example, by speaking at the GOP convention and for "going on the political offensive", as it says. SilverserenC 03:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with the argument that we shouldn't have an article about a spouse for his own right, but now that he is noteworthy on his own for being an anti-gay therapist, his persona has its own importance independent of Michele. If Michele does become the nominee, too, then he'll get his own page anyways. But I do think he is noteworthy in his own right at this point, particularly in the LGBT community.cpsteiner | cpsteiner |
comment: Sourcing indicates he is of note. However, I agree with the delete comments that "not a single thing he is done is notable". If he is not notable for anything in his own right except being the spouse of a candidate is this acceptable? I would be inclined to Merge with a summary on him ni his spouse's article. After reading the article I see no indication of what he actually notable for which is a shame as the article is so well sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly Wikipedia content policies and practices can seem a bit odd to folks who don't edit here (or maybe they just are odd!). For example, your argument that the information is useful and helped you learn more might seem like the common sense approach to deciding what we write about, but for various reasons we explicitly do not think in those terms because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When it comes to articles about people who are alive, we tend to have a higher bar for inclusion because these articles are often used as sites for defamation, which is a serious problem. More about that is explained here if you are interested. So the intention, even for those arguing for deletion, is really not to keep information from people, but rather to follow the guidelines we have come up with over the years as to how to best write this encyclopedia (as you can see, we regularly disagree about how to apply those guidelines to particular cases). Of course, you yourself are more than welcome to contribute and offer your own views, as you are doing, as to what does and does not belong. Note that I'm only offering this comment to provide some info, not in an effort to convince you to change your mind. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I very much not agree with your view that we "tend to have a higher bar for inclusion because these articles are often used as sites for defamation, which is a serious problem". We have a higher bar to protect the privacy of the person in general. However, Bachman easily passes that bar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with your characterization, but I think it is also true that one component of the concern over "privacy," broadly defined, is that biography articles have regularly been used to attack people--surely you agree that has happened--which is why we say "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered" in our BLP policy. It happens to be one of the things people are concerned about with this particular article, whether or not you agree with that(we also have a speedy criteria, G10, which, while obviously not applying here, expressly makes it easier for us to remove certain articles about living people). I was not attempting a full summary of these issues but just dashing off a quick reply--I'm sure I could have worded it better. And obviously we disagree about Bachmann's notability, but that has nothing to do with my comment. There's not really anything worth arguing about here and I'm not even sure we disagree about the general issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that I wrote above indicting a bad faith reason. Aside from the consistent press coverage of Marcus Bachmann in his own right, he repeatedly describes himself as her strategist and she has stated that she is biblically commanded to obey him (choosing a career she didn't want because he wanted her to). None of that is bad faith; I've made no judgment on whether those things are good or bad; you can't point to an opinion I hold on the Bachmanns (outside of taking flattering photos) but all of it points to his notability, period. I also like that for everyone who says it's an attack article, or a hit piece, they don't raise any examples. Not once. Sure, it might need some re-writing, but with all the editing that has been done to it so far it has remained more-or-less the same as what I wrote. --David Shankbone 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED doees not apply to people who gain notability IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. See Amy Carter, Betty Ford, and Elizabeth Edwards for examples. Bachmann has attracted the media attention HIMSELF, and the media is writing stories about him and him alone. That he first entered the spotlight as someone else's spouse is not relevant to his own notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:16, 25 July 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 Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Spartaz Humbug! 05:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Republican[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Contested proposed deletion.  Chzz  ►  22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!! Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican that can beat Obama in 2012. Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican that will end the wars, stop the out of control spending, end the Federal Reserve Cartel, and win over the Democratic voters as well as Republican voters! Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDRichter (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — PeterRichter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thats true, but irrelevant.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Yes the term is recent and there is only a limited number of sources for the term as yet, but it's a movement happening right now and it's important because it's actually a mass exodus of people who previously voted Democrat over to the Republican side - something which simply doesn't happen in this hyper polarized America. This is a real movement gaining a lot of steam and traction and contrary to what has been written above this is NOT just about Ron Paul - this is about the failure of the Democratic Party to live up to its ideals, and the absolute loss of faith in Obama and the status quo political process. This movement is not so much pro-Ron Paul as it is anti war. Remember, for a Democrat to switch over to what is functionally Libertarian-ism requires a large scale abandonment of many Democrat objectives. This movement describes a core group of Democrats who have decided to make their displeasure with the Democrats known, despite their fierce opposition to the GOP - hence the need to modify the term Republican (make it Blue) just to be somewhat palatable! So this is my contention - it's an important movement in its own right, is not exclusively about Ron Paul, and deserves a Wiki page of its own based on that ground. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.133.226 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — 89.24.133.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Per preceding comments "Why .... redirect or merge. Someone searching for this topic will likely not search for it under Ron Paul." If it is merged & redirected, the reader will not have to search for it under Ron Paul, they can enter "Blue Republican" in the search box and it will link directly to the section in the article to which it was redirected. Why do this? Because, at the present time, there is not enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources on the subject to meet the general notability guideline and thus justify a stand-alone article. Should there be an increase in significant coverage in reliable media sources, however, the article could easily be reinstated.--JayJasper (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This falls under WP:CLUB, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:POLITICIANS, and arguably others. True Blue Republican is obviously a 'True Blue' Republican where Blue Republican is easily recognized as a Democratic ideology leaning Republican. Blue States are obviously Democratic. Red States are obviously Republican. Blue Dog Democrats are Democratic Politicians that must vote somewhat conservatively and Blue Republicans are Democratic Voters who must vote Republican to keep a NeoCon from winning the nomination. The group has established themselves as Democrats who want Ron Paul. It would be appropriate to link to Wikis containing Ron Paul, but the Blue Republicans are a group separate from Ron Paul's campaign. It is little different than a PAC. No other group has claimed the name and the group is gaining popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theendisfar (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Theendisfar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - Someone needs to explain the HARM that is caused by keeping this entry. It may be relatively new, but it is extremely timely, as the primary season is virtually upon us. Moreover, deletion of a HARMLESS / HELPFUL entry like this gives fire to the Consp. Theorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptic14 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Skeptic14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


