The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fleeting Magazine[edit]

Fleeting Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage. This online magazine fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reference. Jared-Phill (talk) 12:08, 27 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 based on CSD G4. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abella Anderson[edit]

Abella Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the coverage is too limited to pass the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Comment: Didn't realise this was a recreation. Nominate for a speedy then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 20 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) 23:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Senior[edit]

Chris Senior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Previously deleted by AfD in September 2007. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as hasn't played in a fully-professional league), and also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't received significant media coverage. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:35, 22 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. This one is close but even after giving no weight to User:OrenBochman's !vote, there is a weak consensus to delete. It's also an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Summer[edit]

Laura Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability under WP:GNG/WP:ACTOR can't find RS which discuss her roles via Gnews,Books,ANN articles. Does have db listings at ANN, IMDB. joe decker^{talk to me} 19:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom + I had added maintenance templates regarding sources back in December; still nothing. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, minor roles only. Not a comment on the quality of her work, but does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - Let this page stay. She had a main role in Digimon Adventure and Digimon Adventure 02 as the voice of Patamon. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, "main role" is pushing it, IMDB does not list her in the main cast, you have to go all the way to the "full cast" listing to get to her, where she is billed below "Little Girl #1", "Female Truck Driver" and "Voice Mail Operator". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:45, 9 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, ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - Janine Melnitz in The Real Ghostbusters certainly is a main role. Moreover, one of the best-known and most widely discussed aspects of the history of that series is that Summer was replaced with Kath Soucie because network executives thought Janine needed to be more of a "mommy figure" -- something not yet mentioned in the article on Summer, but alluded to in the Real Ghostbusters article. Gildir (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you be so kind as to show us some examples of where that was discussed? That would certainly be significant, if it were truly widely discussed in reliable sources. --joe decker^{talk to me} 16:14, 13 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, ‑Scottywong| confess _ 23:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not have any biographical interest lacks birth or other information BO; talk 18:42, 27 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 real argument is this: is the individual notable enough on their own - after all, notability is not inherited. WP:PORNBIO does not appear to enhance the normal notability guidelines - in some ways is actually contradictroy - the most restrictive must win. Her relationship with a "star" does not allow her to inherit notability from him, nor does redirecting to his article make sense as it's a mere speck on his overall life/career as per the arguments. As such, the arguments below lead to a consensus to delete. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capri Anderson[edit]

Capri Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capri Anderson at the time of the incident with Charlie Sheen as a BLP1E and this was endorsed at DRV. For some reason this was unsalted last month and recreated on the basis of a notability guideline (PORNBIO) that is depreciated and no longer reflective of the community's view on BLP content. Being nominated for AVNs isn;r the same as having in depth mainstream coverage and what there is is fairly negative and reflects one event. On this basis there is no justification for an article under BLP1E which has precedence over PORNBIO as there are not the sources to show the AVN nominations are independantly notable events. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your problem? Are you just going around, trying to delete articles I created? (And WP:PORNBIO is not deprecated; it's under discussion.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the nominator of the original AfD, I feel her multiple nominations establish notability beyond just that one event. Not only is PORNBIO is satisfied, so is WP:ANYBIO. The criteria flaw that the current nominator sees is apparent in ANYBIO but I don't see him arguing against ANYBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, the issues that resulted in the first delete are not present this time around. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, given her multiple AVN nominations, spread over multiple years (2011-2012), and the Sheen scandal she passes the notability criteria. – fdewaele, 13 April 2012, 14:15 (CET).
• Delete contains speculative statements which could lead to a lawsuit. WP:PORNBIO arguments not relevent as per nominator's arguements. BO; talk 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A lawsuit against Wikipedia? I doubt. Any statement is well-referenced by multiple reliable sources such as CBS News, New York Times and New York Daily News. Cavarrone (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Morbidthoughts, problems of first nom were adressed, not more a BLP1E case. And anyway PORNBIO is not deprecated, it was simply tagged with a "disputedtag" by the same nominator a few hours before nominating this article for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the prior AfD's conclusion of BLP1E. Meeting PORNBIO is irrelevant in the absence of reliable sources for her career which are absent, as they are in many cases. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not start the "PORNBIO is irrelevant" argument again. That consensus has not been met.
  • Actually, why is this discussion even still open? It's been over seven days. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Charlie Sheen. We havew negligible reliable biographical information concerning her, and her notability/notoriety, inside and outside of the porn industry, reflects little beyond her association with Sheen. An article can be spun out later if sufficient reliable coverage appears. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Charlie Sheen - fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT - a standard WP:BLP1E. Arguments that she meets WP:PORNBIO should be ignored, as pornbio is depreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as per above to Charlie Sheen. Now, I also think that WP:USUAL applies as well - She is in the early days of what might end up being quite a career. So, when she wins those AVN awards or otherwise becomes notable, then an article would be appropriate. Put another way, would we be discussing her at all if it were not for the Charlie Sheen thing? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:BLP1E status hasn't changed, pornbio is irrelevant for an otherwise non-notable individual. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as per UltraExactZZ. Currently meets PORNBIO (which is only as depreciated as AfD participants decide it is), but is unlikely to meet PORNBIO once it undergoes its inevitable tightening in the near future. Epbr123 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the tightening hasn't happened yet. And if WP:BLP1E were still the case, would the original closing admin have unsalted it (or if not that, couldn't it have been redirected to Charlie Sheen back then)? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:34, 20 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, Courcelles 23:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete or Redirect as a BLP1E who shouldn't have an article in her own right. She may well meet WP:PORNBIO, but to me that's just further evidence that PORNBIO is a bad notability guideline which shouldn't be followed. Robofish (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep almost a borderline bad faith nominations, especially when considering the publicity from the charlie sheen incident which was widely covered. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect: the pornbio stuff (alleged notability because of industry award nominations) is irrelevant, and as several others have said, the wording in PORNBIO simply doesn't reflect current project-wide standards. If it's not formally deprecated yet, let's deprecate it here and now, by demonstrating how we ignore it. For everything else in the article, the WP:BLP1E-based decision of the old AfD still applies. Thus no reason to revise the old decision. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Let's deprecate it here and now"? Come on, you're an admin; you know that's not how it works. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect:small merge with Charlie Sheen if required as per HWolf. - Youreallycan 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Sheen incident fails WP:BLP1E (and is not mentioned at Charlie Sheen, so a redirect there would not be helpful). The porn award nominations do not convey notability, and the WP:PORNBIO guideline is too disputed to reflect community consensus. Nothing else appears to make the subject notable.  Sandstein  10:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP is NOT TABLOID. As mentioned, PORNBIO is only as deprecated as we want to consider it deprecated, and I think the consensus is that it is indeed much too lax. We need not wait for a formal rule, because we make the guidelines by what we do here. When we come to revise it, what wit will say will then describe what we do. Many of our guidelines are informal guidelines because it is easier to reach majority agreement on individual cases than get the supermajority to revise the wording of a rule. I would be very reluctant to make even the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why this AfD is still even open considering it's been over two weeks, but at any rate, I've noticed that most of the people !voting "delete" are the same people that !voted that way in previous pornography-related AfDs by me; that, or were against having WP:PORNBIO at all. How about hearing some outside points of view? (And despite what those !voters may want to interpret things, not having consensus on how to change a guideline doesn't mean to ignore or delete it. When an AfD, for example, is closed as "no consensus", it still exists, doesn't it?) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:32, 28 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, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Van Leader[edit]

