< 1 April	3 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | express _ 17:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Durtnall‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Durtnall

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

Unsourced article paid for by the subject with no real notability beyond being a chiropractor. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability presented in the article, and none found at Google News or Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this guy is not notable. The article was created by a SPA. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy the WP:GNG. No significant coverage in any sources via Google Books or Google Scholar. For clarification, these two revisions were paid for. I have no reason to believe the creation of the article was paid for though. WilliamH (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could be right, I suspect it was originally written by the subject or more likely an employee of the subject, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:IAR closure; events in progress are difficult to judge for long-term notability (per WP:EVENT). Additionally, clear consensus that its too soon to delete. Instead of taking this to WP:DRV, please consider waiting at least 10 days. tedder (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Oakland school shooting[edit]

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

clearly WP:NOTNEWS. we don't report every fatal shooting in WP, there are thousands of these are year. nor is saying it's going to have future notability or more deaths as per WP:CRYSTAL LibStar (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed The reasoning of LibStar is severly flawed. Even though there might be thousands of shootings all over the world every year, mass shootings at universities are extremely rare and therefore get a lot of news coverage and media attention. How this incident should be any less notable than e.g. the University of Iowa shooting, the Northern Illinois University shooting or the 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting, which all have a comparable number of victims, or why anybody would think this one will fade away into historical oblivion, even though the aforementioned did not, eludes me. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. shootings need long term notability as per WP:EVENT not a spike in coverage because it happened yesterday. some shootings are indeed notable but it is too early to tell with this one. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should include a link here, and be renamed 2012 Oikos University shooting as entitled in current media outlets. [1] Stubbleboy 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no reason is supplied for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps when first nominated, lo about 100 minutes ago, its notability was not clear, but the passage of time makes clear it meets WP:GNG or will before the AfD is closed. Seven already dead. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Virginia Tech shooting (same day shooting AfD).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep- For now. Renominate if Wikipedia:N is not clearly met, which I think unlikely. Dru of Id (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart Modulations[edit]

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

Delete. An orphaned, unfinished, unreferenced article that has dubious merit for WP even if it were finished. It has been in fairly much the same unfinished state since 2006. The Wikilawyers around here will say that very little in this nom that are grounds for deletion but would argue that deleting the article improves WP in an incremental manner. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete So lacking in content that it qualifies as a test page. 90% of the text is just headers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it's a valid topic for an essay, for research -- original research -- but how would you possibly provide cites for such a thing? Possibly a good senior thesis topic for a music theory student; relate them to prevalent practice, and show in what way they were innovative. Antandrus (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the section that did get written seems very unhelpful -- it consists of the author's intuitive response to the Mozart 3rd violin concerto, with no reference sources, no reference to sonata form or any other elements of music theory. I can't imagine this ever becoming a useful article. Opus33 (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this abandoned essay article without prejudice. Huge field of potential study, of course, but a tiny part of Mozart's technique. I expect references for the topic exist - I bet a number of theses have been written just about the modulations that border atonality in the development section of the Jupiter Symphony's first movement. By analogy with other hypothetical articles (for instance Irony in the novels of Jane Austen, Humour in Shakespeare, Use of colour in the paintings of J. M. W. Turner, Keats' rhymes and Depth of field in the work of Man Ray): if an expert wanted to write them, and sourced them adequately, that would be fine by me. They might even be interesting! For now though, the topic is perhaps better covered by discussion in articles about specific works, and in Mozart summary articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 16:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the Triangle Fire Coalition[edit]

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

PROD removed by single-edit SPA; concern was: Only two of the many references discuss the organisation in question in detail, both relating to a single event, failing WP:1E; article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent promotional editing). Merging with 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire is another constructive possible outcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trim down and merge into the fire article. None of the references seem to be specifically about this organisation, and even if they were, it would still make more sense to cover this is the other article, rather than having a separate one. SmartSE (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SmartSE. Merge. 86.** IP (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The fire was highly notable; the organization does not appear to be. Note that Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire is the actual article title; 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire as suggested by nominator is a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ugh. However, as Milowent says, "Whether people like Sarah Larson should be notable in the history of civilization is also not what we are here to judge.". Whether they should appear in something which purports to be an encyclopedia might have been a more accurate way of putting it, but since WP:GNG is irredemably skewed towards accepting notability based on tabloid trivia, here we are. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Larson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This person is a former cocktail waitress who appeared on one episode of a reality TV show and dated George Clooney for a year. None of these things, nor all three of them, merit a Wikipedia article. Nightscream (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. That this survived two prior AfDs is ridiculous. Nightscream (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two arguments in the March 2008 AfD seem well-reasoned, but then the third editor says "It's not our job to make value judgements. Since she has been noticed in several ways by reliable sources, she is notable." This is a ridiculous comment. It is entirely our job to make judgements of notability, and she has none. Dating George Clooney, being on one episode of a reality TV show and a brief mention of being signed by a modeling agency is not "several ways".

A subsequent editor comments to agree, and then another one, JesseRafe, comments to say that an newbie Wikipedian argued to keep the article on the basis of giving readers who want they want to read, but that's a tabloid's argument, and not an encyclopedia's. Moreover, JesseRafe references that article's talk page, but most ironically, sixof the nine editors who've chimed in to date on that talk page have argued for deleting the argument. Those who argue for keeping it do not reference any Wikipedia guideline or criterion for notability; they simply argue that tabloid argument of not "disadvantaging" the readers who want to read this (even if there's little substance on Sarah Larson for an article), and another argues, "It's freaking wikipedia. It's not Britannica. It's ok. I enjoy reading stupid, senseless articles on here". How exactly were these the arguments on which consensus was assessed??? As for the last two editors in the March 2008 AfD, one was for keeping it, saying, as the entirety of this argument, "I came here from the article, I don't check AfDs.", whereas the the editor who voted to delete gave a way more reasoned argument.

The arguments for keeping the article in the June 2008 AfD are particularly threadbare. One editor said that she received plenty of significant coverage establishing notability. If this is true, where are they? That editor also said "This coverage is still continuing now", and points to a source reporting her being signed up by a modeling agency. But merely being signed up by a modeling agency doesn't make you Cheryl Tiegs or Cindy Crawford or Kate Upton. Many people are signed with agencies; that doesn't make them notable. If her modeling makes her notable, then why has she not been covered in stories in the modeling industry press? Has anyone heard of her since those two seconds in 2008 when she was merely in tabloids for dating George Clooney? Another editor remarked, "once notable, always notable". In fact, she's never been notable. Another editor said, "Still getting considerable press for events after her breakup from Clooney. Looks like she'll be around for a while." This a joke.

Not only does Larson not bear notability, but the consensus of editors at the two AfDs and the article's talk page clearly reflects this. This article should've been deleted four years ago. Nightscream (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage is routine at best, notability hinges entirely on dating Clooney which is not enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update, An editor just added the fact that she was later dropped by the modeling agency in question, with a citation. In other words, the one thing independent of Clooney or that one reality TV episode that her apologists argue as the basis for keeping her article lasted about as long as her relationship to Clooney. Again, not notable. Nightscream (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She wouldn't be here if she hadn't dated Clooney. WAGs are non-notable unless they established notability for themselves, which Larson clearly hasn't. Not notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems notable by virtue of the numerous independent sources which comment upon her. The previous discussion was a clear keep and this nomination just seems to be a blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT contrary to our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Numerous sources often comment on the people whom celebrities' date; that doesn't mean that they merit articles. That's goes directly to WP:Notability, and has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Nightscream (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She just seems like someone who dated someone notable, which doesn't make her notable herself. She was on Fear Factor, but we certainly aren't creating articles for everyone who's ever been on a game show --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SpeakFree and others. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nightscream's comments above. While we can't be judgmental about what a famous person does, since 2009 (or so) we have been more discriminating about having properly sourced BLPs. The sources cited in the past AfDs are not reliable. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she's notable enough to get hundreds of clicks a day (http://stats.grok.se/en/201203/Sarah%20Larson), and being on People's 50 most beautiful list is an accomplishment itself. She's notable, maybe not deservedly, but notable nonetheless. JesseRafe (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added multiple additional citations. The subject meets WP:N through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including such media as People magazine, Us Weekly, The Sun, the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Daily Mail, among others. Note that the sources I've added are articles about her, not articles about Clooney that mention her in passing. Some of it is a little tabloidy, sure, but not completely or irredeemably so. I also re-added the part about her being named to People mag's "100 Most Beautiful" list, which had been removed just prior to the start of this AfD, and from what I can tell from the sources, represents some of her notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:1E. Notability is not inherited, even from movie stars. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's notable enough to meet WP:GNG. I am not aware of the rule that says someone who got significant news coverage over an extended period of time primarily because of who they dated is excluded from GNG. Larry Fortensky, anyone? Of course, one night stands like Sara Leal are not notable, but that is not what we are talking about here. Whether people like Sarah Larson should be notable in the history of civilization is also not what we are here to judge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because substantial changes were made on March 31. Sandstein 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources may have been added, but they're rehashing the same thing; this woman just drew really good luck in winning a network game show (a category where only reality show winners, millionaire Jeopardy, WWTBAM winners and the rare board runners like Michael Larson ever get an article here) and getting a Hollywood bachelor for awhile. There's also a huge difference as Fortensky actually married Liz Taylor at the very least, while Larson never got near an engagement with Clooney. Using sources (and low-quality ones at that; when you're dragged down to the Daily Mail and Sun there's no further you can do down under our sourcing suggestions) rehashed several times gives me little confidence in this article. Nate • (chatter) 09:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortensky was just one off the top of my head to illustrate that the coverage of such things goes back to pre-internet days. Many many celebrity spouses are not notable at all (say Kevin Grandalski, you'd have to google of course) because they don't get any coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vast majority of sources (including the added ones) are either unreliable/tabloid, or mainly about George Clooney. This looks like a WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTINHERITED situation to me. The list of people who don't get Wikipedia articles includes most game show contestants, most girlfriends of celebrities, most Vegas cocktail waitresses, and most failed models. Being the combination of all four doesn't add up to anything more. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most, but not all. I wonder why people hate Sarah Larson so much. Maybe its because she inexplicably meets GNG when so few worthy people do!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was going to close this; however, as I read the article and the sources, checked the page view stats, read the comments, did a bit of checking and found a more recent book source which discussed her, I was swayed toward keep. I may not be interested in this person, but clearly a lot of people are. We personally, either as individuals or as small cliques of Wikipedia editors, do not determine notability - we have agreed to let reliable sources do that, and the sources indicate some notability for this person under our guidelines. However, the delete !votes significantly outweighed the keeps, and while some were not on-policy ("per nom" or variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT), others were citing WP:ONEEVENT or making good points. While the keep comments were also making good points and citing GNG, I wasn't sure there was enough consensus for a keep. I didn't want to close this as a delete, as I feel that would be inappropriate. Nor did I want to close either as no consensus or keep, as I felt I might be introducing a WP:Supervote. So I am not closing, but adding my opinion, and hoping to assist another closer to mark this as No consensus or even keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Repo! The Genetic Opera. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 17:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Repo! The Genetic Opera characters[edit]

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

Not notable. All plot character list from a single film that is not that notable. No sources. JDDJS (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Repo! The Genetic Opera, as the cast list there currently omits character descriptions in favor of this list, and I agree that there's little reason to have a separate list for the characters of one film apart from that film article. That could have been done without an AFD, but I do not see that merger/redirection was attempted or even proposed first; please do so in the future rather than coming here. The sources for character descriptions, btw, are the film itself, press materials, and reviews about it; it's silly to claim that content of a notable work is somehow unverifiable. postdlf (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to where it has context and is sourcable just as is the film itself. In agreement with User:Postdlf, rather then being brought to AFD, WP:AFD suggests such as an action that does not require a deletion discussion. Such a merge would improve the target. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above rationale. As much as I adore this movie, there's no reason for the characters to have a separate article for themselves. It's not that wide of a universe at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Troll 2. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Troll 2 characters[edit]

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

Not notable. All plot character list from a single film that is not that notable. Few sources. JDDJS (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Oh my, that's an awful lot of work for what is essentially mundane movie trivia. Neither of the two sources are correctly configured, but one looks like the IMDb site and the other is a DVD; presumably the disk set with the movie. It doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and doesn't seem likely to. There doesn't seem to be anything here worth salvaging. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As one of the worst films ever made the film is notable. Seems an unnecessary and overdone fork of Troll 2. Anything salvageable should be cleaned up and added to the film article. 199.107.16.132 (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (however minimally) and redirect to Troll 2, as none of this content is currently in the main article and at least some (or some of some) should be. Please consider WP:ATD in the future before starting AFDs. postdlf (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to main film article. Such action is recommended per WP:ATD and would not require an AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Postdlf. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The New Guy. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters from The New Guy[edit]

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

Not notable. All plot character list from a single film that is not that notable JDDJS (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. If people could find some material about the characters that is not related to the plot, maybe this article could remain on Wikipedia. It doesn't have to be on the Web: book, magazine, and TV references could work as well. GVnayR (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to show that these characters are notable enough outside of the movie to warrant their own article. The problem with sources is that all of the ones I've found only talk about the characters within the context of the movie, usually by way of a review. The only source I've found that comes close is this one and even then it talks predominantly about the movie as a whole and not as a character separate from the movie. There's just no need for a separate article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a trimmed version to back to main film article. Such action, as recommended per WP:ATD, would improve the target, and would not require an deletion discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After realizing the wisdom of MichaelQSchmidt's bright idea of having a trimmed version of this information on the main article about the film, I change my vote to merge. GVnayR (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These aren't notable enough to have a separate page. There are too many fictional character articles around here that aren't very notable. Comatmebro (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to 2012 in mixed martial arts events#Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. There is consensus to delete, but clearly it is a valid redirect. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 18:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KSW XIX[edit]

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

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

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

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

Previously deleted via Prod for the reason "sourced only to own site, no indication that this will or does meet WP:EVENT"; I was asked to rstore it, with the explanation "As you can see from here, for example, it is now being covered in reliable independent sources due to being headlined by two highly notable fighters: Bob Sapp and Mariusz Pudzianowski.". As I do not trust myself to judge notability in this field, I send it here for a community decision DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 20:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another in a long line of MMA events witch fail our various inclusion criteria and policies (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT), with the event not due for another two months, the coverage is totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part) the article does not attempt to demonstrate what this event's lasting effect is going to be. Mt king ^(edits) 20:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2012 in mixed martial arts events#Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki where XIX is already mentioned (thought expansion may be needed). This future event is unlikely to pass WP:MMAEVENT and may not even pass WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication that this event passes WP:EVENT and the coverage currently is WP:ROUTINE and probably always will be. Papaursa (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Yes, per the nominator, who says, "As you can see from here, for example, it is now being covered in reliable independent sources due to being headlined by two highly notable fighters: Bob Sapp and Mariusz Pudzianowski." Thus, the article unequivocally passes WP:EVENT and is consistent with what Wikipedia is despite the vocal minority who just WP:IDONTLIKEIT with MMA articles. Plus, as TreyGeek points out at worst there is a redirect location, but there is clearly no desperate need to rid the world of this information in a few days time. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Pro Elite Fan Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: Blocked Sock.[reply]

Comment Would you support a re-direct to 2012 in mixed martial arts events#Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki until such time as it can be definitely shown that KSW 19 will be truly notable and will have lasting effects within the MMA industry? --TreyGeek (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article "unequivocally passes WP:EVENT"? Then please show how this event had "a noted and sourced permanent effect", "historical significance", and "a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world" as mentioned in that guideline. Papaursa (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it, bro! I read about this one over on the forums, where everyone's collectiev reaction was this towards those saying to delete something that has had a note and sourced permanent effect (the article is cited in multiple reliable sources), historical significance (participation by the greatest strongman of all time against another fighter of note), and a demonstrablelong-term impact on a significant region of the world (this event is of true importance for Poles, so unless you are racist against Polish people, they could as significant!). --172.130.242.182 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked sock, Now Range Blocked.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 18:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Meades (footballer)[edit]