KEEP THIS is my vote. It is accurate in it's description of the new coinage of the phrase. Wiki ought to delete only INACCURATE information. This does not meet that criteria. I often turn to Wiki to find the definition of new terms, old terms I have forgotten, etc. Please keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.8 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — 24.158.225.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Merge. no need to have a separate page for something that would appear if searched, if it is merged. Not only is the phrase new, the article is not particularly well written.— 184.91.236.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wrota Europy, no consensus on Syzyfowe prace, as there has been no discussion of its merits one way r the other. I could let this run another week to see if a consensus emerges on Syzyfowe prace, but since the main subject of the AfD is clearly a keep, especially since the nominator effectively withdrew that nomination, it seems less confusing to close this with no prejudice against opening a new AfD covering Syzyfowe prace alone, if anyone desires to do so. Rlendog (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrota Europy[edit]

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

Not meet the criteria Leticja (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [It not meet the criteria too]:

Syzyfowe prace (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leticja (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 2. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. 3. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. 4. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. 5. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. 6. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. 7. The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. 8. (?) The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn) 9. (?) The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.Leticja (talk) 12:37, 18 July 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Voyageurs Inc.[edit]

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

No relevant third-party sources are in the article to establish notability, and I was unable to find any online. It does not seem to be notable, and gives the appearance of simply being an advertisement. Has been tagged as having no references for over two years, and has been submitted to AfD before, with no consensus being drawn from that last AfD. SudoGhost™ 22:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 July 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. Courcelles 23:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Kole[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any relevant SNG. Only one nomination (group scene), no mainstream credits, no non-spurious GNews or GBooks hits, no reliable sourcing, no meaningful biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 July 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. Courcelles 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edith J. Cromwell[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:05, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerez coleman[edit]

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

Unremarkable actor / model / musician. CSD previously declined. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 20:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition (band)[edit]

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

google search turned up nothing not noteable St8fan (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 July 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 Wrong forum. This is a redirect, so any attempt to delete it should be made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kitamura[edit]

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

No reliable sources state that "Ken Kitamura" is the legal name of Ken (musician). Xfansd (talk) 18:45, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Heights Unitarian Congregation[edit]

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

Not notable DeusImperator (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group to notify that project's members of this discussion. LadyofShalott 01:44, 21 July 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. Courcelles 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martinique (singer)[edit]

Martinique (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), in French: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Unsourced BLP. No other claim to notability, no significant coverage found Comte0 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Comte0 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 17 July 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 per WP:CSD#G7 by Peridon (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck (musician)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Autobiographical article about a non notable musician. Fails notability criteria at WP:BAND. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:27, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneshikan Martial Arts[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only reference is to a directory listing where people can self describe a style. Google showing nothing of significance. Disputed prod noq (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonored (video game)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. It's not clear whether this game is even in production yet. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:52, 17 July 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) 20:52, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just Software AG[edit]

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

Lacks notability: Even the COO (by his own account) of the company is unable to come up with multiple, realiable sources that are independet of the subject. In reaction to my deletion attempt, the COO (user:Schnebus) came up with (1) a blog post of a very small company working in the same field, (2) an article published in a swiss magazine that presents companies against money, (3) a blog post on a small German social network that is somehow related to Just Software which has its own article (however, it has already been deleted in the German Wikipedia due to lack of notability). These sources do not suffice to establish notability. Dr bongi (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilza Rosario[edit]

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

Actress and singer who does not appear to be notable yet, despite one role in the movie Burn Notice. Article definitely smacks of self-promotion as do the very rude comments on the Joe Decker talk page following deletion under a PROD. Can't find any reliable sources but there could be something in Spanish that I am missing. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 17 July 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. A10 by User:Fastily. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 20:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathu La incident[edit]

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

The article Sino-Indian relations covers this incident already in depth than this article and without the chest thumping. Also, article is also factually incorrect on several grounds. Please delete no need to merge as the Sino-Indian Relations not only contains factually correct information including the background but is written from a neutral point of view without involving some sort of tribal superiority being invoked. DeusImperator (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has relevant reference from original research work done by History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Their no tribal superiority involvement it has EVIDENCE. Please review article before considering for deletion Sehmeet singh (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Wilkes[edit]

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

15-year-old film-maker who doesn't appear to be notable. Only one of the three sources is allegedly about him, and that claims to have been published in 1997, when the subject would've been two years old. Prod removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CairoShell[edit]

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

1. The article has no third-party sources currently, so fails WP:N at this point. 2. The software development has stopped in the alpha/beta phase (unusable state) for over a year without any news and update and it may be reasonably called Vaporware. Jacob-Dang 13:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just Software AG[edit]

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

Lacks notability: Even the COO (by his own account) of the company is unable to come up with multiple, realiable sources that are independet of the subject. In reaction to my deletion attempt, the COO (user:Schnebus) came up with (1) a blog post of a very small company working in the same field, (2) an article published in a swiss magazine that presents companies against money, (3) a blog post on a small German social network that is somehow related to Just Software which has its own article (however, it has already been deleted in the German Wikipedia due to lack of notability). These sources do not suffice to establish notability. Dr bongi (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Musial[edit]

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

Autobiographical article which lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 17 July 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) 20:31, 17 July 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. Sandstein is correct, so the article should be deleted regardless of whether the nominator cited that rationale. causa sui (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Reversing my close and resolving as keep per peer review on Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Ravians. --causa sui (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravians[edit]

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

Should be on the main article of the school and it would be best if Ravians became a redirect to that article. Quiggers1P (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 July 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 11:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The material is contentious by virtue of being nominated for deletion.  Sandstein  14:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It was not nominated for deletion because the substance of it was contentious. It was nominated for one reason, and one reason only -- because of where the material was located. Nothing at all about the material itself was indicated as being contentious. In fact, nom supported the inclusion of the material ... just in another article.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:38, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Future Not Far[edit]

A Future Not Far (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books), can't find any mention of it online. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator, who is also the author of the book. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it hasn't been published yet, then how is it notable? Gurt Posh (talk) 10:21, 20 July 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. Courcelles 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T.Jay[edit]