Josh Van Leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The player has never played at a notable level, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting notability requirements (neither general nor specific). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. As such, this article fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:35, 22 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of female supervillains[edit]

List of female supervillains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

(i) There is already the category for female supervillains. (ii) There is no list of male supervillains; having this list is thus a sexist. (iii) The list would never be complete. -- Taku (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why did you call this "3rd nomination" when there was no 2nd one? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, it depends on the matter of counting. There have been two nominations in the past. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supervillainesses (1st) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female supervillains (2nd). I don't think the counting issue is a particularly important. -- Taku (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is not sexist because most supervillians are male. This list shows the not as common supervillains. Even if it isn't ever complete, that is not a reason to delete. It is not an indiscriminate list though because the list of notable female supervillains is discriminate. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge We already have a substantial list at List of comic book supervillain debuts and I have changed List of supervillains to point to that. That list includes female supervillains such as Catwoman and Scarlet Witch and seems to do the job better. Merger into that list might be best. And, just to be sure, note that the notability of this stuff is well-established by sources such as The Encyclopedia of Super Villains which seems to treat both sexes together. Warden (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge per above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since most supervillains are male, the female gender has a special status in this field. Just as List of elected or appointed female heads of state is not female supremacist, this list is not misogynist. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep If there is a category , there should be a list unless there is some special reason otherwise. The categories (and lists) that should specify female but not male are the ones where the females are in the distinct minority, and v.v. ; if there are approximately equal numbers, there should be both. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly useful to our core readership; while the type of character may be sexist, the list is not sexist itself. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 26 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 - As has been discussed below, the article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match) (emphasis mine). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. For those voters who appear to have confused consensus with vote-counting, please see this, which clearly states that consensus is achieved by balancing the weight of an argument rather than its existance. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 143[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)).

UFC 143 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, the article concentrates more on the gossip and speculation in the lead up to the event rather than the actual event it's self, there is no attempt to demonstrate any lasting significance and fails WP:PERSISTENCE as the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets. In the absence of enduring coverage as demonstrated by coverage after the initial news cycle this event can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mtking ^(edits) 21:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking ^(edits) 21:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I use these event pages very often as a reference, and this one seems to be a pretty simple description based entry. Don't take it away! 68.44.104.37 (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)notloggedinperson[reply]
• keep don't let the vandal delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked User[reply]

