< 2 November	4 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku Raiden Championships 12[edit]

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

also nominating:

World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku Raiden Championships 13
World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku Raiden Championships 14
World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku Raiden Championships 15
World Victory Road Presents: Soul of Fight

another useless of sporting results with no third party coverage. fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sengoku was one of the best organizations in the world, akin to Strikeforce or DREAM. These events feature notable fighters and world title fights. - Minowafan (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree Sengoku is notable, but these events are just routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - routine sports coverage what we keep getting spammed with. Neutrality^talk 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Articles are referenced by one or possibly two routine notices each, plus one or two primary or WP links. Web search indicates there's a bit more routine coverage out there, but nothing to indicate the substantial coverage from WP:RS sources required to satisfy WP:GNG. If anyone can find substantial WP:RS coverage, happy to have another look. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Leone[edit]

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

He's a non notable MMA fighter. He's had 3 total fights, none with a major organization. He fails WP:MMANOT.

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these fighters pass WP:MMANOT either. I realize it's a long list, but I thought I'd just put them in 1 list instead of opening up many AfD discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Froilan Sarenas

Rodrigo Praxedes

Tim Newman

Bashir Ahmad (Fighter)

Bashir Ahmad (martial artist)

Mark Ellis (fighter)

Saengchot Parkaiphet

Jasor Ablasi

Jake Bostwick

Jimmy Millar (fighter)

Mark Carling

Ngoo Ditty

Alex Silva(fighter)

Shannon Wiratchai

Ben Smith (fighter)

Wiktor Svensson

Seung Ho Yang

Sung Ming Yen

Alan Fenandes

Huseyin Garabet

Jamaine Facey

Pedro Galiza

Mark Potter (fighter)

Nick Chapman

Daniel Digby

Diego Vital

Peter Irving

Reagan Penn

Carl Noon

Nathan Beer

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Daniel Digby, whose write up in [1] is way more than a passing mention even if it is local, as well as the general generic listings, *might* be enough to keep (for him, i say weak keep). The rest, delete seems clear as they have few fights, only stats references and are simply too new to have attracted much press yet. Maybe next year. And may I recommend grouping these in smaller groups next time, say 5 per AFD. Not everyone is going to want to read and look up so many names in one group, and I'm hoping I didn't miss something due to the sheer volume of work to do so. And how it may attract !votes more from people who won't look them up instead of people who will. Still better than individual AFDs, I agree on that point. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With 0 fights for notable organizations he certainly doesn't meet WP:MMANOT and a write-up in a local paper certainly isn't enough to show the significant coverage required for WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all There isn't a single fighter on this list that has fought multiple times for a major promotion, with some never even fighting for a second or third-tier promotion. Could they be notable some day? Sure. But, there isn't anyone on this list that is notable now. Lacking any independent coverage that could be used to source these pages causes them to clearly fail WP:MMANOT. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I didn't realize there were so many fighters on Wikipedia with just 1 or 2 fights for a local promotion. It's obvious that none of these fighters meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT. Since there are several thousand MMA articles on Wikipedia, I suspect there's a lot more non-notable fighters and events out there. Mdtemp (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as ably explained above. Neutrality^talk 23:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Froilan Sarenas is the middleweight champion of the URCC an organization which has put on over 50 shows and has been in existence since 2002. He has also been the subject of a feature in a major MMA website ^[1] and his name has been mentioned in national newspapers in the Philippines on multiple occasions. ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.67.78 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has also only fought three times as a professional. The issue isn't whether URCC is notable. It is whether or not the fighter is. Has his name been mentioned in some other capacity than as a fighter? He might be notable for some other reason, but having only three fights in a regional promotion nearly guarantees that he isn't notable yet as a fighter. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Froilen Sarenas meets the following criteria because his name has been mentioned on multiple national newspapers in the Philippines and on multiple MMA websites:

Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations 58.8.176.82 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan Penn although does not have a lot of fights under his belt, search him on youtube. he has many great video's on brazilian jiu jitsu with his brother B.J. Penn. Also as long as he is B.J.'s brother Reagan will be a search term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grungephreak (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight he won his second MMA bout at a local MMA event. His "notability" comes from being BJ's brother and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not even. The results of his fight tonight was a decision loss. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As previously mentioned by several other editors, none of these fighters are even close to meeting WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No evidence of notability from RS. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete Bashir Ahmad I understand that you have deleted or at least petitioned to put the page up for deletion due to the fact that it does not meet the wikipedia requirement of :

1:Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage. 2:Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable. 3:Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable. 4:Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.

I had linked 3 articles mentioning him, all three of which are well known publications that include, Fighter's Only and Bloody Elbow This guy is the pioneer of MMA in Pakistan, introduced the sport and runs the only MMA organization in the country, PAK MMA, and organizes events and seminars through out the country on a regular basis, the fact that there is almost no publication regarding MMA in south asia we donot have any media coverage, instead we use our own site to promote the sport in South Asia (www.pak-mma.com) Has been in Martial Arts since 2006, actively competing in the Muay Thai circuit since 2008 and will make MMA debut in 2011 in One FC. So 3/4 requirement are being fulfilled, then why the deletion? Apart from that he will be the first person to represent Pakistan in International and Professional MMA event, ONE FC, and apart from all that if that is your criteria, then why did you not delete Radeem Rahman's page who is also the first MMA fighter to represent in country and has only fought once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.10.129 (talk) 13:56, 18 November 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 Noida. v/r - T P 02:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pull-Paar, Noida[edit]

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

I think, but I am not sure, that this is an article about a newly built or soon to be built neighbourhood in Noida. No references, no structure, not clear what the author wants with this article. Better start from scratch. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The article isn't entirely clear on whether it a housing development, neighbourhood, etc. From what I can gather, it is not a town. It is likely an informal designation for an area within Noida. The realty web site referenced in the article verifies the area exists. And I found other realty site that mention it. But there is no coverage about it in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Noida given the information below. -- Whpq (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep / Merge - Actually its a place located at a little distance from Delhi.The area does exist as seen from the source. But my reason for keeping this article is the agitation against land acquisition which is garnering a lot of interest in the media and thus making this place notable-->WP:GNG.Documented in "Hindustan Times","The Hindu Business Line"

Traffic snarls ( ! ) being documented in papers like "India Today","Hindustan Times"

Moreover one can see that Mahamaya flyover and its adjoining areas fall under Noida.The Noida article in WP has this to say "Many villages are visible from the Noida Expressway, beginning from the Mahamaya flyover to Greater Noida on both sides." But I strongly believe that this article may be even more effective if merged with Noida.The parts which are not backed up by reliable source may be deleted."Pull Paar' is a hindi word and thus article may also be renamed to "Areas adjoining Mahamaya Flyover". Vivekananda De--tAlK 13:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I reviewed those sources and not a single one mentions "Pull-Paar". Did I miss something? It demonstrates that Noida is notable, but that isn't at issue here. Is Pull-Paar a neighbourhood, housing development, village, ...? I remain completely in the dark. I'm not adverse to keeping this article, but we need sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - This is what I meant by saying its a weak keep. "Pull - Paar" is a hindi word which means "Pull"-->bridge / flyover "Paar"-->Crossing.Thus the article is on the land adjoining "Mahamaya Flyover" and its problems.You wont find a reference to "Pull Paar" because all of them refer to "mahamaya flyover" ,land acquisition nearby (Mahamaya Flyover is near sector 44,near amity school--in a photo in one of the sources)it and the traffic snarls on it.Its also the reason why I said it to be renamed as "Areas adjoining Mahamaya Flyover" because the flyover is the main point in it. Now, the sources make "Areas adjoining Mahamaya Flyover" notable.Moreover,the flyover is in Noida and it would make a healthy addition because the land acquisition issue is not addressed in the Noida article. My bad ,I should have described it more profusely earlier.Vivekananda De--tAlK 03:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Thanks for the explanation. Things now make a lot more sense. It seems to me that this is not yet a notable neigbourhood or area yet, and as such would belong in the Noida article. --- Whpq (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - No need for thanks, its my mistake.I should have described it in a better way.Yes, notability is still an issue which is why I have said its a weak keep/merge. Vivekananda De--tAlK 09:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge - No evidence of notability. May be worth a mention in the Noida entry, but someone should come up with a RS reference, if that is the decision. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No evidence of NN, should be put into the Noida entry, otherwise Delete. Jab843 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Confused and contextless essay, nothing worth salvaging. Also no sources, therefore not mergeable. Any coverage of this subject would need to be rewritten from scratch. Sandstein 10:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable yet. Better described in Noida in the Economy section under Real estate issues. Pmresource (talk) 19:37, 13 November 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. Nominator has withdrawn (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr.[edit]

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

Entire article is unsourced, only 3 references to very minor details, and per BLP, unsourced material may be removed - effectively this would neutralise the whole thing. Since this article is not suitable for BLPProd, i'm sending it here to seek views from other users. BarkingFish 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cojuangco is notable on at least five counts: chairman of a worldwide food and beverage company with 17,000 employees, former member of Philippines House of Representatives, former governor, former serious presidential candidate, and founder of a political party that now holds over 10% of both house seats and governorships in the Philippines. All this can be verified in a minute or less through Google Books. We don't delete articles about indisputably notable people, but instead expand them and improve their referencing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's better to start again, than to continue with this. This almost entirely unsourced article reads like a gossip magazine and should be deleted, a wikipedian will be able to write a short neutral article again hopefully. It's better to have nothing than this for a moment. Cojuangco is notable, that's for sure. Removing the non-encyclopaedic content is also possible, therefore: neutral. La Utnog (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Cullen328. He's one of the most famous and powerful people in the Philippines. The problem here is not the paucity of sources but the plethora. "Danding Cojuangco" yields 4,520 hits on GBooks and 2,570 hits on GNews. For starters, from the U.S. media, here are profiles from the 2005 New York Times ("Spotlight: The Philippines' Power Broker") and the 1990 Los Angeles Times ("Profile : The King of Cronies Eyes Power in the Philippines : Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. amassed a fortune under Ferdinand Marcos and survived his ouster. He remains an embarrassing thorn in the side of Corazon Aquino.") The "personal life" section goes overboard in places but I don't see any need to delete the entire article: the introductory section certainly seems neutral and easily verifiable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added four reliable sources to the article, and thank Arxiloxos for finding two of them. I've trimmed massive amounts of fluff and unreferenced family trivia. I see absolutely no reason to delete the article now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Cullen328's comments and edits.--MLKLewis (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not the avenue to ask for better sources. I know the nominator would've wanted to improve its crappy state but this is not the right venue. You'd only AFD when one of the reasons is listed here, and it seems none of those has been satisfied. –H T D 03:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, article fixed by severe scalping and cleanup. BarkingFish 20:53, 4 November 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. Tone 22:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivy Tree[edit]

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

The notability of this book is not stated Oddbodz (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found the following sources, which seem to establish notability: 1, 2, 3, 4. Source 2 also mentions a few reviews - I'm sure we could find those, too. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author's name being misspelled and not wikilinked probably didn't help anything any, but this appears to be a notable book by a notable author. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NBOOK is clearly met. The novel has been reviewed in The Atlantic Monthly, The Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times Book Review as well as Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal, The Washington Post, and New York Herald Tribune according to [2]. Goodvac (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable author whose books were widely reviewed at the time of their publication. It's a waste of effort to insist on tracking down individual 50-year-old reviews. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:38, 10 November 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. Tone 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Fox[edit]

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

Unsourced article that is either a personal essay or a hoax. unverifiable and not notable. Prod contested without reason, so bringing here to discuss. Sparthorse (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like an unsources neologism. Can find no sources at all which mention in. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No indication of notability whatsoever. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:16, 10 November 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. Tone 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Höck[edit]

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Non-notable? Two-time World Cyber Games champion, WCG Hall of Fame inductee, Electronic Sports World Cup champion, Cyberathlete Professional League champion... He won every major championship there was. How is that "not notable"? --[GoAvs]^[Disc.] 19:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the countless other AFD's for similar people. Short answer no winning Gaming events is not enough to establish notability. We still need coverage that satisfies the GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 27 October 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 21:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources seem to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:09, 3 November 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! 06:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration of Higher Value[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. While the "seduction community" itself is notable, that notability does not transfer to every phrase used within the community. Delete per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Average_frustrated_chump_(5th_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concepts_in_the_seduction_community_(2nd_nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-slut_defense. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the Seduction Community itself seems to be notable, there is no reason that every phrase or idea used in it is inherently notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discussed extensively be reliable sources. Multiple pages in multiple books ([3][4][5][6][7]) and multiple mentions in multiple academic sources ([8]). WP:NEO which Kaldari cites does not apply. The page says "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term", which I am hardly doing, [9] 108k Google results are enough already. The guide says "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society", which my article does! And it is not just a word, it is a concept that admittedly could use some fleshing out. It is clear that Kaldari has a personal vendetta against the topic group. LegrisKe (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, all of those hits are either primary source uses from the seduction community or uses of the phrase as a regular English phase (rather than a specialized term). WP:NEO requires that we cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. I've only seen one legitimate secondary source on this term,[10] and I don't think you can build much of an article from that single source. If you can find more secondary sources that talk about the term or concept, please list them here. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's certainly enough secondary source coverage to warrant retention of the article page. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources provided by LegrisKe are a) primary, b) trivial, or c) unrelated, meaning that they cannot confer notability on this neologism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Particularly interesting secondary source coverage includes books and scholarly sources. — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So again, primary, trivial, or unrelated. what makes you think that just citing a Google search is acceptable as a demonstration of notability? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much evidence that the term is used outside of a very small circle of writers. I don't buy the claim that the GoogleScholar search provides multiple mention in multiple academic sources. GoogleScholar documents are not necessarily academic. Case in point this is most clearly not scholarly work. Nor are the two frivolous patent applications. That already accounts for 5 out of 13 hits. I think we can also agree that the self-help books by seduction gurus don't qualify as academic work. So we're left with three documents. In this one, the term is only used once and only to quote Strauss. In this one, there's a single occurrence of the term and again it's only used to say basically "Strauss described the concept of demonstration of higher value". The last one is Faye Flam's book which I can't access in its entirety. However, the occurrences of the term that I can see are of the form "book by seduction guru foo uses the term demonstration of higher value". That shouldn't be confused with wide acceptance of the term as a useful neologism. You can't review or discuss Liberal Fascism without using the neologism "liberal fascism". And given the popularity of that book, you'll find gazillions of references to it, including in scholarly work that mentions Goldberg's work. But that does not make "liberal fascism" an accepted neologism with a reasonably well-accepted definition. I have to agree with Roscelese's assessment and I urge Cirt and LegrisKe to reexamine the quality of these sources. Pichpich (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Pickup artist. A peculiar topic, but is has received press. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I could live with a merge, I do have to ask: what press? Outside of the seduction gurus books and websites, I see little if any coverage of significant depth. I've already analyzed the Google Scholar hits above. Among the top Google hits, you find seduction community websites, blogs, forums, things like this where the term is used in a completely different way. An article on Demonstration of Higher Value is the equivalent of a Wikipedia article called "Verifiability, not truth". Pichpich (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I still don't see any evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. Much better established neologisms than this are routinely deleted from Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tertiary book sources: [11], [12]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above regarding Flam's book. But the first tertiary source you just gave is a book by the guy who defined the term. It doesn't get more primary than that. Pichpich (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first of your 2 links is primary, the second is a legitimate secondary source, but like I said above, it seems to be the only one found so far. Kaldari (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a part of the Seduction community or Pickup artist articles, but there's no reason this is an independently notable topic that needs to be handled separately. Shadowjams (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No need or justification for a standalone article. Wikipedia is not a how-to. ^Bongo_matic 04:29, 12 November 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 without prejudice. Apart from the nomination, the delete votes give no argument beyond an assertion of "not notable". The keep votes have pointed to references, and although they do express some reservations, they are well reasoned. Due to the expressed uncertainty, I am adding the "without prejudice" qualifier to indicate that this AFD need not be the final word for the time being. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Better Beatles[edit]