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

PROD contested by Rhys1927 (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This footballer has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage. As such, the article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:KEEP 2c, "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion". —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Tiller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I hope you'll forgive me for bringing this up again, but, quite simply, there don't seem to be sources for William A. Tiller, so I'd like to suggest we look at this again. Per WP:NRVE, Notability requires verifiable evidence. We don't have reliable sources we can use to write any sort of article, and none have been provided, and, so, despite the theoretical notability mentioned in the last AfD (which involved him having published a number of scientific papers), I can't see how we can have an article on him. But, maybe I'm wrong. If high-quality sources suitable for the article can be found, then this problem will have been dealt with. 86.** IP (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article for deletion less than two weeks ago and the outcome was a keep. Consensus can change, but not that quickly. I'm doubtful that he's notable, as all or most of the coverage seems to be trivial (and I would probably have voted to delete in the first AfD), but the repeated nomination might also qualify this for a speedy keep. Holding off for now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's significant coverage of Tiller in The Payson Roundup. He's mentioned elsewhere, and has been a prolific author. I collected this information with less than ten minutes of searching, and not even looking at the last, recent AFD. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Payson Roundup. Does this source meet our reliability & notability guidelines? Remember, the number of mentions does not count, we are looking for reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - There do not appear to be any notable, reliable sources which we can use. He certainly did publish a lot of papers back when he was a professor but there are no sources that indicate his work was considered important by his peers. Other than his appearance in What the Bleep, there's very little for me to justify keeping the article. Now that the article has been tidied up I am convinced that it's never going to be more than a low-importance stub. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per points raised in the last nomination, particularly AAAS Fellow, citations, news articles, etc. This is really incredible -- 86.** IP removed all of the evidence of notability from the article in this edit, then has the audacity to claim that the subject lacks notability. In particular, 86**IP removed the fact that Tiller is a Physics Fellow of AAAS because the reference (the AAAS web site itself) is not reliable. In that edit, 86**IP also wiped out uncontroversial and sourced biographical information about Tiller involving education and work history, removed reliably sourced commentary on Tiller's paranormal work in this book, reference to a book by Tiller published by Cambridge University Press and scholarly papers published in American Journal of Cardiology, Physical Review and Journal of Applied Physics, again because these are not reliable enough. Further, 86**IP removed a reliably sourced comment on Tiller's work here because it is "not mainstream". 86**IP also failed to respond to comments on the talk page that the books Tiller has written on crystallization are sourced here and here. Very nice "tidying up": if you remove all evidence of notability and evidence of academic credibility -- especially the most notable fact of appearance in What The Bleep -- you are bound to come to the conclusion that the subject is not terribly notable. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source appears to talk about his appearance in "What The Bleep", hardly a notable appearance then. The books you showed by small time WP:FRINGE publishers like Hampton Roads Publishing Company and North Atlantic Books are not reliable for much of anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The sources utterly failed WP:RS. I don't think I need to dsay anything more, because that was why I renominated it: because the discussion was about theoretical notability, but no reliable sources exist for what people want the article to say. 86.** IP (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Google scholar 7 papers with over 100 cites, h-index of 24 passes WP:Prof#1. In view of its history this looks to me like a bad-faith nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Without any reliable sources that discuss him it seems like the article has no hope of expansion. All we have at the moment is a mention by some WP:FRINGE sources, some of which appear to be WP:SPS. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. There aren't reliable sources. It does no good to vote keep, but not show any reliable sources that can be used. You're basically saying "do the work I don't want to do, even though you say you've tried and it's impossible." 86.** IP (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It was less than 5 days since the last AfD closed when this one was started. As EPadmirateur correctly points out, the substantiation for Tiller's academic qualifications was deleted by the nominator. The claim that Tiller's mainstream work is insignificant was shown to be false in the prior AfD and further contradicted by, for example, the 400+ GScholar hits for <tiller "science of crystallization> [2], and see Xxanthippe's post above. Evidence was also provided in the previous AfD of mainstream coverage of his more unorthodox activities going back to the 1970s. --04:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- We do not have sources that can be used to write an article. WP:NRVE means that any amount of theoretical notability doesn't matter if you can't write an article. 86.** IP (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and a ((trout)) for the nominator for removing sources based on WP:IDONTLIKETHEM and then nominating the article due to a lack of sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the current sources are reliable. We have a book printed by North Atlantic Books who print, amongst others, conspiracy theories, homeopathic medicine, shamanism, Martian mysteries and alternative medicine etc. We have this website [3] being used as a source which isn't reliable for anything. We also have this source, which doesn't even seem to name William Tiller in it [4]. The sourcing is a complete joke, far from reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS. 86.** IP (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "I hope you'll forgive me for bringing this up again" - well, no, sorry, but I won't. Such a rapid renomination after your first AfD produced an outcome that you didn't like is both pointy and disruptive. If you believe the first AfD was improperly closed or the closer did not take all arguments into account then you should take it to WP:DRV. If everyone whose nomination resulted in a "keep" decision behaved like you have, then AfD would be a farce. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. It's crucial to remind ourselves that the analysis on Tiller's notability is grounded in what WP's established policy's are, specifically in this case WP:PROF. Tiller conclusively passes at least 2 of WP:PROF's tests, #1: his WoS h-index is 28 (~2900 total citations), which is far and away above the usual h-index of around 15 or total citations of a few hundred, and #3: AAAS Fellow, the AAAS being the world's largest general scientific society. You may have arguments for/against some of his other activities, but it matters not whether he is notable for those because he separately passes PROF and that alone is sufficient for this article to exist. If there are concerns about sources to flesh-out the article, then leave it stubbed for now. In other words, the article's content may be debatable, but it's existence is not. This discussion will certainly end in a "keep" and I hope it is not seen here at AfD again. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You have said nothing to address the complete lack of reliable sources which appears to be the basis of this re-nomination. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources", as this term is used in the nom, relate to WP:GNG. If that were the only way Tiller could pass, I would agree with you 100%...but it is not. This person very clearly had an extremely distinguished academic career, as demonstrated by a gigantic record of papers and an enormous citation record. Those citations are the "sources", as that term relates to WP:PROF #1. Of course, here, those sources only prove notability (which is why this Afd will end in "keep"), but don't necessarily say much about Tiller. That is why I suggested stubbing, which is a perfectly acceptable resolution. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Let me add that I agree with your comments above. Much of the "new age" stuff should stay redacted, since the sourcing appears to be absent. But, as I said, the sourcing for his academic work is solid. Hope that clarifies my argument. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is the lack of sources with which to create an article. It should be demonstrated that this is addressable (which is why I hold off on voting for the present). If we don't have sources to say much of anything then the article is doomed to stubdom. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stay on topic: "doomed to stubdom" is totally unrelated to whether the subject is notable. The latter is the only question here. Agricola44 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Actually no it's completely relevant. I suggest you read WP:ACADEMIC where it notes: It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. We have such a lack of reliable, independent sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Tiller was evidently also a Guggenheim Fellow, which satisfies WP:PROF #2. So, it would seem he now passes PROF criteria 1, 2, and 3. It's piling up and I'll rest my case. Feel free to continue arguing insufficiency of sources, though. Agricola44 (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Over 200 grants of a modest amount ($40k) are given out each year. That doesn't help meet criteria 2. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, does anybody here have a typical idea of how many citations we might expect from an average engineering or physics professor? My understanding is that if you are a professor you lead a research-group which means your name goes on everything your department publishes. It's like being a middle-manager in a research institution. I'm trying to work out of 2900 citations is a notable number or kind of what you'd expect for anybody who plays the role of professor in a big enough institution? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said above that 2900 citations and h-index 28 are very large (and these are WoS statistics, not GS). If you're not willing to take my word for it, you'll have to look back in the academic's AfD archives. There, you'll find numerous cases establishing the precedent that the hurdle is roughly h-index of 10-15 or a few hundred citations. Agricola44 (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You are still dodging the main issue which I highlighted above. Showing his h index is large doesn't magic some reliable sources into existence to actually create the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 13. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 14:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Holliday[edit]

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

This is a politician running in a primary for a congressional seat. The references in the article are almost all devoid of mention of Mr. Holliday. The daily me article announces his intention to run, but the others I glanced at do not. Also, a google news search is showing up only one entry: on ballotpedia. I don't believe the candidate meets GNG or the politician guidelines for notability. Shadowjams (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 13 until the election, restore if he wins. Absolutely no reason to lose content only to possibly have to start from scratch so soon. Dru of Id (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, unremarkable references, lacks significant coverage RadioFan (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Gene93k above. Currently fails WP:POLITICIAN, but what's here is worth merging. A big chunk of the article isn't about Holliday, but about election background that he says prompted him to run, and that's all worth merging too. Scopecreep (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Princess Superstar. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJs Are Not Rockstars[edit]

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

No assertion of notability present in article other than having bluelinked artists signed. A google search turns up no useful sources - there are news mentions of the label's name, but nothing substantive. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage found. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Superstar, per [5],[6]. -- Trevj (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 14:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sapana gardens[edit]

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

The article is about a residential colony with completely no reference to prove notability. Propose deletion. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this housing complex. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:GNG. -- Trevj (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lani[edit]

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

Bio of a psychic that was a guest on two radio programs and appeared on one episode of a TV show, none of which received any subsequent 3rd party notice. Search yields only two sources that meet criteria for WP:RS coverage for the subject: [7] and [8]. I'm not sure this adds up to enough notability conferred by "multiple reliable third-party sources" to justify a standalone article. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note an IP (98.116.123.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) posted: "The article makes it clear to me that the subject is a noteworthy, and highly visable in the media, individual in the world of psychic mediums. I have personnally seen him on the Bio Channel and heard him on the radio." tedder (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply being on a radio and tv show doesn't make one notable. Lani's book was published by Two Harbors Press, an imprint of Hillcrest Media Group. I can't determine if it is a vanity press or not; neither of these companies have Wikipedia articles. Cannot find news results discussing Lani. tedder (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Hillcrest is a print-on-demand/self-publishing service: NY Times (last 'graph). Valfontis (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources to confer notability (checked news, books, regular search). The current sources are a little hard to take seriously. One quotes a neighborhood store owner who appears to be a local expert on the paranormal: Angelikoussis thinks he is going through a healing phase with the 9/11 souls. Lani said he's learning to live with them. [9]. Another has a summary of he suffered a major heart attack and nearly died; after this near death experience he became super sensitive to the spirit world [10], whilst the final source is "Darkness Radio", a paranormal radio show, where they talk about how when he was a "Sargeant [sic]" his psychic powers awakened [11]. All in all, pretty minor mentions (hardly front page material) and sources which shouldn't be used for actual article content. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete - supposedly notable psychic, yet Google News has nothing on him, not in archives, not in present day? Non-notable person who once briefly appeared on television, doesn't even seem to reach the standards of non-notability from WP:ONEEVENT, since he didn't even become notable or prominent because of the one event. Fails WP:NRVE, and fails it hard. 86.** IP (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. I also checked Google, Google news and Google books--lacks multiple, substantive, reliable, independent third-party sources. Valfontis (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable, a legitimate author will eventually write an article. No need to reward sockpuppetry and possibly payola with allowing there works to stand. Thought experiment: we allow the article to stand, the paid author gets paid, gets a new internet provider, gets a new account, and does it again. Not good. Thought experiment: we delete the article, paid author does not get paid, goes away. Or gets paid, but clients then complain that the article about them is no longer there and wants their money back. I'm going to have to !vote delete on the ground of not encouraging bad behavior. -UtherSRG (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article is exactly the kind of lesser-known-person who pays (or whose publicist pays) for a Wikipedia article, in order to sell books, get appearance fees, and do consulting (in this case, particularly dubious consulting). We don't want to encourage that sort of thing, at all. Plus the information on the Wikipedia page seems just about the same as one would find in a quick Google search of (unreliable) web pages out there; we're thus not helping readers learn anything, just adding Wikipedia credibility, if we leave this article in place. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is clearly an emotional topic, and in these cases it is sometimes difficult to separate our own feelings from what is best for the project. The keep and delete votes are numerically split right down the middle, and neither side has overwhelmingly better arguments. On the delete side, the arguments that it's a non-notable, unorganized movement and/or a fork of LGBT rights opposition are compelling, but the sources provided by keep voters do just enough to put that theory into question. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 13:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straight pride[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating Straight Pride for deletion, for a number of reasons.

It doesn't actually exist. There is no co-ordinated Straight Pride. Sources generally state that "straight pride" is actively used as an example for something that does not exist. I don't believe this is in doubt, but the question is whether the "slogan" is notable. I'm of the opinion that few slogans ever meet WP:N and this one certainly doesn't.
Almost no sources actually discuss straight pride, either as a concept or a slogan, but mention the terms in passing - dealing with the aftermath of homophobia etc. The article appears to be a collection of events which are retaliatory to the gay community, where the words are used. As such I do not believe it passes the WP:GNG as it is not "discussed" by sources.
The article has been deleted in the past. Although last time it was full of unsourced speculation and this time everything is sourced, the article includes little or no new information.
The article is almost impossible to keep neutral, I've seen both sides use it as a WP:COATRACK (which is actually quite nice, not often both sides of this debate share something...)

I've been thinking about this for a good week or so, ever since I first became involved with the article and have been very hesitant to actually put this for AfD because of the merge discussion on the talk page - a merge discussion which currently has no consensus. What's more, there's been some great discussion on the talk page in general and I thank all editors involved who've done a fantastic job with such a sensitive subject.

However, I don't believe this is a notable topic. I don't believe it is particularly appropriate to merge the information into Gay Pride, as it's not actually relevant to Gay Pride in all circumstances. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Content fork of LGBT rights opposition and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of unrelated events. The concept is synonymous with LGBT rights opposition, and the term exists and is notable solely as a reaction to Gay Pride. What very little there is of use in this article belongs in either of those articles, most logically the former. Even then, it deserves no more than a very brief mention, at best, as the slogan has not received substantial attention in reliable independent sources. None of the sources provided even suggest that "Straight Pride" exists as a concept, movement or phenomenon in either the political, social, religious or philosophical sense except as a slogan used by sporadic unrelated isolated anti-LGBT protests. The slogan itself is not notable and trivial outside of this context, as it has never been discussed substantially in reliable independent sources. As it exists now, the article is an indiscrimate catalogue or list of disjointed, minor and sporadic protests (or rather, mostly proposed-but-never-executed protests) against Gay Pride events of little noteworthiness or relevance that have been culled from Google searches. None of the sources provide make any connection between the individual events and each other, or between the events and a larger cause except LGBT rights opposition in general. Attempting to combine them into what appears to be a coherent movement with an overarching philosophy is not supported by reliable independent sources, and amounts to OR and SYNTH. Selection of the items on the list was carried out by WP editors with no guidance from reliable sources, solely on the basis of whether the protest used the slogan "straight pride" or anything similar that the editors consider synonomous. The composition of the list therefore also is exclusively OR and Synth. I cannot envision the article being expanded using reliable independent sources in a way that does not grossly violate WP:OR,WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR, WP:STANDALONE and WP:COATRACK. Google hits are exclusively trivial, tangential or not noteworthy, at best transient coverage of minor anti-LGBT protests. Despite repeated requests, merge opponents failed to produce any sources discussing "Straight Pride" in a larger sense independent of LGBT rights opposition, and my own search turned up none. Arguments against the merge were exclusively variations of WP:GHITS, WP:INTERESTING, WP:VALINFO and WP:ITSNOTABLE, which are irrelevant, as the topic already has a stand-alone article, namely LGBT rights opposition. Material on the high school cases metioned are not noteworthy in terms of LGBT rights opposition, but might be noteworthy in terms of free speech. These incidents might be merged to School speech (First Amendment). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After one week of AfD and one month of merge, Still no sources have been provided that substantially discuss the topic as anything other than LGBT rights opposition, and none have been found to justify the synthesis of the items on the list into a coherent whole. The fact that the list has largely be turned into prose form is misleading, and the article remains an indiscriminate coatrack list cobbled together from random Google hits and given a fake "history" that is not borne out by the sources, and in fact grossly abuses them. The source used to justify the existence of this article is very careful not to make any connection whatsoever between the handful of events it reports, and is of extremely limited scope, covering only a handful of events at a group of affiliated colleges in central Massachussetts during a two year period. To create a "movement" or "phenomenon" out of this requires a massive dose of OR and Synth. It's like trying to create a "crunch" phenomenon out of a list of breakfast cereals whose names contain the word "crunch", or anything vaguely similar, like "snap", "crackle" or "pop". I confirm my !vote for delete. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep telling us that this is an example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Could you please explain exactly what content in the article is "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" or "material for which no reliable, published sources exist"? Diego (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources support the conclusion that these these isolated events have anything in common that can be called "straight pride" other than the coincidental, unoriginal and trivial choice of slogans. None of the sources discuss the slogan except in terms of independent unrelated events. None of the sources discuss the topic of "straight pride" as anything that can be described as unified, coherent or general. In short, there is NOTHING that even suggests that article is anything other than an indiscriminate list assembled by WP editors on the basis of Google hits, which is WP:OR and ((WP:SYNTH]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Now I think you don't understand the OR and SYNTH policies.) Diego (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. nor WP:INDISCRIMINATE for that matter, which is about raw data and statistics, not for chronological lists of prose items sharing a common theme. Diego (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive coverage in sources, including within the article itself. Clearly meets wp:notability. As a sidebar, over 500,000 Google hits for an explicit match search on the topic. (Not that they all suitable for establishing wp:notability, but even what is in the article already is of the type and quantity to exceed wp:notability requirements threshold many times over.) The history at the article looks more like an "I don't like it" situation with a succession of reasonings and approaches tried to get rid of it due to not liking the subject. I first saw this (as a merge RFC) at a notice board and came here found it easy to add content and sources; then participants here immediately started deleting content and sources while simultaneously claiming that it was a problem that it lacked such. Within hours of starting those additions and seeing that there was no consensus to merge and probable consensus to solidify as the opposite ("don't merge") someone AFD'd it. Total time span from starting to add material and sources to AFD was less than 8 hours! Further, per sources, pervasively this phenomena has been a response to (and possible opposition to) special days, parades etc. and not (per se) opposition to LGBT rights, to the extent that sources say many supporters are against "gay pride" parades, days, but in favor of gay rights. So merge/fork assertions related to "rights opposition" have a fatal structural flaw. Various other non-existent standards have been asserted such as that the objects of extensive coverage in sources must all be organized into a single organized "movement" in order for it to be an article. This standard simply does not exist. Another non-existent criteria promulgated is that if "straight pride" came into being as a reaction to something, that it can't be covered separately from what it was born as a reaction to. This standard also simply does not exist. The same for implying a standard that says that if an article would be hard to keep neutral it should be deleted. Possibly more to follow. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Delete/Merge - agree completely. I've now personally spent about 2 weeks arguing for the other side to take it seriously as it's not a vote and we've got nothing but more randoms involved supporting a keep but without stating why.

Further it's being pushed as an equivalent of a movement by combining everything on the web, (no matter how vague) such as "Straight pride"/"Straight pride movement"/"Straight Pride day" into a list of random and unlinked events creating huge issues of WP:POV WP:Synthesis WP:Coatrack. If anything it's been shown by the opposing side that if there is a Straight Pride movement it is disorganized, involves the Ku Kux Klan, and is not promoting heterosexual pride, but instead rallying against LGBT people under an unestablished assumption of them having superior civil rights to heteros.

The group opposing a merge or delete were actively therefore trying to promote this "movement" using Wikipedia as the vehicle and have shown it is actually more a candidate for merge with LGBT rights opposition + Homophobia.