Note: is a blocked account. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We are now clearly seeing some of the events being very strong keeps and some are not currently as strong (UFC 149 for example) and what is happening is we are now cutting apart the single article events and supplementing them with the omnibus. This is so stupid. It's clearly ridiculous and not working. Kill the stupid omnibus and restore the single article events and all will be good and usable for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.241.231 (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The number of wiki articles covering each UFC event is becoming ridiculous. There isn't a wiki article for every WWE event or football match ever played. I believe all these pages are basically spam article posing as legit articles to advertise the events. It isn't just the UFC either, they have WIKI articles for every event under Dream, Bellator and EVERY single MMA company in existence. Only notable events should get their own wiki page similar to as it's done for boxing events or WWE events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.97.48 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The straw arguments this guy is making could be made about most sporting events on this site.Fraggy1 (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why an annual omnibus page for UFC events? Why not organize them by decade, or by champion, or by lunar cycle? A "2012 in UFC" page is a completely arbitrary sports page. MMA organizations have already split the sport into discrete units. There's no reason to create a new organizational system with its own internal logic apart from the sport. Dominic (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article contains mostly statistics (fight results, payouts and awards) and generally lacks "well sourced prose" as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT for notable events. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MtKing's arguments apply to just about every sporting event on Wikipedia. He's very clearly just someone who doesn't have any appreciation for the sport, so to him, no MMA event is notable. Optravisprime (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Going to venture and say that this is a notable event simply for the main-event fallout alone. I'm not opposed to an omnibus, but I believe an ominbus should be in collaboration with, not replacing, event pages. Teamsleep (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of reliable sources for notability. Portillo (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events There appears to be a misunderstanding of the guidlines for events, specifically WP:SPORTSEVENT WP:MMAEVENT:

1. Individual events :are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to :take part, and the :results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse :sources that are both :independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.
2. There have been no arguments as to why this particular event is notable or long lasting,nothing about a particular fight, an outcome, and no sources to back up such a claim from my research,not to mention WP:RECENTISMThis article as it stands is almost all WP:PRIMARY in it's sourcing or failing WP:IRS
3. While MMA Fighting is certainly gaining popularity and fans at a rapid rate, it is still not even close to as popular as Football,American football,Baseball,etc. Even these sports don't :have separate pages for every championship game. For example, the AFC and NFC championship games, they occur far less often, are more notable at this time, and are all held on a single :Omnibus. This is the appropriate standard for MMA
4. Wikipedia is not a fansite,a directory,etc There are plenty of good MMA websites(many are used as sources for these articles, though they do not meet WP:IRS. That is the correct :place for this type of information and detail.I don't know all that much about MMA, if one of these pages up for deletion was a truly significant event, then show me the research and :sources and I will back you up, Think Mike Tyson biting Holy field(unless biting is commonplace) or Ali vs Foreman.
5. There appear to be significant WP:COI issues with this and other articles, if you are as big a fan of MMA as I am of Manchester United, unless you can separate yourself from that :passion, you shouldn't be editing those articles.
6. There appears to be the rumblings of WP:VOTESTACKING, and WP:MEAT Puppetry on these discussions.

Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, and regarding the above, I think you need to substantiate an allegation like Votestacking or Conflict-of-Interest with some kind of evidence beyond saying "there are rumblings." I've seen neither here. Even if sock-puppets are being used by some (I would say it's statistically probable) there are still clearly more people who want to keep the MMA pages undestroyed. Additionally, you say know all that much about MMA so what makes you qualified to judge it? I don't know a damn thing about Manchester United beyond it being a football (soccer) club and wouldn't care if every season page was merged into an omnibus, but I'm not qualified to make the distinction of what makes individual seasons notable and it doesn't effect me. Additionally, I don't know of a single MMA fansite that is a general MMA site. I am serious. Fansites don't really exist that way. There are tons of news sites, databases of varying quality, with only Sherdog's database being truly indispensable but it and the wikipedia articles are excellent complements to each other. There are pieces of information I can get from one but not the other and finding something Wikipedia is generally faster. Also, your examples of Ali vs. Foreman or Tyson vs. Holyfield are ridiculous if that is your standard for "notable." You take the most famous boxing match ever and the most scandalous one from the last three decades as your two examples of what meets notability? Really? Let's look at a closer analogy: no one seems to have a problem listing major individual kickboxing events, a much smaller sport than MMA and a closer one both in the way it is promoted, in crossover audience, and one with much closer historical ties to MMA than boxing. No one seems to have a problem listing individual Curling championships either for that matter. The fact that UFC 143 will have an individual home-video release puts it in an additional category of entertainment as well. Do NFL games get that? An omnibus by year would be perfectly appropriate for promotions like Tachi Palace Fights, BAMMA, or KSW, but for the UFC it's stupid and this is a resource that people are absolutely screaming to keep. Clearly a lot of people find it a useful source of information, the purpose that Wikipedia was designed for. Beansy (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beansy , First let me address the sockpuppetry/votestacking/meatpuppetry I mentioned.