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

"short lived (from the article!) beatles cover band only together for 1 year, no significant coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable band. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what A7 is for. →Σ τ c. 00:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable--MLKLewis (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this article, I consider it notable that The Better Beatles, on the basis of one single, grew enough of a following for there to be a market for them to release their full album 25 years after they broke-up. Has this ever happened to any other band? They were also ahead of their time, pointing towards both 80s electro and the later electroclash movement with their deadpan lyrical delivery and mechanical, synth-driven sound. ChartAttack reviewed Mercy Beat in early 2008, shortly after it was issued, saying that, “Best of all, despite Mercy Beat being recorded back in 1981, it should still do well both with original new wavers and fans of electro-pop like Ladytron.” [13] Additionally, one of the members went on to play with The Legendary Stardust Cowboy. Rocket From The Tombs were another midwestern band around less than a year that released no albums in their lifetime, yet they are considered notable largely on the basis of their members' successes in other bands and the fact that they prefigured major musical trends - this is also true of The Better Beatles. -Hartwell86 (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Village Voice article denotes notability. However, it needs more references, particularly as to how the album was released, on what label, and if it picked up any reviews in major music publications on release. I'd prefer to give the creator a chance to source those than deleting the page outright. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming that there is more fleshing out of this article, otherwise revisit in a month. Jab843 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 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. Tone 22:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia men's national ice hockey team[edit]

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

No reliable sources. No evidence of participation in sanctioned international competitions. No evidence that this team exists as a National Team. Hairyns (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to suggest that it exists. It seems to me that being a national team for a sport does make something inherently notable and the precedent on Wikipedia is to include national sports teams. Their results are here. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is fully sourced. National team clearly exists even if only during the time the games were played. Also I dont think a national team would need to have participate in an international competition to pass notability. Salavat (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why a national team would not be notable. And the IIHF sources seem to confirm that this is a national team. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - here the IIHF's page on them [14]. Member since 2009. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly existent. Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 22:34, 7 November 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. I'm speedying this as G11, entirely promotional without any way of improving it by normal rewriting. If it wasn't clear from the enough from the article, its clear from the discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan James Recor[edit]

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

If you came here because of Johnathan James Recor's canvassing for help/votes on his personal Facebook page, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Promotional article for a local college personality of questionable notability. Significant WP:COI of late, as the article creator and major editors have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Google news search on "Johnathan James Recor" shows zero results. Standard search shows primarily social media, blogs, unreliable and/or primary sources. Some minor coverage from the school paper, but no significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No indication of notability and no significant independent coverage. Strong possibility article is autobiographical--certainly there's a COI. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is self-promotion. Even if everything in it is true, I don't see how he's notable. It also lacks good independent sources. Mdtemp (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has independent sources with minor notability, is cultured with Dartmouth College, and through the page's controversial history has demonstrated a potential to prove itself if written properly. User:dartbeat (talk) 13:09 6 November 2011 (UTC)— Dartbeat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dartbeat has now been blcoked for sockpuppetry.

Strong Delete Clearly not notable; blatant self-promotion and meat puppetry (see http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Sun-God/155670074870?sk=wall) --129.170.94.158 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia appears to be the final frontier of JJR's blatant self-promotion (Google 'JJRecor'). Although everything in the article is accurate, the page is essentially a personal webpage and violates multiple line items on the 'What Wikipedia is not' page. Also, sockpuppetry. S943f50voh (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the rampant socking is not a reason to delete. Rich Farmbrough, 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Delete Definitely a personal vanity page. Recor is actually campaigning on his own Facebook page for his friends to vote against deletion of this article. It is clear that this article is an autobiography. Recor does not meet the notability qualifications, and is hardly considered notable even at Dartmouth. -Bonus Onus (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has a subject of minor notability. "Clearly not notable" is not a viable position. Subject was a primary part of Dartmouth College/Hanover culture with a wide-spread message and cultural significance. With proper editing and clean-up to maintain neutrality, this article will provide important information on an significant series of events that defined an entire town and college community. Contents are verifiable. Please note: many people on Dartmouth College have a personal vendetta against J.J. Recor and many entries in favor of deletion may be the result of prejudice and personal opinion, unrelated to any concern for Wikipedia guidelines. Naysayers have also been brought to this discussion by Recor's Facebook page and are not impartial. Their disruption of this article due to personal prejudice iagainst the article's subject is a violation of Wikipedia's anti-harassment policy. ALSO, no concrete proof of sock puppetry. Fellow editors who have broken no Wikipedia rules are being banned just for editing or associating with this article. This is unjust and against Wikipedia policy to ban users who have done nothing wrong. People need to take a careful look at what's going on here and understand that this isn't a trolling fest; some of us here are actually concerned about the important/relevant content of this article! Thank you. GW9IFAL804 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)— GW9IFAL804 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This isn't about sockpuppets, it's about the fact that he doesn't meet any notability criteria and there's a lack of good independent sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I ran into this individual several times at my local frame shop in Hanover. Overtime I learned that recor has somehow become a pop-culture phenomenon at Dartmouth College and is certaintly notable - *this is without dispute*. I would imagine that any of his credientials could be easily verified with a simple phone call to anyone at the College or surrounding area as literally there is not one person in town who does not know his name or the things he has accomplished. TheGildedEdge (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)— TheGildedEdge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources apparently exist. Now someone please improve the article. Tone 22:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RSC Brands[edit]

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

Article was deproded without addressing the original concern. It has still been tagged for lacking reliable sources for 5 months. I have been unable to uncover reliable sources myself as well to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. I appreciate that this article has a problematic editing history and that reliable sources haven't been provided so far. This company has been around for a long time and makes some well-known products (Solder Seal, Gunk, Liquid Wrench). A Google search for "Radiator Specialty Company" produces hundreds of hits at GNews[15], and thousands at GBooks[16]. Many of these hits seem to be advertisements, and pay walls (and the Google limit that allows viewing only of the first 100 news stories) hinder examination of these results to find substantial coverage. But here, for example, is a substantial 2010 New York Times article about RSC's advertising for Liquid Wrench.[17]. The results do suggest that this is an important company in Charlotte, and that its founding family has played an important role in that city's development.[18][19]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can appropriately have one single decent article. it's an important company, with major well-known products. As Arxiloxos resports, there are plenty of usable sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no claim to notability. If it is so important, better add some real info (with references), and I may change my opinion. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be a reliable source. I think this is just a case of having to find reliable sources, rather than dismissing it as non-notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this and this. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:26, 3 November 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shafie Ayar[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable author. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article was very poorly written but on an interesting author. Obviously it's hard to assess the material in languages like Dari. I've redrafted the article based only on the English material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources but they do not establish notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:33, 27 October 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, Davewild (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see little reason to remove the article, seeing as there is still the potential of the person to make more notable contributions. I do think the article is worth keeping, seeing as the only sources I can read are in English. If he has a page on the english wiki, could someone check to see if he has a page in another language on the wiki? Jab843 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 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 10:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Knight[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG for notability and WP:V as facts can't be verified via non-existent references, which is particularly troubling for a BLP. He has written several books, and you can find those books on Amazon and on Google books, but I don't find sources talking about the person. The ghits for this name are unrelated persons. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while this is the 2nd AFD for this subject title name, this is actually the first AFD for this particular person. Both are unrelated persons that just have the same name. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:54, 27 October 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, Davewild (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous publications. Meets WP:CREATIVE. Nitalake (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Specifically which part of WP:CREATIVE?

1 The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

2 The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

3 The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4 The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

So which part does he fulfill that can be verified? Having several "publications" isn't a criteria for inclusion using any Wikipedia guideline, because you can publish any drivel on Amazon.com for free, in a few minutes, and call it a book. That is why we require verification by reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete publishers are not notable themselves. for books like this, we would need either publication from a major publisher, or third party confirmation that they are used by a large educational audience, as they could easily be self published. no indication of notability from the material provided here. I couldnt find any obvious supporting sources in a google search. fails WP:CREATIVE. his CV doesnt meet WP:BIO either.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Dennis and above. The person defiantly fails the NN test. Jab843 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 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. Tone 22:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sichuan Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 October 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, v/r - T P 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Orchestras in cities of this size are sometimes notable, as demonstrated by newspaper and magazine articles, tours, and recordings, especially if they are the number one orchestra of the city. Was this the most prominent orchestra, or an also-ran? Has anyone checked the newspaper archives of the host city, the region, and the country in the native language? Notability is not limited to coverage in English. Edison (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As noted, cities of this size tend to have notable orchestras, and a search for Chinese-language sources should be done before deletion is considered, as it is a near cinch to turn up reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 27 October 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, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:09, 27 October 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, Davewild (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief search turned up that they have been around since at least 2008, with notable conductors. --MLKLewis (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see enough out there for notability, though article needs improvement. Messing with Chinese sources via google translate is difficult, but not impossible, at least to confirm coverage. In that respect, this AfD is not much different than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilkent Symphony Orchestra.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:46, 4 November 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. Black Kite (t) 18:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spire Federal Credit Union[edit]

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

The article was previously tagged as a CSD for spam (G11); in addition, it was a copyright violation. However, I rewrote the article and de-spammified it, adding two less-than-reliable refs in the process - but it's all I could find that was good enough. I'm also in doubt about the notability of the article and whether it meets WP:ORG, as most of the information on Spire are self-published materials online. HurricaneFan 25 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Due to the organization's long history and size I would imagine that independent sources do exist, though many of the best of these will be print materials that are not readily available online. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 27 October 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, Davewild (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just looking at briefly at Google books and news, I see lots of potential sources -- Dun and Bradstreet, Bizjournals.com, St. Paul Pioneer Press, local TV news coverage, etc. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Park Hummingbird[edit]

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

Colloquial alleged term for a specific auto part with no evidence of notability of the part or the term. Flunks WP:NOTE, WP:SPECULATION, WP:DICTIONARY, possibly also WP:NEO. The specific auto part itself is encyclopedically covered at Starter_motor#Gear-reduction_starters. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this engine part gained any notoriety independent of te models in which it was used. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say, however, that one of the references shown to me by the creator, this one, is perhaps insufficient by itself to establish notability but leads me to believe older references do exist. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps. If so, it seems to me the most this colloquialism merits is perhaps a brief mention in Starter_motor#Gear-reduction_starters. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search for evidence of notability turned up nothing. I did find this book, but the book is just a bunch of articles from Wikipedia, including the "Highland Park Hummingbird' article.DinosaurDan (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see improved article and reconsider delete recommendations. Bradkay (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still Flunks WP:DICTIONARY, possibly also WP:NEO, and WP:SPECULATION, and the subject matter is still encyclopedically covered at Starter_motor#Gear-reduction_starters. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've dropped your notability objection. Thank you. I'd say notablity is established by the starter article, which says "Chrysler Corporation contributed materially to the modern development of the starter motor... The Chrysler starter made a unique, readily identifiable sound when cranking the engine... This starter formed the design basis for the offset gear reduction starters now employed by about half the vehicles on the road, and the conceptual basis for virtually all of them." ^[6]

I don't see the basis it failing under WP:DICTIONARY. This is an auto part, notability established, and the name is as relevant to the part as the phrase "Small Block Chevy". WP:NEO clearly does not apply to a name documented to be in use 40+ years. I don't see any basis for failure under WP:SPECULATION, but of course, these last two you've stated only as possible reasons for failure, so I wonder if I should even have addressed them.

Anyway, what's left here is WP:DICTIONARY, and I'd like to see something more than an assertation, without a supporting discussion, that it fails there. Bradkay (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken; I haven't "dropped" WP:NOTE or the other reasons for nominating this article for deletion, all of which are based in Wikipedia policy. Your arguments for keeping it give the appearance of amounting to "I like it!", and you don't appear to have explained or demonstrated why the term merits its own article rather than mention in Starter motor. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think notability is established both by the article and especially by the statement in the starter article mentioned above "Chrysler Corporation contributed materially to the modern development of the starter motor... The Chrysler starter made a unique, readily identifiable sound when cranking the engine... This starter formed the design basis for the offset gear reduction starters now employed by about half the vehicles on the road, and the conceptual basis for virtually all of them."

Right now its just you and me disucssing this, and due to the sustantial changes in the article, I consider the other delete recommendations inapplicable. Should we wait a while and see if they return to consider the revised article?

You mentioned inclusion in the starter motor article. If you support, and I mean truly support, that is, would vigorously defend its inclusion against those who might not want it in the starter article, I'd go along with having most of it included in the starter article. Bradkay (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Merge. Yes, I would enthusiastically champion the addition of robustly-supported material referring to the "Highland Park Hummingbird" moniker in context of the existing discussion of the Chrysler gear-reduction starter at Starter motor. That would be the best possible outcome, in my view. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, I would enthusiastically champion the addition of robustly-supported material". Having seen what your apparent definition of robust material is, in the Barracuda discussion, this is qualified as to be no support at all. Bradkay (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er…huh? Wikipedia has standards (V, RS, etc.) for material used to support assertions. You are reminded to assume good faith, please and thank you; I really did mean what I said: the "Highland Park Hummingbird" moniker would be appropriate for discussion in context of the Chrysler gear-reduction starter at Starter motor. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not suggested lack of good faith. Only you know your intentions. I, however, believe the record shows possibly a misapplication of Wiki requirements, certainly at minimum unreasonably excessive application. Has nothing to do with good or bad faith. It looks like an error. I don't see that similar activity on three Chrysler related articles is indicative of a trend. Bradkay (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, this conversation is certainly growing strange. Perhaps you might not have meant to, but you did in fact suggest bad faith on my part—you may want to please take a bit more thoughtful care with how you phrase things in discussions. I'm sure I don't know what you're objecting to with regard to Barracuda or three (unspecified) Chrysler-related articles, and I have no idea what "unreasonably excessive application" of Wikipedia standards might mean. The standards aren't optional, I didn't make them up, and they apply to all articles equally. I stand by my contrib history. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous objections resulting in delete recommendations addressed by revisions.Bradkay (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has seemed to meet standards above many articles I see that are considered acceptable. Jab843 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hemmings Motor News appears to be an independent reliable source but the reference only shows a very brief mention. The rest are either message board or forum posts. Did a thorough Google News, Scholar and Books search. As another editor noted, the Amazon link to the book describes it as being sourced from Wikipedia. Did a thorough simple Google search for "highland park hummingbird" without and with quotation marks. Most of the results point back to the Wikipedia article. If the principal editors can provide links here that comply with WP:GNG, then will vote Keep. No need to reference message boards and forums here. Thanks. Pmresource (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The rest are either message board or forum posts" This is incorrect. Reference 1 is from an article published in Mopar Muscle (print magazine) and reference 7 is from Car and Driver, also a print magazine. Bradkay (talk) 02:33, 14 November 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 10:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet service providers in Pakistan[edit]

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

I'm in doubt that this article is encyclopedic. HurricaneFan25 | talk 18:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Internet in Pakistan and then redirect. Lugnuts (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of mostly non-notable businesses. Any notable ones could be included in Internet in Pakistan. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delte WP:NOTDIR. The page fails the directory rule, as it is just that a internet provider directory. Jab843 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 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. Discussion of possible merging/redirecting can and should continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heliosynchronous orbit[edit]