(I assume everyone is allowed to cast a vote here and not just admin, if not then disregard and apologies) Thank you Jenova20 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually a vote Jenova, it's a discussion, but everyone is welcome to contribute. At the end of 7 days, an uninvolved administrator will close this and it should be the end of it - we'll hopefully have consensus to keep, delete or a clear direction of how to improve things from a no consensus outcome. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well i backed my position with policies anyway. That's more than the keep side did on the talk page. Thanks Jenova20 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered by numerous reliable sources, this is a notable subject. This nomination is merely a reaction to a failed attempt to merge this article into some other article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for assuming the motives of my nomination, which I had written out 3 times since I started working on the article. I made this decision off my own back, not as a reaction to anything, and think it's a fair one. I've explained my reasoning above, and would much rather that you actually deal with the substance of the nomination, or indeed the subsequent votes. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a t-shirt slogan, not a topic for encyclopedic coverage. More or less a fork of LGBT rights opposition. If there is ever a movement emerging around this slogan, that would be decisive. As for now — news reports about controversial T-shirts do not an encyclopedic topic make, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -

For the same main reasons as stated in the intro here;
For this reason: the "SP" content is already under the "Straight Pride" analogy section of the Gay pride article, the stub in question being overkill.
For those I stated on the "SP" talk page. By request and for those who'd rather not use "search" for or read the few comments I made on the SP talk page.

On an ideological level, an article that raises isolated, incoherent cases of anti-LGBT backlash into a supposed movement is characteristic of Conservapedia, not Wikipedia, and on those grounds alone it needs deletion. However, I strongly believe that all negative reactions and efforts to counter the LGBT movement and the discrimination and violence against LGBT people must be documented. Thus, while such interventions to expand a blurb into a full-blown article are enough to justify speedy deletion, I strongly support merging.

On a writing/composition level, “Straight Pride” is a clear and prime example of LGBT rights opposition that needs documenting under the correct articles, i.e. under Gay Pride and LGBT rights opposition. Although it may seem obvious, “Straight pride” notions depend on Gay Pride and LGBT rights in their entirety because they are backlash due to the lack of understanding of LGBT issues. In other words, an article on “Straight Pride” would need to go into detail on Gay Pride, such an article being pointless because the Gay Pride article already exists. A simple redirect to a “Straight Pride” or “Opposition to Gay Pride” section is all that’s necessary. The scarce and disparate examples cited as support are purely anecdotal and in no way merit an article. In fact, even the stub is inflated. A paragraph of three or four sentences is more than an ample length.

Following my own time schedule, I volunteer to complete the merges, the more so in that there is other, notable material, e.g. Queen Sofía of Spain’s homophobic comments on Gay Pride, that can dovetail nicely into the disjointed factoids in the “Straight Pride” stub.--CJ Withers (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've eliminated the unrelated, yet interesting, information on pride confusion because it's conjecture and related to LGBT pride issues, not to the "Straight Pride" slogan. Nonetheless, the White student union info added is excellent as it demonstrates exactly what the opposition/backlash rationale behind straight pride is: tit for tat. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on Gay pride and had already merged the directly related material here into the GP article. So, fine by me. However, the same disparate info really ought to be merged into LGBT rights opposition, too. You'll see that _all_ the contributors are making such a move entirely possible through their edits. --CJ Withers (talk)

--CJ Withers (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that CJ Withers is the one who added the content into that article; it was not already there and CJ Withers, a supporter of a forced merge, added ti to that page so that it would be merged. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Keep your comments on each vote to yourself, becaue no one here is to challenge or debate a contributor's vote, esp. adhominem arguments because the real topic is deleting a stub. In fact, that's the problem with this issue. Also, the merge was approved my several contributors. Remember, adding related material to improve the Gay pride article is exactly what Wikipedia is about. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - My comment is a legitimate point, to inform the readers that the only reason the content is there is because you added it. The way you said it made it seem like the content from that page was copied to the 'Straight pride' page, which simply isn't true. Toa Nidhiki05 21:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to LGBT rights opposition, mostly per Carrite. "Straight pride" is not a spontaneous "pride" movement; it's a form of backlash against the LGBT rights movement. The topic can be covered adequately with a few paragraphs in LGBT rights opposition; there isn't enough well-sourced material for a standalone article. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or at worst, redirect. For the same reason that White History Month is just a redirect; sardonic "movements" such as this are only notable in the context of what they are protesting. There is no stand-alone, legitimate "straight pride" organization or ideology. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteor (very) selective merge to LGBT rights opposition. Sources indicate that it is inseparable from opposition to LGBT rights and to gay pride. However, the article is mostly a list of unrelated incidents which would fail WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS if they were separate articles and don't fail it any less because they're together in one article; non-newsy discussion of the topic is trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything useful to LGBT rights opposition. per Carrite "This is a t-shirt slogan, not a topic for encyclopedic coverage." —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Straight Pride reactionary phenomenon has been reliably sourced. It is a minor, yet notable, response to Gay Pride. The term Straight Pride and its synonym Heterosexual Pride have been used world-wide by those opposing Gay Pride concepts and events. Some Straight Pride supporters merely want to balance the public emphasis whereas others use it as an outlet for their hatred of all things gay. If the article should be deleted, our WP readership would be poorly served as they seek to understand the notion of Straight Pride. drs (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... except that they can read all about it in LGBT rights opposition, assuming we merge and redirect this article. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - To take you're point to the extreme, assuming we merged the Moon article with the Earth one, the same could happen there. Or, further, we could redirect all the planets to the solar system article. Is it practical to do any of this? No. We should keep 'Straight Pride' because it is sourced by over a dozen reliable sources and it is clearly notable given the broad zone of usage of the term. It is notable enough for a page. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not proposing to take anything to the extreme. We don't need to lump all planets together into a single article, nor do we need a separate article on each topographical feature of the moon. When to merge material and when to spin it off is a matter of judgment and common sense, and neither cause is helped by facile caricatures. I think the bottom line is that I don't see enough here for a standalone article. You do, which is fine, but let's not muddle things by claiming that if we delete the standalone article, we're cheating the reader. MastCell ^Talk 04:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little more than a list of incidents strung together (so it could alternatively be renamed "List of straight pride incidents", though I don't think highly of list articles.) AV3000 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Worm and Dominus Vobisdu have articulated it far better and more thoroughly than I ever could have. While "List of straight pride incidents" might be a potential candidate, what we really have is a "List of events where the phrase Straight Pride has been involved" and thats not really an encylopedic topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to LGBT rights opposition, per Mastcell. This makes the most sense to me - Alison ^❤ 01:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong keep: while not a movement per se, it is a phenomenon. WP:N doesn't require that a topic be a bona fide "movement." In fact the Occupy and tea Party Movements were notable phenomenons long before they were "movements". The sources are clear about what this is. It is (1) pride in being heterosexual, (2) a statement against the double standard/preferenial rights afforded to homosexuals and (3) a counterprotest to Ally Week & Day of Silence. The sources also indicate extreme hostility to this topic in the gay community. Here we call that WP:IDONTLIKE. The content should not be dispersed amongst a myriad of anti-straight pride articles. What we call WP:FORK. This is a topic, with multiple sources, that readers should have access to in one place. To delete this article would at best be wanton deletionism, at worst overt censorship.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the comparisons you make appear not to be very similar. the Occupy and Tea Party phenomena were national and global activities all obviously related and inspired by one another. These "straight pride" incidents are simply individual reactions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really so obvious to me. The phrase "straight pride" is clearly well known and used in subsequent events, just like the occupy folks set up shop all over the place without coordination. The number of articles which show a "straight pride" event following a "gay pride" event are almost mind boggling.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is mind boggling is that you think there is something remarkable or significant about that. Gay Pride events sometimes generate counter-protests. That the organizers of these counterprotests independently name their events "Straight Pride" is hardly original or surpising. Any child could come up with a slogan like that. Your mission, should your choose to accept it, is to provide reliable sources linking these unrelated events together into some sort of coherent "phenomenon". Without that, there is no justification for the article to exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote from "Keep" to "Strong Keep" per Milwient's rewrite. And yes, rewrite. This article is no longer the stub that was originally nominated for deletion. The closing admin must take into account that most of the !votes were cast when this was a stub: the article now obviously passes WP:N and is probably a class C article.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too commend Milowent's excellent work tidying up the article and might even go so far to say it's B class. Having said that, it doesn't change the notability of the topic, nor any of the other comments I, nor any other voter made. I'm sure that the admin can take the update into account, as will all the people who discuss this topic for the rest of the week. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my not-vote to Keep per the recent clean-up work by Milowent. Diego (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a WP:POV fork of LGBT rights opposition and WP:SYNTH, given its actual contents. There is content enough out there to treat the topic in an encyclopedic way, though; various mentions of the term in books and scholarly articles. If it was treated as a topic described by reliable sources as an opposition movement, then it could be kept; but ~~the list of unrelated manifestations we have now is not a notable topic all by itself and it's better summarized as a section in the main article, until~~ someone takes up the task of creating it properly. Diego (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new background section covers my threshold stated above with an encyclopedic introduction that summarizes the views reported by reliable sources on the topic. The argument by Dominus Vobisdu and others that this must be merged into Gay pride or LGBT rights opposition is particularly unconvincing now; if significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (so no original research is needed to extract the content) were not enough to write a separate article on a subtopic of a wider phenomenon, we would have to merge lots of articles into a really long Everything (which is also a valid merge target in such case). Diego (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. We don't need more than one article on this topic, and LGBT rights opposition covers it adequately. Is there any evidence that this is distinct from LGBT rights opposition? Not so far. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is see below. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to notability per [12] [[The New York Times] On Thurday, about 50 conservatives, wearing the white pins emblazoned with blue squares emblematic of "straight pride," gathered at noon , [13] NYT An antihomosexual rall by a student group at the University of Massachusetts to show what demonstrators called 'straight pride' , [14] NYT long feature profiled a boy who sued his high school after his Straight Pride T-shirt was banned]], etc. All from just one absolutely reliable source - and more than enough to establish independent notability - the prime requirement here. [15] from CSMonitor shows international usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But at what point does that justify a standalone article and not a sub-section of say LGBT rights opposition ? How much can we say about scattered protests other than where they have occurred and hat they have said? Tarc (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the majority are covered as being reactionary to declarations of special gay pride "days" and parades etc., not as opposition to LGBT rights. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's kinda the prevailing opinion, IMO. One would be hard-pressed to describe support of a "rally for straight people" as anything but homophobic. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying. I was speaking about what the sources in this article say. But as a sidebar note in sorting it out in general, there are many people in favor of LGBT rights but who react negatively to either the tactics in pursuit of that used or to the special arrangements such as gay pride days and parades. The latter seems much more common in this article which is why it would not appropriately fit within opposition to LGBT rights. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that people supporting equal gay rights are a minority and the majority of people who disagree support straight pride? Well...that's not biased or POV at all then... Jenova20 16:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question but that appears to have no resemblance to what I said. The gist of what I was saying is that the bulk of "straight pride" folks are, with that, protesting special treatment of "gay pride" (such as parades and declaring special days); they are not protesting against LGBT rights. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pure WP:Synth on your part, Collect. Your "one source" is three separate and unrelated articles by the same newspaper. The NYT never even makes the slightest suggestion that these three events are related in any way whatsoever. That's purely your conclusion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Some respondents here have hinted or stated that this article has been difficult to keep neutral in the past. However, after reading it from start to finish just now, it seems reasonably neutral now. I agree with those who think this article covers a real notable topic. I think it would be a mistake to try to shoehorn this material into another article, or other articles.
No, I don't see this as a "real" movement. I don't see any sign that anyone here, or anyone in the real world, seriously thinks it is a real movement. Rather, it seems more like real world individuals trying to do the real world equivalent of WP:POINT. So it is a kind of hoax. But WP:HOAX says we shouldn't have articles that are hoaxes. It doesn't say we shouldn't have that are about hoaxes -- certainly not when there are sufficient WP:RS that cover those hoaxes.
As to the suggestions that this article be merged. First, since this is a real topic, one individuals might want to put on their watchlist, merging to any one of the merge targets suggested here erodes the value of watchlists. All those possible merge targets are related. But I might be interested in being advised throught my watchlist of changes to Straight Pride, and not interested in being advised of changes to our coverage of LGBT rights opposition, or Gay Pride, or LGBT rights, or School speech (First Amendment), or homophobia, or Traditional marriage movement.
Second, it has always struck me, in any discussion where several people suggest merging the article, but they can't agree on which potential target article is the logical article to merge to, that merging to any of them is a bad idea. When the closing administrator picks one of the target articles they have to be doing a disservice to all the other possible merge targets. In these cases it is far better for each of the possible merge target to have a sentence or a brief paragraph of context, followed by a ((see also)) or ((main article)) that links to Straight Pride, and to keep the main details of our coverage of this topic right where it is now. Please don't forget the wikipedia is not paper. It is easier for our readers, at those other articles, to click on the link to Straight Pride if they want to read about Straight Pride, and to not click on the link if they want to ignore this topic than it is to puff up that related article with multiple topics.
I know some contributors would be perfectly happy having all the other places that currently link to Straight Pride instead redirect to a subsection heading like LGBT rights opposition#Straight Pride. But, in doing so, they are overlooking series technical issues. The bidirectional wikilinks we use here are far superior to the unidirectional links used on the world-wide-web -- but only when used properly.
1. ordinary wikilinks, from one article to another don't break like the unidirectional links on the world-wide-web. When an article's name is changed we generate a redirection so links to the old name take the reader to the article under its new name. But redirection to subsection headings withing articles is not fully supported. Our wikilinks break when someone edits the subsection heading, even just to add a comma.
2. I already meantioned watchlists. Our current software doesn't allow putting just a single section of an article on our watchlist.
3. Our "what links here" feature is a very powerful one. There is no reliable equivalent on the world-wide-web. But it too isn't supported for links that are links to subsection headings within an article.

Per AV3000 I have no objection to giving this article a different name. Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent support for the argument that the stub is disjointed and can belong to more than one article. In fact, it's not a problem at all deciding where it should go because the info here hinges on both articles. For example, both George Washington and the American Revolutionary War articles have no problems whatsoever in accommodating GW's role in the Am.Rev.War. Likewise, LGBT rights opposition can simply have a "Main article: Gay Pride" mention or vice versa. Either way, the issue of where is therefore resolved and the vote is actually which way to merge and then delete the entry "Straight pride", i.e. Opposition w/ See Main GP or GP with See Main Opposition. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Just like to point out that your second point is not entire compelling. Changes on watchlists generally give the section of the article that is affected. I ofen use this feature to determine which changes interest me. As for your "hoax" angle, it's interesting, and yes, one of the events listed was exposed as a genuine hoax. But are we talking about a single hoax here, or separate and unrelated occurences of coincidentally similar hoaxes? What would be the encyclopedic value in such a list, espcially since compiling the list would be essentially OR and Synth? What source could be used to unite these unrelated incidents into a coherent whole? The sources on the individual hoaxes do not such thing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your arguments, Geo Swan, but thank you for a well-thought-out and neutral response. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Keep Covered in the press (notable), reliably-sourced, controversial. Similar to Crop circles, different unrelated occurrances have enough similar characteristics that a commonality is established. Similar to the 60's peace movement - a reaction to war - this (much smaller) reactive movement has little organization and has a vaguely-defined agenda. I'm not aware of an "Emo Movement", but we all know what Emo is. Any random homosexual person could define "Straight Pride", as could any member of a college Conservative Union or Republican Club - and their definitions would be very different. Just because this topic is fringe and hard-to-define doesn't mean that it ought to be deleted, though it needs a rather more rigorous approach than it has had to date. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the difference is that third party sources talk about "crop circles" in general. they do not talk about "straight pride" in general, only as it relates to having been used at a specific incident/event. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the articles on Crop circles and the peace movement, the commonality is established by reliable sources (actually, I was sort of surpised how well sourced the Crop circle article is. I was expecting a mess like the one here). In this article, however, the commonality is established solely by WP editors. No sources establishing even the faintest hint of commonality have yet been produced, despite repeated requests for a month now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we don't work at other editors' bidding. I only happened to see this article today, less than 24 hours after the AfD began. We have articles where such requests go unmet for years. You give me too much credit to suggest my recent edits establish commonality not already apparent in the sources I've been already able to incorporate in an hours' time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely don't keep articles based on some editor's groundless hopes and dreams that someday, somewhere, a source might possibly be found. That's like planning your retirement based n the hope that one day, you will win the lottery. And we definitely don't keep pure OR and synth spun solely out of WP editors' imagination, which is all you have to show for your efforts so far. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing Milowent's excellent and heavily sourced work worthy of that nasty insult, and you go further than that to say that ALL of their work is " pure OR and synth spun solely out of WP editors' imagination,". That is pretty nasty. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh marvel, oh wonder: "someday, somewhere" the Massachusetts. Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth[16] described "heterosexual pride" in general as "a relatively recent tactic used in the backlash opposing les/bi/gay/trans campus visibility" and devoted it a whole section in their 1993 report, narrating how it was used by several distinct conservative groups. Is a government report by a technical commision specialized on the LGBT topic reliable enough, or what? ;-) (The source has been already included in the article). Diego (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except this article isn't supposed to be about "heterosexual pride"; the conflation of that with the slogan "straight pride" has been an unsourced addition that has allowed people to coatrack various things into the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, because heterosexual and straight are not well-established synonyms when speaking of sexual orientation? Is that supposed to be a solid argument proving that the topic doesn't exist? Diego (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we're talking about a slogan, and even slogans with similar meanings are not the same slogan, and the use of one is not the use of the other. "Best" may mean the same as "Finest", but we do not lump in discussion of "New York's Best" things in our article on New York's Finest. Somethings price may be its worth, but "priceless" and "worthless" are not the same things. Editors have been lumping into the article that is specifically about the slogan "straight pride" items which have no source connecting them to that slogan. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is circular logic. That is founded on the assertion that it's a slogan, not a topic, which is itself what is being argued. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was founded about a slogan, and has always been about a slogan. If you are arguing to support an article that is not about the slogan "Straight Pride", then it is not this article you are talking about. If there is something else that is "Straight Pride" that is not a slogan, then perhaps you should create that appropriately-sourced article and use a disambiguating hatnote to separate it from this. There used to be a juggler who announced that he was juggling George Washington's actual ax; over the years, they had replaced the handle, and the blade. Since the keep arguments seem to combine to having an article that isn't about the slogan "Straight Pride", that doesn't have content attuned to the slogan "Straight Pride", and which should perhaps have a different title, it seems that they are not talking about this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure of your main point or who you were responding to. Most would say that the article is about all aspects of the phenomena. Some are saying that that is narrow or not a topic, but I don't think that anyone is arguing for making multiple articles out of this one, or excluding material from this one unless/until such is done. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

except that there is NO "phenomena". its a bunch of random individual incidents which happen to have involved the same phrase. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a statement of the viewpoint of one side of something that is being debated here. North8000 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were actual sources to support the claim of the existence of a "phenomena" as such, then there would be no need for a "debate". -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat Gertler: There are reliable sources now that use both "heterosexual pride" and "straight pride" interchangeably, see [17] and [18] at least. So far all valid complaints against the article due to lack of sources have been addressed during the AfD. Diego (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how either of those are reliable sources for the claim. The second is a work of fiction; the former is perhaps reliable for quoting what that one person said, but whether or not the person being quoted with one sentence on the topic is a reliable source for information, even he is not talking about "straight pride" or "heterosexual pride" as slogans that actually exist beyond his comments, and even then he's not clearly saying they're the same thing (if I were to say "A heterosexual pride (or white pride, or Christian pride, or male pride) march would be looked down on", that doesn't mean I'm saying that heterosexual pride and Christian pride were the same thing.) So yes, my concern remains valid. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a work of fiction does not disqualify a reliable source (Ms. (magazine)) from providing a reliable example for the meaning of the term, as long as the meaning is clear from the text; nevertheless, this is a parody of the very real Brazilian Heterosexual Pride Day (which is called "heterosexual" in reality but described as "straight" in the parody). The sentences "Announcing … The First Annual Straight Pride Parade" and "live coverage of the First Annual Heterosexual Pride Parade!" clearly use "straight pride" and "heterosexual pride" to refer to the same thing.