1. I am not an admin, nor checkuser, the only way I can provide evidence of sockpuppetry, is through diff's, and behavior. In this case behavior is the most leading factor, but There may actually be no socks on this page. They have been a documented problem in the past according to the public records on wikipedia which you can lookup yourself if you are inclined.
2. The WP:MEAT and Votestacking/Canvassing is apparent,some of it is just improper in my opinion (I.E Anna'd linking every UFC event on AfD) as these should be judged on an individual basis. As well as this blatant evidence :http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/4/23/2968208/some-goon-on-wikipedia-is-trying-to-get-all-of-the-ufc-event-pages
3. I doubt it's that nobody has a problem with listing individual events that aren't notable in kickboxing or other areas, but that they haven't caught attention as they are not so prolific in the number of non-notable pages
4. You misunderstand what I'm saying about Holyfield,Ali,etc. Maybe that's my fault. ALl this needs is some prose written about what makes this particular event notable. So let me explain it this way. What makes this event, notable enough that it has a significant and lasting widespread impact,and is covered by independent sources. Like if some unknown fighter beats the current world champ, or there is some epic drug scandal that has a lasting effect on the sport/coverage/rules(not just so an so wasn't on the card because they failed a drug test.
5. MMA sites are not reliable independant sources. It doesn't matter how thorogh they are, or how respected they are in the community. Now if they are one of the most reliable and respected and there is at least one independent outside source, I don't think anyone would have a problem with other sources being from MMA newsites/fansites,etc.
6. Not being familiar with the sport makes me inherently qualified. I am only biased to what is encyclopedic and what is in accordance with keeping wikipedia valuable as an Encyclopedia, not fan database for music,sports,etc. I am knowledgeable of sports and I know a bare minimum about MMA,Grappling,Kickboxing,Muy Thai, etc. I do not want to get rid of UFC pages that are notable enough to have an individual event page. Like I said, you provide the sources and I'll add it to the article and change my vote.Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If this and every other UFC event article are allegedly not notable, why would an omnibus article be? 145 x 0 = 0, yes? As it is, this is good. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lot of information from the individual pages is missing from the omnibus. An example is the salaries of fighters as reported by the Nevada Athletic Commission for UFC 143. That information is not listed on the omnibus, but is listed and referenced on the individual page. What good is the omnibus if it removes reported and verifiable information? --HatedOnMostly2000 (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I encourage all those opposing deletion to read up on policies and guidelines in order to present a more cogent argument. The good news is that the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so.". With all of these UFC deletion discussions listed here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 142
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 143
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 146
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller

...there seems to be strong opposition to deletion for a wide range of rationale, including policies and guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep UFC events blur the line between sports and entertainment. The most similar examples are WWE professional wrestling events and those are allotted individual pages. I've argued previously that since UFC events are released onto DVD for the general public to purchase, that they qualify for Wikipedia as an entertainment product and easily pass WP: GNG. No different that listing a film or direct-to-video release. Udar55 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOSCOPE: "...Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group...". This does. International is the wide region. And, the event has a significant impact over the following groups:

• Those who follow the events
• Betting agencies
• Contestants
• People involved in the industry itself, such as promoters
• Endorsement agencies
• Advertisers
• Media organizations ranging from newspapers to television
• Competing MMA organization
• Training schools and agencies
• Professional fighter groups and camps
• Professional fighter management agencies

This event likely has a significant impact on all of these groups. Many likey use these event articles as valuable resources for research. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If only the event met WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, and failed WP:ROUTINE. Eleven single purpose accounts who have commented in this procedure demonstrate that someone is trying to use this article and this procedure to promote and event or string of events. Nominator has been called a troll by an editor with 18 edits commenting below. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. All of these policies use terms like "probably" and "likely" for a reason. So we can consider all factors, such as other policies which it does pass. Besides, it does in fact pass most of those. Also, excuse me, but I don't quite understand your edit summary "...If you ignore the flooding the zone traditional to these promotional article procedures..." Are you saying the article is promotional?

Honestly, I just don't get it. You say that based on arguments by supporters of this article, it would follow that every single baseball game should have an article. But at the same time, we have your creations: Nabih's Inc. and Small Dog Electronics. With Nabih's Inc., you created it with "...creating new business stub for a legendary old business, will build as sources are uncovered...", and three days later, walked. That was 2 years ago.

A small Illinois electronics shop and a Vermont IT company? Each with three very weak refs, and no real indication of notability. Does this mean that every electronics shop in Illinois with 3 brief magazine mentions should have an article too?

This article you would like to delete on notability grounds has 15 good refs, is about an international event, passes many guidelines and policies, received 300,000 visits in a day, and still gets over 2,000 a day.

Nabih's Inc. peaked out at 19, and now gets one hit a day. Small Dog Electronics doesn't do much better. Now, you made those, so you must feel that they belong in the encyclopedia. Yet you feel that the event articles don't. Of course, in 30 years, half these companies with articles with be out of business or merged, and will just become an ocean of wikipollution, but that's another matter.