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found to support the text. Does not meet the notability guidelines for biographies of musicians as even though he's contributed to a number 1 single, he has not gained notability independent of that event. CharlieDelta (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —CharlieDelta (talk) 10:38, 17 July 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. on one hand the currenta rticle appears to sduffer from lack of scope adn OR and on the other there seesm to be a lot of literature disiccusiing different aspects of the term. I suspect that what we need is a different article less reliant on OR that addressed the contents of the books. Anyone here up to working on that? Spartaz Humbug! 05:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Marxism[edit]

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

The contents of the Neo-marxism page refers primarily to Marxists who were not Stalinists: Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch and Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer und Theodor W. Adorno. The implication is that plain old "Marxists" are all Stalinists, which is a fringe POV and politically motivated byt right-wing ideologues from the Cold War. The people covered in this list considered themselves Marxists, and were and are considered by most people to be Marxists. Sometimes these people are identified more specifically as "Western Marxists," others as "the Frankfurt School" - but these designation does not mean they are not Marxists, just as labeling someone a Stalinist does not mean he is not a Marxist. All of the scholars and activists mentioned on this page rightfully should be discussed on the Marxism page

It is not surprising that when one googles "Neo-marxism" the first hit is the WP article. As I said above, some people do use the term "neo-marxist" but they constitute a fringe view. All the major sources on marxism - by Marxists, by intellectual historians, and historians, identify these men as marxists. We should not create new articles just to accommodate a fringe view, that violates our policy on POV-forks

The article actually says "There is no formal Neo-Marxist organization and seldom do people call themselves Neo-Marxists, so it is difficult to describe who belongs to this movement. Also there is no set definition as to what a Neo-Marxist is, which makes grouping and categorizing this idea even more difficult." which is practically an admission of defeat. I take it to mean: our time can be spent more productively by working on other articles that do have a clearly defined object or scope.

This article also violates NOR and reads like a personal essay. This is why I do not propose a merge. If it were properly researched and had encyclopedic content, I would have proposed a merge. But it does not offer any information that is not already on WP at the Marxist article or other articles already linked to that article. In other words, WP already covers, much more encyclopedically, all the content - which is meager - in this article. This article simply adds nothing to Wikipedia.