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

no claim of notability, no references, and anyway there's technically no such thing as a heliosynchronous rotation in this sense (as opposed to sun-synchronous orbit), since the sun isn't a solid body and different bits spin at different rates, but with no references and no notability, please !vote a ~~DELETE~~ Teapeat (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, please vote MERGE since examination of the history shows that the article was split out to sunsynchronous orbit, so we should maintain the history.Teapeat (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the main idea, to get rid of Heliosynchronous orbit. But would prefer a "no-content" merge to Synchronous orbit (via a Redirect), which will effectively delete the article, but will retain the comment history on the redir page. Rationale: Heliosynchronous is a meaningless term, and no sources are provided for any of the existing claims. Since all claims appear to be unsourced orginal research, I don't believe any of the content ought to be moved to Synchronous orbit.N2e (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related comment: there has been a disjointed and confusing discussion going on on the Heliosynchronous orbit Talk page since June. It started as a Prod proposal, then the Prod was withdrawn and deletion was discussed, and then someone thought a merge was better so as to retain the Talk page history. I made an attempt to cleanup and restart/centralize the merge discussion on that Talk page earlier today, right before User:Teapeat submitted the AfD. Now that the AfD is in place, I think it best to complete the discussion this page, the article's AfD page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing article Sun-synchronous orbit. The merge was made in 2006 [20] and should have been redirected then. Polyamorph (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per my previous comments on the article's talk page, the term does occasionally get used. I've run across it a few times in science fiction, as well. That said, notability of this use of term is at best a grey area. While I'd offered to try to clean up the article a while back, I'm no longer in a position to do so (very busy offline). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if some sources are forthcoming to indicate notability and actual use of the term then I would support a keep. However, most of the sources I can find regard the term "Heliosynchronous orbit" as relating to what is described in Sun-synchronous orbit article. Although I'm sure that Heliosynchronous or Heliostationary orbits, as described in the article under discussion, have been thought about and probably are described in reliable sources somewhere (actually they definitely are as CT points out on the article talk page from google scholar results), I don't think there is much more than a dictionary definition at this time? Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 413 sources It just needs expanding. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The google results are misleading because many of the sources refer to the case described in Sun-synchronous orbit and not the specific case described in the article under discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines — if you can find a verifiable reliable source for the actual use of heliosynchronous as it is used in that article, have at it and add a citation. As it is, not a single assertion in that short article is currently sourced. N2e (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin bamford[edit]

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

Barely known author, hardly meets notability criteria. Created by User:Martinbamford, probably violating WP:AUTO. bender235 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see what's notable about this person. Not every author gets his own page. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 7 November 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. Tone 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Donia[edit]

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

Non-notable high school drama teacher without any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only refs supplied are in the local community paper. The-Pope (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability at all. DinosaurDan (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Joe Donia is written of in reliable sources for his work in promoting youth theater in Thousand Oaks, California,[21] his is of a very local notability only. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable teacher, fails WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG not met. I note that he's listed as an author in the article, so for completeness, I will suggest that WP:AUTHOR has not been met either. Colon el Tom 05:10, 8 November 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. Tone 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Holocaust Museum (proposal)[edit]

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

A "proposal" for a museum is a dubious topic for a wikipedia article at best. This one seems to be the one man activism campaign of its founder and there seems to be no indication that it meets the standards of notability or verifiability. Ajbpearce (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX on behalf of hindu nationalism.Bunser (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. Note, however, that a proposed museum might end up notable in its own right, if the coverage is there. See, for example, United States National Slavery Museum. This doesn't pass that test, of course - but not because it's a proposed museum. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vargotah[edit]

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

non notable band, no google news hits, all google hits are either self published, or routine/database coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, your points are not valid to call a band like Vargotah "non notable". I suggest you re-google (and check more than the first 10 enties) and re-check your argumentation. I don't think that Allmusic.com releases pure "database information" but nothing than physical product releases. This is ridiculous. Check the release rooster like CDs, singles and remixes. This band has regular releases, intensive touring schedule and huge fan-base. Please stick to facts. I kindly invite you to differ between editing and vandalism in future, so please remove the deletion notice from the Vargotah articles. Thank you. Prowikia (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2011 (CET)

Allmusic counts as WP:ROUTINE database coverage, everyone who has the record published will show up there. WP:Notability is established through sources that exhibit Reliability, and in my google searches I did not find any, and I went to the Vargoth website, and did not find any links to media reviews etc. If such sources exist, then add them to the article, and the deletion can easily go away. I don't know where the vandalism topic is coming from, nobody said it was a vandal article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in Reliable sources that show the subject to be Notable. If the band had any media coverage whatsoever, I'm not finding it. As Gaijin noted, above, if anyone has such sources please add them to the article or post them here. That's going to be the simplest way to prevent this article from being deleted. Failing that, Usual Caveats apply; one album that generates a lot of coverage might be enough to show notability, and then an article would be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the sources seem to be linked to the band. The band website suggests that all their music is either "coming soon" or "out of stock". Even the home of the non-notable, youtube has one video which lasts er... 0:00. Suspect hoax. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage of this band from independent sources, no awards, and none of their music has ranked. Any one of these things would support the band's notability, but all that is there is information from the band's own sources and some original research about how fans associate them with the occult. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:53, 11 November 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of catchphrases[edit]

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

Contrary to the leader in the article "List of catchphrases is not for a favorite quote, it contains catchphrases that meet the wp:notability guidelines..." I believe this is just a list of favorite quotes, with no indications of notability on the quotes (although some quotes clearly are), and the scope of this article is potentially insane (any media, any culture). Not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary WP:CFORK of catchphrase. We were working on narrowing the scope and inclusion criteria for a list of catchphrases on this article's talk page and this editor copy-pasted some parts to start this new article, without mentioning it to the rest of us. Elizium23 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Note that WP:CFORK states that "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." - deletion is therefore not an appropriate action. Note also that the topic has great notability - see Patridge, for example. Note also that we have a substantial category which is directly equivalent and so, per WP:CLN, a list is valid too. Warden (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just search Google News Archive for the word "catchphrase" and any listed catchphrase and you can find results. I added a reference to one. Google book search will probably have more. Books and news articles have been written about the Simpsons, and surely someone has mentioned these notable catchphrases. [22] is a good place to start. Dream Focus 20:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list certainly needs a better lead section, which describes criteria for inclusion in ordinary prose without the inside-baseball link to WP:NOTABILITY, but that is clean-up, not grounds for deletion. Discussion at Talk:Catchphrase seems to be an appropriate move in that direction. There was a list in Catchphrase that was split off when this page was created, and perhaps that needs to be made clearer for attribution and license reasons. The editor who created the page may have been premature in creating a stand-alone list, but again that is not clear grounds for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apologies to user:Elizium23 for jumping the gun and moving the list of "potential" catchphrases. It was not my intention to offend. However upon looking into the subject I concluded that WP:NOTCATALOG applied to the catchphrase article, and according to precedent a list class article under the wiki project popular culture was in order. The same work on narrowing the scope and inclusion criteria for the list of catchphrases needs to be undertaken. I have worked on the wictionary article to further refine the definition of a catchphrase in accord with the definitions at the following external link. The consensus among those sources appears to be that a catchphrase:

1) attract attention

2) originaties in popular culture

3) is associated with a famous person or character

4) may come to identify the person or character responsible for it

This refinement is necessary to eliminate quotes, slogans, catchwords, idioms, neologisms etc. from the list. The same can be said for the List of political catch phrases. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 02:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have categories for both catchphrases and political catchphrases. having a list of them is a reasonable alternative to the categories, as long as there is some effort made to describe them (source, etc) in the stand alone list article. This list is mostly unsourced, and should only be items which have a linked article, significant article section ("hes dead jim" is an example of that), or are not linked but have references showing notability as a catchphrase. If this stems from an editing dispute, thats definitely no reason for an AFD. I think having the list (and the political catch phrase list, which is much better sourced) separate from the article on the subject makes sense in terms of keeping each article or list readable, so this is not a content fork. All these articles need much better oversight and trimming of crufty material, but again thats no reason for deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy, educational, and of encyclopedic value to society. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list organizes and classifies the various catchphrases movies and shows use everyday, there is no clear grounds for deletion here. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 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. Tone 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Flow (software)[edit]

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

Non notable software product. Does not meet CSD criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable, released 1 day ago per article. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, poorly referenced. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:10, 3 November 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) 19:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the requirements of our software notability guidelines. It was released a day ago, and for what it's worth, I couldn't find anything substantial with a broad search. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:16, 4 November 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 withdrawn (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milnrow Cricket Club[edit]

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

Insufficient references to verify notability. Only 5 is anything more than a passing mention or a primary source, and even that seem dubious, given that almost the entire text is a quote from the club secretary. WP:BEFORE hasn't turned up anything better. Yunshui 雲水 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, see below. Yunshui 雲水 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the league which they play in is covered by WP:CRIN, therefore the club is inherently notable. There have been discussions in recent months regarding possible changes to CRIN but as things stand, the club fits the criteria. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of WP:CRIN (I was working from WP:ORG). Since it passes WP:CRIN, per Sitush, it's notable. Nomination withdrawn. Yunshui 雲水 14:54, 3 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Platitude[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article contains nothing more than a definition and is not likely ever to be more than a definition. Delete in accordance with WP:DICTIONARY Exok (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The point of WP:DICTIONARY is not that we should delete definitions as all our articles are required to start with a definition. Its point is, instead, a structural one: "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.". So, how do we apply that principle here? We start by considering other words which have a similar meaning: truism, cliché and bromide. We see that these are all blue links and all are separate articles. Why then would we make platitude a red link when we could instead merge into the best of these alternatives? WP:DICTIONARY is telling us to bring topics together by their semantic meaning rather than their spelling. As for the notability of the matter, consider sources such as H.L.Mencken's chapter on Proverb and Platitude or this entire book on the topic of clichés. Warden (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Cliché. I essentially agree with Col. Warden: the topic is notable and encyclopedic, but it is already covered on multiple pages (at least platitude, bromide, and cliché, and possibly others). All of these pages should be merged per DICTIONARY. Cnilep (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—redirecting to cliche seems wrong to me. cliches and platitudes are two different things. according to fowler's english usage (old edition), " a platitude is a thing the stating of which as though it were enlightening or needing to be stated convicts the speaker of dullness" (p.85) whereas cliches are "such hackneyed phrases as, not being the simple or natural way of expressing what is to be expressed, have served when first used as real improvements on that in some particular context, but have acquired an unfortunate popularity & come into general use even where they are not more but less suitable to the context than plain speech." (p.602) the essential difference between them is that platitudes are platitudes because of their content and cliches are cliches because of their wording. notability per Warden.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, eminently discussed in a significant number of independent and reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:42, 8 November 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. Per rewrite by Catfish Jim v/r - T P 02:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Began Phali[edit]

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

Non-notable original research cruft. Ukraine Calling (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a variety of mango. How is that cruft? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://www.allaboutmangoes.com/asian%20mangoes/paki%20mangoes/pakistan_mango.html. Apart from that, the article is not worth keeping, as it is nothing but a description of this variety of fruit. Elton Bunny (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I've declined that speedy. It is not clear that this article is violating copyright, as it has been on here, essentially in its current state, for over three years. Wikipedia articles are frequently and legitimately copied into other web pages under creative commons rights. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it wouldn't be legitimate, as there is no attribution. However, whether it is legitimate is not the point: what matters is whether it happened. The ultimate source is difficult to determine, as it appears on various web sites. http://pakmangoes.multancity.com/typesofmangoes.htm seems likely. However, it is part of a list of information in uniform style on various varieties. A few of the entries on the list appear in Wikipedia articles, most don't. Those that do have been placed here by different editors at different times. Thus we have two possibilities: (1) Different Wikipedia editors at different times have independently written articles about varieties of mangoes. They have each written their articles in the same format and style. They have each used technical botanical terminology in the same way, despite not having an editing history which indicates a knowledge of botany. Someone else has collected these together, and supplemented them with more, in the same uniform style, and posted them elsewhere. (2) Someone with botanical knowledge produced a uniform list of varieties, all in the same style. A couple of Wikipedia editors have copied a couple of the entries in the list to articles. I know which of those two possibilities I think is more likely, by a long way. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually certainly a copyright infringement. (In my opinion worth a speedy deletion, but in deference to Catfish Jim, I will leave it for now.) Even if it isn't, the article has no substantial content, and amounts to little more than a dictionary definition.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have replaced all text previously suspected as violating copyright. It is now also more than a simple description, backed up with several reliable sources. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article now satisfies WP:GNG criteria. Article should be moved to Banganapalli mango, as that is the name by which it is more commonly referred to and reflects its origin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Catfish Jim. Nice work on cleaning it up. It is certainly notable and is no longer a copyright violation. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A definite keep for such a popular variety of mango. Thanks to Catfish Jim for sourcing and cleaning it up. Salih (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—and kudos to Catfish Jim for sourcing it. There are many more sources which can be added. A few recent ones from newsbank (these are from the first 50 hits, out of 119, on banganapalli+mango. Many are mere mentions, but these are much more. There are others, but this seems like enough):

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriate Archive Centre[edit]

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

With just over 19.000 internet hits, 2 Google Scholar, 0 (zero) on Google news and 7 on Google Groups, there are not so many really independent and reliable sources. A lot of hits are local websites, blogs or the own website. I regard this organization as not notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and no sign that I can see of notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Activities don't seem notable, and lack of coverage indicates it fails WP:NGO/WP:ORG. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 11 November 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 Iranian Kurdistan. This AfD is a mess, made worse by many contributors having misunderstood the article in question (thinking it is about Azerbaijan not Azarbaijan). The best solution judging by all the arguments made is to redirect the article to Iranian Kurdistan, which is far more detailed and covers effectively the same topic. The redirect is preferable to a straight deletion, as as some people have pointed out, the phrase "Azarbaijani Kurds" itself seems to be a legitimate one. As a side-note, it may also be worthwhile naming the Iranian Kurdistan article "Kurds in Iran". Number 5 7 11:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azarbaijani Kurds[edit]