I know we're supposed to ignore how visited an article is, for some reason. But, serving the masses is supposed to carry some weight, right? I feel like common sense is being defied here and nobody notices. I'm having trouble reconciling this rather gross contradiction. Please explain. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept my comments directed to the subject at hand. A discussion of my two year-old edits and creations is way off topic, is a slippery slope, and borders on personal attack. If you'd like to have this discussion with me, I suggest you remove the personally directed comments and post them in my talk discussion. I will not discuss my unrelated edits here in this formal procedure. BusterD (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'This article isn't about anything notable. Just look at how many people have registered to object to its proposed deletion. Obviously, they're astroturfers, because no one cares about this article, since it's not about anything notable.' Your logic is circular. Your argument is specious. Seriously, this event was headlined by a championship fight. Are championships in MMA less notable than in Football or European Amateur Boxing? This discussion is becoming ridiculous. Dominic (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep this article meets the notability requirements of both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT. In assessing whether this event meets WP:SPORTSEVENT it is useful to note that a UFC card meets the requirements of a series, as a fight card usually contains ~12 fights. This also meets WP:SPORTSEVENT as the main event was a UFC Interim Welterweight World Championship bout. It is also useful to note that in WP:MMAEVENT the UFC is considered a top tier promoter (is universally considered the number 1 promoter in the world).I emplore those making decisions on this and the myriad of other MMA pages scheduled for deletion to note that this seems to be a crusade against MMA pages by a very small number of people, and there is no consensus on deletion. Trok333 (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— Trok333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong keep Mtking is clearly WP:TROLL at this point. When will it end?AugustWest1980 (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the idea is ludicrous. As others have said, amalgamating information from all events into one page would mean a very long, cluttered, confusing and anarchical entry - that aside I feel each event requires its own page since It does not contravene any criterias cited and these events are big enough to warrant to their own entries. I don't think this sort of entry should be compared to the lack of entries for other sports. They have much simpler formats such as one time playing another set team with a simple resultant score. With MMA, you have a whole bunch of other issues surrounding the run up to the event and the actual event itself. Like boxing matches, with these sorts of events, the emphasis is on individuals and their performances, not teams of 12~15 people on each side. I think the issue here is more the fact that there are many more UFC matches than there are boxing matches for example. If you had a Tyson V Holyfield, or Pacquiao V someone or Mayweather v someone every month, you'd have seperate entries for each of those matches. It's just that boxing doesn't have as big a talent pool. Volatileacid (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I think this article should be kept until we have a solid definition in WP:MMANOT of what a notable MMA event is. If anyone is interested in contributing to this discussion please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability --Pat ^talk 19:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a definition of what a notable MMA event is. It's called WP:MMANOT. Prose at Omnibus 2012 in UFC events for this is superior, well cited and communicates the points necessary. No need for a spin off. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 142, which asks for clarification on WP:MMANOT events in order to create consistency. --Pat ^talk 21:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Putting all events into a single page would make for not only a large project but almost impossible to have a streamline ability to list each match and the stats contained with individual pages. This also means that there would be many new pages to list separately UFC on Fuel, UFC on Fox, UFC before the numbered events and so on and collapsing all those pages into a single page. Secondary to this, other pro-sports pages reach is smaller as this is for an international reader whereas the NFL example mentioned prior is generally relegated to US audiences. In addition, events are not as often as the example of say a MLB game and each outcome is important to an individual fighter. Each fighter fights every several months so while there may be several events over two months under a UFC banner, none feature the same fighter (as a team sport might play once a week or every day with the same players). Lastly, each fight has a different outcome (submission, knockout by kick, etc.) which would lead to a massive clutter for a single article. Just from the prior events in numbered list - there would need to be lists on a single page of about 800 fights without inclusion of upcoming and continuing events. No "one" team wins in a single event. Aside from major boxing fighters such as Paquiao or Mayweather, the popularity of other boxing events does not come on par internationally as UFC. It would be impossible to include all the well sourced statistics into a single page for each event. Seola1 (talk) 00:02, 26 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. No indication of notability via WP:GNG. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CoolNovo[edit]

CoolNovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable browser. Wholly unreferenced. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and lacks reliable sources. Bmusician 06:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally useless, unsourced and pointless. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since I already did a search and tagged (PROD) the article. mabdul 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does it really exist? Jared-Phill (talk) 12:11, 27 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) 23:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non Treaty Chippewa Indians[edit]

Non Treaty Chippewa Indians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This page has no citations and is highly POV. The author has removed the tags indicating this (twice). Rather than getting in an edit war, I believe we should delete this page. If the topic warrants a separate page, we can start anew. (I frankly have no idea whether this page is entirely factually accurate or if it was made up out of thin air.) JoelWhy (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands. It's so non-NPOV that I can almost hear the grinding of an axe. No references, which suggests original research WP:OR. An author who doesn't seem to want anything to get in the way of his message, which is not helping his/her case any. That's not a reason for deletion - it's an expression of despair at once again having to deal with someone new who doesn't want to be helped. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, "non-treaty" appears to be a Canadian term.[1] I don't get any ghits for Americans. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep as insidiously POV as it is now i dont see why it could not be cleaned and bettered. Remember: improvement is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps collate something into an article Unrecognized Native American tribes in the United States, or something similar.Lihaas (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with storm and fire: This isn't a factual article, it's a turgid, unsourced polemic that blows holes in WP:SOAPBOX, created by a now-indef blocked fellow. The only link is to (I kid you not) "Beaded Lizard Web Designs," a webhost with, I fancy, few credentials as a reliable source. As far as the information presented goes, the only tribe listed linked to its own article did, according to that article, sign more than one treaty with the United States. But, hey, if Lihaas or any other Keep proponent believes this is a sourceable article, the AfD has seven days to run. Ravenswing 02:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ravenswing, polemic, synthesized, nothing resembling a good source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:23, 21 April 2012(UTC)
• Delete. All US Ojibwe bands are covered either by treaty or agreement and all have been adjudicated by the Indian Claims Commission, so there are no such thing as a "non-treaty" Ojibwe in the US. Also, this article is non-NPOV and contradicts in many aspects to the ICC testimonies. The article makes many references to unrecognized tribes that are Ojibwe bands, but this not the same as being non-treaty. Unlike the non-status Indians in Canada where the people are recognized as Indian peoples but not on the Indian Register, unrecognized tribes in the US have a higher legal bar where they must demonstrate continued government activities but without the government-to-government relationship with the US, else be deemed as a civil heritage group. CJLippert (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What's the relationship between this article and Non Federally Recognized Chippewa Indians? Without spending too much time on it, it looks to me like the article being AFD'd was an attempt to try to re-create the latter under a new name. Maybe they should be combined into one AFD? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Looks like its been answered then.Lihaas (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that answer would be…? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 13:39, 21 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. No indication of notability via claims or sourcing/WP:GNG. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Jay Richards[edit]