As for the second source, the exact way it's used is: "if [...] heterosexuals were to bang together and have a "heterosexual pride" (or "straight pride") parade..."; here "straight pride" is in explanatory parentheses stating that it's an alternate name for the same idea, not an enumeration of alternate types of parades as you misrepresent it. Unless you only accept a source literally saying "heterosexual pride and straight pride are synonyms", we can't have any better than those parentheses.

Also, given that it's a philosophical dialog and both speakers are written by the same hand, it's a reliable statement of what the philosopher has to say about the concept. (Having two related meanings for the same term doesn't diminishes it's notability, quite the opposite; it shows that it has depth beyond the list of "unrelated list of events", in special because both meanings have reliable sources describing them as related to gay pride).

Sincerely, I think that your finding something wrong with every source (even if you don't take the proper time to evaluate their nature with respect to reliability), only diminishes your position at this discussion. It shows that your opposition to the article is based on unrealistically high requirements for notability, far above what is usually considered enough for stand-alone articles at Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone puts forth multiple lousy sources, and I notice that they're lousy sources, that's a condemnation of me? If a philosopher who puts one sentence about "straight pride" into the mouth of a character in a fictional dialog is to be treated as an expert, reliable source, what else qualifies? Shall we accept all of Middle Earth as true because Tolkien wrote of it? Could we have something better than that? Of course we could. We could have sources that talk about "straight pride" as a topic and that discuss the terminology. It's not unrealistic to think that a notable topics would have works about the topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said no such thing. I said that if you make lousy arguments, that's a reason to call your arguments lousy. I made no condemnation of your person. Diego (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence??? That doesn't even make a substantial connection between the few examples given??? Surely you jest. I do like your puffery, though: "whole section" (about a page, very little of which describes "Straight Pride" as a coherent topic, and rather superficially at that). It covers a very rather geographical range for a rather short time frame. On the good side, though, this is by far the best source given so far. Is it reliable? Yes. Is it substantial? Not by a long shot. Is it comprehensive? Minimally? Is it enough? Far from it. VERY, VERY far from it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the proper time to evaluate the source, it's not one sentence. The section is placed in a chapter dedicated to problems faced by young LGBT people together with harassment and violence, which gives it proper context and places it under gay pride backlash. Together with "Shifting Sands or Solid Foundation?" and "Who cares?" by Michael Eliason who explains how the term is related to the sense of self-assurance created by gay pride, a common meaning of a reaction against gay pride is found; Eric Zorn from the Chicago Tribune basically says the same thing in a feature-length column, as does anyone who's pausing to explain the term; at this point, that "straight pride=opposition to gay pride" is a notable fact as established by independent sources. Those references, together with the overwhelming media coverage now in the article give us multiple, reliable sources covering a slang term with the same sense of opposition to the gay pride, which is the topic of this article. Your repeated claim that these isolated incidents are "unrelated" doesn't hold weight in this light when all those independent incidents use the slogan with a consistent meaning that is defined by reliable sources. Diego (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just on that, those two excellent academic sources both state that straight pride doesn't exist. Shifting sands says Heterosexual individuals may express bewilderment at the term "gay pride", arguing that they do not talk about "straight pride" and Who cares says Heterosexuals don't have straight pride rallies. Both of these sources are explaining why gay pride exists, and mention straight pride as something that doesn't happen. The fact that it has happened has made non-notable events newsworthy, in a Man bites dog effect. That doesn't make either the concept, nor the slogan notable. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for basically agreeing to what I said, even if you arrive to a different conclusion from it. The content of those sources is already described in the article telling how gay and straight pride are related and the second is not stand-alone (just what those sources support and the article explains). Given that the notability guidelines suggest us to have articles for topics with multiple, independent reliable sources in detail so that we can "actually write a whole article", I don't think the ammount of sources we have for a common theme at several separate events makes the topic non-notable. Diego (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I agree, I raised similar points on the article talk page a week or so ago. The problem is that the notability guideline requires significant coverage - addressing the subject in detail. Neither of those two sources do address the subject in detail, but instead mention it in passing (as something that doesn't happen). The vast majority of news stories are about the backlash when a kid wears a t-shirt, or when a rally is announced. They don't discuss the the topic, but just mention it in passing, discussing instead the aftermath. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's just agree to desagree on our definitions of "in passing" (and "enough to write a whole article"). Diego (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(selective) Merge/redirect to LGBT rights opposition per MastCell and Roscelese. Article connects multiple, random, unrelated events, which creates impression that there is some concept that in reality does not exist. Anyway, this is an article of marginal importance and notability and does not deserve whole this attention.--В и к и T 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources address each of Worm's points. For 1, an article can be about political demonstrations sharing a common name and ideology even if they aren't formally organized as part of a single group. For example, Tea Party movement is commonly accepted as a movement even though there isn't a specific "Tea party". For 2, reading the article, it's all about the use of the specific term, both as a concept and as a slogan, enough that I'm not sure where Worm is getting the idea that it's not. 3 and 4 aren't reasons for deletion - if being controversial was a reason for deletion, we wouldn't have articles about any political movements, and if being deleted in the past was a reason for deletion we wouldn't have ... a Main page... :-). --GRuban (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GRuban. You're right, 3 and 4 would not be enough reason on their own, but they were what pushed me over the edge. Yes, an article can be about a common subject, but the more academic sources mention straight pride in passing, whilst discussing Gay Pride and heterosexual bewilderment, as "straight pride" isn't something straight people do. So, in that way, there is no Straight pride. When it comes to the rest, in my opinion, it's a case of Man bites dog, and aftermath discussion by local newspapers. The most notable I found was a case about a kid who wore a straight pride t-shirt to school (nothing to do with gay pride, but rather Ally Week) - and was told to take it off, resulting in a first amendment court case. This has sparked a number of articles, but more about the court case than it was about straight pride. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somebody just deleted 13 references, which I reverted. Even with a massive dose of wp:AGF, deletion of 13 references DURING an AFD is poor timing at best. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Deletion of such a huge chunk of sourced content is unacceptable--particularly when we're working to improve the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the person doing such massive deletions could address his/her reasons on the talk page of the article. The edit wars of this article may call for page protection, even at this point. Ever wonder why this article seems so important? drs (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it has descended into full edit wars. Plus there has been building going on. But a good standard, especially during the AFD is to not remove references, or at least discuss removing references before doing so. The same for large deletions. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficiently defined as a concept to be appropriate for an article, as shown by the references. The concept that we cannot keep an article neutral is ridiculous--any article in this general area can be used as a coat rack, and many of them have. We watch them, not delete them. I am always a little doubtful when an article that is associated with an attitude most of us deplore is nominated for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGBT rights opposition. Contra DGG, this is not a sufficiently defined concept for an article. The article is neutral, but it is a ragbag. Some kids turning up to school wearing some t-shirts, added to a controversial statement made by an insignificant Canadian politician and so on makes a collection of gimicky events with a common theme, but it does not make a phenomenon. While there are sources documenting these individual events, there do not seem to be any sources documenting "straight pride" as a distinct movement or philosophy (because it isn't), and that would be the benchmark for GNG. FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources note that "Straight pride" events are typically organized in direct response to "gay pride" events. No one is saying its a "movement," its a documented slogan and reaction event. The fact that the reaction is not coordinated does not make it an unobserved phenomenon. I am also hoping someone will access non-online gender/sexuality research journals before the AfD is over, the fact that I was able to locate additional sourcing so easily disturbed me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just summed up why it should be merged with LGBT rights opposition, and/or Homophobia and Gay pride. Bunch of random incidents protesting against gay rights and gay pride with nothing linking them. Thanks Jenova20 20:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just summed up why so many !votes here are based on uninformed personal opinions instead of the actual sources. Thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, the two most significant arguments against a keep seem to be WP:SYNTH and the pragmatics of merging. With respect to the first, I don't feel the article is synthetic/OR, for me it falls underneath the "of course" threshold if sources only presented single incidents. Moreover, that isn't the case, there are a few broader linkages evidenced in sources as well, e.g., the Mass. Gov's office ref., the USA Today ref. With respect to the second question, whether it's pragmatically better for the reader to arrange the information one way or another, I believe that a separate article (this one) with summaries and links at Gay Rights and/or LGBT rights opposition is perhaps the best way to present coverage of each topic and not unnecessarily duplicative. (See also this diff for clearer statements of which two refs I was acknowledging.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no independent notability, merely a reaction to Gay Pride. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If people are debating as to whether or not it exists and there are sources for it, it doesn't have to exist as a practice or concept, it simply has to be a topic that is covered in multiple reliable sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable world-wide phenomenon reliably sourced. Merging or deleting only serves the agenda of the IDONTLIKEIT minority. --Kenatipo ^speak! 13:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGBT rights opposition - Seems a bit WP:POVFORKish, and I don't think the incidents are really a coherent whole. Some of the material is trivial (an entire section on a vendor seen selling T-shirts, with no commentary or discussion?), some might be useful, but it doesn't really seem to gel into a stand-alone. Another issue is that there aren't really that MANY incidents listed, and it's kind of an obvious slogan, so they could well be independent. 86.** IP (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That section was on commercialization and somebody wiklawyered it down to look like that and then retitled it. The article has been the target of aggressive efforts to remove material and sources during the the AFD. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It is a disgraceful article, so it and its supporters deserve no less. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very Wikipedian. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its also not very "wikipedian" to defame requiring content to actually and accurately reflect what the sources say as "wikilawyering". -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks can judge for themselves. Seeing the 11:13 April 6 2012 version of that section before said activity. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information found in the Messenger article by Heywood. Here is the diff is for the record. drs (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see this as hugely notable in its own right. It is, in the end, a list of incidents, with no clear connections drawn between them. 86.** IP (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here is the original material which folks felt the need to stifle from the article: "A variety of straight pride products are manufactured and marketed including T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee cups, I-Phone cases, bumper stickers and ties." This was apparently such a radical statement that it had to get challenged, deleted (not tagged) and butchered within hours of posting. North8000 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, you STILL have not provided a source to support your stated claim. The source you provided [19] talks about a single vendor selling a single merchandise item at a single event. Your (edit to add)insitence on continuing to promote (end of edit) blatant WP:OR is completely astounding making it near impossible to continue to assume good faith on your part. it makes me wonder how many other sources are you completely misrepresenting? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in secondary source material. — Cirt (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request I see some arguments stating that there are sources that unify this disparate events, but with the large fluctuations in the article itself, it's hard to search the history. Could someone list those sources here, so that I and others might use them in forming positions and arguments? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The two references I referred to specifically (without suggesting that there weren't more), were ^[1] and ^[2].

^ "Making colleges and universities safe for gay and lesbian students: Report and recommendations of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" (PDF). Massachusetts. Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth., p.20. "A relatively recent tactic used in the backlash opposing les/bi/gay/trans campus visibility is the so-called "heterosexual pride" strategy".
^ (2 June 1992). Gay topics go public, USA Today ("On college campuses, where gay student groups are no longer unusual, "you see increased incidences of straight pride rallies in retaliation against gay pride" .")

Notes: (1) I AGF'd the quotes as accurate (2) I stopped searching after finding two because I felt these sufficient to my rationale, so my listing two is not in any way meant to assert that these are the best available sources, or all of them (3) my rationale and interpretation of policy does not require in-depth coverage of the term from these sources, which some editor's rationales do seem to require. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those details, they do indeed help. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A point in the article's favour, certainly, but I'm a bit worried that the term is kind of obvious, and I'm not sure it's widespread enough in actuality to count as a genuine movement, beyond the wider movement we have an article on. If merged, though, I certainly think those references justify a fairly large section, at the least. 86.** IP (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no organized movement, as far a I can tell. The usage of "Straight Pride" seems to be a grass roots reaction to gay pride and similar emphases. That is why some of us call it a phenomena because it is obviously a slogan to be dealt with but it arises out of a natural sense of fairness and balance. Proponents of gay pride point to the daily privilege enjoyed by those of heterosexual advocacy and oppose Straight Pride as an effort of those who already are favored to keep their favored status. drs (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article attempts to WP:SYNTH a wide range of items and treat them as if they are part of the same thing because they have similar names, as if we would unite the Boston Tea Party, the Tea Party Express, and Mrs. Tyndale-Clyde's Tea into a single item. While the USA Today source that does unify some events, they are unifying specifically and solely US campus "straight pride rallies"; the (horribly edited) Massachusetts document mentions an example of a "Straight-Pride Rally" in their examples, but again just a campus rally event. There is an argument to be made that college "straight pride rallies" could be covered in a single article, but it seems to me that, particularly with the USA Today article, that usage of "Straight pride" could be covered within "Gay Pride" (and I have no objection to an appropriate redirect there. But this article is also currently covering (and seems dependent on covering):

"Straight Pride" as a t-shirt slogan
"Heterosexual pride" as being the same slogan, which is unsourced, but which people seem to find useful for lumping in events specifically using that term.

Even the folks supporting that this is some sort of unified phenomenon (or "a phenomena", as has been phrased) have been listing the different motivations for these different events and saying that the phenomenon is motivated by all these things, and that unites them. It's kind of like me covering Jacksons, and noting that they are unified by hitting a lot of home runs, having a lot of hits from their Bad album, and serving as the seventh president of the United States. Oh, and because "Jack" is commonly a nickname for "Johnathan", as is "John", we also get to include them co-starring in Miami Vice. I haven't seen any sources covering this supposed blanket phenomenon, which makes all this lumping together WP:OR. I appreciate the hard work some folks have put into trying to unite this, but the efforts come across as too, well, original to meet Wikipedia guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As an editor who substantially rewrote the article during AfD, I found that the topic meets GNG. I had no concern when working on the article whether it actually would meet GNG, because my intent was to improve the article and copy the content for my own use (on my blog or otherwise, as the content will easily get hits where-ever posted) if the article got deleted. My !vote is based on the sources, not on my imperfect attempt to improve the article. Too many !votes completely misconstrue "Straight pride" as a happenstance slogan instead of a documented recurrent phenomena response to gay pride events over a 20 year period. No less so, by way of analogy, than white pride is to civil rights advances. A few editors have wrongfully elevated the single t-shirts for sale at a Tea Party event in the article, misleading other editors in this discussion to thinking its only a coatrack of sorts.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Keep. The article has a few "synth" issues, but they do not involve any exceptional logical leaps outside the range of the average reader - it should be clear that "straight pride" and "heterosexual pride" and even "Heterosexual Day" are relatively synonymous. I understand that after a long period of some editors targeting gay topics for unreasonable deletion proposals, and even making trouble for the authors of some of these pages, there must be a strong urge to "get back" at them by similar actions; nonetheless, this is still the grand encyclopedia of mankind and we must focus on ending politically motivated deletion altogether, not settle for merely taking a share of it. Wnt (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article you will see random events from the web, inlcuding "Straight Pride", "Straight Pride Movement" and "Straight Pride protests" as a backlash to "gay pride" "gay people" and "gay rights movement" and WP:Synth linking them all together. All that article is is a random list of events where straight pride was used or where they claimed to be a straight pride protest. It is a backlash, nothing more and not an article. At the most basic, it is a list of things that happened or were reported to have happened. That does not pass WP:Notability, WP:Synth, WP:OR and the arguments for it to not be merged/deleted still do not change this. Thanks Jenova20 13:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia, synthesis is making statements that were not in / from the sources. The mere coverage of different areas, history, aspects, events regarding regarding a topic in an article is the norm, not synthesis. The criteria that they all have to be unified into a single organized movement in order to be a proper article topic or in order for them to be in the same article simply does not exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I favor North8000's opinion, on which I've acted at times, for example when I added information about inverse sodium hydride to the sodium hydride article. Others do the same thing when they merge a BLP1E into an article about an event, or when they include pictures of chocolate eggs in Easter egg. I can sort of see the other point of view here, but I'm not ready to agree with it; I think that if a phrase is so obviously reinventable that many people reinvent it, that makes it just as notable if not more so than if one person invents it and it spreads.

Now if you could say that no single one of the Straight Pride events had enough notability to pass GNG, I might be open to persuasion, but I don't think that's really the case. As long as one meets it, the others are acceptable parallels to document.