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

There is not any RS.Smells of WP:POV, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:Partisanship.This article is a fork as we have already Iranian Kurdistan, Kurdish population ,History of the Kurdish people and host of such articles.This article is basically a product of nationalist WP:SOAPing. --Orartu (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. For the reason given above.--Orartu (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can rename and rewrite the article . The name can be changed to Kurds of Iranian Azarbaijan because it is not ambiguous in which Azerbaijan we are talking , and the Kurds in the republic of Azerbaijan may have a distinct article . About the Reliable sources and POV problems in the article , every single sentence can be changed after discussion , but the whole topic is not a self-made topic : as the history of the Kurdish presence in Azerbaijan and their dominance in the regions south of the lake Urumia is a clear fact . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentKurds in Iran is the NPOV name for this topic and it already exists.After Islam the word Kurd is referred to nomadic people in general, not to a specific ethnic.David Mackenzie: «If we take a leap forward to the Arab conquest we find that the name Kurd has taken a new meaning becoming practically synonmous with 'nomad', if nothing more pejorative» D.N. Mackenzie, «The Origin of Kurdish», Transactions of Philological Society, 1961, pp 68-86 ;Richard Frye,«The Golden age of Persia», Phoneix Press, 1975. Second Impression December 2003. pp 111: "Tribes always have been a feature of Persian history, but the sources are extremly scant in reference to them since they did not 'make' history. The general designation 'Kurd' is found in many Arabic sources, as well as in Pahlavi book on the deeds of Ardashir the first Sassanian ruler, for all nomads no matter whether they were linguistically connected to the Kurds of today or not. --Orartu (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "Kurd" in ancient times was been used interchangeably as Iranian [language] nomads , mostly highlanders.Anyway , my proposed name is Kurds of Iranian Azarbaijan . Iranian Kurds , has it's own corresponding article . But if you mean it does not needs a separate article , I think it is a reasonable idea . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Azerbaijani Kurds is a fact and the term is used by lots of reliable sources. see [23].--Aliwiki (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As per "Azarbaijani Kurds" I searched in google books and no such reliable items were found.Because the word Azerbaijan is known for English-speakers not the word Azarbaijan.This article is fork of Kurds in Azerbaijan,Kurds in Iran,History of the Kurdish people, and ....As I mentioned above the word Kurd is not refered to specific ethnic nor even(according to many researchers) to nomads who have Iranian languages, it is generally refered to nomadic people in ancient sources. --Orartu (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is wrong in both aspects. There are reliable sources and I don't understand how you deny it. The article is obviusly not fork, else we must consider articles such as Kurds in Iraq, Kurds in Turkey and so on forks of Kurdish people!. What you also mentioned about the historical usage of the term Kurd is right, but the article tries to present infos about current situation, not past. An example could be the usage of the term Azerbaijan for the current Caucasusian republic, while historically the terms of Arran and Shirvan were in use for that region.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentIraq and Turkey are independent countries, but Iranian Azerbaijan is not.An article about Kurds in Iran is enough.The content of this article already exists inKurds in Iran, Kurdistan, Republic of Mahabad, Kurdish nationalism, Kurdish people... Wikipedia cannot continously fork articles.--Orartu (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term is clearly evident in the link provided by Aliwiki thus establishing notability. Sources appear to exist, work needs to be done to get the article up to standard though but this is not a reason for deletion. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentBut Aliwiki's provided link is about Kurds in Republic of Azerbaijan, but this article is about kurds in Iranian Azerbaijan.You as a reader confused, then this article is problamatic.--Orartu (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 14:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 14:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Orartu. Kurds in Iran article is enough. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DrPhosphorus (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see there a few gnews hits, but a significant number as well of gbooks hits, in addition to what was pointed to above. I think an article appropriate here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThis article is about Kurds in Iran,and there is already an article about Kurds in Iran, but thisgnews hits, and thisgbooks hits are about Kurds in Republic of Azerbaijan, and there is also an article about Kurds in Azerbaijan.--Orartu (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I might be reading this wrong - how is this subject different from the two existing articles Kurds in Iran and Kurds in Azerbaijan? If there's redundancy, then a Merge would be best, with a redirect to Kurds in Azerbaijan just for the similarity. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It doesn't provide any "new information" to be merged or to be redirected.--Orartu (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was never listed on any logs, listing now for wider input. GB fan 11:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge the unnecessary content fork Kurds in Azerbaijan into this article, and edit heavily to clean up the POV pushing etc. Elton Bunny (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis article is not related to Kurds in Azerbaijan, it is fork of Kurds in Iran.This article is problamatic, the title is completely wrong, there is not any reliable source for claims.The necessary materials about Kurds in Iran are mentioned in Kurds in Iran,this article is basically a product of nationalist WP:SOAPing. --Orartu (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kurds in Iran is not an article per se. It redirects to Iranian Kurdistan. LadyofShalott 22:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kurds in Azerbaijan, per Redundency, The Kurds are a well talked about people, a full deletion would not be helpful. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[[[Kurds in Iran]] is the NPOV name for this topic and it already exists. There is nothing obvious to merge.--Orartu (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Practically unreferenced throughout and redundant to Kurds in Iran (i.e. in Azerbaijan (Iran)) and Kurds in Azerbaijan (proper). It seems to talk mostly about the former rather than the latter, but the article is so nebulous that its topic is unclear. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would it be appropriate for this page to serve as a disambiguation page linking to Iranian Kurdistan , Kurds in Azerbaijan, and possibly other articles? If not, why not? LadyofShalott 22:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more complicated than it appears . That is true that page Kurds in Iran , deals with the subject in perspective , but this page (Azarbaijani Kurds) was supposed to expand one of it's elements in detail . The essence of such expansion lies in that the ultra nationalist Kurdish groups have a conflict with their Turkish counterparts in that both groups want to prove the region as their domain of influence . Pan-Turks tend to deny the fact that the Kurds are indigenous in West Azerbaijan and ultra nationalist Kurdish groups say vice versa. Summary : this article is the subject of inflammatory debates among some political groups , and this may justify it as an expansion for it's mother article that is Kurds in Iran . The article needs re-writing , Wikifying and neutralization with reliable sources.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must also add that Iran's government for creating human frontier, between Azerbaijanis of Iran and Turkish people of Turkey,supports the migration of Kurds to the lands of Iranian Azerbaijan, and want to make West Azerbaijan province which is a frontier province a land for Kurds[24], also many Iraqi Kurd refugees are in West Azerbaijan province with permission of Iran's government[25].According to The Continuum political encyclopedia of the Middle East

, "In Iran, three provinces are inhabited predominantly by Azerbaijanis: East Azerbaijan Province, West Azerbaijan and Ardabil" but Iran governments want to change the majority in favor of Kurds in West Azerbaijan province, and for reaching this purpose, want to create history for Kurds in Azerbaijan, then Azarbaijani Kurds can be also politically motivated concept and also contradicts WP:NOTADVERTISINGand WP:PROMOTION.Pan Kurds, Pan Iranists(Pan-Farsists) and Pan-Turks or other groups can expand Kurds in Iran article, this article Azarbaijani Kurds is problamatic and confusing and must be deleted.The ancient attendance of ethnic Kurds in Iranian Azerbaijan is completely POV (as I mentioned above) and is basically a product of nationalist WP:SOAPing, but about present attandance of ethnic Kurds in Azerbaijan of Iran, there are materials in Kurds in Iran, and diiferent groups can expand it neutrally.--Orartu (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Rename : First I was not sure if there is a need a separate article for this topic , other than Kurds in Iran , but now I can see that is a controversial dialogue between ultra nationalist groups of two ethnic groups of that region . Both parties may represent their points of view in this topic . The sources are very weak , but it can be corrected . I ask User:Orartu , not to delete the sources for reaching the standard of Wikipedia . It is not correct to nominate the article for deletion because it don't have reliable sources , meanwhile when someone adds a sourced material , the nominating person deleting the source !

The name should be changed to Kurds in Iranian Azarbaijan (or Kurds in Iranian Azerbaijan) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is fork and there are materials about kurds in Iranian Azerbaijan in Kurds in Iran and also this proposed title will contradict WP:OR--Orartu (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have added unrelated sources, this article subject is not about Kurdicized Turks or Turkicized Kurds.Kurds in Modern Iran is completely about necessary materials about Kurds in Azerbaijan of Iran.Also you must bring sources about kurds in Azarbaijan not Azerbaijan.The topic of this article is politically motivated.Orartu (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note to closing adminUser:Alborz Fallah and Aliwiki by putting this problamatic article's link in other articles, seeking mass canvassing vote.[26](This vandalism also repeated by Aliwiki,who has voted above [27]),[28], [29](This vandalism also repeated by Aliwiki [30] --Orartu (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another Important Note to closing adminUser:Alborz Fallah another trying to convass[31]--Orartu (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how adding an article to a see also section counts as canvassing. It appears relevant to the articles it was added to. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect or merge with Kurds in Azerbaijan. This is a clear WP:CFORK and no deletion request was needed. Any contested claims can be removed.--Rafy talk 13:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds in Azerbaijan is about the Kurds of the Republic of Azerbaijan , but this article is about the Kurds in Iranian Azerbaijan.--109.162.212.197 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article has a wrong title then. According to google books, Azerbaijani Kurds is used in reference to those Kurds residing in the republic of Azerbaijan.--Rafy talk 16:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kurds in Azerbaijan or Kurds in Iran. --Ahmetyal 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin user:Rafy and User:Ahmetyal were brought here through WP:CANVASSING as I mentioned above.--Orartu (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate more on how was I canvassed?--Rafy talk 16:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to readers and to commenters who suggested merge or redirectWhich parts must be merged?Unfounded claims?The materials which don't have any reliable sources?The materials which are already mentioned in Kurds in Iran?This article completely violatesWP:RS and WP:OR.Please respect WP:WABBITSEASON too, Thanks--Orartu (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know that addressing your comment to closing admin doesn't merit it more attention.--Rafy talk 16:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user Orartu appears to be removing any wikilinks to the article in other pages [32] and then at the same time marking the article as an Orphan [33]. This seems highly improper. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on commentingBy putting link of this article to related articles, they want to attract the editors of those articles, and this is indirectly convassing.--Orartu (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They must add links to related articles since it is marked as an orphan. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did not perform previously?Before nominating this article for delete?The were aware about this article.Their only aim is convassing.--Orartu (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a simple search on Google scholar reveals that term is used by many scholars. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have multiple articles on the same thing. See WP:CFORK and WP:REDIRECT. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me,because I cannot find,Azarbaijani kurds on google scholar.--Orartu (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASCIIn2Bme@ That is an expansion of a paragraph in Iranian Kurds article . Not a WP:CFORK . Why do you think it is a Fork ? Iranian Kurds live in 9 provinces of Iran and this article discuss about 4 province out of 9 . Aren't you confusing Azerbaijan province of Iran with Republic of Azerbaijan ? I did my best for preventing this confusion by using the Iranian pronunciation of Azarbaijan instead of Azerbaijan . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At most one paragraph in this article is currently referenced. If that's an expansion, it's not one that belongs in Wikipedia. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best and adding many references to the article , but user orartu is constantly deleting them . If you are interested , please take a look at the deleted references:[34]--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely fork,here is English wikipedia not Farsi wikipedia and English pronunciation must be respected not Farsi.--Orartu (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be a fork , the name is not the determining factor : the content is important . The mother article is Iranian Kurds . The legitimate daughter article as an expansion of a paragraph of that article is our article of debate . Why shouldn't we expand that part ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is fork too, and I explained about it above.Expand it neutrally in mother article, with reliable sources.Because mother article's title is healthy and neutral but illegitimate daughter article's title is politically motivated. --Orartu (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was renamed today to Iranian Azarbaijani Kurds by User:Alborz Fallah; [35]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think is it useful in avoiding confusion with article Kurds in Azerbaijan ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise the new title as previous one contradicts WP:OR WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and also created new confusions and made the situation worse than before,because Iranian Azerbaijani is the name of an ethnic, Iranian Azarbaijani kurds means kurds who are Azerbaijani-ethnics.--Orartu (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, renaming of the article does make this situation worse by all means. Now there is confusion between ethnic origins. I believe firstly, the name of the article needs to become Azerbaijani Kurds before we can progress into this request for deletion. At the end of it all, this article should be kept and people need to realize the sensitive nature of this topic. Jab843 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new version of the article [36] still gets a delete from me. Some sources which make statements about the Kurds in general or the Atropatene history are cited to justify this article, but they don't support the statements cited, e.g. the first source says nothing about "Azarbaijani Kurds"; the Brill source doesn't say that "Azerbaijani Kurds are native Iranic people", etc. This is original research by using sources to advance a new theory at best, and several of the sources are misrepresented as well, in violation of WP:V. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Kurds didn't played much in Azerbaijan's history, even though they are not small ethnic minority so relevance of this topic is very doubtful and useless. There are barely any famous kurds in Azerbaijani history so this article is partisanship.--NovaSkola (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be deleted, but I don't think there's any way it will be speedily deleted. Just which of the criteria for speedy deletion would you have used? LadyofShalott 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User Orartu says, Because the word Azerbaijan is known for English-speakers not the word Azarbaijan. Found this major work (375 cites) and this one via Google Scholar among many published works in English. Can't figure out the problem in this article. New explanations are welcome. Will decide when these are provided. Thanks. Pmresource (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:This article is fork and expanding it with related article's materials and misuse those materials in this article, cannot be considered as improvement of this problamatic article, please compare the referenced materials with these articles [37],[38].Now by combining materials from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, and entering indiscriminate collection of information,this article also violates WP:SYN and WP:NOT#STATS.User:علی ویکی appears to be on disruptive extremist editor [39],[40] or WP:SPA and trying to enter history of other kurds to this article which reinforce the idea that this page is nothing but nationalist, extremist and politicalWP:Soapboxingthat should be speedy deleted.In addition, according to WP:Partisanship,"Partisanship is the tendency of supporters of political parties to subscribe to or at leastsupport their party's views and policies in contrast to those of other parties. Extreme partisanship is sometimes referred to as partisan warfare (see Political party)". I think that article is an exact example of Partisanship , contrasting with WP:NPOV.--Orartu (talk) 10:55, 14 November 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 Take to the talk page. Per Dream Focus, the nomination sounds more like a rationale for a merge discussion than a delete. Suggest this be a proposed merge on the talk page. v/r - T P 01:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Occupied Times of London[edit]

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

no reason for a stand alone article. Occupy London would be a better place for this. Disputed prod noq (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Occupy London. Coverage exists, but this is only notable as an aspect of the larger movement. Yunshui 雲水 11:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient third party coverage to meet GNG, historically significant and a natural break-out from the Occupy London article.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Yunshui. The Occupy London article is in no way unwieldy or too large to have this info on that page. Ravendrop 15:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sources exist, but merge is a better choice. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It's not impossible that this paper will have a life outside of this occupation, but it'll take far far longer than a week for that to be the case. The Occupy London article is still quite short - we can consider splitting off a section if and when the article is long enough to warrant this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the existing sources seem to establish the notability of the publication. It doesn't make sense to devote more than a sentence or two in Occupy London but the article contains good information. WP:NOTPAPER. Dualus (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why doesn't it make sense to devote more than two sentences in Occupy London? It's normal for articles to have sections or sub-sections on associated topics, whether or not the topic is notable enough for its own article. The merged content from Death of Richard Mannington Bowes for instance, is 13 sentences long. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just tag it for a merge discussion, and have that discussion on the talk page? You aren't asking for a deletion here, so sending it to "articles for deletion" is a waste of time. Dream Focus 10:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving comment below from talk page:)

KEEP The Occupied Times of London is a significant publication which is independent of Occupy London. The publication of the paper has created great interest in the media and even the Museum of London requested a copy because of the historical significance. It is now in it's 3rd issue and has been printed as a broadsheet since issue 2. To delete or merge this article would be wrong as it clearly refers to an important historical event. If you need it to be edited in any way please let me know. Thank you. Mallorcasaint (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show where there has been great interest in the media, that might change the outcome of the debate. Bear in mind, however, it is extremely rare for a publication to be considered notable after three issues. It's not just the depth of coverage that is considered, it is the duration, and it is simply too early to know if this paper will continue to get attention in the months or years to come. If and when the Occupied Times meets notability standards it can have a paper, but we don't have articles simply because someone reckons it will be notable later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reliable sources:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the ones which were already in the article of course...Rangoon11 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient reliable sources to meet GNG. CallawayRox (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the sources is the moment is that two of them are only incidental mentions in articles about the occupation in general. This leaves three articles in sources that do qualify as reliable, but the GNG says that the number of sources varies, and that lack of multiple sources suggests that the article may be more suitable for inclusion on a broader topic. My opinion is that three sources over such a short period of time is too close to WP:NOTNEWS. If articles like that continue appearing over a sustained length of time, then I'd agree it's enough for a stand-alone article, but for now, Occupy London looks like the best place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:41, 9 November 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. G12 Copyvio Alexf^(talk) 10:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletproof racing[edit]

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

A lot of this material isnt about the subject directly, and the team doesnt appear notable. [41] The driver may be notable.[42] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, looks abandoned. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable one, but article about the driver makes sense. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Copyvio from THE CAR, THE DRIVER, BULLETPROOF PRODUCTS, TOURING CAR MASTERS. Speedy Delete, Unambiguous advertising or promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:IAR v/r - T P 01:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Davis (electronic sports player)[edit]

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 08:45, 27 October 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) 22:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 October 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, Wifione ^Message 08:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:50, 10 November 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) 01:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Danford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 08:44, 27 October 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) 22:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the USA Networks bio [43]. Suggests notability. The Interior (Talk) 23:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a primary source as USA is involved with the events. --Teancum (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think WP:GNG is just met here, and his notibility is backed by this citation[44]. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references shows any notability whatsoever for this subject. Several sources do confirm that this person exists and is what the article says he is - OK, as far as it goes. But none of those sources exist, as far as I can tell, outside of MLG or USA Network. If there is media coverage of this individual, which we would need to confirm notability, I can't find it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 08:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legitimate pro-gaming article --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Article is a mess, and notability isn't established. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gamespot says "Major League Gaming, a professional gaming league that currently tours across the US, today announced it has signed a new group of cyber athletes to the largest contract in pro-gaming history." [45] Gamespy and others consider this a professional league also. [46] They certainly make enough money. A quarter million dollars each. [47]. And this person is certainly a major cyber athlete in this field. Dream Focus 22:36, 3 November 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. Tone 22:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Duffy[edit]