This article was created in 2005 and it still reads like a stub. If 7 years of work can't move it beyond a stub, I see no point in continuing. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further: there is a big-fat reference dictionary for libraries called Biographical Dictionary of Neo-Marxism, (apologies for the ad link but it shows the cover) which should more or less be sufficient to end this challenge as a Speedy Keep. This is clearly recognized as THE term for a definable school of thought and thus worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information, a couple Neo-Marxist journals of interest would include New Left Review in the UK and Socialist Revolution (later Socialist Review) in the United States. I've never seen Telos, but I would bet my lunch money that it is also in this ballpark intellectually. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you're at risk of going hungry this lunchtime! For many years now Telos has been far more influenced by Carl Schmitt than anyone else, and while the degree of Schmitt's influence on Benjamin and Kirchheimer has been much discussed in recent years, nobody has proposed Schmitt as having any vicinity to neo-Marxism. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment... The nominator was taken aback by this statement: ""There is no formal Neo-Marxist organization and seldom do people call themselves Neo-Marxists, so it is difficult to describe who belongs to this movement. Also there is no set definition as to what a Neo-Marxist is, which makes grouping and categorizing this idea even more difficult." This is actually very correct and helpful. Like some wag said about pornography, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it." There is no organization — true fact — the term is not often used as a self-description — true fact — which makes it difficult to describe who belongs to the movement — this logically follows. Want a couple names? Erik Olin Wright. Eric Hobsbawm. E.P. Thompson. Perry Anderson. Do or did any of these self-describe as "Neo-Marxists"? Maybe not. Does that make it hard to include them in the intellectual school? Harder, for sure. Does that mean that there is no such thing as "Neo-Marxism" or that they were not members of that school, broadly construed? No. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hobsbaum? a CPGB loyalist. Thompson and Anderson? Anderson's side of their dispute c1980 was in "Arguments within English Marxism", not neo-Marxism mark you. AllyD (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another book: Neo-Marxism: The Meanings of Modern Radicalism, published by Greenwood Press in 1982. Note the date, the school of Neo-Marxism was strong more or less from the events of 1956 in Hungary and Poland, which caused soul-searching among many Western Marxists about the nature of the USSR, through the early 1990s, events which called into question the entire Marxist edifice. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more book, then I'm gonna go make french toast: Social Theory and the Frankfurt School: Neo-Marxism and the Rise of Capitalism. Yeah, it's print on demand, which impresses nobody, not a big publisher like Sharpe, Cassell, or Greenwood (cited above). Still, this should put to rest any notion that the term belongs to one author or lacks common currency. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the question is, is there really something called "neo-Marxism" that is notable enough to justify an article. If you think so, and want to write it, I'd be happy to watch and see the result, but given that people have been working on this for seven years makes me really skeptical. Also, I simply do not see The New Left Review in the same article as dissident Marxists in post-Stalin Soviet Union - this is the point I was making when I quoted the article's own admission of incoherence. I think many people you mention - e.g. Hobsbawm and Anderson - are Marxists, as are most of the people associated with the new Left Review. But I think your important point is that there whould be a place in WP for these. I agree. Now, here is what I think is the real issue: there are in fact many different forms and flavors of "Marxism." Marxism in Britain in the 1930s-1970s is different from Marxism in Germany or Italy in the 1920s which is different from Marxism in Russia in the 1880s which is different from Marxism in China in the 1950s which is different from Marxism in China in the 1960s. People working on the article on Christianity face the same kind of problem. I still propose deleting this article. Here is my proposal for moving forward: first, important individuals (Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and Walter Benjamin ... I would add Michael Taussig and Eric Wolf and Perry Anderson and Maurice Dobb and Eric Hobsbawm ... should each have their own articles which situate their work historically culturally and nationally. Clearly and well-defined movements like Bolshevik-Leninist, Trotskyism and The Frankfurt School should also have their own articles. But in my view, most important is a great article on Marxism which has good summaries of each of these well-defined movements, placing them in their larger theoretical/ideological context. And I think herein lies the solution to our dilemma, and I admit - but gladly, because I think it has long been an effective approach at WP - it is a provisional solution.
I do not believe that all of the people and ideas from the sources you have found that use the term "neo-Marxism" belong in the same article, and I think that some of the people and ideas in the sources you have found are not notable enough for an article of their own. Some, perhaps, do, but unless you are prepared to do the work now, I don't see appropriate articles being written about them yet. So, what should we do? I think we should do what editors working on the Christianity article and other articles that are similarly about large and heterogenous topics do. We (you, other people knowledgeable about and interested in these diverse intellectual and political movements) should work on them within the context of the Marxism article. In general, it is a wise approach to work on a main article and then spin off daughter-articles, and a highly risky approach to work the other way around. There are obviously challenges about how best to identify and delineate different intellectual and political movements. I believe that the best place to work on these challenges is with the other editors active at the Marxism article. There is the place to show the diverse influences, bring out the decisive differences, and, ultimately, decide just how notable a trend is, and how much weight to give it. If it turns out that a number of editors working at the Marxism article believe that the best way to organize this material is under the header "Neo-Marxist variant," great! And for a long time there may be just a paragraph on this variant. At some point, editors working on the article might feel that the section on Neo-Marxism is getting too big, and for good reason — that is the appropriate time to create a new article on Neo-Marxism, and it will be a good article. But it is also possible that editors collaborating at the main article will decide that there is a better way to organize and present this material. They may discover that enough reliable sources indicate that we are really talking about two or three or four variants; that these variants may have been called "neo-Marxism" by some people at some time but that there is a more common and more appropriate way to identify them. The reason I would like you to change your vote to delete is because I believe that the best place to work out these questions in a collaboration with other knowledgeable editors is at the Marxism; I would like you to change your vote to "delete" because I think the best place to incubate an article on a notable variant of Marxism is first at the Marxism article, because the editors who watch and regularly contribute to that page are the best judges of when – if – it is time to create a new article on a particular variant of Marxism. Maybe if that was the approach someone took seven years ago, we would at this point actually have a great article on neo-Marxism, or a very well-written section at the marxism article on neo-Marxism, or a few new articles on very different variants of Marxism that were allm unfortunately, at one moment in their history called "neo-Marxism. I think this is the most productive way to move forward. I think you raise great and important points, I am just suggesting that this article was an ill-conceived way to handle this and that there is a much better way. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In the context of development studies - "neo-Marxist theories of development" -
* Google scholar
* Google books
seem particularly important. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
PPS some possibly useful sources:
A couple of books
  • Limqueco, Peter and Bruce J McFarlane (1983) Neo-Marxist theories of development, Croom Helm, New York, St. Martin's Press
  • Barrow, Clyde W. (1993) Critical Theories of the State: Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Post-Marxist, The University of Wisconsin Press
A well cited article:
  • Skocpol, T (1980) Political response to capitalist crisis: Neo-Marxist theories of the state and the case of the New Deal, Politics & Society March 1980 vol. 10 no. 2 155-201
Some articles I read long ago:
  • Foster-Carter,A (1973) Neo-Marxist approaches to development and underdevelopment Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 3, no1
Which includes a proper discussion of a use of the term.
And then there is a reply:
  • John Taylor (1974): Neo-Marxism and Underdevelopment — A sociological phantasy, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 4:1, 5-23
A couple of Encyclopedia/Dictionary Entries
  • McCarthy, Pat, Neo-Marxism In H. James Birx (ed.). Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Volume 4. Thousand Oaks, California. Sage Reference. 2006.
  • Neo-Marxism – Marshall, Gordon and Scott, John. A Dictionary of Sociology. New York. Oxford University Press. 2005.
Some nice web sources:
Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
comment But what do these books and articles say? We can't make this decision based solely on book titles. From what I have read (and I have not read all) these works are all referring to different things; the authors use the phrase "neo-" just to indicate these are new trends. That does not make it one topic for one encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the books and articles say quite a lot of interesting and different things. However the fact that there are books about this topic and entries in dictionaries and encyclopedias clearly indicates to me we should have an article. An area I know a bit about is Development Economics - and here there is an approach known as the Neo-Marxist approach. This approach is connected with - Dependency and World systems theories and its focus is on external exploitation rather than the normal "internal" exploitation of orthodox/classical marxism. Not all marxist approaches by new people would be counted as neo-marxist. In the debate we have the orthodox camp including Laclau, Brenner, Warren , and Sender & Smith and in the Neomarxist camp and the neomarxists Baran, AG Frank, Wallerstein, (the early Cardoso). The articles by A Foster-Carter and the reply by Taylor might help if you are interested. My recollection is that also in Industrial Economics a Neomarxist approach - stressing the "monopoly capitalism" (Baran and Sweezy) angle is also refered to in the literature. (Orthodox marxists might well have a more competitive capitalism in mind as their benchmark. I can see that these two (Neomarxist development and Neomarxist economics) could provide two useful sections in an expanded article on Neomarxism. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
replyI can see the reasoning behind the two articles you suggest, and this is precisely why I think this article should b deleted (and why I actually think you should vote to delete) - the manifold works people keep finding via google would not be well-served by this one article but rather by several more specific articles. Your two suggestions are actually quite constructive in my view. But both of them - along, perhaps, with others (e.g. one on revisionist Marxisms in post-Stalinist communist countries) - would displace this one, that is my point. Ask yourself, which one(s) would you be more likely to work on? Slrubenstein | Talk 06:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another reply: I think you might be right in that several articles might be (have been) written separately about the varieties of meanings of Neo-marxism. But this article might be usefully used as a way of assisting the reader with basically a series of alternative redirections. I think since it is a term people may look up and no single redirect would be appropriate we should therefore have an article. The article could then say something about the ambiguity and contested nature of the term and each of the different meanings should then have sections introdcuing them and links to other articles. The article to my mind should not attempt a single unified definition of the term. There were similar issues and criticism of articles I started on Applied economics and Business economics where both terms are used in a variety of ways. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
“Not used in scholarly sources” ? And the Neo-Marxism of this source concerns some parallel world?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its an obvious neo-logism for "new-left". Try reading as an encyclopedic editor instead of a deep text searcher. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think not, "Neo-Marxism" is an older term than "New Left". Neo-Marxism arose out of a revaluation of Marx which started in the 1930s, and particularly after his earlier works emerged into wider circulation in the 1950s which revealed a more humanistic Marx. These new ideas on Marx, neo-marxism, inspired the developement of the "New Left" in the 1960s. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliographic proof please. The subject of the neo-logism predating the new left does not indicate that the term pre-dates the new left. Its a non-notable neologism, it doesn't appear in the scholarly texts. See if you can find it in Leszek Kołakowski's Main Currents, I couldn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you open your other eye you may see the scholarly texts already presented above. Since Neomarxismus originated in Germany decades before the proponents of the "New Left" were even born, you may want to also check out:
  • Hans Heinz Holz: Strömungen und Tendenzen im Neomarxismus. Carl Hanser Verlag, München 1972
  • Andreas von Weiss: Neomarxismus. Die Problemdiskussion im Nachfolgemarximus der Jahre 1945 bis 1970. Karl-Alber-Verlag, Freiburg/München 1970
For the monolingual wikipedians among us, this source provides the context and precedence of "neo-marxism" in relation to the "new left". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Kolakowski's text indicates that these are not the terms used in English. Your citations are from texts after the fact, not in English. Your wikilink is to Frankfurt school and New Left which we already have articles on. The article points out that it is a non analytical category, "Since there are no closed neo-Marxist movement, no organizations, and rarely people who call themselves neo-Marxist, is a clear limitation of belonging to neo-Marxism is difficult, sometimes the use of the term is arbitrary, and are in daily political debate too often general social or unspecific positions critical of capitalism - then mostly meant as a negative evaluation - referred to as neo-Marxist." and Kolakowski, the most significant author on the varieties of Marxist ideologies, doesn't use this descriptive phrase. Kolakowski, instead, devotes a chapter to the Frankfurt school. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well Leszek Kołakowski described Marxism as "the greatest fantasy of our century", so it is no surprise that he dismisses "neo-Marxism". The expression "the Frankfurt School" was a term coined in the 1960s to label a group of neo-Marxist philosophers associated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt. Kołakowski is right, "Neo-Marxism" isn't a movement, it is a body of ideas that departs from orthodox Marxism as rooted in the Second International. The Frankfurt School were not the only proponents of neo-Marxism, there existed other schools such as the Praxis School. On the otherhand, the New Left can be described as a movement that incorporates neo-Marxist ideas. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kołakowski's taxonomy stands as the most significant scholarly history of ideas of Marxism in English. If Kołakowski's terminology and categories ignores "neo-Marxism" and instead specifically singles out other categories, that our taxonomy and presentation of Marxism ought to be using that of Kołakowski, and not those of a few predominantly West German 1970s sociologists, and a few descriptive English uses of "neo" in tertiary sources disconnected from the core literary streams in the history of ideas of Marxism. Surprisingly enough, Kołakowski's categories accord with the standard presentations in English of the history of major Marxist schools of thought until the early 1980s. How you could describe the New Left pales in policy against how the central texts describe and order the taxonomy. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't Kołakowskipedia. Eminent scholar Paul Gottfried devotes a whole chapter to NeoMarxism[19] in his book The strange death of Marxism: the European left in the new millennium, published by the University of Missouri Press. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Martin is on-point here. This is not a POV fork and the Frankfurt School is a subset of Neo-Marxism, broadly construed. Deficiencies in the article can be corrected through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are just using "neo" to say that it is a new development. You are taking an adjective and turning it into a name. This is a mistake many people here, who seem to be reading snippets of texts rather than bodies of literature, are making. Are you sure you are not misinterpreting the use of "neo-Marxism" here by taking it out of context? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so. Neo-marxism appears to have defined political and social characteristics as the source presented by Miacek below shows. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:19, 18 July 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. Danger (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Kabeer Haidary[edit]