Actually, a pretty close parallel I started was Jin Qian Cao, which is a traditional Chinese herbal medicine which can be any of half a dozen herbs named (mostly) after different regions of China. I started that as just a basic stub so I could keep track of which was what if I went back that way again, and I could expand it, but I don't think I should have to. I don't think I should have to start new articles (or sections of existing articles) on Sichuan Da Jin Qian Cao, Guang Jin Qian Cao, etc., and then revise my work to a mere disambiguation page, especially when there is some interchangeability in how these herbs are sold and used. The same should be true of "Straight Pride" movements. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May we assume that your "keep" vote is also "politically motivated", or is that merely an unsourced attempt to be derisive of the editors who have been arguing for deletion? If all these things were synonymous and both related and significant as a single topic, we would expect to find sources on that. This article is about a "slogan", and it has said so from the very beginning (of this version; I cannot speak to the article of the same name that got deleted from an earlier AfD). If it is not about a slogan, then what is it about? If it is about a "phenomena", then where is the source on this as a phenomena?

As for North8000's claim that synthesis is merely about making statements, I recommend that that editor reread WP:SYNTH; it is not just about statements made, it is also about implications created, as is done by the lumping of things together without source for the linkage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's meaningless and insulting to just point to an entire policy and say that I should "re-read" it and imply that it establishes your point; I'm very familiar with it., and it does not refute what I just said. It is very clear (with examples) about what it means by not synthesizing by juxtaposition etc. And there's nothing in there to support your theory that mere presence in the same article constitutes wp:synthesis. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they didnt just point to an entire policy and say "re-read it", they explained how you are misinterpreting it. Its insulting to misrepresent other people's actions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I confused you. You said "synthesis is making statements", I pointed out that it wasn't just about making statements but also about creating implications, which are things that are suggested without being stated, and directed you to the guidelines, which clearly state that it includes implications. As for whether the article engages is and relies on such synthesis of implication, I feel that it does. We create a topic that uses some sources which say what "straight pride" means in those context, define that as the topic of the article, and then find examples of using the term whether or not it's what it means in that context. Is "straight pride" used most frequently as an anti-gay slogan? That seems probable. But if we throw in examples where we do not know that to be the case, then we are creating the implication that they are anti-gay uses, which is WP:SYNTH, and if we are using those examples to paint the picture of the preponderance of the "phenomena" of the use of the term "straight pride" as an anti-gay slogan, then we are relying on inappropriate synthesis to justify the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I'm not sure I'm following your argument any more. Are you saying that this is SYNTH because we're not sure that the reported events are examples of anti-gay use? Because I'm pretty sure that most if not all of the available references are describing the events as opposing gay pride. It's not us making that inference, it's right there in the sources. Diego (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're not sure that all the uses are anti-gay. Some are, some are apparently simply against specific group celebrations (Yellowknife), some are reports of people being offended by their belief that the slogan is anti-gay without any note on what the source believes (the Michigan Tea Party shirts), and some things have been added in (and used in claims that their existence supports the article) without any sourcing at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we require that all uses are anti-gay? If some are, as you just admitted, that's enough to link them to the "opposition to gay pride" concept that is described by reliable sources and one of the main aspects of this article. If you want to focus on one single topic instead of all the related meanings of the term that would be fine, but even then that's not a reason to delete the whole article, only to remove those events where the anti-gay theme is not clear. Diego (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is on straight-pride-the-anti-gay-slogan (as the article's introduction currently states), then anything we put in here about "straight pride" we're labeling as an antigay use by implication; if it's not actually anti-gay, then we've got synthesis leading to falsehood. If folks want an article on something else, that's not what this article purports to be, and editors' descriptors of what they're aiming for as a "phenomena" have been lacking in reliable sources covering that "straight pride". If you want an article on "opposition to gay pride", there's certainly a case to be made for that, although it still might be served better by being in context as section of the gay pride article. -Nat Gertler (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with the accuracy of the article's introduction, those are dealt with by discussing it at the talk page and fixing the sentence, not by proposing the article for deletion. Diego (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My "keep" vote is political in the sense that I am an inclusionist - I strongly oppose removing articles because someone doesn't like them, they're "unsuitable", they're "cruft", etcetera. Wikipedia should have the simplicity of the uncarved block, so I oppose people carving into it, regardless of their intentions. Wnt (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'm a deletionist and I have been arguing for keep on this one. It seems to me to be a genuine, if minor, social movement. Efforts to delete it or merge it with "gay pride" seem to be as much a form of affronted denial as an honest effort to organize the project and assign due weight. We have incidents across North and South America, commercial products, news reports, protests and counter-protests. I mean, we've got an article on the kid who voices Boots the Monkey from Dora the Explorer. Straight Pride is questionable, certainly, but notable. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's hard to maintain that straight pride doesn't exist as a concept when it even gets parodies. (Chill out and don't take the linked article too seriously, I just wanted to relax the heated debate with a good laugh). Diego (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely such parodies are just random occurrences!!! :-) This is one of the oddest AfDs I've seen in some time. The continual idea that only "movements" merit articles is perplexing. Is Keyboard Cat a movement? Cuz its time for the cat to play off this AfD either way.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard cat is a well referenced and notable topic, granted it has plateaued. Straight Pride is a badly named article, which does not specify if it is a list, a bunch of incidents, what any of it means, and with not one ounce of notability outside LGBT rights opposition and homophobia. You're trying to create a movement from nothing but separate incidents of people protesting - again LGBT rights opposition and homophobia. The equivalent would be getting people to walk down the street with banners saying purple pride and getting in the papers of a small town, then doing it a few more times and linking them as a movement in breach of WP:Synth, WP:OR. Thanks Jenova20 22:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Nobody is trying to create a movement; and the article notability is based on LGBT rights opposition and homophobia. If the people with purple pride banners got noticed by a Massachusetts Governor's Commission, the Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, The Advocate and numerous other professional newspapers and writers, sure, it could have its own article; that's the standard for inclusion at Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not creating anything, the "creating a movement" comments are bullshit. You start your purple pride article, or go praise Keyboard Cat Jesus, I'll stick with what's actually notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not the criteria for inclusion. Being in small scale media adds a small value of notability but it's the reason why it's notable that makes it encyclopedic overall and there isn't one for these scattered incidents in the Straight Pride article other than multiple allegations of LGBT rights opposition and homophobia. Thanks Jenova20 23:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, if there are multiple allegations of LGBT rights opposition and homophobia, why shouldn't that be the reason why it's notable? It seems to be the reason why it's covered in-depth by reliable media, which is the criteria for inclusion. Diego (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to LGBT rights opposition - "Straight Pride" just a knee jerk counter-slogan, not a distinctive movement in and of itself. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where folks are coming up with criteria like everything in it needs to be a unified/ linked/organized/unified etc. movement in order to be an article subject. There is no such criteria! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is in any practical application of WP:IINFO and WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not. Do too. Do not. This is where the level of debate has come. Please, find new arguments - or at least bother to explain the argument you're making, - or let it go and wait for the closing admin to digest the conversation. Diego (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then contribute to it instead of labelling everyone who posts anything about policies this "article" breaches as an infidel. We're only here in the first place because of knuckle dragging and refusal to accept reality. And your wanting every policy explained to you rather than reading them yourself is just a way to continue this. Jenova20 08:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of explaining policies, it is a vague claim that one exists. My comment (briefly) was a statement that no "unified/organized movement" standard exists regarding article existence/deletion. And an opposing view that claims that it does exist. Such would be expected to point to the specific part supporting that claim. Red pen's response vaguely implied that it did but then referenced an overall redirect to a policy which does not even relate to article existence/deletion and a section of another policy that says nothing related to such an requirement. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal ~~attacks~~allegations; I'm only commenting about the quality of the arguments posted, not the people who made them. Explaining how a policy relates to an article is the bare minimum expected from commenters at AfD, we even have an essay explaining why "read the policy" is not a convincing argument. Red Pen of Doom made an assertion that practical applications of SYN and IINFO require us to find an unified movement to document the concept of straight pride. I'm asking this editor to explain why we should require such thing, when nothing like that is written in the policies linked to; otherwise that claim won't hold any weight in the process to build consensus. Particularly I find that the arguments given so far in that respect at this discussion are not realistic and contrary to how many other articles are created and sourced, but I was expecting that the argument potentially had some more insight that could be used to improve the article and/or Wikipedia at large. Diego (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why the link to WP:IINFO would have been confusing. It does not spell out "Wikipedia is not just a collection of indiscriminate information." in the way that I remembered it. Trying to find out where that guidance is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That statement comes from WP:NOTE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but the NOTE just leads back to IINFO -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2012#District 12. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Plummer (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:Politician, unless I'm missing something? Arbor8 (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not held any significant political offices; being a candidate alone does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2012#District 12 until the election, restore if he wins. Absolutely no reason to lose content only to possibly have to start from scratch so soon. Dru of Id (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as above. Coverage is routine for electoral bids, has achieved zero notability outside these runs. We're going to see more of this as we get deeper into election season; I touched off a shit-storm two years ago regarding people who were known only for running in an election and nothing else. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep- He is actually well known in parts of Illinois, and he isn't some perennial gadfly or joke candidate. He raised a lot of money, has positive and negative notoriety from his last campaign, that bad TV appearance was national news and made fun of across the land. so Weak keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjm58 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or possibly Incubate: He's still in the same position as the last nomination, when the result was Delete: In 2010, he was lieutenant governor on a nominated but losing governor/lieutenant-governor ticket. (I have a copy of the original restored to User:Closeapple/Jason Plummer (politician) — it seems to me that this original has a more comprehensive point of view than the current re-created article.) It was then re-created as a new article with new content and a different POV: the creator deleted two WP:PRODs, and the article was still removed from article space for not overcoming the deletion reasons. When the article was moved to the creator's userspace, it was moved back into article space in under a week (which I guess isn't all that uncommon). This year, he's in roughly the same position he was in 2010: not a running mate this time, but with far smaller voting area, and still not a person who has ever held public elected office. Is Wikipedia:Incubation appropriate for this to hang around in until it's clear whether he will be Congressman or otherwise notable? If not, summarize in United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2012#District 12 and redirect, so that the edit history remains and can be restored if Plumber turns out to be a U.S. Congressman. --Closeapple (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now; but if he gets elected it's a decent article, so I agree with the Incubate proposal. I'd consider a keep but it seems too much like it's on Wiki to help his campaign. He should have a website for that. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unelected candidate, not independently notable (ie none of the sources are about Plummer outside of his candidacy). Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My personal inclination is that the character is probably notable, but there's clearly no consensus here. Actually adding the sources found during th AfD would be an idea though, or else no doubt we'll just be here again. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finbarr Saunders[edit]

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

Not notable, unsourced since forever, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viz (comic) - I can find no reliable sources about this character; he is not notable beyond the comic book he is from. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, and it was undone without explanation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Iconic character in British culture - seminal, some would say. Sources here, here, here, here - not to mention less reliable but relevant sources like this, this, this, this... etc. Of course, I'm not suggesting that all those sources are reliable in WP terms, but I do suggest that they show an importance of Viz to a large part of British culture, in a way that is unlikely to be fully appreciated elsewhere. The closest parallel is probably Mad magazine in the 50s and 60s (but much ruder). This and the other Viz-related articles need to be improved, but not deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So add those sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are there, and can be added by anyone. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an undiscussed blanking by an editor who's already at RFC/U over excessive deletions, and was blocked yesterday for abuse of MfD. It was also part of a run of 50+ blankings within half an hour, a timescale that allows no credible time for any assessment of each article. They've now abandoned AfD, Prod, CSD and have resorted to simply blanking articles without any attempt at consensus-based discussion. If you wish to see why the redirect was "undone for no reason", then read the additions at RFC/U.

Within their indecent hurry, they presumably missed the OED citation that was already here.

As to whether it's a notable article, then Viz is a comic that has run since the mid-80s. Many recent characters are indeed a stretch to believe their notability. However some of them (most of which appeared in the first dozen issues of Viz) have since entered UK popular culture, either by name or catchphrase. This is just one of those seminal (fnarr, fnarr) characters. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Viz (comic)~~List of Viz comic strips. Notable enough that a brief summary at the Viz article is in order, but it doesn't look like we can really have a properly-sourced article here.--Michig (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC) The list looks the best place to summarize those strips where we don't have enough for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that approach is that merging existing articles into existing long lists tends to produce unfeasibly large articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooohh err, Buster! 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fnarr fnarr.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources out there for this topic but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a search engine and so citations are only required for especially controversial points. And AFD is not cleanup as our policy is to maintain articles in mainspace where they may be worked on as and when needed. If the nominator can't be bothered to add citations then he should not expect anyone else to do so. Warden (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Certainly comic strip characters can be notable: here's a sourced example. So how about this one? Ghmyrtle: Sources here, here, here, here. I looked at each one. Two don't display anything about the character (because I'm at the other end of Eurasia?); two others barely mention him. I don't even know what it means for a character to be "iconic" or "seminal" (as claimed above), but the gist seems to be that he's notable. I'm very willing to believe that he is. Well, let's see some evidence for the claim. ¶ Above: The sources are there, and can be added by anyone. Then enough of them to demonstrate that the article merits retention can surely be added by a group of people who think that the article is worth retaining. (As for the OED link, it says very little indeed, perhaps nothing, about the character.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being cited by the O.E.D. is clear evidence of notability outside of the world of comics.TheLongTone (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to List of Viz comic strips. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide states NOTE: It is advisable to read WP:N and WP:GNG first and try to see if the character is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. -- Trevj (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viz (comic) . SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Ace[edit]

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

Not notable, unsourced since forever, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viz (comic) - I can find no reliable sources about this character; he is not notable beyond the comic book he is from. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge discussion can (and probably should) take place on the article's talk page. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 18:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cockney Wanker[edit]

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

Not notable, unsourced since forever, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viz (comic) - I can find no reliable sources about this character; he is not notable beyond the comic book he is from. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to the Viz article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge to Viz (comic). Enough sources exist for a brief summary, but probably not a standalone article, e.g. [20], [21], [22]. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general keep argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmer Palmer and further comments re the nominator's blanking of fifty Viz articles in half an hour, his ongoing RFC and recent block for deletion abuse at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finbarr Saunders.
Like many of Viz' older and long-running characters, the character and the hurtfully crude stereotypes they portray, have since entered UK popular culture. Northerners no longer refer to "cockneys" but to "cockney wankers". Michig's cites indicate just how widespread this cartoon character has become as the general shorthand for a particular sort of East end stereotype. Time Out (who are a RS for much of the popular cultural zeitgeist) even seemed to like it simply as the comic creation itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May not be a nice character but he is a long running Viz character and therefore has gained some notability from this alone. The article already exists and goes into more detail than the list of Viz characters. As already mentiobed the stereotype also gives him notability as well. Cexycy (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing notability with some subjective idea of worth that you have. Notability is not subjective, and neither of the things that you mention have any impact upon notability whatsoever. Notability comes from this character being documented by the world. Try pointing to where that has happened. Point to where any of the content in this article can be verified against published information produced by people who have checked their facts. The sources pointed out by Michig support exactly one sentence of this article (the third paragraph). Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Michig are quite adequate to establish notability and our policy is not to delete such notable material. Warden (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kerala Football Association. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State Football League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kerala State Football League

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

This page is not about the real Kerala State Football League which folded in 2007. You can tell from the teams said in this article to have played in this league. Teams like Eagles F.C. have never existed till after the KSFL folded. This is more about the Kerala State Football Cup which is a knock-out cup which I shall make an article for as soon as I find more sources on it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25. Snotbot t • c » 18:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in India as a probable search term/blue link, but I don't see any evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 18:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kerala Football Association - the preparation of a relevant District/State Football Association page is perhaps a better redirect for this type of article. I will leave the India experts to develop the new article.(League Octopus 12:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC))

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^confabulate 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tripura Football Association. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agartala League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Agartala League

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

This is not the top state league of Tripura which is the state this league is in and thus is not notable as the only notable leagues in India are the I-League, I-League 2nd Division and any top state league no district league or city counts as notable. The only notable city or district leagues are the Mumbai Football League and Bangalore Super Division because they are considered the top state league of of there respective state associations. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in India as a probable search term/blue link, but I don't see any evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 18:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25. Snotbot t • c » 19:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tripura Football Association - the preparation of a relevant District/State Football Association page is perhaps a better redirect for this type of article. I will leave the India experts to develop the new article. (League Octopus 17:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC))

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^converse 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I guess he doesn't get paid for this one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nogi Industries[edit]

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

Another of the Expewikiwriter paid group account articles. The sources don't really scream "notable" to me; I may be wrong, I'm not sure how you judge the notability of a clothing company specialising in a fairly obscure sport, so I'll turn it over to AfD to decide. It'd need a good clean-up if it is going to be kept. 86.** IP (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads more like an ad than an encyclopedia article. Sponsoring events and athletes is not an indication of notability. There's really no claims of notability for the company and no independent coverage of it beyond the fact that it exists and makes clothes. The company is already mentioned in the article on its founder Chris Brennan and I don't think there's much to merge from this article into that one, but merging it would be better than leaving it as it is. Papaursa (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to show this company is notable. Apparently it was written by a paid PR person and that's how it reads. Astudent0 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Thu Huong[edit]

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

Article was deleted after BLPPROD process and then recreated. It has been speedy deleted under A7 twice in the past two days for not having any claims of notability. The most recent recreation had its A7 nomination declined, so we are at AfD. This appears to be a new actress with minor roles, insufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion WP:A7. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete virtually no content. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry PinkFloydhead but it takes more then simply existing to get an article here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford Brewing Company[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY, won't be opening for another five months, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources apart from some local press coverage. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - has already been speedy deleted once under db-corp. New small brewery like thousands of others with nothing notable about it. noq (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford Brewing Company is a legit business, owns the building, in the middle of construction, and filing taxes for sales made in 2011. Construction on the taproom is complete in June 2012 and doors open to the public in July, this is all notable as it is a physical actual entity doing business unlike 'thousands of others'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkFloydhead (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it looks like it will definitely be a legitimate business, but there's no indication of how it's notable enough to be in an encyclopedia: please have a read of WP:COMPANY for more information on what sort of businesses get included in Wikipedia. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

definition of notable per wikipedia - "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " Multiple websites and news organization links have been provided, more exist, and more are coming. Appears to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkFloydhead (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A brewery that has not started brewing reported in a couple of blogs, a local paper and a local radio stations local news website. Not really significant coverage is it? noq (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SIGNIFICANT to the local community, the city of Rockford, the City of Grand Rapids, and to the Craft Beer industry of Michigan -- YES. Rockford Brewing Company is a current operating business by the laws of Michigan, has a liquor license by the laws of Michigan, pays taxes to the State and Federal Government, has 6 significant bank accounts, has a legion of fans on Facebook, owns a building, owns a significant amount of equipment, employs three people, has hosted multiple charity events, and continues to grow. Anyone disputing and over-analyzing the word 'significant' needs to spend at least 1 hour away from their laptop screen and get out and see the sun once in awhile. It's good for ya! Too much computer time bad! bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkFloydhead (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... but not significant to Wikipedia. A small brewery that does not brew is not significant to anyone. Having a building, or a license or paying taxes (like most people and companies do) having bank accounts - like most people and companies - employing the grand total of 3 people - less than most pubs/bars, continuing to grow? Wow, what will it be like when it actually starts producing something other than hot air? noq (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coq, you sound like a bitter disgruntled person with two much time on your hands.