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

An author of one book. Book is published thru Blue Leaf Publications, a small, print-on-demand house. No reliable references in the article or that can be found, however she has a common name. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as I posted in my original prod notice, she is a self-published author (books are through Blue Leaf Publications, a print-on-demand house) of questionable notability. Unreferenced claims of notability. Google search on "Shannon Duffy" "Stormy Night" (her only published book to date) shows only 37 unique results. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:51, 27 October 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, Wifione ^Message 08:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable person. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲水 11:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it is evidence of nonnotability. Conversely, Mike's search is good evidence of absence. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Besides not being the subject of significant coverage from an independent and reliable source, the only other action that I can see that would imply notability by any guideline is the book that has been published. I don't see any indication that the book is widely cited or considered a "significant monument" so I don't see that the book can establish notability of the author. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:18, 3 November 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 Maternal health. Tone 22:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal oral health[edit]

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

Although it is well referenced this looks like a student essay. Uses a lot of words to say very little. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the ProD (proposed deletion) tag because I thought it should have a chance for further construction, and because deletion might be controversial. It seems encyclopedic. I'm having second thoughts, but there is a huge pile of crap on Google. There are over 200 scholarly works on the exact topic. Perhaps an expert could help, but that's not me. In the meanwhile, it might be worth a rescue. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 20 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Possible redirect to Maternal health. This seems like too much of an essay and like RHaworth says, uses a lot of words to say very little. This could probably be summarized and added to maternal health. Then again, this could potentially be a good article but right now this entry would pretty much have to be scrapped and completely rewritten.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I could agree with that. Possibly smerge useful material. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 27 October 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, Wifione ^Message 06:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tokyo and Bearian. The present state of the article is such that it should not stand as-is, but there are some good bits that could be used at Maternal health, and it would always be possible for someone to unmerge and write a better article. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 3 November 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) 01:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Round (Fat Joe song)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: No indication of passing WP:NSONG Eeekster (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Redirect to Fat Joe discography for the time being. The song isn't notable at this time and the album hasn't been released just yet. When more sources about the song come about and/or the album is released, then perhaps the article can be re-created.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the matter with this article? As stated it is an official single from an album yet to be released. Just because the album isn't out doesn't make the single less noteworthy it has its own cover art too. As for sources what else do you need besides straight from the artist themselves --Smush123 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you look at the single from Rick Ross' unreleased album http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Forgives,_I_Don't that has its own page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_the_Boss which further proves my point. --Smush123 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The difference between this song and You the Boss is that Another Round hasn't charted yet, which is one of the bare minimum requirements for passing WP:NSONGS and even that doesn't guarantee notability. Odds are that this song will chart but right now it's just too soon to tell and we can't create an article based on the presumption that a single will become notable at some point in the future. WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  - Fair point it will probably chart sometime next week usually the minimum time for songs to enter charts is 1 week. Besides that though, aren't all album singles generally notable? I can give a couple more sources that mention this will be a single from the next album if that will remove the proposed deletion? --Smush123 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added another reference (MTV). What more do you want for this article to stay?--Smush123 (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only problem is that charting and all doesn't entirely give it notability. Not every single is automatically notable. (WP:NSONG) It's up to the administrator who closes this to decide whether or not it's notable enough to require an article at this time or not. I noticed that you primarily do Fat Joe related edits, so I have to really, really warn you about WP:OWN. I don't mean to sound rude but you're coming across as incredibly proprietary as far as this article goes, which is something to be careful for. There's nothing wrong with only editing one thing but you've just got to be careful that you don't get a little one-sided. I also recommend that you look up WP:NSONG to become aware as to what is required for a song to become notable. The big issue I have here is that so far there's not a huge amount of reason for this song to have an article to itself, especially when the album is released. It'll just be a little redundant, Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
      - Every album I come across on here seems to have a separate page for the singles. I added another source to try and meet the guidelines which I am unable to understand why it doesn't according to yourself and Eeekster. Can you find an instance where an album's official single doesn't have its own page? So what happens when the time for deletion arrives? Does the article get reviewed by an admin who has final say whether it stays or goes? Who will be the admin for this? Could you please tell me also where the guidelines are for this as looking at (WP:NSONG) does not make it clear as far as I can tell this single is covered significantly in reliable sources. I hope it doesn't look like I think I own the article as that is certainly not the case I don't mind people editing it with more useful information as that is what I'd hope since I don't claim to know all. By the time this is reviewed for deletion I would think it would have charted in which case according to you will meet a requirement so what would be the point in deleting it now?--Smush123 (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, I guess it wouldn't hurt to give it at least another week to show the chart results and any potential notability, but you've got to understand that saying "these singles have articles" isn't really a good argument. Even so, it wouldn't be earth shattering to give this a little more time to prove notability. I'm not sure who the admin is that decides these, but if you make a good enough argument you can persuade them either way. You've argued your point well enough, so I'm changing my opinion to neutral over this. I'm not entirely convinced but it wouldn't hurt to give the song a little more time to chart or prove notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
      - Is there a reason why, when logged out I cannot see the additional MTV reference I added but when I log in I can see it? I thought it might be my browsers cache but clearing it made no difference. Does anyone else see the MTV reference?--Smush123 (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it this one? [48]? If so, then yes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
        Yes that's the one, but can you see it logged out?--Smush123 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 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, Davewild (talk) 07:49, 27 October 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, Wifione ^Message 06:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rollins[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:PROF and setting up Ikon (which has no article) is not by itself a rationale under WP:BIO. A search on Google News finds some mentions in relation to Ikon but does not appear sufficient to expect the notability criteria to be satisfied in the near future. Fæ (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "post-modern Christian thinker" has yet to achieve notability on the basis of his published work. Maybe he will in the future. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
keep Rollins' is a very significant figure in the emerging church movement and postmodern Christianity.
keep—rollins's thought has been discussed at length in a number of (arguably) reliable sources; i'm making a case here for WP:AUTHOR #1. i say "arguably" because these are evangelical publishing houses, and two of them, moody and church publishing, i'm not that familiar with. on the other hand, despite the low quality of some of their catalog, zondervan on its academic side is generally pretty good. also, wp:author#1 does talk about "peers or successors," and these authors are clearly peers. here are four (the citation maker points these links at one page, but searching in book for rollins will show the extent of the discussion):

Michael E. Wittmer (23 August 2009). Don't Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough. Zondervan. pp. 199–. ISBN 978-0-310-59053-8. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
Kester Brewin (1 May 2011). Other: Loving Self, God and Neighbour in a World of Fractures. Church Publishing, Inc. pp. 132–. ISBN 978-1-59627-230-9. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
Kevin DeYoung; Ted Kluck (November 2008). Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. Moody Publishers. pp. 122–. ISBN 978-0-8024-5834-6. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
Mary Gray-Reeves; Michael Perham (1 March 2011). The Hospitality of God: Emerging Worship for a Missional Church. Church Publishing, Inc. pp. 92–. ISBN 978-1-59627-138-8. Retrieved 30 October 2011.

these are in addition to the books in the article which are listed under the heading Books dealing with Rollins' Thought. there are also plenty of mentions of rollins in other sources which suggest to me that in discussions of the Emerging church movement of which rollins is a part, he's taken seriously and is seen as someone whose views must be acknowledged. despite that, i've kept the list here to books with at least moderately extended discussions.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there may be a rationale to keep under GNG/BIO grounds rather than PROF, though with these religious publishers I am wary of the walled garden phenomenon. If a couple of these sources are well respected, say by examining GScholar, then the rationale starts to look credible. Thanks for doing the research. --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 06:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've never heard of Church Publishing, but Moody has a strong reputation. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous publications. Meets WP:CREATIVE. Nitalake (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dudaktan Kalbe[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable article about a Turkish television show. Fails WP:N. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a long-running serial (two seasons, 75 episodes) aired on a national TV-station, successfully exported in Greece and Cyprus (ANT1, see here) Bulgary (see [49] and [50]), Hungary ([51]), Croatia, Albania, Romania, United Arab Emirates, also released on DVD. Passes WP:TVSERIES.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a TV show aired for two seasons and in other countries does not mean that it is notable. The more accurate test for notability would be the GNG; there are no independent published sources which demonstrate that the article meets this guideline. 11coolguy12 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG and SNG are both parts of WP:N and work in cooperation to determine the notability of a subject. Citing the guideline, about the SNG "Other methods of presuming notability for media related topics are listed below"; the guideline doesn't say "more accurate" or "less accurate", higher or lower. Rather, here (WP:TVSERIES-Why a separate guideline) explicitly explains that a subject could be notable passing its appropriate SnG despite a lack of reliable sources in the article. I'm sure you are in good faith and I appreciate your patrolling-work but you should begin to consider not only the GNG but also the appropriate SnG as a "part of the game" before nominating an article for deletion. Anyway.... I posted above some independent published sources (Turkish Greek News, Balkan Insight, Novinite - Sofia News Agency) which demonstrate that the series has received some attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. --Cavarrone (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:TVSERIES. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See response above. 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I came here originally to vote due to a message on my talk page from 11coolguy12, [52]. I'm a little concerned that user has since removed that comment from my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because you already posted on the discussion page. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It does not matter one bit that the show is in Turkey, nor does it matter that the sources were not "in" the article, as long as diligent WP:BEFORE shows the topic itself being covered in-depth in multiple reliable sources... even if non-English sources. As the topic IS so covered,[53][54] we have the topic meeting WP:N through WP:V, WP:GNG and the SNG WP:TVSERIES. To the nominator, and with respects, we judge topic notability on availablity of sources, and not upon whether or not sources are actually "in" an article covering the topic. Your concern is a matter for cleanup and improvement through regular editing, and does not mandate deletion. Just as User:Cavarrone has pointed out, the GNG is not the only consideration. While wonderfuly helpful, it is set to assist in determing notability when SIGCOV exists. The SNGs are set in place to assist in determing notability when SIGCOV is lacking. One does not over-rule the other, as they are both parts of WP:N and are intended to work in harmony... not dischord. Simply put, the topic passes applicable policy and guideline. And while Cavarrone posted a neutral request on my talk page, I reguarly patrol AFD as a matter of course as a coordinator of Project Film, and I would have arrived here and commented anyways. Had Cavarrone been incorrect in assessment, I would have just as readily opined differently. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lee (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Couldn’t find significant coverage from websites. Tubetest (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate significant coverage in the sources in article to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:11, 21 October 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, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:12, 27 October 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, Wifione ^Message 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of Course Keep, self-evident legitimate ice hockey entry--GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reliability in Sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of significant coverage from independent and reliable sources presented in the article. Passes WP:GNG. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets criteria of NHOCKEY, sources are reliable MisterRichValentine (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Search the news archive a bit harder. [55] Dream Focus 22:40, 3 November 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. After changes, there appears to be no consensus to delete. v/r - T P 01:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While the individuals in this tag team may be notable, the references are for the individuals, not the pair AS a pair, thus the subject matter fails general notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I looked through the sources and couldn't believe what a laughably poor job someone did of sourcing this article. I really wanted to piss my pants laughing when I saw that the WWE profiles on Reks and Hawkins actually point to the WWE profiles of Chris Jericho and The Big Show. Which leads me to a comment, see below:

Comment - Evidently, one or more editors active on WP:PW received divine inspiration of the great need (as in the old Internet in-joke, "I see a great need") to create one article after another on current WWE tag teams. Based upon the erroneous linking referenced above, articles are being created by taking another article as a template and just copying everything over. It would appear the philosophy inherent is that their favorite wrestling websites will in time provide the necessary sources. I contend that the vast majority of these new articles fail the ten-year test, that without common sense intervening this problem will continue to manifest itself over and over again, and that these editors and WP:PW as a whole are failing to recognize tag teams which were not only very notable in their era, but remain historically significant today. Let me throw out a few names and tell me if you see any articles on these teams:

Larry Hennig and Harley Race
Dick Murdoch and Dusty Rhodes (Texas Outlaws is an article about a soccer team, I think. Since that article is just a bunch of tables and lacks prose, I really can't tell.)
The Funks (just Dory and Terry together would suffice, not necessarily including the 1980s WWF gimmick version with Jesse Barr)
The Briscos (that would be Jack and Jerry, not the Briscoe Brothers)
Greg Gagne and Jim Brunzell (like with the previous example, High Flyers refers to something else)

All of the teams I mentioned above have passed the ten-year test. The most egregious examples, IMO, follow below:

Black Gordman and Goliath - Not only one of the top tag teams of their day, but still fondly remembered today. Neither individual has an article, let alone the tag team, as evidenced by the redlinks.
The Hollywood Blonds - This article does exist. However, the original, legendary and far more notable tag team of Jerry Brown and Buddy Roberts, known as the Hollywood BLONDES, are being used merely as a coatrack to refer to the short-lived and directly derivative (by virtue of Bill Watts being the booker who created both teams) latter-day incarnation of Steve Austin and Brian Pillman. The claim to greater notability of Austin and Pillman on Wikipedia is based solely on greater television exposure, which is actually a somewhat dubious claim if you cared to dig up the respective television ratings statistics. The problem is that that might require something approaching real work. Obviously, parroting one's favored sources is an easier route to take.

In summary, like I mention above, we will continue to see needless AFDs on needless articles until someone wakes up. The usual approach has been for other editors to tell me "If you care enough about it, then that's your job, not mine." I haven't really been that active with pro wrestling articles; I may have other things I wish to work on. The impression I get from many who work primarily or exclusively on pro wrestling articles is that they treat this like a parallel universe form of video gaming, where barnstars and GA nominations and the like is all that matters. Ask them where their priorities are at before you ask that of me.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom's first statement. If A and B are notable, it's potentially reasonable to cover them as a pair, and not a problem with our notability guidelines. If you disagree, why don't you just split this article? Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Strawman argument. And the individuals already have individual articles that individually have to demonstrate that they pass the criteria for notability, so there is nothing to split. This article is about the tag team itself. Unless you can provide references on the actual tag team, or point to a specific criteria that this passes, it fails the verification requirement of our general notability guidelines. You can find plenty on the individuals, you find nothing from reliable sources on the tag team itself. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care how absurd an argument is: if you make it, I'm allowed to address it, and an argument you make is not a straw man. Don't make arguments in favor of keeping an article if you want it to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one said you couldn't address it. If there is a fallacy or absurdity in your argument (see WP:ATA) then I have the same right to point that out. My point stands, the premise of your argument is not only flawed, but is well covered in the guidelines here. Just because two persons have individual articles, doesn't mean a combined article is appropriate. Why not Obama and Hitler? Charles Manson and Mother Theresa? Unless the pairing itself is demonstrated notable as a pair, it fails WP:N, regardless of now notable the individuals are. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll make this shorter than the other comment. It appears that at some point recently, one or more editors decided that as soon as the WWE made mention of a team on their website, that it was necessary to immediately create an article on the team. Near as I can tell, this was for no real reason other than to facilitate linking or future linking to various templates, mostly of tag team championships. I'm sure some of us have better things to do on here than deal with a series of AFDs for articles whose reasoning for creation is questionable in the first place.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I try to spend most of my time saving articles worth saving, but I can always make time to help remove articles that don't belong here. Both help Wikipedia as they raise the overall quality. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I request that this AfD does not conclude and close before I add more reliable sources in a few hours and brush up the article. Thanks. Starship.paint (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done. I've added 10 references to the article from reliable sources. Every single one of the references do not talk about Reks and Hawkins as individuals, but rather as a pair. I believe this refutes Dennis Brown and Lajbi's grievances on the article. I invite them to reconsider their stance in light of new sources. My vote is Keep. Starship.paint (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment to closing admin and Starship.paint - I went through the changes Starship.paint made, removed the bad citations (twitter and facebook) and broken cites, and would say the article is significantly better than it was when we first started. Imho, it is a borderline case and could go either way. The references are mainly primary sources and weaker wp:rs sources, which doesn't mean they aren't true, just weak, since the main sources being used to call them notable are, basically, their employers. But there are some other cites, weak but they exist. I do appreciate the fact that instead of giving lame rationales, you put your money where your mouth is and actually worked on the article. That said, I could understand if the closing admin kept, since the facts in the article are true, the individuals are notable, and the tag team due is ongoing and at least borderline notable. I'm much more neutral about the issue than at the start of the AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources I added - SLAM! Wrestling, PWInsider, PWTorch, Wrestleview, these are the most reliable third-party wrestling sources out there that cover wrestling events regularly... You would be hard pressed to find better sources for wrestling really. Starship.paint (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you should reinstate the Twitter reference. It was Curt Hawkins' twitter naming one of his moves. Isn't that reliable enough? Starship.paint (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a twitter reference is twofold: One, you can never be sure it is who they say it is, as Twitter accounts are not vetted, you don't have to show an ID to get one. I can start one called Elvis Presley, and swear that I am Elvis, I'm alive, and a goat rancher in Alaska. We wouldn't allow that in the article on Elvis (yes, extreme, but the point is the same). This means it is unreliable as a source, via WP:RS. The second problem, is that it would be a primary source even if you knew it was him. That is ok, but primary sources can be used to show interesting stuff but never to show notability, which is the current reason we are here, so it is moot for this AFD anyway. Even if not at AFD, it is unlikely that this type of citation would be acceptable because of point 1. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I was directed here to see the recent changes of the article and AfD I express my thoughts a bit longer. I still thing a duo of this sort isn't notable just because their members are and events involving them have media coverage. Let me draw you an easy example. As you can see on my profile I mainly edit tennis articles. I don't know how many of you are into tennis but to cut things short there are singles tennis and doubles tennis. In singles Novak Djokovic is the first in the world Rafael Nadal is the second. Last year it was vice versa. The thing is they paired up for a doubles match in the 2010 Rogers Cup – Men's Doubles. The thing was a real media hype considering they are rivals. Now that doesn't mean they deserve their own Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal page. While Bob and Mike Bryan do so (because they won major tournaments and currently the best in the world in doubles). Translating this into WWe language these guys should win a tag team title or be a main eventer in a major show at least! Despite all efforts here it's still a no-go. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 14:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment - I don't wish to belabor the point, as abundant evidence exists in various talk pages that it's being made largely to a hostile audience. However, popular wrestling websites commonly held out as "reliable sources" push a certain point of view in order to attract readers who believe in that point of view. That's what in turn attracts advertisers. When contributors make a habit of parroting that content on Wikipedia, they tend to forget that Wikipedia lacks advertising for a reason, and part of that reason is to prevent the presentation of content being hijacked by certain points of view. Unfortunately, that's exactly what has happened here, thanks to the regulars in WP:PW and their "path of least resistance" approach. WikiProjects promote and enable undue weight, IMO, but that's another argument for another time. Persons with any knowledge of pro wrestling beyond what they see on their favorite weekly cable television program or on pay-per-view are likely to walk away with the impression of Wikipedia resembling something not unlike cultural depictions of The Boy in the Plastic Bubble based upon the philsophy inherent here. Using press release-like information found on wwe.com (or any other website, for that matter) as a guide in shaping the content of the encyclopedia is just beyond bogus. That's exactly what I see not only with this article, but most of the recent push to create articles for WWE tag teams.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Days on Earth[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary. Article basically consists of a table of contents, and in this batch of hits I find no substantial discussion whatsoever, just mentions. The graphic and artistic designers were nominated for an Emmy, but that in itself is not enough to make it a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:28, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I would like to see a rewrite, and some more sources if these can be provided I would gladly vote keep. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk)