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

nothing establishing notablity of this person St8fan (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this advice, I have tagged the article itself for speedy deletion, as it is entirely copied from the source website. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:31, 18 July 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. Courcelles 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Daksh Welfare & Charitable Society[edit]

Sri Daksh Welfare & Charitable Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A small charity made in March 2011 in India is not notable. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 09:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 17 July 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 keep !votes have failed to provide anything other than asserting this is one member of a category of software, some of which have articles. This is not notability. Courcelles 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PDFZilla[edit]

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

Was PROD'd as "No indication of WP:notability. References given are either from the company that produces it or download sites that sell it. Seems spammy." I agree with this (except for the spam part, I don't assert that it is spam, but rather that it is not notable), hence the AfD. SudoGhost™ 09:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, there's not even an assertion of notability in the article, and no reliable third-party sources to show notability, only links to the product's website and download mirrors. That other PDF software exists does not make this one notable. It most certainly does not have the same notability as Acrobat Reader. - SudoGhost™ 09:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I googled it and it returns a whole lot of hits. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS are not a test of notability. - SudoGhost™ 09:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned google hits as a way for a test under WP:WEIGHT. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT is not for establishing the notability of an article, but for determining the NPOV of content within an article. - SudoGhost™ 09:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned WP:WEIGHT Note** this was taken from WP:NNC. And, this article meets WP:FAILN and deletion should be of last resort. I will place a notability tag on the article to see if there is any help out there. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the speedy deletion was a bit rushed. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not submitted for speedy deletion (to my knowledge, unless this is a recreated speedy). I did make an attempt to find sources to establish notability, for my part I found none. If notability can be established, the article can certainly be recreated, but this article is not notable. Perhaps it should be moved into the creator's userspace. - SudoGhost™ 10:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the speedy delete. Now, what constitutes notability for PDFZilla? A reliable WP:SOURCE? All of these are third party reviews and, they are from A reliable sources. Here are a few, even though they offer downloads. http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,75753/description.html, http://dottech.org/gotdreviews/20672/, http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/PDFZilla-Review-102241.shtml, http://www.softsea.com/review/PDFZilla.html Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to be a case of that being used correctly. The only basis of your keep rationale seems to be that other PDF readers exist. The others have established notability; this does not. - SudoGhost 10:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PDFZilla has only been around for 2 months so it has not had time to establish notability. You are discriminating against new products in favour of long-established ones. Note - I have no connection with PDFZilla. Biscuittin (talk) 19:30, 24 July 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 Procedural close. Has already been deleted. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parabolic Window[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Google does not back up claims. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is a recreation (shortly to be deleted) of the article being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabolic window. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Whealton[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. No particularly good independent secondary sources available, as far as I can tell. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 July 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,  Sandstein  09:08, 17 July 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 as HOAX. RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parabolic window[edit]