Comment Can we please keep this discussion WP:CIVIL, and avoid disparaging remarks? Thank you. Scopecreep (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

definition of notable per wikipedia - "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " Multiple websites and news organization links have been provided, more exist, and more are coming. Appears to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkFloydhead (talk • contribs) 12:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for it to stay, although my userID may be perceived as biased. Appears that regardless of this outcome, the brewery will open doors to the public in July 2012 and the page would be created at that time if not allowed earlier. comment added by RockfordBrewing —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Just being open would not automatically make it notable either. I see nothing to suggest that it would become notable then. Maybe in the future it would become so but most small brewers never reach that level. noq (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed like how Mr. Wikipedia Noq gets to decide the definition of "Notable", against actual Wikipedia policy. Top notch!RockfordBrewing —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Hmmm - Where in Wikipedia's policy guidelines does it state that existence = notability? From my reading it seems that the exact opposite is stated. It also seems to me that a read of WP:SOCKPUPPET by RockfordBrewing and PinkFloydhead might be appropriate. noq (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Craft breweries have a presence in a lot of secondary sources (trade publications, press in Michigan, etc.), that's not included here. The TBDs in the infobox is a tip-off that this isn't ready. Just bring the article back when you've racked up some press coverage, include images of the product/functioning facility. No biggie. Prburley (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Read Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill - this is a small enterprise with nothing notable about it. it's not even producing its main product yet! At present it could qualify for speedy deletion under 'blatant self promotion'. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Astorija Hotel[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel. I am unable to find any reliable source citations to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2359 Media[edit]

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

Previously deleted as a PROD on March 13, previously deleted before that as G11. No reliable sources to establish notability of the subject of this spammy article. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article clearly written by an SEO buzzwords 'expert' who is only using us to spam about a non-notable startup. Nate • (chatter) 19:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 228 search results without a single non-promotional independent item where this company is the main topic. Dru of Id (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was about to list it myself. Non-notable self-promotion. Whouk (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11: exactly the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Landa[edit]

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

Does not appear the meet the notability criteria for a biography. Appears to be a lawyer/solicitor engaged in doing what a lawyer does, but there is no evidence here of having done anything noteworthy enough for inclusion in a general encyclopedia. Also, clearly COI autobiography, created and edited by editor named "David Landa". Zad68 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Order of Australia Medal" looks like it might be noteworthy until you go to the page that maintains the database of awardees and see that it has over 240,000 entries. Zad68 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look's Music International[edit]

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

This isn't an actual record label, it was a vanity press for a single amateur artist named Pete Holly (deceased) whose own Wikipedia article was recently deleted for the same reason this one should be. Fails both WP:MUS and WP:ORG, orphaned article, no reason to keep. Kojiclutch (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears wholly promotional. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. -- Trevj (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grow Academy[edit]

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

This is an article that keeps being recreated by people with COI, including one suspected instance of socking. It is purely promotional and hase been deleted as such at least once. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: non-neutral text that fits the profile: ....purpose of improving the technical skills of the underprivileged in the fields of social media, web design, SEO and crowdsourcing. That's what the underprivileged need, I guess: search engine manipulation. 'References' are to recycled company announcements. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the opening sentence as you suggested. I assure you that my purpose was not to promote "search engine manipulation", but to give an example of how new industries in South Africa can provide the underprivileged with what they need: jobs. Please let me know if there are any further issues I can correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.prince1990 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The coverage I found appeared to be comprised entirely of press releases. Portions of the article are copied directly from the org's website. None but shining hours (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shitala Maa ki Arti[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable evidence of notability. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the article Shitala as the title of the article Shitala Maa ki Arti in Hindi translates to prayer of Goddess Shitala-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No merge There are hundreds of hymns, shlokas, aratis dedicated to every Hindu deity. Only few warrant an article. This is not one of them. No proof of notability found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on several grounds (1) No evidence of Notability (2) Wikipedia is not a hosting service for poetry in any language (3) the poem's presence here is a copyright violation (although it was probably uploaded by its author, this is not confirmed). AllyD (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Quite straightforward. Secret of success 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy O'Sullivan[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with no rationale given. Player has not made his first team debut therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also delete Jonathan Meades (footballer) for the same reason. Number 5 7 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Jonathan Meades article hasn't yet to be PROD'd so don't think it should be included in this AfD. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been PRODed by me. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This article is unreferenced and shows no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Since Mr. O'Sullivan is yet to make his pro debut, the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wye weather station[edit]

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

Contested prod. There have been two merge requests for this article as the content is not notable for a standalone. However, it is not worth merging as the place no longer exists - it was last mentioned by the Met Office in 2000, but there are no sources on when it ceased existing. Possibly when Wye College (the presumed owners from given co-ordinates) was vacated around 2009. There is only one source for the station, and that is the Met Office who simply provide some data from the station. The data itself may be of some use in a local article, but the weather station is not. If there were more verifiable information about it, then that piece of information could be included in the relevant article - such as saying that "Wye College had a weather station from 1912 to 2009", but we don't have that information, and any supposition would be original research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arrangements like this where educational institutions, private individuals etc have been able to submit their weather observations to form part of the climatological record have existed for years and relatively informal. There are instuctions here on how to do it today. There would have to be special reasons for an individual station to be notable, for example because it had played a significant part in climate recording over a very long period. --AJHingston (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge: merge climate table into Wye, Kent article. No reason for this article to exist separate the town's article, and it would stand as an implausible redirect. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AJHingston. Not too keen on a merge. A village does not need weather stats. Weather stats should only be used for a much larger geographical area. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that the Met office records its data doesn't make it of note. No real need to merge the weather data unless Wye, Kent has a notable microclimate outwith the norms of the larger Kent region. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (but do not keep a redirect). Not every village has a weather station. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - fleeting references to it but not enough for its own article. Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 22:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If anything is merged, then the article's history and a redirect must be maintained , please see WP:MAD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no threshold of originality here, any editor can present the source data in a table in the target article without the need for a copy and paste from the source article. As such an equivalent to a merge could be achieved without requiring a redirect/history retention. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diverse youth advisory council[edit]

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

Unsourced, "multiple issues" since 2009, fails WP:NONPROFIT i.e: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." also fails additional considerations as it is not a "Nationally famous local organization".Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see above. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Group is "on hiatus" which really means it's gone. PK T(alk) 23:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vermilion Editions[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent RS on this particular company (there are other entities with the same name), and no record this film production company has ever produced anything. The director is also not notable (and I have nominated him and his non-produced film for deletion too). Michitaro (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. There's so many web hits for the publisher of the same name it's hard to be certain, but there doesn't seem to be any RS coverage for this film company. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources speaking about this firm in any detail would seem to have it fail WP:CORP. The creation of ths article seems closely tied to that of I Am A Curious Gaijin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Article does not even assert notability, and lacks third-party sourcing. --DAJF (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masaaki Fujimori[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Only minor credits on IMDb, and sole film has been in production since 2007 (I have also nominated it for deletion). No RS on this person and activities as filmmaker or maker of commercials or music videos. Michitaro (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Being director and producer of "over 100 music videos and commercials in the United States" is notable ONLY if such has received significant coverage in reliable sources... and so unless this was under some other name, it is not notable. Being a "tombstone designer" has no inherant notability, unless doing so receives significant coverage in reliable sources. Being a "sports journalist " carries no inherant notability unles doing so is covered in reliable sources. Being a "filmmaker" carries no inherant notability unles being so is covered in multiple reliable sources. With the lack of any source speaking about individual in ANY fashion, we have a WP:BLP that suffers from a lack of verifiability. If Japanese-language reliable souces are brought forward, I can reconsider. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NAC. I am boldly closing this as a redirect. If there is anything worth merging the history is still intact. No need for two articles on the same subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Mickey: The Power of Illusion[edit]

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

A similar, superior article exists elsewhere on Wikipedia, under Epic Mickey: Power of Illusion. Two articles on the same topic are not necessary. Article contains few references, and those that exist bear little resemblance to what they are supposed to be referring to. Rutabagafacefool (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 2. Snotbot t • c » 08:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close. This is the wrong forum. See WP:MERGE instead. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Am a Curious Gaijin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF. Film has not been released (official website still says "Coming Soon" even though Wikipedia page was created in 2007), and there are no third party reports on this film or signs it will actually be finished or released. Michitaro (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even its IMDB page has been deleted. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete web page says "coming soon" and IMDB page deleted. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, probably not existent; see also AfD for its production company Vermilion Editions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have also started an AfD for the director of this film, Masaaki Fujimori. Michitaro (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this film seems set to take a Gaijin's (outsider's) look at sexuality in Japan, the topic currently lacks the sourcing to show notability. However, if Japanese language sources come forward, I am open to reconsideration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User-requested with this edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Henderson[edit]

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

Although the article content is currently blanked pending an ongoing discussion of copyright status, there's the deeper problem that was identified by Theroadislong on the talk page: it's difficult to verify any of the information in the article. This is the PR biography of the subject, who has become quite angry and attacking over this issue and a related issue at Kit Bigelow. I think the right thing to do is delete this article without prejudice against someone independent of the subject recreating it at some future date if he's in fact notable. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, the article refers to the "Author, Journalist, Communications Strategist, Brand Journalism Advisor" not the chemist of the same name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as far as I can see (the chemist isn't obviously notable either). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 188[edit]

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

Non notable incident not worthy of a standalone article, fails WP:PERSISTENCE and does not meet WP:AIRCRASH. PremKudva^Talk 11:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I feel that there is some long term significance to this event however it may not justify having an article dedicated to it. However, I can not understand how WP:AIRLINES applies in this case.Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry corrected to AIRCRASH from AIRLINE, I corrected it to AIRLINE earlier since this was not an accident and just an incident, noted that AIRCRASH also includes incidents.--PremKudva^Talk 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom has is exactly right. It happened, it got reported on, it went away.....not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PERSISTENCE....William 16:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I"m also neutral on this one, although it doesn't pass WP:AIRCRASH I don't believe it should be deleted because of that. I also don't believe it is WP:PERSISTENCE either. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a closed AfD discussion. Further discussion here is inappropriate. WP:DRV is the place where discussion should be undertaken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That incident led to some changes in the rules for the cockpit crew. Since you've zapped this article, what's the article containing that info? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest undeletion or deletion review, do you have sources to verify that claim? JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you userfy the article under my account, so I can read it and see what, if anything, can be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions that the FAA revoked the pilot certificates, and that the ATC was rebuked for not alerting NORAD in the stipulated 10 minutes, no other procedural changes is mentioned.--PremKudva^Talk 10:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking up information on this flight... It's factual, covered by multiple sources, I'm interested enough to search for it four years later and I doubt I'm the only one (since pilot error currently in the news again with the Asiana crash). What more do you want? 71.58.222.181 (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 66.31.46.165 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been resubmitted via Articles for creation as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northwest Airlines Flight 188 and in its present form it may pass WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NEWSEVENT, including WP:PERSISTENCE imo. I am seeking opinions on what to do with the AfC article, can it be passed or is undeletion or a deletion review of the old article a better option? Ochiwar (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too am at a loss regarding what to do with the article. I had proposed this article deletion since there was no loss to life, no loss to aircraft, and no major changes to policy or equipment, or not notable on its own as per WP:AIRCRASH. I came to know this when article Indian Airlines Flight 557 was deleted even though it had a hull loss. So since it was a hull loss it was mentionable on the airline page. In the Asiana case above there was a hull loss and loss to lives and so automatically became notable.

These articles come up during search when new accidents come up, until which they fail WP:PERSISTENCE. Perhaps WP:AIRCRASH should be modified to allow such incidents/accidents to have a full article. Especially since they generally are well written and sourced. --PremKudva^Talk 10:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the AfC article show that the incident is still being covered in news and scientific literature up till December 2013 so I do not think WP:PERSISTENCE is being failed. The article in AfC also passes WP:AIRCRASH because the incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry (See refs of the AfC article). Besides, according to WP:AIRCRASH, it it is recommended that WP:AIRCRASH not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Ochiwar (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NAC. I am boldly closing this as a redirect. If there is anything worth merging the history is still intact. No need for two articles on the same subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Mickey: The Power of Illusion[edit]

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

A similar, superior article exists elsewhere on Wikipedia, under Epic Mickey: Power of Illusion. Two articles on the same topic are not necessary. Article contains few references, and those that exist bear little resemblance to what they are supposed to be referring to. Rutabagafacefool (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 2. Snotbot t • c » 08:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close. This is the wrong forum. See WP:MERGE instead. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 13:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie (character)[edit]

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

Non-notable character of film. Repeated appearances of the character is only because the film is repeatedly remade in three languages. The character on its own is not notable. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There must be thousands of characters named Jessie, what makes this character special and notable making it standing out from the others? Google Search doesn't mention this particular character even once. Johannes003 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jessie is a common name, both in real life and in fiction. Right now the article just reports the existence of one fictional Jessie. If there is something to say about her from reliable sources that might be the basis of an article, but with a more specific title. Borock (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jessie#Media, where there is a list of characters called Jessie. Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not notable enough to even merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to main dab as ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). There are tons of fictional Jesses (not just the Indian one), and they are already covered on the main dab page. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As explained in the stub's linked articles, in a few recent Indian films there was a recurrance of a "Jessie (character)" named "Jessie Thekkekutu" who was been played by Trisha Krishnan (2010), Samantha Ruth Prabhu (2010), and Amy Jackson (2012). However, I see no coverage anywhere of the character herself, and so the topic fails WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jessie#Media and remove all links to it. Delete Jessie Thekekuttu and Jessie Thekkekutu. TimBentley (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebBiographies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

seems to have been closed for over a year without anyone noticing. very small website Shii (tock) 13:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Website no longer works. Previous sources were not over a long period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iglooflame (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it being defunct isn't necessarily an issue, as far as I can tell it never really got off the ground at all. The original AFD says it had an "alexa rank over 100,000 for 5 months" even in its heyday, and it seems to have been one of countless thousands of forgotten contenders in the 'let's make another Myspace' gold rush of the mid-2000s. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRODUCT. Further refs:[23][24][25][26]. -- Trevj (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Jennings[edit]

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

Non-notable public figure, all references are either created by himself or IMDb which is unreliable. KingMorpheus (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 18. Snotbot t • c » 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Red Box New Media not to be confused with Redbox (http://www.redbox.com) ~dee^(talk?) 08:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a fine guy, but that doesn't make you notable. The lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties is the big issue, with the use of primary sources and self-promotional wording of the article in second place. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EBuddy[edit]