looks like an advert! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.112.79 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 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, Wifione ^Message 06:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added three references that establish notability, in my opinion, per WP:GNG. Besides the show being nationally syndicated which generally establishes notability although it's not a policy or guidelines (just an essay called WP:TVSHOW), it was directed by Rudy Bednar, a notable director (see here) but I'm not sure if that infers notability to any degree. These Google News Archive searches provide several sources but I only sifted through a few to find the three I provided in the article ([56][57][58]). OlYeller21^Talktome 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently Rudy Bednar has no article although I still think he's notable. Here is his IMDB page. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per OlYeller21. But also keep improving it, it could use some effort. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 15:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - I think it's been improved enough to keep. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 7 November 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. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Schwadron[edit]

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

One-time reality-celeb. Doesn't otherwise seem to cross the bar to WP:GNG. Likely vanity bio – substantially contributed to by a single account. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 20 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don 'tconsider that what is reported here amounts to notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 06:11, 3 November 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. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nandita Chandra[edit]

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

Contested prod. Small-time actress. Citations contain nothing but trivial mentions; Gsearch is disappointingly replete with directory entries Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why citations are contested. Artist is of repute- won several awards local and international (one of which is by Govt of India for promoting Women Theatre Artists, another at New York's Midtown International Theatre Festival)- both have been subsequently cited; also part of a national ad. campaign as a model. Gsearch does show directory entries but also shows a whole bunch of other articles some of which are newspaper sources. Do citations need to be redone? Backtotheback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backtotheback (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Backtotheback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 27 October 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, Wifione ^Message 06:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyle Router Firmware[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was created again. I found it while patrolling. It's not my area of expertise, but, I'm doing this out of good faith based on the prior deletion so folks can review it. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page. I am using Gargoyle FW since this is the only one which allows capping users bandwidth per IP address. No other firmwares allow that. Antidos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Just because you like it and you believe it does things others don't have doesn't automatically give it notability or warrant re-adding it. You have to show independent and reliable sources (blogs rarely count as reliable sources) to prove notability and prove that this is the only firmware that does these things. It's easy for the creator's website and any adverts to say these things, but you have to show proof of notability. I'm not going to vote because I know squat diddly about this stuff, but I just wanted to put in a comment so you can back up your claims more. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep. There's now a second full article with independent opinion on The Gadgeteer. Plus the (Wikipedia) article doesn't look like a marketing tool anymore. The RedBurn (ϕ) 12:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have strong reasons for keeping. 1. 1.1 I believe the references were strong enough before 1st deletion (1 RS) 1.2 and are now even stronger (2 RS) 2. the original AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware had fatal flaws - 2.1 was closed too quickly and in a partisan aggressive style, then re-listed and 2.2 incorrectly closed as delete instead of the correct no-consensus IMHO. 2.3 Delete was justified by discounting +ve opinions on the reliability of the Linux website source 3. not all of us are here all the time, so having missed the re-list, now is my chance to correct my omission from the flawed re-listing 4. As the editor who added to the article by finding the references, I felt very uncomfortable about the deletion discussion and being attacked for confidence on the reliability of sources. That was my opinion. 5. I must say that all that effort put into the deletion process kind of puts people off genuinely giving time here. 6. I believe the topic to be growing in importance (just my personal opinion) Widefox (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A reasonably well established firmware. The current article does not read like an advert like the one on wayback machine. The Gadgeteer and LWN.net seem like good sources (but I am sure some dedicated wikipedian could pick them apart if they wanted to). --Cybjit (talk) 19:56, 8 November 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. Tone 22:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artists and songs at both Live Aid and Live 8[edit]

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

WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial. Lugnuts (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, a textbook example of trivia (which also happens to be unsourced). Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TRIVIA, plus the information is largely available in the Live 8 page anyway. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 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. My rationale for deletion is similar to the one at AfD for William Adams (judge). At the moment, this is passing news. However, if it produces some lasting singnificance, it can be brought back. Tone 22:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beating of Hillary Adams[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (events), since it lacks "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." Edison (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event, requires expansion certainly but deletion, I think not. Hideki (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it describes a fact, not an opinion. Although, it could have two sections, one for those who agree, and another one for those who disagree with Hillary's father punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.41.156 (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is not a reason for keeping at all. A Wikipedia article is not some sort of forum for people to debate their opinions. Neither agreement nor disagreement with what has happened on the part of Wikipedia editors has any place in an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:GNG; mere reporting of news, and Wikipedia is not news. WP:NOTNEWS. Created in apparent end-around of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge), and should be deleted for the same reasons as put forward there. TJRC (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Adams, and break out if and when the story becomes more notable. William Adams, of course, is also up for deletion, and is borderline notable, but of the two, its he who is the key to the story. if he was not a family law judge, this would be much less significant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your saying "and break out if and when the story becomes more notable" indicates that you do not think it is yet notable enough for an article. That being so, there is no justification for keeping the history of this article. We do not have articles because their subjects may possibly become notable one day, and a redirect should not be used as a cover for preserving in its history material which does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability ("viral video" is not mentioned at WP:GNG, and the echo-chamber news reports are typical of events that violate WP:NOTNEWS). When 18 references are added to a short paragraph consisting essentially of "I lost my temper", it is clear that the article attempts to right great wrongs. There are thousands of events everyday that are worse than a bad-tempered man hitting his daughter, and there is no evidence that this particular event will have any long term encyclopedic significance. If reliable secondary sources have articles devoted to the topic in three months, the article could be considered for recreation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using the same justification noted in Wang Yue. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to Death of Wang Yue is inapt. The focus in Death of Wang Yue is on the reaction in China to the death. Only two paragraphs (one of which is only one sentence long) deal with the incident itself. The majority of the article deals with the substantial public reaction and the suggestion that reforms may be made to the law as a result of the incident. That last part is, in my mind, a substantial distinction between that article and the case here. Death of Wang Yue is about an incident that is perceived as requiring a change to the law of one of the largest nations on the face of the earth. Beating of Hillary Adams is about some jackass who beat up his kid. TJRC (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Deor (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic textbook example of BLP1E Collect (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deor, Collect, Johnuniq--the old-timers get it right here. Not notable, BLP1E, news, name and shame, etc. I'm sure all participants here are aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge), no? Drmies (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the biography for which this is a fork per WP:BLP1E. Per WP:ATTACK, this should be speedied.WTucker (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TJRC and...pretty much everyone above. Adams is not notable, this incident is nothing but transitory news at this point, and I see no reason to presume at this time based on the nature of this incident that it will be anything but transitory news. If it turns out we're all wrong, then come to DRV in six months when you can show sustained significant coverage. postdlf (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Speedy delete per BLP as an attack page; also a non-neutral POV fork ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Speedy declined. This article does not satisfy requirements of CSD-G10. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had I been quicker, I would have beaten you to it, Jim - and I was going to close this as Speedy and delete the article. I did remove the youtube description, though, as that's a clear BLP violation - someone's opinion from a non RS. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally deleted it, but restored it as I felt it does not satisfy the requirements of WP:CSD G10. It serves a purpose beyond disparaging, threatening, intimidating or harassing its subject. While it presents biographical material about a living person that is negative in tone, it's a sourced account of events. I believe the main issue here is that WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:INDEPTH has not yet been demonstrated (so delete under those arguments). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Whatever coverage is appropriate for this topic, the present article ain't it. Discussion is ongoing, in far more detail, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge), and I would defer to whatever consensus emerges there. Note also that the title comes awful close to violating BLP - though I have no suggestions as to a better one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The attention this is getting is just temporary tabloid-style news reporting. Peacock (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's widespread coverage, both national (MSNBC, Associated Press, Forbes Houston Chronicle, New York Daily News, etc.) and international (Sydney Morning Herald, The Straits Times (Singapore), BBC (Brasil), New Zealand Herald, Taiwan News, Times of India, etc.). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Widespread coverage is not sufficient. There has to be some persistence to the coverage or lasting effect. patsw (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to William Adams (judge). That article, per WP:POLITICIAN, that article is automatically notable as the subject is an elected state judge. - 74.0.139.105 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As commented upon extensively in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge), WP:POLITICIAN does not say that any elected state official is necessarily notable; they must instead hold state-wide office, which a state supreme court judge does, but a state court judge sitting at the trial- or county-court level does not. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice in case this event becomes more encyclopedic and notable enough to pass WP:NOTNEWS, which at the present time it does not in my opinion. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has gone way beyond your average BLP1E. It has been a lead story on most of the major national media outlets for two days now. Also, it has resulted in the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, for the first time in its history, issuing a public statement confirming that it is conducting an investigation. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just news, BLP one event, etc. This could change if the story gains enough traction to establish long-term notability outside of a news cycle. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It probably deserves mentioning on another article, but it doesn't seem to warrant its own article. Trektosaturday (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like which? Judges who beat their kids? Drmies (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not "list of" such judges? Do we have any articles like News stories in 2011? Almanacs typically have a roundup of the big news stories of the year, if we had such articles they would no doubt be the default repository of every BLP1E case.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with William Adams (judge). This is international news now appearing in a multitude of major national and international news outlets. The real question is whether the article will server as some resource or good for Wikipedia and its users, and the undeniable question is yes. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ATTACK. Trusilver 20:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, but change the name to something less slanderous. The article needs a lot of work, but the subject itself has received widespread attention in major media outlets and is a very notable situation. Wikipedia may not be the news, but that doesn't mean we don't document decidedly notable stories. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement seems to contradict itself; saying that Wikipedia is not news and then going on to say that we should "document decidedly notable stories." Where in WP:NOTNEWS, or anywhere else for that matter, does it say anything about an attack, and very recent news story, page not being deleted because of "notability." Gwickwire (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Where did I say that I support keeping an attack page on Wikipedia? I made it clear that the article's name ought to be changed, and that the content of the article needs a huge overhaul so it does not exist solely to slander the subject. "Decidedly" was probably the wrong word, but my point is that the incident itself has received enough attention to warrant an article. Others may disagree, but that's my stance on the matter. This isn't really breaking news anymore, and I don't think there is anything wrong with Wikipedia having an article about something that has had national news coverage. We're not a primary source, in that we don't report the events to the public, but we do create and maintain articles about noteworthy events for informative purposes. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I'm changing to delete. The more I visit this page, the more convinced I become that the subject of this article simply isn't significant enough in itself for inclusion. I don't necessarily support a rigid application of Wikipedian policies and guidelines, but the spirit of BLP1E is to not include articles about living people who are notable for only one relatively minor event. Widespread media attention doesn't in itself quite justify inclusion, especially if it's a flash in the pan. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ATTACK, and WP:BLP. This article at the VERY least should be semi-protected for a long time, because of the attacks being made on Mr. Adams through this page. I believe that it is better to just delete the article for now. There isn't enough attention yet, in my opinion, to find enough good sources to make this pass WP:NOTNEWS. If someone wants to prove me wrong, feel free and I'll rethink my decision. Gwickwire (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the headline-grabbing "child abuse", this is still just typical WP:NOTNEWS. All this is working out to be now is an attack page on the judge, as well. We're not here to chronicle every sensational news item of the hour. Tarc (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename Beating of Hillary Adams video. The video is notable (global news coverage), not the beating in itself. Mocctur (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others above. — CharlieEchoTango — 23:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly an unfortunate event, but not one that will likely have a lasting effect or significant impact on anything other than the private life of a family. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notable event, important in the history of child abuse awareness, also Judges Behaving Badly. Richmondian (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Keep arguments boil down to WP:ADVOCACY. TJRC (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand to cover the reaction to the video. I think the amount of coverage throughout the world and the already extensive online discussion raises it beyond the threshold of a single non-notable event. I further strongly disagree with those who characterize this as an 'attack' page on the judge. It is reporting verifiable facts. If you consider that beating your daughter is wrong, then the judge has behaved badly, but this doesn't change the fact that this occurred, was video taped and is now the subject of considerable discussion. Francis Bond (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold that one event has to meet to no longer be considered one event is very, very simple. It is called "two events". There ain't two events here, only one; the alleged abuse. Tarc (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be snarky. The events are notable because both what happened on the video and because of the now-global reaction to it. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will be as snarky as I please when faced with the absurdist comedy that passes for keep rationales around here. This is all one event. Period. Everything event that happens in the world has "a reaction" to it, that "reaction" is called "the news". If we separated everything into "event" and "reaction to event" as counting for 2 and not 1, BLP1E would be rendered meaningless. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"But a lot of people watched the viral video!" is not, has never been, and never will be a legitimate criteria for inclusion. Nevermind the fact that the news announced charges aren't going to be pressed against him, making this a non-issue and potential WP:BLP problem. Trusilver 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major news event. Will be a long story. Involves a judge who primarily ruled over child abuse cases himself. Patcat88 (talk)

It will be a long story? We have a policy for that. We don't keep articles on the concept that "well, it might be notable later!" This is totally beside the point, because a "major news event" (by who's standards, exactly?) falls pretty firmly into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E.