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

Prodded with: "unreferenced original research. No sources found". I will go further and suggest hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 17 July 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) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Showtime 75MAX Trophy, 1st Round - Tilburg[edit]

AfDs for this article:
It's Showtime 75MAX Trophy, 1st Round - Tilburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

also nominating from the same series of 2005:

all three articles are just results listing, and do not have indepth third party coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
notable fighters does not meet automatic notability. please provide evidence of third party sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 18 July 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) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Kirkby[edit]

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

Contested prod. This BLP has been here for almost three years without any sources. The subject, an actor who appears to have only had minor roles, does not appear to be notable - no significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 17 July 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) 17:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Do It ... Summer 1990[edit]

Let's Do It ... Summer 1990 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable comp. Prod was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 17 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fenn School[edit]

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

Seems like just another private school. It does serve grade 9, but in a context more like a junior high school than a high school. Redirect or delete. Raymie (t • c) 07:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The generally accepted threshold for a high school is Grade 10 so the description as a 'junior high school' or 'middle school' is fine. TerriersFan (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With politeness, WhatamIdoing, I disagree with your findings. According to WP:GNG (quote): 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.
Of the sources that you have provided, not one of them addresses the school directly and in detail. The emergency alert system article mentions the school once in the very last paragraph after talking specifically about safety systems. The Book on audio article is about a book, where one woman happened to work at the school who was being interviewed about said book. The other two articles address the founder of the school, not the school. The final article is a brief blurb about the marching band raising money. None of these articles establishes notability in the least definition of "significant coverage".
Furthermore, when you say: This is not difficult. If you all would stop getting hung up on how old the students are, and actually look for evidence of notability, then you would see that it's perfectly obvious that this school is not merely notable, but actually famous, I appreciate that there will be differing opinions on this matter, but it is out of line to imply that anyone with a contrary opinion as being lazy, or that we are somehow being ageist. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine consensus. You have your opinion, and others have theirs, and have an equal right to it without being mocked. Everyone here has explained themselves without mocking another opinion, and I would ask that you stick to presenting their case or refuting a case ... leave editors out of this! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with the basics: Do you have a paid subscription to the Boston Globe? And if you don't, how exactly are you deciding how much information about the school is in the (dozens of) articles about the school in that paper? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting strictly on the six articles that you provided as evidence of notability. If there are more out there, please bring them forward. Speaking for myself (and I hope everyone else), we are open-minded ... if there are significant, reliable, independent sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability, we'll look a them, and I suspect if that is met, we would all change our input. However, in the absence of those sources, the subject is non-notable, and shouldn't be the subject of an article. Just keep in mind, at least as a few of us have looked at the articles you have presented, they don't meet the "significant" threshold, so more articles like that really won't cut it (at least with those so far leaning toward "delete". LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing has added a search link, which appears to show about 84 hits in the Boston Globe for the school. I invite anyone to joining me and assessing if the articles appear to meet the significance threshold to meet notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm asking a simple, yes-or-no question about those links: For the Boston Globe articles, did you read the WHOLE articles, or just the (free) BEGINNINGS of the articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only read what was available, however, it is rarely necessary to read more than a short amount to determine if the school is the direct subject of the article, or not. It would be exceptionally odd for any journalist to not at least mention the direct topic of the article in the first few paragraphs. It could happen, but it is rare. To be used as a source, the subject needn't be the subject of the article, however, to establish notability, it pretty much has to be. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please read the actual guideline at WP:CORPDEPTH. To be useful for notability purposes, the source must talk directly about the subject—but it need not be the primary or sole subject of the article. The actual guideline says, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." This means that small bits of information scattered about dozens of separate publications can actually add up to the equivalent of a smaller number of longer sources (assuming—as they do in this instance—that these sources all say different things about the school. A hundred sources that all repeat the same fact is counted as one source).
So you have rejected sources based on your ignorance of their contents, a guess that they don't say much, and an erroneous belief about how the guidelines say you should address this situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I'm sorry that you feel that I am ignorant. Quoting from ORG:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.
Trivial coverage is not enough to establish notability. All of the sources in theBoston Globe search seemed trivial. I found three that seemed like they might be worthy of consideration. Ultimately, that is going to be the point of this discussion: are there sufficient non-trivial sources to meet notability? If you feel that I missed any non-trivial sources, please list them ... if you feel that in our inability to see the whole article ... please give some partial quotes and put these articles in context. ... or add the sources to the article and expand the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[25] - this is an article about the controversy regarding the installation of artificial turf at the school
[26] - I am pretty sure this will not establish notability since it is an Op-Ed piece written by a teacher from the school.
[27] - This is about a science course on birds taught at the school, including the construction of bird boxes at the school.
As I see it there are two articles that might fit the bill. This is one person's opinion, so I would hope others check these out and submit their thoughts as well. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:45, 21 July 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 List of cat breeds. (and can then be deleted per Flatscan's comment) Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cat breeds originating in the United States[edit]

List of cat breeds originating in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This page looks like a direct cut and paste of the category and as such serves no extra purpose on Wikipedia. If it were to summarise the main points about each of the cat breeds it would be of more use but I don't think that is needed at this stage. Note that I created the Cats in the United States article earlier today. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then delete? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An edit history merger would be needed before deletion of the redundant redirect title. Warden (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list content might fall under WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, "Simple, non-creative lists of information". The inclusion criteria are factual, not creative. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 23 July 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 without prejudice. The entire text of this article is "Upstream Delta Camp (81°0′S 140°0′W) is located in Antarctica" and that's literally all she wrote so I don't think there's anything to merge. However if somebody does find sources and is willing to write a comprehensive article about this camp then more power to them. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upstream Delta Camp[edit]

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

I *hate* AfD'ing geographical articles - if it's a place, it's almost always notable. But there are exceptions. Upstream Delta Camp is apparently "in Antarctica". No searched online or in print seem to indicate any more than that. It's a place, but that's about all that can be said about it. Is that enough for an article - one that will never grow beyond a bald set of coordinates? Grutness...wha? 06:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 17 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gihan Sami Soliman[edit]