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

The article covers two topics: the ordinary web-based instant messaging application and the company behind it. Neither of them satisfies the notability guidelines (WP:NCORP, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG). Most of the sources are primary, while the rest of them balance on the edge of reliability and trivial notice, or at least lack the depth of coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of coverage and achievements in the article and online that establish eBuddy's specific notability imo. ~dee^(talk?) 08:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And more precisely, what are these coverage and achievements? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The application itself has become popularly used, similar to Google Talk: Cnet, MSNBC, Red Herrings Top 100 Europe 2007, Google Zeitgeist 2007, Crunchies 2008 Awards for Best International Startup, Techcrunch -- (and based on that article, "In total, eBuddy’s mobile applications have been downloaded over 75 million times, and more than 15 million unique mobile users access eBuddy every month, sending over 7.5 billion messages." -- this isn't notable?), Business Insider, Buddy Debuts Realtime, Cross-Platform Messaging App (TechCrunch), WP Central, Talk Android...and there are more. Just take a look at the results of searching on TechCrunch and those provided by the editor Colapeninsula below. ~dee^(talk?) 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bogus rationale, bogus sources:
      1. the whole mention is "Germans will get eBuddy" — trivial mention.
      2. the whole mention is "Instant messaging apps like Google Talk or eBuddy also fit the bill but gulp battery like there’s no tomorrow and require your friends to also be logged in for you to talk to them" — trivial mention.
      3. Unless getting to Red Herrings' Top 100 Europe 2007 makes it notable on its own, this list doesn't help at all.
      4. This shows that eBuddy was more frequently searched on Google in 2007 then in 2006. Eg. from 1 hit per year it rose to 10 hits per year. Doesn't prove existence of the app.
      5. The word "startup" means that the topic is company, while the article is about software — unrelated to the subject.
      6. Downloaded over 1 million times. Unlike two previous references this one proves the existence of the software, nothing more.
      7. Raising money is financial thing about company — unrelated to the subject.
      8. "I believe it definitely has some potential" — the author didn't even see the software. Fails to prove existence.
      9. The two paragraph note that this software was released. Lacks depth.
      10. The same as previous with one paragraph and two screenshots added. Again lacks depth.
      11. The combination of all the above.
    - Neither of references warrant an article neither per WP:PRODUCT, nor even WP:GNG. Even if they would, this software is still WP:MILL case and no sources allow to write more then a stub on topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found 2 substantial reviews in reliable sources: PC World review, Macworld review. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are better. The first one lacks depth as the software failed to function properly, second even implies WP:MILL. Anyway, these sites offer download of this software, so they are not independent and thus don't help even with WP:GNG. Even if they would, WP:PRODUCT isn't met. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The PC World review article doesn't appear to offer a download of EBuddy applications, nor in it's subpages. It just has a link to the vendor's website. This is an independent source. Also, the article is about the company, so WP:PRODUCT doesn't particularly apply regarding this topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this article is indeed about company (which I doubt as only infobox and lead contain company-related info), then per WP:PRODUCT the notability of this company can't be inherited from its products, and only two of the references are at least somehow relevant, though they clearly fail to demonstrate the significant impact on humanity as required by WP:NCORP, so this article's deletion is the only possible policy-based outcome. To avoid tl;dr issue I explained my thoughts on topic in more detail in my essay WP:NBIZ. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See my comments below:
1. the whole mention is "Germans will get eBuddy" — trivial mention. - Uh, my point was that it is being popularly used.
2. the whole mention is "Instant messaging apps like Google Talk or eBuddy also fit the bill but gulp battery like there’s no tomorrow and require your friends to also be logged in for you to talk to them" — trivial mention. - see above.
3. Unless getting to Red Herrings' Top 100 Europe 2007 makes it notable on its own, this list doesn't help at all. - Sorry, but it's an award given to eBuddy for being one of "100 companies that are leading the next wave of innovation." That means something.
4. This shows that eBuddy was more frequently searched on Google in 2007 then in 2006. Eg. from 1 hit per year it rose to 10 hits per year. Doesn't prove existence of the app. - No, this is a list of the top 10 "Fastest Rising" keywords that were searched in 2007. iPhone was #1, Facebook was #3, YouTube was #6 and eBuddy was #7. That's significant.
5. The word "startup" means that the topic is company, while the article is about software — unrelated to the subject. - Lol. No, the topic is "eBuddy" -- who won the award? eBuddy did. eBuddy is the company and software. Why did it win best startup? Because the software is gaining popularity.
6. Downloaded over 1 million times. Unlike two previous references this one proves the existence of the software, nothing more. - Excuse me? The article states "eBuddy’s mobile applications have been downloaded 75 million times, and more than 15 million unique mobile users access eBuddy every month, sending over 7.5 billion messages." That's a lot more than "over 1 million times" and proves a lot more than the app's "existence".
7. Raising money is financial thing about company — unrelated to the subject. - The article mentions how eBuddy "reached 100 million mobile downloads".
8. "I believe it definitely has some potential" — the author didn't even see the software. Fails to prove existence. - Did you even read the article??? It's talking about a new version of eBuddy called eBuddy XMS and the author was saying that he got to try the beta version, which he thinks has potential -- the final version was only released in The Netherlands and Australia at the point of writing the article, pending 'worldwide' release.
9. The two paragraph note that this software was released. Lacks depth. - I was trying to prove existence to you. ;-)
10. The same as previous with one paragraph and two screenshots added. Again lacks depth. - Same as above.
11. The combination of all the above. - Strongly disputed.
All in all, I don't think you paid the sources that much attention and should dig a little deeper on the app/company's popularity--especially go through #11. ~dee^(talk?) 16:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I paid much more attention then I should have paid – this software doesn't differ enough from the rest of the similar apps. Some of the references prove existence, others don't do even that. Given that every mobile app has similar coverage, I don't see a reason to keep this article, and yet you provided no single source that could be used to satisfy WP:GNG demand. The notability of company is out of question here per WP:PRODUCT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Given that every mobile app has similar coverage" -- that's a very bold statement to make, and one that is hardly true. I believe that eBuddy does satisfy WP:GNG and have argued my case above. It's up to other editors to decide now. ~dee^(talk?) 16:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an extremely popular application on several platforms, and there are more than an enough sources to establish general notability. All the arguing about what's in the sources or how they are applied is itself evidence there is sufficient material to verify facts about the subject, and the rest is just cleanup required. Steven Walling • talk 00:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there is not enough verifiable material for a single sentence. Unlike news blog we have articles on generic topic, so our articles for pieces of software should only include detail that makes the specific subject different from its parent, and there is nearly no such detail. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRODUCT (the company does not inherit notability but its info should be retained in the product article). eBuddy XMS-SMS Rolls Out iMessage-Like Feature, Targets Indonesia and India Telcos First looks like significant coverage to me. Additional refs:[27][28][29]. -- Trevj (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep criterion #1 (nominator withdrew). Technically, two comments supported deletion; however, they may be discounted as they provided no deletion rationale whatsoever, and this isn't a poll. Also, since this was originally nominated on 19 March and has been relisted twice, it's frankly not a very speedy "speedy". Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dounia Batma[edit]

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, I believe that it is simply too soon for this talented young singer to have an article just yet. She is currently only a finalist on Arab Idol, the Arabic equivalent of American Idol. I couldn't even find enough references to prove her notability. Hesitant to use BLPPROD since I would like to see whether or not she is notable. I vote weak delete since American Idol finalists have articles, although I do not know if this extends to other versions of Idol. I will withdraw this if notability is established, but until then...Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to search her name in Arabic, and as mentioned by WikiDan61, there were plenty of hits. Google Translate didn't work properly, but based on my use of the Web preview, many of the sites were only portals or video service providers (much like YouTube mirrors or something). No independent coverage like that of Jessica Sanchez I guess. My !vote stays for now, but if more coverage is found, then I'll be happy to withdraw. Article needs some cleanup though, because the lead is practically the whole article. Needs to be bisected into sections. A merge to Arab Idol wouldn't also hurt until more independent coverage is found. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am sorry I am a bit new to this.. Well the thing is that you do have other finalist of Arabic musical competitions such as Ayman Lseeq, Haitham El Shoumali, Rahma Mezher and their pages were not harmed. Plus Dounia Batma has a very strong fan-base all over the middle-east, that some of her videos get over a million views on Youtube and you will find a lot of Arabic medias about her. She was actually broadcasted on Moroccan television today because her arrival in Casablanca prior to the final. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7RlaHzsHtw&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqtbpqW8k0&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdoul (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As the nominator has himself pointed out, the finalists of other American Idol franchises do have articles, based on the large amount of press such finalists generally receive. I wonder if the nominator thought to search for the Arabic version of Batma's name (دنيا بطمة). I found lots of hits with this search term, and although I do not speak Arabic, I suspect there are Wikipedians who can make use of these sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Uishaki (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --81.240.88.231 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could the users above that !voted delete without providing any rationale please elaborate why this article should be deleted? See also: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Putting a template at the top to warn other editors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources I found: Al Arabia News, Febrayer, MBC.net, Al-Mashhad, AlBayan (AE), Akhbaar24, Moheet, Elaph, Jawhara, DP News, Maghres, Shihan News, Nawaret News, Akhbar Annaharda....and I stopped looking beyond this. I'll make a note to add more references and clean up the article later today. ~dee^(talk?) 08:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Thanks a lot for finding the sources need. Withdrawing this now since my original concern has been addressed. But someone please cleanup the article! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koibana Onsen[edit]

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

PROD was deleted by IP, my original concern was "Appears to be an unremarkable manga, whose author doesn't even have an article. All I found are links to illegal scanlations." Yes No Bra is notable, but that doesn't extend to this manga. I might eventually read this because the main character has the same surname as a certain anime character, but I still don't believe this manga is notable, and the fact that all I found were illegal scanlation sites doesn't help at all. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is the author not having an article an issue with this title, and not the other one? Shiroi Hane (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is my reason for nomination is not becaust the mangakka does not have an article (many notable manga are like that), but because I was not able to find enough reliable sources to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are tons of articles about low-profile manga which will most likely never be noteworthy. No anime production in sight nor English licensing. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Money (Film)[edit]

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

1. no reliable sources 2. fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) 3. background info - non notable director, possibly notable producer Widefox (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: An obscure film, which had a limited theatrical release; but, still merited review, at the time, in October 1972 Box Office, and December 12, 1972 Variety; and, reviews at IMDB. The producer and some of those who worked on the film were notably in the film industry, which they portray, at the time. It serves to capture a moment in time, and place, which is all history is. It has since been included in a number of movie collections, which are readily available; and, have been further reviewed through retailer sites, such as Amazon. IMBD and TCM would seem to be reliable sources. TCM It would be a disservice to the Wiki Community to delete this brief article on this obscure film, which users might run across. Laboris Dulcedo (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reviews on IMDb do not count as a reliable source that shows notability, as IMDb itself is only considered a trivial source. (Trivial sources do not and cannot show notability.) Neither can reviews through Amazon or any other merchant site. Film database entries as a whole cannot show notability either, as they merely show that the movie exists and existing does not show notability. Also, it doesn't really matter if the filmmaker or its stars went on to notability themselves or worked on other notable productions, as notability is not inherited merely by association. WP:NOTINHERITED I'll see what I can find, but the sources given in the article at present show zero notability and could never show notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the difficulties in finding references is that the film is listed with multiple release and production dates, ranging from 1970 through to 1975, as is the case at IMDB and TCM. It is ironic, that this low-budget film, with all its video releases and television showings has possibly been seen by more people than John Carter (film); although, that may be notable, for other reasons, such as its budget.Laboris Dulcedo (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just went and wikified the thing per WP:MOSFILM,[30] but the greater issue is notability and lack of reliable sources that address this film in any detail. Books? Reviews? Aalysis? It being obscure may be its downfall. Find us a link to that Variety review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Inkster[edit]

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

Former member of SIS whose news entries appear to relate to opinion offered from his current job as a talking head. The absence of any biographical detail of himself suggests that he is not personally notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My first pass through the GNews and GBooks entries suggests that he received some significant attention in connection with the controversial 2004 appointment of John Scarlett as MI6 head, when Inkster was expected to get the post. Much of this (including what appears to have some detailed reporting in the Times) is paywalled but here are a few examples of mentions that suggest his possible personal notability [31][32][33]. This book has a little bit of biographical info.[34] Also a 2005 ref in Intelligence Online for which the Google summary indicates that he is described as the "leading China hand". The paywalls make this hard to expand quickly, but further investigation seems warranted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no question of this fellow being notable, 248 hits on GNews. 126 mentions on GBooks he gets quoted and interviewed a lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darkness Shines above. Meets WP:GNG. Lord Roem (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's Day riot[edit]

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

This was prodded by another user and subsequently the prod was declined. Not entirely sure whether this article fails WP:GNG or not, but clearly a discussion is in order. Safiel (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who declined the prod, on the basis of this BBC article. There are plenty of other reliable sources that cover this event in detail, e.g. this one and this one. The difficulty is that the article is about an event that only happened two days ago, so it is difficult to know whether this satisfies WP:PERSISTENCE. It might be best to just let this sit a few days, per WP:RAPID. Notability seems to be unclear at present. LeSnail (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Riot has had coverage on the BBC (as mentioned in what there is of the article, which desperately needs expansion), and is on CBC.ca [35][36]. It's supposedly leading to a reassessment of local zoning and curfew laws (which may result in a lasting effect), but it really seems too soon to figure out whether this will meet WP:EVENT or just fade into the background. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to something suitable (can't think of anything), without prejudice to reversion once enough time (a month, perhaps) has passed to determine if it meets WP:PERSISTENCE. Right now it's not possible for it to pass that guideline. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or major expansion Currently the article has almost no information at all, and does not show any notability. However, the topic itself might be notable and it will become more apparent if the article is expanded. Either way, the article should not be left in its current condition. JDDJS (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is absolutely no context here and Wikipedia is not a storage bin for coverage of every minor news story. The name is terrible and must go, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC) A bunch of drunk students with 11 arrests?!?! Sheeeeeeeeit, I've been to a one-day cricket match in New Zealand that tops that... Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's still getting mentioned in the media with the proposed bylaw changes [37]. I fleshed out the article and added refs to CBC and the Macleans bit about the blylaw proposal. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It was mentioned on 31 March, see [38]. →Σ τ c. 05:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Criminal cases tend to generate coverage over time simply because the initial event, charges, trial, and sentencing take some time to unfold, but that isn't indicative of lasting notability - the coverage is still ultimately routine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a minor incident that will be forgotten in a year or two; not of historical importance. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EFFECT. -- Trevj (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2fold20 play[edit]

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

Company does not appear to be notable. While there are sources, and they discuss the company...the only reason the company is covered is because they happened (by chance) to be the 50th company opened in a UK business initiative. It is the 50th company being opened that is covered (the opening attracted UK Prime Ministers); had this been the 49th company opened, there is no evidence that they would have received any coverage in reliable sources. Essentially, they're attempting to inherit notability from the business park. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the original creator also created TwoFoldTwenty at the same time; today it was redirected to 2fold20 play; if this is deleted, the redirect with history should probably be deleted as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2012 (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) 23:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is not about 2fold20 play, it's just a news event about Birmingham Science Park getting a new company. Lacks coverage asked for by WP:CORPDEPTH. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Neutral Antarctica[edit]

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

Declined A7 speedy, but the unreferenced (beyond the organization's own website) article makes no claims to notability, and a search indicates no significant coverage, no news coverage, and nothing to indicate that this group meets notability standards. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom I can't see why the speedy was declined, I would have speedied it myself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I originally requested speedy deletion and I still don't see a single claim of importance. Pichpich (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete full of primary sources. WP:ORG not established. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aboleth[edit]

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

Ridiculous article on a ridiculous subject. Luwat (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC) I now wish to change my reason for deletion: it should be deleted because of non-notability. I would also like to stress that my nomination is entirely in "good faith". Luwat (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator has now updated the deletion rationale, the person closing the AfD should discard the 3 "keep" votes based on the old version.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2 of the keep voters also objected to the Cusop Dingle's characterization of the references prior to the Nom changing his reason for deletion. Not that closing AFDs are a vote anyways, but don't presume to change other user's positions for them. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I for one am content that the AFD should be closed based on an assessment on all the arguments as they stand at the time of closure. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Significant references are all to game-playing handbooks. No evidence of significant independent reliable sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Correct to "significant" mentions. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This sounds like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination.SPNic (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the nom sounds like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination but since then Cusop Dingle has given a valid policy based reason for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - but the original intention was IDONTLIKE it. Use that to get the AFD tag on (where it can't be removed) and then LATER come up with a reasoning for it? No, that smells of badfaith to me. Remove the AFD and ask for the refs to be improved first. If that can't be done in a month then come back to this. This looks like a backdoor way to get something deleted. Web Warlock (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss the article as a whole, we are not restricted to discussing the original reason for nomination. It often happens that other reasons emerge during the discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SPNic; this is one of the most blatant cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I have seen in a while. As for the assertion that none of the references are independent, reread the reference list: the last two entries on the current reference list are not affiliated with TSR/WotC. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, of those two, one [16] mentions the Aboleth and says nothing about them other than mentioning that they fought some humans, and the other [17] is equally uninformative. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention: these are not significant coverage. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the non-paizo source as I can't access it currently due to net nanny issues. WRT Paizo, the publisher has additional entries on the creature, including published materials. The references that are there appear sufficient to support the history cited in the article, but to state that Paizo's coverage of the creature is not significant seems to me to be a failure of WP:BEFORE. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that the reference cited is not significant coverage. I made no assertion about any other possible source. If you know of an independent reliable source with significant coverage, feel free give the details here or add them to the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sangrolu - serious bad-faith nomination, "ridiculous" is not a valid reason to delete. BOZ (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator changed his reason to delete, but I agree with the assertions of those who have argued that we have significant coverage in independent sources. I disagree with Folken de Fanel's disputations thereof, and his attempts to dissuade the closer from discarding anyone's good faith responses. BOZ (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough to just "disagree", you have to explain why it would be "significant coverage", otherwise it's just unsubstanciated and unhelpful for the discussion. WP:GNG says the coverage must not be trivial, but that perfectly define the sources brought here, where the name "aboleth" is just mentionned once and never thouroughly discussed. It's all either plot summary or not even about the D&D character. Merely "disagreeing" with that without even bothering to explain why is similar to WP:ILIKEIT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I disagree with you and unless you feel that I could possibly your mind, then I don't need think I need to try to convince you that I am right. BOZ (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's significant coverage in an independent source, i.e. something not published by TSR or WoTC. Here's another decent-sized mention of the subject. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see any significant coverage, nor even real-life coverage. 1st source is only plot summary, 2nd source doesn't even appear to be related to the subject (the article is about a D&D creature, the book is about one author's creation which shares the name but is otherwise unrelated) and the coverage is anecdotal an best anyway.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks sourced to me. Maybe one or two more, but then the appropriate tag would be to ask for more sources not go directly to deleting it. I say remove the AFD tag and put in a Ref Improve one (or whatever it is called now). Web Warlock (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is not sourced enough to prove its notability. Per WP:GNG, the article needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which it does not have, and which no one here has brought yet.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject which fails WP:GNG. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required, but the only sources are either completely dependent of the subjects, or completely trivial and insignificant.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been a feature of four incarnations of D&D and many monsters are covered in independent sources. This one is of a sufficient complexity that it will be.covered somewhere....this AfD has caught me on the hop. I suspect it'll involve a paper search...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being in several editions of a game is not a criterion for notability, and "other stuff exists" and "there must be sources" are not good "keep" arguments. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note- This IP user is canvassing for keep votes. Reyk _YO! 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber. Regarding the IP, I don't think his messages are necessarily canvassing, since they are phrased neutrally. There was no implication in his remarks on my talk page that he wanted a keep vote. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They most certainly are canvassing, because the IP only contacted people who voted keep last time. Please see WP:VOTESTACKING. Reyk _YO! 06:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still seems like a strange accusation to make when the IP hasn't even !voted here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And this is a strange attempt to excuse the IP's behavior, because whether it voted or not (who knows? Maybe sockpuppetry is involved) has nothing to do with the definition of vote-stacking.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming, that is, that the IP has indeed not !voted here ... Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply trying to appeal to common sense: if the IP itself hasn't voted, then we shouldn't assume that it's deliberately trying to sway the discussion here toward one outcome. The definition of vote-stacking is another matter, and accusations of sock-puppetry should not be made without good evidence. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense says only one thing: if an IP, which has already contributed to the article, shows up and only contacts users who !voted "keep" on another D&D related AfD, then it is canvassing. You have yet to explain how the fact that the IP has not yet voted here would change that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably an IP determined that an article be kept would vote to keep it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or ask people who already voted keep in other D&D related AfDs to come here. I really don't know why you're so intend on defending this IP while this is an obvious case of canvassing. You can't deny it. It's fact. You're going around in circle, whether the IP voted here is not the issue here. canvassing has a definition, having voted in the AfD is not one of the defining criteria.Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was. The obvious point, however, is that one can't judge what is canvassing and what isn't without understanding the reasons behind someone's actions. The behavior of the IP considered overall suggests that they could be something different to what you claim they are. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever someone may think of the behavior and the intentions behind it, the action and its consequences are still here and you can't deny them. Find excuses for the IP as much as you want, it won't change the fact that this AfD has been tampered with. If this AfD closes as "keep", the issue will be raised at WP:DRV. Yes, we can totally judge "what is canvassing and what isn't", per WP:CAN, which perfectly corresponds to what the IP did. When it'll mention that "if someone hasn't voted in an AfD, it's not canvasing" then I'll agree with you. But you know it doesn't, so arguing about that is pointless. If the only reasoning you can come up with to save the article is an excuse of a disruptive behavior such as canvassing, if that's the only thing you can talk about (not article content, not reliable sourcing), then it just shows that this isn't a good article, and it reinforces the opinion I have of inclusionists and their methods.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A ridiculous AFD. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a Wikipedia policy related argument for this !vote? Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant sources outside of TSR/WOTC. This needs independent and significant sourcing not a bunch of D&D players voting keep because they like it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Is your issue the article or "a bunch of D&D players"? Web Warlock (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This needs independent and significant sourcing" SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Then say that only. Otherwise one could easily assume you have a bias. Web Warlock (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge somewhere. Yes, it is (partially) sourced, but it's still a WP:Run-of-the-mill D&D creature that seems to lack any in-depth third-party sources (WP:NOTABILITY) and non-trivial real-world information (WP:WAF, publication info is trivial). Nothing that demands a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Keen[edit]