Uhh, BLP1E specifically argues for the inclusion of this type of article, in preference over the William Adams (judge) article. WP:NOTNEWS is a depreciated redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which cautions against the inclusion of "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which isn't really what's going on here. This clearly meets the General Notability Guideline, and qualifies for a meticulously sourced article. Buddy431 (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone make the case this isn't a routine allegation of child abuse? The explanation for the massive amount of coverage in the 2011-11-03 news cycle was availability of a video of it. In this case, the test of non-routine is not met. patsw (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (don't redirect to the judge): This is the proper article, not the BLP, which falls under WP:BLP1E. This event clearly meets the notability guidelines "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list". Buddy431 (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paul 1953 (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently, it is a clear WP:BLP1E subject. If coverage continues in the future or more events happen involving this subject, then an article can be made. But, for right now, it's just a news blip because of public outrage. Silver seren^C 05:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rationale of WP:NOTNEWS is well-illustrated by this "article", which is currently 3 sentences and 18 references. When "significant coverage" is invoked after a wire story is picked up or parroted 5,000 times in a 24-hour news cycle, that's just not right. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not true. There is plenty of content to be added to the article. Just because it hasn't been added, doesn't mean it can't be added, and we don't delete articles that can be improved by normal editing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think so. I have not seen any news story (yet) which goes beyond a very basic reporting of the facts, which are scant, and are repeated time and time again in every source. The concise, encyclopedic, version of prose would require 3 sentences. Beyond that would be puffery. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Including the words "beating of" in the title does not alter the fact that this is an article about a person, whose only claim to public interest is one incident. This is a person of no notability or public interest except for being involved in one incident which has been in the news for a while. We don't have articles on every person who was once involved in some news story. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability, Advocacy, BLP, BLP1E, NPOV, NOTNEWS, COMMONSENSE, take your pick. Swarm ^X11|11|11 14:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, take your pick.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there's no evidence that this event is of lasting significance and thus notable. Sandstein 18:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies in spades. Prioryman (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the more obvious applications of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER to come along recently. I held my vote back to see if there was any reply to the issues raise by Delete voters from the Keep voters. There were none. The guideline that people alluded to earlier is WP:CRYSTALBALL This certainly doesn't apply here because the statute of limitations for crimes depicted on this 2004 video passed years ago. There cannot even be speculation of further factual disclosures in a trial, as there will be no trial. patsw (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : This is significant news. This has been on several major news networks and thereby made both the father and the daughter notable. ~~Buddy431 (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.73.165 (talk) [reply]

Why is my name signed on the above statement? That's not mine. Buddy431 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP did it. They are clearly trying to impersonate you. Silver seren^C 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to impersonate anyone. I copy/pasted and didn't notice. I don't have a clue in hell how to edit wikipedia, but think you should keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.73.165 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking out the forged !vote. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the IP's explanation (that it was an honest mistake), I moved the strike-through to the signature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge William Adams (judge) here. The judge may not be notable per se, but the beating of a child by a judge presiding over child abuse cases certainly is, as evidence by sustained international news coverage and subsequent analysis. Here's my argument from the judge's AfD:

Keep or Merge into the event (currently titled Beating of Hillary Adams, also subject to AfD). While the subject doesn't make the bar as a county rather than state judge, they are still an elected official and have an amount of presumed notability already — in any case they are a public figure so the BLP claims carry a lot less weight. Being a judge and having the police chief state that they "believe that there was a criminal offense involved" is, in itself, notable, particularly when you're a judge working on child abuse cases and the claim against you is child abuse. Then being quoted saying "It looks worse than it is" guarantees you additional notoriety, as evidenced by deep and diverse international news coverage extending far beyond the usual short news cycle. I think we'll be analysing and referring to this as a case study for the foreseeable future — indeed we already are.

I find the string of WP:NOTNEWS delete !votes above unconvincing given that when you dig deeper you see that "events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" (as has already been the case). I'm also not convinced by WP:BLP arguments given they are an elected public figure. Finally I'd argue that WP:CRIME does apply too given a police chief stated that "there was a criminal offense" — the perpetrator is a renowned national or international figure and the circumstances certainly sufficiently unusual as to warrant widespread coverage. -- samj _in^out 11:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there evidence of the coverage being sustained beyond coverage of the disclosure of the 2004 video? Where is there evidence of this being anything more than a routine child abuse case but for the publicity commencing on 2011-10-27? patsw (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If national or international impact is likely, and you want this article considered on that criterion, then articulate what that impact could be.
There can be no criminal indictment because the statute of limitations has passed.
Of course WP:BLP applies to elected public figures.
What guideline refers to "circumstances certainly sufficiently unusual"?
Where's the evidence that any coverage of this is sustained? patsw (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The date of recording vs release is irrelevant — when the public discovered it there was widespread, deep, dedicated international coverage — publicity is notability.

Publicity is not notability. WP:N defines notability and publicity is not sufficient. The coverage was not deep or dedicated by any definition of deep or dedicated. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable — a review of the statute of limitations could be one such lasting impact, as would changes to policies & procedures for judges.

There is no evidence that this is going to be a precedent or catalyst for anything. This is conjecture on your part WP:CRYSTALBALL. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of criminal indictment (due to statute of limitations) does not imply lack of WP:CRIME.

Why cite WP:CRIME? It contains nothing that argue for inclusion, in fact, it supports the article deletion. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies, but as an elected public figure they are by definition not "low-profile" so they have a lower expectation of privacy and should be held to a lower standard.
WP:CRIME refers to instances where the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" — a judge ruling on child abuse cases being accused of child abuse is certainly unusual, as evidenced by the response (which certainly would not have been afforded your average guy)

Per our current practice and what WP:POLITICIAN states - Adams is at the level of judicial office where he is low-profile. He is not a state-wide or national political figure.

The beating of a child with a belt is evil, but not unusual. What is unusual is the availability of the video in 2011 from the 2004 incident. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. (WP:EVENT) — surely articles still being written almost 2 weeks after release exceeds a "relatively short news cycle"
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. check

The coverage was not in depth. It was a one sentence summary and the link to the video. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. check

The coverage was not significant. It was a one sentence summary and the link to the video. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think an article for the event (but not the individual) is warranted and given the level of coverage received already one more article will make little difference in terms of WP:BLP, and may even help by offering a balanced rather than sensationalist view. -- samj _in^out 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judgments in articles for deletion under WP:ONEEVENT are not simply made by the amount of initial coverage. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to obvious and unquestionable notability and interest, but even at worst we would merge and redirect to Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#United_States. I can think of nor do I see any actually legitimate reason why would delete something covered in widespread media outlets concerning a judge. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We can and should cover anything and everything that is backed by reliable sources and for which a neutral fact based article can be written. If all these other sources are out there anyway, we need not concern ourselves with "protecting" someone whose actions are viewable online to billions anyway... --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every headline does not get an article in Wikipedia. It's not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia.
Should the fact that a judge is involved influence the application of policies here in any direction?
There was interest in the October 27, 2011 news cycle. The legitimate reason for its deletion is that the coverage in text was routine. Its global dissemination is explained by the availability of a video. patsw (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - truly sadly, child killing is run of the mill in Texas and other Southern states, due to the authoritarianism and culture of honor prevalent therein. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination is for failing WP:BLP1E criteria (as well as WP:NEWSEVENT criteria). None of the keep votes offer evidence that the article meets WP:BLP1E or WP:NEWSEVENT or offers an argument why these criteria should be ignored in this case. patsw (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Your sig appears on this page 14 times, which is 13 times too many by my count. WP:DE -- samj _in^out 00:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is only one vote. The rest is discussion. patsw (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing time? We're at nearly 4-1 for deletion, 7 days have passed, let's get this over with and get a poor article off of the project. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interest of ending this AfD more easily, I'll strike through my Keep vote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: All notions of merging with or redirecting to William Adams (judge) are now moot. That article has been deleted after a lengthy AfD and replaced by a redirect to the article under discussion here. (There is, perhaps, some content and sourcing in that deleted article that could be used to expand this article, should it survive.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NawlinWiki and MasterExpert's skillful and successful arguments. In any event, clearly no real need, reason for deletion. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In case you didn't notice, MasterExpert admitted that his arguments were incorrect or at least somewhat wrong, and on top of that changed his vote to "Delete". Also, NawlinWiki's arguments have been proven wrong right above your post. If you have something new, please tell me so I can better understand your position. Gwickwire (talk) 22:43, 10 November 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. Already has been speedy deleted (G11) (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Nudo[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP and fails to meet notability guidelines under WP:POLITICIAN EricSerge (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant media coverage of well-known local politician for state office. Alannudo (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Based on user name, either impersonating Alan Nudo or created an article about himself, see WP:YOURSELF. Not appreciated, either way. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Unreferenced biography, possibly a promotional autobiography. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:20, 3 November 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. Tone 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Valdez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating a page previously deleted at least 3 times already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Valdez. References fail to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Article is written like a promotional piece and, even if notable, would require a substantial re-write to have an encyclopedic tone. References are all press releases. There is suspicion that the article is written by a COI editor as the article was written & photo uploaded by a seemingly single-purpose account, User:CrownP. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 03:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt and Maybe Write An Article About The Subject Being a Dick As I said in the AfD leading to this article's second deletion... No wait, it was the third time this article was recreated and deleted. Um, no, it was definitely the first time it was deleted. Well, whenever it was, I said:

Delete: Normally I'll say something like [another editor in the AfD] did ("He seems to be a hard-working guy" etc.) but when people spam WP for their personal promotion, I take off the gloves. This is blatant spam by a non-notable nobody, and I've tagged it for speedy.

And indeed it was speedied, yet here we are again. At what point does numbskulled recreation, by the subject (admittedly making an assumption here), of a vanity article over and over, rise to the level that it should be subject of an article for that reason alone i.e. Repeated recreation of Wikipedia vanity article on Josh Valdez, non-notable person - ? EEng (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with salting it. How does this get done? ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 18:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin can do it. EEng (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and sprinkle liberally with NaCl, per EEng. If the page creator still hasn't established notability after so many attempts (and they seem to have tried, see their talkpage) then it's a pretty safe bet that such notability doesn't exist. Yunshui 雲水 11:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for gaming the system by moving his/her own article from the WP:AFC-space! mabdul 14:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 3 November 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. Tone 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longview civil war football game[edit]

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

Article about a rivalry between two football teams of high schools of modest size. Currently it consists of a table of scores dating back 53 years. I'm sure the two schools keep reasonably good records of the final scores of these games so the current content may very well be verifiable even though one might argue that such sources are not independent of the subject. In any case, even disregarding that issue, it's hard to see how one could construct an article of any depth and in particular an article which does not consist essentially of a long table. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Pichpich (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot see any notability outside the two high schools in question. JIP | Talk 06:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports trivia guide. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to suggest that this cross-town high school football rivalry in a small city in Washington satisfies WP:GNG (or even to verify the name given to the game or the scores). Cbl62 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high school rivalries are normally not notable, and I see no reason for an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 5 November 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 CSD-G3. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Daker (singer)[edit]

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

this was CSD:a7, but I think it didn not qualify, so I deleted it. Moving it to AFD to see what the community thinks. tosh.0 giving web redemption might be notable. shrug. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that there is just enough to cross the speedy deletion line, but this looks like a pretty classic WP:BLP1E to me.--Kubigula (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E and something that Tosh.0 may do in the future do not meet our notability guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, and a "web redemption" does not equal notability.Skier Dude (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines. Sparthorse (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a CSD:G3 hoax. The reference for the quote is to "Statemaster Encyclopedia" which is a Wikipedia mirror site that does not have an article on John Daker. The YouTube video is an obvious fake (the reaction shots are cut from several different American Idol broadcasts, there is no evidence that Daker was an American Idol contestant) and the Tosh.0 speculation is completely unsourced. I don't believe a word of the article. At the least its an unsourced WP:BLP, fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E and is not WP:V Sparthorse (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 As per Sparthorse. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the original footage [59] I'll go ahead and delete the article... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:53, 3 November 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. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale Center[edit]

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

This appears to fail notability guidelines. Since a PROD might get reverted, it is up on AFD. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should withdraw this. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 02:40, 4 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo Ryder[edit]

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

I cannot find a reliable source for most of this material. Not even the IMDb entry documents most of it. The acting roles were very minor; the directed series seems minor also. I consequently have some concerns over all the material submitted by the very clearly COI editor, and would appreciate it if those more knowledgeable in the field double-checked it. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, DGG is more knowledgeable in, well, about every field than me, but... Unable to find any reliable references anywhere. I was thinking that a producer of a TV show might be notable enough. However, a look at the IMDb page for the show reveals there were more than 50 producers for 26 episodes of a reality show airing on VH-1. Unable to verify he was a "recurring regular" on Invasion. Can't find anything about Dougy on ABC connected with him. Nothing else he has currently done raises the bar to presumed nobility. Bgwhite (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete please {hangon} Hi DGG and BGWhite, thank you for doing extensive research for me, and I really appreciate you guys helping me, I'm new to all the code and all that stuff even tho i've been a member for awhile, but just to sort of help out..IMDB usually does do background check with casting and production companies as the same with Wikipedia..JoJo is listed as first producer on For the Love of Ray J for numerous episodes, and anything more than 3 episodes on a tv series is considered "recurring", And the TV show Dougy never made it to production so that's why there wouldn't be a listing for it, it was a reference on how he got his break into film and tv. just like any other bio or resume if someone were to talk about you guys and do bio on you as listed on any wiki page..I'm just contributing what I know about him. I don't want the wiki page to be deleted please and will adhere to the policies if you can help me out that would be so awesome. Please help me fix this and make this right. If you also look on his IMDB page and click on all the credits and contact IMDB they will verify that it is legitimate credits. Will someone please help me? thank you thank you. Silentstringent (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC) comment added by Silentstringent (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as a failure of WP:Notability (people) (IE: WP:TOOSOON). As it was good practice to do so, I gave the article a cleanup for format and style [60] before coming to this discussion. And while I do not doubt Jo Jo's existence, the lack of reliable sources pretty much seal this article's fate. To User:Silentstringent... the big problem with this article is it's lack of significant coverage in relaible sources for Jo Jo and his works. And while yes, one can get results for Jo Jo with a google search,[61][62] the results are NOT in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources... an absolute requirement for verifiability. A lack of sourcability is a tremendous hurdle that it appears we cannot overcome at this time. Please review WP:PRIMER, WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:NAU. And toward IMDB... accurate in some portions or no... Wikipedia does not consider it a reliable source, however it CAN give clues with which to expand one's search for sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please dont delete, thank you guys for helping me out with this..as I am digging research and learning code on this thing, I really appreciate all the help i can get..Thank you soo much Schmidt for helping me clean it up a bit and kind of understand but I was reading, this code also came up and as JoJo is a person in the Entertainment industry and has had significant roles as verified on IMDB as an actor in TV and producer on TV.. he falls under this category WP:ENTERTAINER he falls in one of those listings. even if he doesn't fall under WP:GNG. a question to you all is can you give me an example of verifiable if everyone else on wiki including steven spielberg eddie cibrian or whoever are usually all well known so whatever anyone puts out on them on the web is considered verifiable becaue theyre well known celebs. what do you need to make it verifiable like who states its verifiable? since we live in a social media age and internet age that no one goes to the library anymore and we all use computers? sorry if it sounds like a tangent, but i just need someone to help me see what is considered verifiable before everyone asks my page to be deleted..it would just help everyone understand..myself included. since this is the first time I created an article and i am already gettin deleted..lol Can you help me? thank you sooo much..i really do appreciate all of this. Silentstringent (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is, that while the people you mention are certainly discussed in all sorts of sources on the web, they are also discussed in reliable published sources with responsible editing: newspapers--for entertainers the LA Times is normally a good place for information, major trade magazines such as Variety, and general magazines also. Material on the web can be reliable, if it ultimately comes from sources such as those, or from major news programs on television. since anyone can write on WP, and we have no screening by named editors who take responsibility for content, the only reason people know they can rely to any extent at all on the information here is because it is sourced from places where there is trustworthy editing, and they can go and check those places to verify the material. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

got it...okay so now dumb obvious question which is probably easy to find else where in wikipedia, but say the page does get deleted, but after deletion of said wiki page, there are reliable verifiable sources such as those that you mentioned..then how do I go about re-creating the page I just created that got deleted without having to recreate it but copy and paste from the original? cuz that was a lot of work since I am definitely not a pro on posting articles..lol...how can I go about un-deleting the page that was already created is what I'm asking? so that it goes live without all the tags? Silentstringent (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted from mainspace, and you wish to work on improvements OUT of mainspace, all you need do is request on the talk page of the closing admin that the article be userfied to you at a user workspace such as User:Silentstringent/workspace/Jojo Ryder. When you think it ready for a return to mainspace, all you need do is ask the closing admin to evaluate whether or not concerns have been addressed. If they are, they article can be returned to mainspace. If they are not, a return will not be advisable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you both for helping me out..and also for helpin me correct wiki etiquette on his page. thank you again. Silentstringent (talk) 02:05, 8 November 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 SNOW delete. Absolutely no reasons for keeping have been put forward. If we ignore arguments about side issues, such as whether a photograph was a different person, how old the subject of the article is, whether an editor has acted dishonestly, etc, and look instead at the arguments about whether the article should be deleted or kept, we have 100% support for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan McCurdy[edit]