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

Autobiography and promotional. Author created multiple pages about projects. Though admirable, only sources that I can find are ones belonging to author, social media sites, and other websites that would represent a COI. Also, author continued to add HTML hyperlinks within article text to link back to her own websites. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a special consideration needs to be made of the regime of corruption that had been ruling Egypt for 30 years and supressing any kind of real reform coming from the community which might explain the scarcity of research and knowledge on the topic.
Here are some facts about the education in Egypt that shows the need for reform 1- students are required to pass the SAT test with a minimum score of 1440 and that score forms 60% of the qualifying grades for college. Which is a HUGE power wasted in preparation of a non-achievement test on the other hand no other achievement tests are required to graduate or enter college.
National Quality Assurance NAQAAE allocated a whole quality standard for curriculum design while the one who designs the national curriculum is the Ministry of Education the Accrediting association are foreign ones which means they have no real perspective of the king of community participation needed.
Low ranking of Egyptina Universities inspite of all the govermental talk about reform and quality assurance. * Stated in the article that Gihan Sami Soliman reads جيهان سامي سليمان and you can find related articles on her in Arabic (local media) where reform is needed and is taking place.
Also the article has no promotional material about any profitable business of any sort, it's all about reform achieved by volunteers. Please re-consider the value of this article as a good start of educational reform in Egypt coming from educators...Thank you G.S. Soliman (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC) [Special:Contributions/Doveye71|contribs]]) 06:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
looking further into this, most of the 'international' organisations that this individual is running or is involved in seems to simply a series of unfinished and badly designed websites. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, it doesn't look good for the survival of the Gihan Sami Soliman article because of its apparent failing the Notability test. It is possible to establish a Sandbox article where the interested editor can work on an article until it meets the Wikipedia tests. If someone starts such a Sandbox article, please let us know. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but pls. have a look at my last edit .. it might work this time G.S. Soliman (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with this, except that letting it conclude at AfD gives additional rationale for CSD if it is recreated. In light of the author's insistence to continue editing in spite of all the work, suggestions, and advice given, I strongly feel she should be blocked from further editing. Editors who ignore established guidelines and advice from seasoned editors are subject to being blocked. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 20:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sir .. I didn't insist .. I'm just new to editing Wikipedia .. apologies G.S. Soliman (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What harm is there in taking the extra few days in helping Doveye71 see how Wikipedia's rules work. I think the Block suggestion is unwarranted. Many of us have met editors who deserved being block, Doveye71 has no such track record with Wikipedia. This article up for discussion has some hurdles seemingly insurmountable. Of course, Wikipedia has many faces, some stern, some indulgent, with many in between. Doveye71, let this play out. Your work for your country must continue whatever happens here at Wikipedia. I continue to recommnend that you consider developing a Sandbox approach to the article. If you are interested in such an approach, let us know. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK ..I am interested with gratitude..Thanks G.S. Soliman (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hello since I'm being warned not to edit the article my I propose this link below(it will need translation)as an evidence that Port Said American School( devision of the umbrella Port Said schools, Zamalek ) is a major educational institute in Cairo http://ahramdigital.org.eg/Community.aspx?Serial=518754 (noting that Al Ahram is the most prestigious media organization in Egypt) Thank you G.S. Soliman (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs)

Comment- Yesterday, the article's editor agreed to not further edit the autobiographical article, but today has apparently recanted that by making additional edits, including re-adding external links to the article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is a program coordinator, and headship only confers notability under WP:Prof#C6 of a major academic institution, which a secondary school is not. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Mazenomda, Xxanthippe is correct. Did you read any of the rest of this AfD or just come in guns blazing? OlYellerTalktome 13:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no gun blazing or anything, I just think there should be some consideration to her being an educational leader of some significance and employing this to make some reform .. well she's the owner of several websites that call for reform and the intellectual property of Egypt's got Talents as the pictures show, actually, I think she should be listed under a category of social entrepreneurs in her country,if there is such category, not by any means as a super academic person. I just wanted to share my point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment borders on abuse of editing privileges. The comment is made by the author of this autobiography, yet written as a third person. Once signbot attributed the comment to the author, the author deleted it. I reverted the deletion to preserve the evidence of tampering with an AfD discussion. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user Mazenomda, an WP:SPA, came here and !voted to keep with, in my opinion, a very poor reason. Doveye71, the subject of the article in question, replied as if she wrote the Mazenomda !vote then attempted to cover her tracks by removing the comment. I'm going to initiate an WP:SPI. Several people have spent a good deal of time trying to help Doveye71 with this article and help her understand the policies and guidelines of WP and to attempt to sock at this point, after agreeing not to edit the article then socking, I don't think there's any other avenue to pursue here. OlYellerTalktome 14:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you keep deleting my comment .. mazenomda deleted an article for me before and i was just defending him for his point of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about???? YOU deleted your OWN comment!! No one else did that!! I restored your comment because it was suspicious. And what is this about mazenomda deleting an article??? Only Admins can delete articles. This entire situation has been the most bizarre I have ever been involved in on WP. I'm with ya, OlYeller. Something is very suspicious about this entire thing. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote a reply for him in first person as if you were him then tried to remove the response. You impersonated another person and attempted to change the outcome of an AfD. I've opened a sock-puppetry investigation regarding your edits here. No one deleted your comment. You did and Jsfouche restored it. OlYellerTalktome 14:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Look you keep deleting my reply.. he deleted a page by nominated it for deletion .. I don't know how you can check that but I know you can — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what are you talking about? What comment has been deleted?? Look at the page history. No one deleted your comment, except yourself. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is deleting your replies. Feel free to check the history. If I had to guess, you're hitting edit conflicts because multiple people are attempting to post at the same time. The page you're referring to is this which was immediately declined. He's never edited a page that you have.
Dove, at this point, there's only one question for you to answer: Why did you impersonate another editor then attempt to delete the comment? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that you didn't because it's all very clear. You replied in first person to reply as another user then deleted the comment. Again, why? OlYellerTalktome 14:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings up another concern. Why would you ask another editor "to delete an article for me"? What does that mean? Why did you want it deleted, and why did you ask someone else to do it for you?? You do realize that articles are not deleted "for someone", they are deleted because they either meet criteria for speedy deletion, they are proposed as uncontested deletions, or they are discussed and deleted by consensus at AfD like this one. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replied as a fisrt person cuz I'm a first person and the article subject is a third person.. isn't this what you keep telling me to do ? look I'm not an English native speaker and might not be perfect in expressing myself .. and i was defending mazenomda as not fire blazing because he seems to be fond of nominating pages for deletion that's why I was flattered by his attempt to save the article .. about the deletion .. I don't know how I got it deleted and how am I getting my comments here deleted as I try to post them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he did .. it was (Fungi of Egypt and North Africa) .. I spent days and days working on it and it was gone overnight..you as admins can detect that, can't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

his talk page [32] with evidence of having tried to delete the "Fungi ..." page and one of the admins here declined his claim then but it was gone anyway.