Doctor Jay Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A touching story, but possibly lacking in encyclopaedia notability, and also written in a somewhat promotional way. Peridon (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet the basic criterias for notability.--Ben Ben (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability at all. Jared-Phill (talk) 12:13, 27 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. Tikiwont (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake sanden[edit]

Blake sanden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Could not find reliable sources; in fact there are zero news articles about him. Appears to have mainly MySpace/YouTube fame. As far as I can tell it fails WP:MUSICBIO. Samuel Tan 19:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under criteria A7. I've gone ahead and tagged it as such. Rorshacma (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're right, thanks. (A little rusty from a two year vacation from Wikipedia here!) -Samuel Tan 19:10, 20 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. Unanimity amongst the commentators that this person fails our notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk)

José Ruiz (baseball)[edit]

José Ruiz (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Minor league baseball player who is now playing in the indy leagues. Has no accomplishments in the minors and is unlikely to make the Majors Spanneraol (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He had a long professional career, which is more than we can say for most, but he didn't do anything in it to make himself notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Rlendog copied his vote from another AfD and accidentally copied mine as well, but I do agree with the deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Of course, if someone comes up with evidence of significant coverage I am willing to change my view, but given just 19 games at the AAA level, I think such coverage is unlikely. Rlendog (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 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. No indication of notability via WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Ditrich[edit]

Julie Ditrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable person with a conflict of interst. Previously nominated as part of a group. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a bonus, the only external link seems to be the backend of their Wordpress site; it's just a login screen. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete lacking reliable sources. And WP:NOTRESUME .LibStar (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, probably very good at what she does, but clearly does not meet the WP:CREATIVE notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Can't find anything significant on her. Jared-Phill (talk) 12:18, 27 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 Wrong venue, moving to RFD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public outcry[edit]

Public outcry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Currently redirects to moral panic, but public outcry does not necessarily constitute a moral panic. I could just move the redirect, but then we'd be left with a blank page. I think we could eventually build a working article on public outcry (though we might run into WP:DICDEF trouble), but this seems like the most appropriate course of action right now. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 20 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foswiki[edit]

Foswiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

DRV from 6 Dec 2009 & RFD 23 March 2012

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)).

OK, the original author of this article is refusing the accept the consensus that this should be a redirect and is now edit warring to remove the redirect and restore the article. Since this has been through AFD, DRV and RFD recently there is absolutely non consensus for this and the sources are still inadequate. Please can we delete, redirect and salt the redirect please. Since the original author is disputing the consensus I believe it more appropriate to put this through AFD again then seek page protection. Note on sources:

• [2] This is only a comment by a foswiki user on an article about TWiki that does not mention Foswiki in the body
• [3] this does not mention Foswiki at all
• [4] This is a conference wiki and the page referenced doesn't mention foswiki Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I started the discussion on Foswiki Talk Page, I'm not refusing to accept the removal of the article. I'm refusing to accept the remove of the article with no discussiong. Please see the Foswiki talk page Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is Spartz? And by revert warring you are refusing the accept the consensus and your sources suck like a really sucky thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, sorry about misspelling your nick. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following comments removed from my nomination, its extremely rude to insert your commentary inside the body of someone elses commentary as it breaks the flow. Don't do it again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, :) again the same problem, this article if from 2007, before foswiki was created. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, of course it doesn't mention foswiki :) , the conference was in 2006, much before foswiki was created (the fork was in the end of 2008). Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your energy would be better off finding some sources that do mention this wiki then because otherwise this will be deleted again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stop inserting your comments insider the body of my nomination. Its incredibly rude and I already asked you not to do this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the problems in TWiki approach that was fracturing the community, if you accept is a mention it indicates that TWiki problems that lock the community out of the project (literally, they reset all passwords). The name foswiki was choose a few days later of this article on cnet. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then this source should be used on Twiki not to justify keeping Foswiki. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither to justify removing the foswiki article :) Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that here is the right place to go on with the discussion. So I'm coping what I said in Foswiki Talk Page to here:

Wikipedians, I am not a foswiki developer (or even an user for that matter) but I believe Wikipedia standpoint doesn't hold anymore. The discussion made 3 years ago was that foswiki was only a fork of Twiki. This fact isn't true anymore. I check those facts: Foswiki had 15 releases since the project started; it has an user base and a healthy community of developers. I talked to them on #foswiki on irc.freenode.net and they were very polite and helpful. So I ask to remove the AfD flag on this article. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have our own inclusion standard and nothing you have said meets it. If you want to keep this then you need to look at finding some better sources and really you should have done this before edit warring over the redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, sorry about commenting inline I will move my comments here. 2 out of your 3 links were before the fork and the other one (the first article from cnet) were from when the community started having problems with the TWiki and were forced to created the fork. It doesn't mention foswiki because the name of the fork was choose a few days later. So your sources are outdated or they are explaining why the community had to do the fork (it is not in the article but the community were locked out of the project, literally, they change all passwords in the wiki and in the version control system). But lets keep focus in this discussion, my point here is not about the merits of the both sides during those events but that foswiki has became a project on itself with 15 releases and a healthy community (I checked those facts). I'm not a foswiki developer (or an user). I'm trying to improve wikipedia not foswiki. As I mention to Hans Adler 2 years ago (on TWiki talk page) this is the first time that I didn't find the right information on wikipedia. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: I notice is that the RFD discussion took place on the 23th of march, and during that time (And in all non-deleted history) the page has always been a redirect. The current content was not added until 19 April 2012‎. In effect this means that the current consensus for a redirect only applied to the situation as it was back then, which has since then changed. Unless i am missing something i would say that there is currently no concensus regarding either keeping or removing the article as this redirect consensus does not apply to the current situation. Equally the AFD and DRV date from 2009, and are therefor not exactly up top date either. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial, back when the fork happened, some guys wanted the Twiki page to be about the fork (their argument was that the fork was the real project, since all developers but 2 went to work for the fork), this is not the case here anymore, my request is to have both pages, the twiki page and a Foswiki page. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the person adding content to show there is a consensus for it to be included. The existing consensus is that we don't have an article because there is not adequate sourcing. This was upheld at DRV. That is the consensus until someone forms a new one. The redirect was agreed just a week or so again. So again, there was no consensus to recreate this. There are still no sources. Nothing, Nada, Nichyevo, Nowt etc etc. Until someone demonstrates a new consensus than nothing has changed the existing consensus is that we don't have this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the inclusion standards, Foswiki has much notability as many other software pages in wikipedia, like this simple and with a really small user and community base open-source todo list Taskwarrior, or Things, a commercial task manager for mac. Just to cite two. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it with some sources. Go on I dare you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial, Spartaz, all the 3 sources mentioned in this page as of a proof of foswiki non-notability were wrong (2 were from before the fork and the other one (from cnet) explained why the fork happened (it doesn't mention "foswiki" because the name was created a few days later). I checked that foswiki had 15 releases since then and that it has a friendly and alive community. How should we proceed from here to reach consensus on this? Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are proof that this wiki has no sources so of course its evidence that this should be deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Foswiki as a separate article. It is a project with community activity. I checked the releases and the community. About notability most softwares has notability in the their niches. It a long tail effect. Foswiki has much notability as most of the softwares with wikipedia pages, like Taskwarrior, or Things. I'm not saying that the cited examples are not important but that they are important in their niche instead of having general notability. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it with some sources. Arguments to keep by assertion might as well be the sound of the wind blowing through the grass. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Twiki, as it was before. No sources indicating notability independent of Twiki and I didn't find any on a search that did the same. Leave the page as a redirect, protect it and leave a note on the Foswiki talk page with the reasons it is a redirect and point editors interested in a separate article to WP:DRV but note they need to meet that independent notability requirement. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravensfire, do you think Foswiki has less notability than Taskwarrior, Pine or Ion? None of those software have have general notability but they are know for DIY task managers users, unix email clients user (old school I have to add :)) and tiled window manager users. We can argue about Foswiki general notability (we can even say wiki software in general don't have general notability) but we can not argue Foswiki's notability in the enterprise wiki software. Just my 2 cents (and thank for your vote, lets not forget that everybody here is a volunteer) :) . Jonas Fagundes (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pine? Seriously? This isn't about any other article - it's about Foswiki and only Foswiki. If there are other articles that don't meet WP:GNG, feel free to nominate them (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But Pine? Come on, that's just funny to even think about questioning it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ravensfire, I agree with that this discussion is about Foswiki software and not about any other software but my point is that none of them have general notability but have niche notability and that Foswiki is has more notability than them. Software is a very specific niche and most of then will never have a book or a printed article about then. Should we delete their wikipedia article? In my opinion no and Foswiki deserves have its owon page. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a lot of sleight of hand in your posts - look over here, not here! If you want to keep Foswiki, it's simple. Find sources to demonstrate it's notability indepedent of Twiki. That's exactly what was asked before and what's asked now. No more, no less. Ravensfire (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would inclusion of Foswiki in the "Top Ten Wiki Engines" list on Ward Cunningham's C2 wiki count towards notability independent of TWiki? 118.209.197.15 (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nope, because its a wiki and wikis are never taken as reliable sources. Additionally, its user submitted content so its definately not a reliable source. See here for the quality of sourcing that is required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. No secondary sources exist, no notability proven. Jonas Fagundes is making Chewbacca defense-style arguments in his rabid attempt to keep the article, and it ain't working. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • TenPoundHammer, you say that my argument is a fallacy and at the same time try to talk in the name of everybody else? :) (This a hasty generalization fallacy). Could you show where am I using ignoration elenchi fallacy? I said that foswiki has relevance in its niche and my arguments were clear an simple. You can agree or disagree with my arguments and I will accept your opinion in any direction. But to say that I tried to confuse instead of proper argumentation is not correct or productive. Anyway, thank your vote. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far, none of your arguments have satisfied WP:GNG. You're basically saying "but it's notable! I know it's notable because it's notable!" and not proving yourself. Where are the secondary sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • TenPoundHammer, did you understood my point about general notability vs niche notability? Understanding doesn't mean agreeing with me on this vote, only that you understand the point I'm making (better explained I'm asking about your understanding, not your acceptance of my argument here). If you do, you can see that I'm not using a tautology, if you don't let me know what part is confusing you, so I'll try my best to clarify it. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Insufficient sourcing to establish notability; as above, excluding the cites to foswiki.org itself, we are left with only a few cites; the only reliable sources among these either don't mention this project, or have only incidental mention. Dialectric (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are still not enough sources that give a substantial mention to this piece of software and demonstrate that it meets the requirements of general notability. Most of the references given in the article's current state cannot be used to verify key facts. For example, there is a one sentence honorable mention in the article "Black Duck honors best of 19,000 new open source projects" that is cited, but that's it. In short: yes, Foswiki is gaining prominence. But there are still not nearly the number of substantial and reliable sources as there are about TWiki, MediaWiki, or other notable wiki software projects. Steven Walling • talk 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Foswiki - please don't delete - A Considered Perspective First, although I've been using the 'net for 30 years and I've been using Wikis since the idea came around, I'm not up on all the process/procedure of Wikipedia. So, if I top-post when I shouldn't, or comment where I shouldn't, or say I intend to do something when I'm not supposed to say I intend to do things, I apologize for not knowing how to play by your rules. I'm here to provide perspective on this particular issue. Wikipedia administrators, interested parties, Foswiki devs, TWiki devs, etc. - PLEASE don't "pigeonhole" me on this issue as anything other than one of the guys who helped make BOTH of these tools what they are today. I love TWiki, and I love Foswiki - they're both like children to me. Children who fought each other tooth and nail, but children none the less. Foswiki is real. Its significant. Its different than TWiki in major ways. It started as a fork, and when it forked, it was almost indistinguishable. Today, the two projects are VERY different. Take a look: http://www.ohloh.net/p/Foswiki - to minimize that and say "it's just a fork of TWiki" is like saying Fedora is just a fork of RedHat. Let's see... RedHat gets its own page, AND a page for Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux ... AND a page for Fedora_(operating_system) too. I urge you all to KEEP Foswiki as a separate page, and NOT redirect it to TWiki, and NOT delete it. And I urge proponents of BOTH wikis to refrain from disparaging the other one, or writing "XYZ is dead" articles, etc. and simply code what they're going to code, and let their work speak for itself. (i.e. apply WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND globally) Thanks for your consideration. —pbr 02:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • pbr, nice to know that you are a twiki developer, thank you for your open source contributions. Your vote will not be counted if you don't format it properly: How to Vote, I formatted it for you but feel free change it again if you prefer. Jonas Fagundes