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

Not notable person. Was declined speedy. Extremely weak references aside, only claim to fame is being a 1st Assistant Editor on a movie. Possible hoax. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware you had to be famous for multiple things to have a Wikipedia article. I mean ive seen articles with the same or less IMDB credits but i guess this one doesnt count. (EaglesX63 (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC))— EaglesX63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please read What about article x, which may help to clear up some confusion about the issue. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, probably could have been speedied. Hairhorn (talk)
Delete - serious credibility issues on this one. Article claims he was born in 1980, yet the IMDB lists his first production assistant credit in 1986, and his first editing job at age 12 in 1992 - I'm sorry, but that's just unbelievable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing that up but i told you in about 3 different places it was a typo. That is the most logical reasoning but you refuse to accept that. You said it should be speed-ed because they aren't important but the IMDB shows multiple credits for movies he has worked on. (EaglesX63 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Multiple credits, yes, but multiple minor credits. In a case like this, one of the things then looked at is what coverage he's gotten in reliable sources, and there don't seem to be any reliable ones (as noted, IMDB has issues) in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB and Wikipedia work under the same basic policy, so you are indirectly insulting Wikipedia that way. He is a valid editor and if you looked at the IMDB page for him you would see that the edits didn't all come at once. If this was a "hoax" like it was claimed in the other page, it would be a pretty massive scheme. If IMDB doesnt float your boat, would this work? http://ace-filmeditors.org/ https://www.editorsguild.com/Magazine.cfm?ArticleID=650 http://tv.yahoo.com/alan-z-mccurdy/contributor/700826(EaglesX63 (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC))— EaglesX63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again, I'm finding serious credibility issues. You originally wrote 1980, now you claim 1970 as the date of birth. However, the photo appears to be someone in their early 20s. This link makes it seem like he's still a student at Georgia College & State University, as does this link. The rest makes no sense - he majored in business, works at a high school in Georgia, yet somehow he freelances as an editor on major motion pictures? Sorry, I don't believe it. More interestingly, this link shows video of the "Alan McCurdy" who worked on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, and he doesn't look like the individual pictured in this article. The picture at this article doesn't look like the individual pictured here either. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No-Shave November, and as to the school I don't know much about that I just know I talked to him on Skype the other day for my college class. Maybe he has a kid who goes there? He is in his 40s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesX63 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the real Alan McCurdy. notability issues aside, he's a completely different person from the individual pictured - which according to the commons description page is most likely EaglesX63 himself. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My names actually Kyle, that wiki isn't me, that photo isn't me. I took my photo off of imageshack titled Alan McCurdy, you are more then welcome to edit the article too. Also you're just proving my point that this person is in fact real and significant. (EaglesX63 (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

If that's the case, then your claim that the image is your "own work" is false. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I was entitled to uploading the photo as my own under Imageshacks code D section I article 23. For you to make such slanderous claims over and over without concrete evidence can be construed as harassment. (71.226.220.248 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Ahem, if you are posting as 71.226.220.248 and EaglesX63 here being the same person, and you have on the article to remove speedy delete tags as the IP (bypassing rules on creator removing speedy tags), I do believe that is called sockpuppetry, which I already suspected but this rather confirms. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thing doesn't auto log-in and I forget sometimes. I can tell you though that there were 3 IPs in which 2 of them were not me posting and making edits. Please don't shoot i am unarmed.(EaglesX63 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Kyle, please, stop lying. You said you took the image from an Imageshack site, which means you did not create it. If you *had* created it, you would know that it is not the person in question. You uploaded it to Wikimedia commons, claiming it to be your own work. By your own admission, this is false, and therefore a lie. There can be no slander when the truth backs me up. And pray tell, where is this "Imageshacks code D section I article 23"? It's not in their Terms of Service, it's not in their FAQ... why do I have this sneaking suspicion that this is just something else that you've made up? MikeWazowski (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks a reliable source (see self published sources) to meet notability guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this version with possible recreation in future. It's beyond just a lack of reliable sourcing; the claims are really failing to hold water. If EaglesX63 took a photo of the subject, you'd think he'd have more concrete information. That said, an article about McCurdy the editor, based on reliable sources, might fly; however, there's just too much contradictory or dubious information for this version to be salvageable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even assuming we were talking about the editor Alan Z. McCurdy whose IMDb page is here, I would be skeptical that he should have a Wikipedia article. Per my interpretation of WP:CREATIVE, even someone who worked as the main editor for films would probably need to need to be an Academy Award or Eddie Award nominee, or comparable, to qualify as notable -- and McCurdy isn't even at that level; he works primarily as a first assistant editor or assistant editor. (He has only two credits as the main editor of a film, the more prominent of which is Soccer Dog: The Movie.) But I'm not even convinced that this article is about the real Alan Z. McCurdy. The person described in this article isn't even employed full-time in the film industry. It looks like a real person's filmography has been combined here with some statements that are not actually about him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is exactly why IMDB can't, and should never be use used as a reliable source to verify potentially contentious facts. It is an interesting link, provides some useful info, but is not, and never will be, a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. This is because it is user input (like Wikipedia) and not professionally vetted, which was my justification for the speedy to begin with. The situation "looks like" someone taking a picture of themselves with their webcam (note the eyes in the shot, looking at the screen), and claiming credit for the work of someone else who is older but poorly documented, and attempting to do a sly job of vandalism. Note the two SPA IPs that piped in and removed tags previously. (checkuser would be interesting...) While Wikipedia requires I assume good faith, this walks and quacks like a duck, and I would be foolish to assume it isn't. While I respect the administrators decision to bump it out of speedy and won't resubmit myself, I disagree with it, and feel another bite of that apple would be appropriate. I don't like the feeling of being "played", and anyone who actually reads the totality of events in this article can see this is clearly BS. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and a lack of verifiability making this one a BLP violation. And note, work as an "assistant" editor rarely give one the coverage that could meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After speaking with the man himself today, once again via Skype, I have found some resolve to most if not all issues at hand. He graduated in 1992 at the university in question. For his editing career he works on roughly one project a year so he can afford time for his leisurely activities like trumpet lessons. When he was 16 he began as an intern helping out with the editorial crews from the films and television productions. While doing his internship he pursued a degree in business in hopes to raise his own production company. As for the photo he did not recall ever taking it, however did not deny its possibility of it being him. As for not having enough sources there are plenty in this topic provided by the kind Mike from Monsters, Inc. If you were to allow this article to stay up we could work together on cleaning it up. Thanks! (EaglesX63 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I am seriously disappointed that an admin hasn't just speedy deleted this article and blocked this user for disruptive editing. If anyone looks up at my other point above, it is pretty clear he is sockpuppeting as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a little editing of my own on the article; anything that wasn't a film credit is on the cutting room floor, since it wasn't in reliable sources. And first-hand interviews are not reliable. We can wait for an article until after there's information on him published in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done some editing, removed the one citation because it didn't even mention the movie it was citing. I also updated his "best known" as he was listed as only an assistant director for that project, as well as other logical edits. Was going to add him to the cat. 'movie editors' but we don't have that. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:Film editors and more specifically Category:American film editors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was very close to speedy deleting this under A7 grounds, but it's just borderline enough that this should be finished via AfD. However, we're very rapidly getting to WP:SNOW territory, as no policy-compliant keep rationale has been provided yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:BIO or even WP:GNG … simply having a profile on IMDb does not make someone notable. Happy Editing! — 68.239.65.132 (talk · contribs) _{07:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IAMMEDIC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Inability to demonstrate notability. Laundry list of blogs and facebook links doesn't qualify as reliable sources to verify notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)~~ see below[reply]

Delete. No notability established within article. No major tours or any hits at all. No members appear to be notable. Seems too early for them to qualify for an article.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn - I provided some links to the original creator about writing articles on Wikipedia, and he has turned the article into something that I think fits criteria and is actually quite good. He added newly found citations from the Korea Times and other decent sources, and trimming the blog fat. I'm impressed that he read the guidelines and put in a lot of hard work turning it into a good article. It is currently in his sandbox, but will be replacing the old version (he asked me to review it first). Rather than give up or shift blame, ★Kay did an impressive job of fixing what proved to be a difficult to source article. Dennis Brown (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been dramatically improved since the AFD and is now fully sourced from reliable sources. ★Kay (talk) 14:06, 5 November 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. Tone 23:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Powerhouse World Promotions: War on the Mainland[edit]

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

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. merely a results listing with no long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the first event of a brand new promotion. There is nothing to show this meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First MMA promotion by a non-notable company. The article merely reports the results and there's no significant coverage to show the event is notable. Mdtemp (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine sports coverage that lacks significant sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one-off event with no lasting notability. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:15, 9 November 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 Deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A1. Acalamari 10:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good health for kids[edit]

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

Guide/essay/something else Wikipedia is not for. →Σ τ c. 01:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - not just an essay, a terribly formated at that. --Have a nice day. Running 01:23, 3 November 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. Apparently, the issues can be solved with editorial work here. Default keep then. Tone 23:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weebl's cartoons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Weebl's cartoons

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

I think this article can't be ever possibly reasonably sourced and, as such, should be deleted and its contents maybe merged into general articles about Weebl. Have a nice day. Running 01:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Have a nice day. Running 01:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger of the contents which is not what deletion is for - see WP:MAD. The topic is reasonably notable - see Pick of the web, for example. How we divide the content between articles about the author, website and the flash animations is a matter of ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known cartoons often featured in media and on popular websites but it should be either a list or be merged into Jonti Picking. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:06, 6 November 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. Tone 23:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brave Destiny[edit]

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

Contested prod. No claim of notability here, rather this is a billboard for promoting a nonnotable event, and nonnotable people. This looks more like a magazine article, not an encyclopedia article. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequately sourced. Insufficient evidence of notability. Significant evidence of shenanigans. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable and well sourced. has a major article in Art & Antiques magazine. attempted removal is personal bias108.46.98.78 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) — 108.46.98.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete even if we believe 108.46.98.78 and assume that the article pass WP:GNG, article is still non-encyclopedic. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads as add copy of an event notable only to those who took part in it. MarnetteD | Talk 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability here as per WP:EVENT Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatantly promotional blather about non-notable event; full of unsourced grandiose claims, rather than solid sourced references. Every time fluff is removed, the s.p.a. whines and makes false accusations of "vandalism". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 4 November 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 Lalamusa. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Park[edit]

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

This is not a notable park, as any Google search quickly bears out. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The park is actually Bin Qasim Park, and that brings up more info. Merge with Lalamusa. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:19, 15 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 19 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 26 October 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, →Σ τ c. 00:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable park. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lalamusa, the town in which the park is located. Far too non-notable to have a standalone article. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 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. Tone 23:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Cantrall[edit]

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines Mrfeek (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly seems to fail WP:CREATIVE, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. Yunshui 雲水 11:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: fails WP:BLP1E and WP:ANYBIO, has problems with WP:BASIC, original author seems to be WP:SPA. JMax555 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted A1 by Nyttend. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf children's literature[edit]

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

Very short, Un-encyclopedic, possible vandalistic article Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I rarely recommend deletion of an article about a notable topic, but this article is insultingly bad. I will change my recommendation to "Keep" if any valiant editor is willing to transform it into a legitimate stub. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear speedy delete as a test page. Hairhorn (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes no sense, even the link goes nowhere. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context and I have nominated for CSD A1. Safiel (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't even contain a single full sentence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Essentially devoid of content. JIP | Talk 06:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, this definitely was an A1 candidate. Likely a notable topic, but we don't always keep junk just because it's notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 3 November 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. m.o.p 17:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of a Time to Come[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, the album is going to come out soon, the page will be created anyway.--FalkVonBicken (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — FalkVonBicken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

On wiki, to KEEP, something, we write Keep not Don't delete. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally, we do not create articles "in advance". Until the album actually comes out (or ends up one of those "legendary unreleased albums" like SMiLE or the original Bat Chain Puller), this does not merit an article. Badger Drink (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect for now. There isn't a whole lot of information about the album known right now, so it doesn't need an article at this point. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An individual article seems premature at this time, as I'm finding little meaningful coverage for this upcoming release in reliable sources; does not yet appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—WP:HAMMER is an essay, not a policy. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:51, 2 November 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something (Chairlift album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hammer doesn't apply because the name and track-listing are known (just not the length of the songs). As for Crystal, the release date has been set by Columbia Records, so it's definitely "almost certain to take place." -- Irn (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rationale for deletion does not apply. — Joseph Fox 17:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:HAMMER states "If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia". The name, track listing, label and release date of this future album are all known. Additionally, the artist meets WP:MUSIC, making this in turn a notable album by a notable artist. Indeed, the only thing not known is the track length of most of the songs, which is relatively minor information. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There exists significant coverage for this album in multiple, reliable sources. Also, as mentioned above, the track order, title and release date are all confirmed, so WP:HAMMER does not apply. Gongshow ^Talk 00:18, 5 November 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. Tone 23:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Like a Girl (Emilie Autumn album)[edit]

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

WP:CRSYTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS - upcoming albums need substantial third-party coverage. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this time, there appears to be no confirmed track listing or release date. Also, I'm not finding significant coverage for this future album in reliable sources; doesn't yet meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I love Autumn's work, I have to say that this is a clear case of WP:Crystal. When coverage comes about we can re-add it, but not until then. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:33, 5 November 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. Pretty clear consensus: and as for notability, I don't keep track of "page 3 girls" and I've heard of her. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cooke (model)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sam Cooke (Glamour Model)

Articles for deletion/Sam Cooke (glamour model)

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

Very vague notability. Would suggest deletion. Cloudbound (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above, is a current model and has won Page 3 Idol, which is sufficient notability. Tiller54 (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — frankie (talk) 17:01, 27 October 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, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two prior keeps at AfD vs. very vague nominating statement. Would suggest close.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:22, 9 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Griffith[edit]

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

declined speedy. this is a non-notable author, friends. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—some sites claim that she is an award winner, but I haven't been able to determine what award she won. Others say she was nominated for a Sony award in 2002. There's not really enough notable information for me to support a keep at this point. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This speaker bio indicates she was nominated for a Sony Award in 2002. There's no indication she won, and I can't even find information in reliable sources to confirm that she was nominated or determine what she was nominated for. I see no coverage about her in reliable sources. Her bok has not yet been published. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not verifiable. Many sites parrot that she has won an award. Searched for verification on that point and was not able to find anything to confirm. Nitalake (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Add some relevant information to article. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. Enough Internet evidence for subject and unprompted writer. Also good work quality. (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavd (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete - Claims of nomination for Sony award 2002 appear incorrect as there is no reference to her name here RossRSmith (talk) 08:23, 6 November 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.