This makes no sense: "I replied as a fisrt person cuz I'm a first person and the article subject is a third person". No one here is obligated to help you. We've exhaustively tried and you never seem to understand which may be due to a language barrier. So you're either attempting to mislead and should stop editing here or you can't speak English in a way that you can be helpful and should find your language's WP to edit. I'm done here. The AfD will conclude on its own and so will the SPI. Good luck. OlYellerTalktome 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why is this getting like personal? why are you attacking me? I have given you the evidence that the person you claim I'm personifying has tried to destroy my work before and I'm trying to explain why I talked about the subject of the article in the third person .. no one is obliged to help me and no one is .. I thought this page was for discussing the article on objective grounds.. I do not know why you exert all these efforts editing in Wikipedia and guiding people but I don't think it's because of friendship or anything personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI confirmed via checkuser that Mazenomda and Doveye71 are the same person. OlYellerTalktome 03:13, 25 July 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. Nomination was withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Army Public School, Binnaguri[edit]

Army Public School, Binnaguri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable school Ryan Vesey contribs 04:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! Rap Hits[edit]

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

Obscure comp, prod was denied —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 17 July 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 Withdraw, article has been translated. Jac16888 Talk 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMK St Peter Bundu Kuala Penyu, Sabah, Malaysia[edit]

SMK St Peter Bundu Kuala Penyu, Sabah, Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks without progress, prod declined by user unaware of standard practice in this situation. Jac16888 Talk 02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link. Standard practice for articles that are not in English is that they are tagged with ((notenglish)) and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. If they are not translated within 2 weeks they are nominated for deletion, that's been the practice for years now--Jac16888 Talk 14:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've translated some of it and removed the non-English sections. Should be good enough for a keep now under WP:NHS. For others' reference, this was the version nominated for deletion. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 14:41, 17 July 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.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of The Sopranos characters. Given we have an obvious merge target, using the deletion tool here is rather unsuitable. Disagreements, feel free to take them straight to WP:DRV, but this is a case where a clear alternative to deletion is poorly considered by the discussion. Courcelles 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Filone[edit]

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

This article is a summary-only description of works completely unreferenced to any reliable, third-party sources and has been for over five and a half years. IAW WP:BEFORE, this character appeared in only two episodes (per the article), and what few reliable sources I've found are all simply referencing the plot as already present in the article. — Fourthords | =/\= | 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Fourthords | =/\= | 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 17 July 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. Courcelles 01:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dianoitika proikismenos anthropous[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 17 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dario (Singer)[edit]

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

All but one of the references gave me a dead link, and the one source that did work was just a promotional one. I have been unable to find any reliable sources on the subject. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep I can't find anything on the person, however let's give the author a little more time and "MAYBE" they can provide reliable sources. If not, then go right ahead. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 07:05, 3 July 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) 00:10, 10 July 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, 17 July 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. Courcelles 01:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remus Pricopie[edit]

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

An impressive résumé, to be sure, but the subject fails all relevant notability criteria.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 July 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) 00:10, 10 July 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, 17 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aries Olympus (rapper)[edit]

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

Unnotable rapper; the article has three sources, at the moment, none of them reliable Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 10 July 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, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable musician with a significant conflict of interest in the author very likeley being the subject of the article. No independent reliable sources to back up the BLP. Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 18 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Gordon[edit]

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

dubious notability really a stretch, obvious COI issues. note first afd closed no consensus Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 July 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, 17 July 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 Under the Western Freeway. (any useful information can be merged across) Black Kite (t) (c) 11:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Machines Are Not She[edit]

Machines Are Not She (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 July 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, 17 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Art Factory[edit]

Live at the Art Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 July 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, 17 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded Live Amongst Friends and Fidget[edit]

Recorded Live Amongst Friends and Fidget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 July 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, 17 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live @ Adelphia[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 July 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, 17 July 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 Live on Earth (Cat Empire album). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Explain? (Live at the Sidney Myer Music Bowl)[edit]

How to Explain? (Live at the Sidney Myer Music Bowl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 July 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) 00:03, 17 July 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. Courcelles 01:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touring Europe and the UK, 2004[edit]

Touring Europe and the UK, 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 July 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) 00:03, 17 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Ladies[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 12 July 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) 00:03, 17 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Love[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 12 July 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) 00:02, 17 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Smith (Child Prodigy)[edit]

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

—AssassiN's Creed (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 10 July 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) 00:02, 17 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Dubose[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Kept at the previous AFD (when the article was substantially longer, and sourced - but not to reliable sources) but difficult to see why. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 10 July 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) 00:01, 17 July 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. Courcelles 23:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FFmpeg hosting service[edit]

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

Unsourced article. No evidence of notability given. Mostly original research. Not discussed by reliable secondary sources. Tagged on 2009 and not repaired since then. Marokwitz (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense, I found at least 2M websites which include this term, which is why I wrote the article. The problem is, most of the top results are advertisements for those services, which I'm loathe to include as references due to WP policy on such links. I've put in a few refs now, but I'm not entirely sure that they're the most comprehensive sources. --Toussaint (talk) 00:57, 13 July 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) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, that many multiple independent WP:PRIMARY sources are reliable, and good enough for a "merge," rather than deletion. Reconsider? --Lexein (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 22 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Mimics[edit]

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

Not sure if this is a well-known or notable art form. Google search comes up with a lot of Youtube and other wikis. I found some mentions in German newspapers. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 15:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 10 July 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) 00:00, 17 July 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.
More