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

Page has been tagged as questionable notability since May 2008 with no additional sources. Subject has no apparent results in Google News, and Google Scholar shows only subject's own papers and occasional citation. Khazar2 (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR criterion 3: author of at least one book that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews. See the 5 reviews quoted at the front of the paperback edition of The Benefits of Famine, or search GScholar for his name in the article title. I also get results that appear to conflict with nominator's finding that "Google Scholar shows only subject's own papers and occasional citation"; top citation counts of 603, 313, 267, which seems very high for his area, enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1. Qwfp (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, and I would be glad to withdraw the nomination. Khazar2 (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy law and ethics[edit]

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

This article has previously had an endorsed PROD but was removed by the page creator (and only major editor) without a reason being given.

Parts of this article contravene WP:NOT:

The raw laws contravene WP:NOTREPOSITORY
Definitions of words in Terminology contravenes WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. These sections should be removed and if required a link included to the entry about the word.

Perhaps a merge/redirect to Pharmacy would be appropriate? Callanecc (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and move to Pharmacy law or regulation of pharmacies - this could be a decent article, but the current article essentially re-states a few laws that regulate pharmacies, and builds an essay from that. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without a redirect for many reasons. First, reproducing entire sections of law code is inappropriate for an encyclopedia; there are other places on the Intenet where people should go for such information. As Callanecc notes, Wikipedia is not a repository for this type of stuff. Second, the article is mis-titled, it should have been called Pharmacy law in Bangladesh since that is the only set of laws it talks about. (Did the other commentators here not notice that?) Third, any attempt to create an article called Pharmacy law as suggested by Bearian would be almost impossible IMO since the laws vary so much from country to country. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "First, reproducing entire sections of law code is inappropriate for an encyclopedia; there are other places on the Intenet where people should go for such information." (1) One such place is Wikisource. Is there anything in the article that should be moved there? (2) Reproducing the whole of a statute is usually inappropriate. Reproducing whole sections of a statute it is often absolutely necessary to explain amendments to it and case law on its meaning. James500 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Second, the article is mis-titled". That is not an argument for deletion because the page name can be changed using Special:MovePage. James500 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Third, any attempt to create an article called Pharmacy law as suggested by Bearian would be almost impossible IMO since the laws vary so much from country to country." Again, that is a non-argument because you could get round that by creating a separate article for each country. Such as an article called Pharmacy law in Bangladesh. James500 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC) In fact, by this logic, the article Law should presumably be deleted as laws in general vary from country to country even more than in this particular area. James500 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOT. --Ragib (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete substantially per MelanieN. Lord Roem (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting discussion; I may go along with deletion based on how things are going. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. B music ian 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Hospital & Trauma Center[edit]

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

Non-notable small Philippine hospital. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. Terence7 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for keeping this article can be found in the article's talk page. There is little info about it on the internet, but I have seen the hospital and it is the only hospital serving its vicinity.Bill Pollard (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major hospitals, especially with medical/nurse teaching programs, are notable, especially if they draw their patients from a large area. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major hospital is automatically notable. ~dee^(talk?) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT a "major" hospital, as the article's primary contributor has acknowledged: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Jose_Hospital_%26_Trauma_Center&oldid=483920201. It's a level 2 hospital, which means it's a small hospital. Terence7 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..."it is the only hospital serving its vicinity" makes it a bit important and makes me that bit more hesitant to endorse a deletion just because we can't find more English sources online. ~dee^(talk?) 08:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete; insufficient reliable secondary or tertiary sources for the subject to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not found a great deal of new info on this hospital, but I have found enough to show that while it is small, it is one of only two trauma centers in Cavite. The other is much larger. I don't know where I should address this comment, but I think Wikipedia should not be deleting articles about any hospitals anywhere, unless the info is fraudulent, libelous, etc. To me, by nature almost any hospital, especially in a third-world country, is important enough to warrant an article.Bill Pollard (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please be careful with your referencing, Bill. You cannot use forums as reliable sources. While I can't use this image in the article, it, along with other directories that list the hospital, should be enough to prove that it is not a hoax. Similar to how schools, roads, etc are added without major "notability" or wide media coverage, a hospital (and that is claimed to be one of two trauma hospitals that serves the province of Cavite) should be worthy of inclusion imo. ~dee^(talk?) 12:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since I have not voted on this discussion yet, here is my vote.Bill Pollard (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong-Keep - Level 2 designation does not mean "smaller and not notable" it means that it does not have certain medical specialties available on-site 24/7 and will have to call them in as needed. Hospital is notable though I do agree more information is needed, not less, which is what a delete does. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 11:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Level 2 is required to fullfill some pretty "major hospital" requirements. There are not many hospitals that are able to garner a trauma level designation, this adds to the ability to refer to the hospital as a "major" hospital. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 11:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SSG Christian Bueno[edit]

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

The article in its current form should be speedy deleted as a copyright violation of [39]. However this could be fixed because I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to get that material released under a free license. But more fundamentally, this soldier does not meet the requirements in the general notability guideline or in the military-specific one. Pichpich (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With condolences and regret, Delete. Does not meet current Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The deliberate fratricide incident lacks WP:Persistence at this time, leaving no clear redirect destination. Dru of Id (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable casualty. Sad, naturally, but no more notable than the millions of others who have died in war. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Getting murdered does not make one notable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Agree with the above. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QCK[edit]

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

Orphaned, unsourced, one-sentence article. I searched "QCK morse code" and found nothing. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dubious factoid posing as an entry. Hairhorn (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been speedied, there is no attempt here to establish notability. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic, as pertaining to morse code, has not been covered in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Random bit of trivia not meriting an article. Even if it was referenced, and the march was identified, it's too trivial to stand alone but could maybe go in article on the funeral march. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bourne[edit]

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

Reason Gravityroom (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Insufficient source information with back and forth addition and deletion of information.[reply]

Delete - Barely notable, and page history shows repeated BLP violations. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Ashley[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO and is written as a vanity article by either the subject or someone close to him. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another resume. Non-notable. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The problem here is not one of notability, but one of WP:OR. The cricketing term is clearly OR (I have searched myself to find any reference to it without success) and if removed, would leave nothing in the article. The term Every man jack is well known, and an article could possibly be constructed on that phrase. In the meantime, however, I have deleted that redirect as G8 as well as it links to nothing else. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last man Jack[edit]

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

This is not encyclopaedic: it is just a phrase, about which there is nothing to be said. In addition, its supposed connection with cricket is unreferenced and rather unlikely. I haven't found any sources for the connection that don't derive from this Wikipedia article, and [40] discounts it. ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Every man Jack for which there appears to be far more sources and far better ones at that. It's possible that "Last man Jack" is a particular cricketing variation but that can be mentioned as part of a larger example about the wider used phrase. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that every man jack is a more familiar expression, and so there may be more sources. But what content is there to go into the article?

And I haven't found any evidence that "last man jack" is a popular cricketing expression - my reading is that the cricket connection is only in the supposed origin. --ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources such as reference works on idioms, and phrases and scholarly works on folk sayings then it looks like an article could be written that would be filled out though structurally similar to the source you present above. I still can't speak to the cricket usage. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a phrase which is occasionally used in speech (as noted, "every man Jack" is more common), but I could find no scholarly or other information about either version - just examples where the phrase is used. Meanwhile, the most common Google hit for "every man jack" is a line of men's grooming products! Non-notable and unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Scholarly or Other information for either version, Where did you look? There are none for "Last man Jack" but Google Books shows 40,000+ books using "Every Man Jack" and while some are uses in books there there are plenty of Idiom dictionaries, Slang Dictionaries, Common Phrase Dictonaries (both historical and current) - I see Scholarly works by Joseph Sobel, J.B. Smith, amongst others. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are plenty of hits and that is just what they are: hits. They are instances where somebody used the phrase in a sentence. If you found any actual scholarly analyses of the phrase (as opposed to definitions or simple cases of usage), please cite a reference and I'll take another look. Otherwise, it fails inclusion here under WP:DICTIONARY. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally have access to a JSTOR (or similar) account so can't say what the level of scholarly analysis about the phrase occurs in Sea-Terms That Have Come Ashore by George Davis Chase in the New England Quarterly Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jun., 1941), or Forenames as common nouns in English and French by K.E.M. George in Studia Neophilologica Volume 58, Issue 1, 1986 or Doubletalk: A Literary Pairing of The Giver and We Are All in the Dumps with Jack and Guy by Barbara A. Lehman and Patricia R. Crook in CHILDREN'S LITERATURE IN EDUCATION Volume 29, Number 2, 69-78 but the likes of Wimmin, wimps, and wallflowers By Philip Herbst, The Jack Tales coming from Afar by Joseph Sobel, do analyse the phrase in relation to the use of Jack in other phrases and contexts. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly suggests there has been some scholarly analysis of the phrase. However, if we don't have access to any of that material, it can't be added to the article, to verify or expand it - and if the article has no verified content it shouldn't be here. Right now the article is completely unverified, pure WP:OR. Like others here I am very dubious about the supposed "cricket" origin of the term, and a title you provide ("Sea Terms That Have Come Ashore") suggests that it is actually originated with sailors. But how can we put that in the article? It would be guesswork. Right now it's all guesswork. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename as suggested above. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The RS suggesting the article etymology is wrong is evidence of notability, not of a need for deletion! The alternate view should be included. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is folk etymology at its worst (since when have cricketers batting no. 11 been referred to as "jack"?). And you only have two last men in a cricket match and all the rest of the players aren't the last men, so the meaning of the term ("everyone") runs completely contrary to the alleged etymology. Given that the etymology is fanciful (or OR at best), it should be removed. If it is removed then there will be nothing left of this article that is fit for an encylopedia. We can see by the Google hits for this term that people take Wikipedia seriously and we owe it to them to remove such unscholarly balderdash before it gains more currency. asnac (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current content as it is and then Redirect to either a new article Every man Jack. I was the one who flagged this as citation needed and was going to fix the article when the World Wide Words entry went live on the net (instead of just the newsletter). WWW is a reliable source written by Michael Quinion, a recognized expert on the topic of word origins. The information on the phrase and related terms he has identified is certainly notable, but all that cricketing nonsense has to go as having no reliable sources, which admittedly leaves nothing of the current article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SPA !votes, and ironically the nominator's rationale, have been discounted. However, experienced editors have provided sound deletion rationales. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bas Godska[edit]

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

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

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

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

I think that this article isn't written in neutral point of view, it's promotional and needs in full-rewriting to make it neutral. KPu3uC B Poccuu (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view this article is well-written and well-sourced. It includes lots of links leading to other wikipedia articles as well as to external reputable sources. It's has a clear structure and looks typical for the articles containing biographies of living people. It doesnt seem to look promotional, it just clearly corresponds to the achievements of the person. Margarita

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

I reckon that this article is very interesting , having heard Bas Godska at several conferences , I think that the information provided is useful and impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabbob (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont find anything unreasonably emotional in this article. I think that corresponds to all the rules and should be left unchanged. Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreamore (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, users with only one edit vote "keep". Very good. KPu3uC B Poccuu (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability, no references. I read it and RW notability looks unlikely. I also take note that of the three supports for keeping, one is the creator, and the others are 2 are single-edit accounts. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this text, perhaps a bit of shortening lengthy paragraphs. Sufficient references to interviews and newspaper articles. Godska is sufficiently visible in the Russian and European e-commerce sector and integrated in Crunchbase (e-commerce who is who). I may have not yet any WP edits to my name, but would appreciate my opinion to be considered if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.241.190 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article establishes notability. The "External links" section is just a list of websites, not links to articles; the publications in the "Articles" section are of dubious reliability; and the "Interviews" are all on YouTube. I'm not convinced that any of that qualifies as a reliable source and I can't see any significant news coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable - must provide proper references, not just a do-it-yourself list of external links. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unclear why there's resistance against a normal publication in leading Easter European news sources, are these somewhat biased comments of previous commentators about dubious reliability based on the assumption that anything written outside in the US or UK is dubious? I see sufficient reference articles are now in please to reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrobator (talk • contribs) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly reputable and notble information sources as TechCrunch Crunchbase (moderated and cooptative publishing by journalists), Cnet, various notable conference performances, interviews by independent bloggers Popova and investor; since when is Youtube not accepted as source? trkaya 188.123.241.190 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again flashmob from one-edit accounts. KPu3uC B Poccuu (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your opinions and advice, it was helpful for the improvement of the article. But now I would like to object to its deletition. I can admit that at the beginning it didnt look perfect, but now I have improved it according to all the policies of Wikipedia: the sources are reputable as well as the articles and videos (including videos from panel discussions from the well-known marketing events, not only youtube sources). The article looks neat and well-done, the language and style responds to all the requirements of the website, so I can see no longer the reasons of deleting a full article that follows all the rules. Margarita
Delete Yet another heavily self-promoting Internet marketer; no evidence of notability and nothing I would particularly call a reliable source. Studerby (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. My how the global recession has brought out so many resumes on Wikipedia. Doesn't meet WP notability, nor do the references indicate that he ever will. Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there are more delete !votes, none of those provide reasons that are inconsistent with a redirect, now that a target has been identified. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caldicot Leisure Centre[edit]

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

Clearly nothing notable about this place $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 10:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I note that the article is "under construction". WE should wait to see what emerges, not delete unheard. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that was a week ago, and you have failed to say which notability guideline is met.LibStar (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. no relevance outside its local community. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing significant found on first five pages of Google or using Google's news searches. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caldicot, Monmouthshire#Attractions. I have been bold and merged the content of that article to make a paragraph. Having done that the article is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MindTouch. Dmitrij, by merging some of the content you have made it so that the article's history must be kept, see WP:MAD Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MindTouch, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notability company that has produced (and keeps producing) a notable product. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources which would indicate of its notability apart from its founders, employees and associated people events or its products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MindTouch seems sensible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I merged everything useful before the nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No you didn't. There should be at least a simple one paragraph section about the company that produces MindTouch if we're going to merge it. Steven Walling • talk 01:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MindTouch. There are plenty sources enough to verify the basic facts about the company and its history, separate from development of the product, but it's silly to have a separate article. Steven Walling • talk 01:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The company has produced multiple products, so it's not at all silly to keep a well-sourced and useful article about it. Jonathunder (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, this company produces only one product available in several editions and in different delivery options. Second, the single "get to know" WSJ article isn't significant coverage and dosen't hint at this company's notability otherwise then via its product; thus this reference should not be used for establishing notability per WP:NCORP, as companies notability is not inherited from their products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GFFS – Global Federated File System[edit]

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

Reason Mekleth (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a notable piece of software. In fact this is for the better part vaporware. There is no installation of GFFS on any XSEDE system. It is not even installed on FutureGrid, the testbed for XSEDE systems.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all gnews gets is the WP article. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also no mention of GFFS in any of the refs. Weird. --Kvng (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ackerman institute for the family[edit]

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

Does not adhere to NPOV and probably does not meet Notability either. AndieM13 (Leave a message!) 20:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's also a hair's breadth away from being speediable as an advertisement, with brochure-like language such as "cutting edge" and "state of the art". I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn this actually was copied directly from a brochure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and promotional. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Court Chambers[edit]

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

no indication of meeting the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. Google searches reveal nothing of significance. Sources given are not specific to this organisation. noq (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, not really seeing anything in the article or otherwise that would suggest this meets WP:ORG. Basically a legal aid office. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Findings on places like Google Scholar only reference people who work out of the office, not the importance or significance of the office itself. Lord Roem (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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