• Blah blah blah, filibuster, blah blah blah other articles exist, blah blah blah it's important, blah blah blah it's unique. How can I get this through to you?! WE. NEED. RELIABLE. THIRD. PARTY. SOURCES. OR. THE. ARTICLE. WILL. NOT. CUT. IT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out, not so much by way of argument, but for context, that the criteria for software appears to be applied rather unevenly. In the case of wikis, we find listed with no deletion debates the insignificant wikis like UseModWiki and WackoWiki (no references at all), and DokuWiki, SamePage, Gitit, Redmine and CLiki (only internal references). Those wikis play no role in the internet of today and little in the internet of yesterday, but are documented thoroughly on Wikipedia. Foswiki and TWiki both have an significant presence not only in numbers of sites, but both run some of the largest wikis in the world, e.g. Foswiki on the University of Minnesota institutional wiki, and on the gigantic internal Yahoo wiki. The problem is little journalism is done on wikis, and these easily verifiable facts constitute the problematic "original research" which Wikipedia is wise to deprecate. Yes, the lack of verifiable third party references is a problem. But it would be most odd if Wikipedia were to continue to document projects such as WackoWiki, which I do not expect would find any change in its notability, but users searching for widely deployed wikis like Foswiki were to come up empty. What's the solution? I'm not offering it. Perhaps it's time to clean house in the Wiki world. But for projects which are notable in deployment but not in an encyclopedic sense, I'd err away from the deletionist argument. Obviously others have different preferences. I'll decline to state an actual "vote" as I think the issue deserves a more full airing, but I think my sympathies are clear. 74.79.147.25 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Source it or lose it. Nothing else matters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Per Dondegroovily, that was uncalled for. What I should say is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and you are probably right that some of the other stuff needs deleting too. You are welcome to do that but I'm not entirely sure many people would thank me if I went through all the unsourced cited articles here and nominated them for deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, that incivility was completely uncalled for. 74.79 presented an intelligent and reasonable discussion of the issue unlike many other users at this discussion and I felt that his comment was valuable here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources/references added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.111.79 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: sufficient sources of notability have been added to the article recently. Nuddlegg (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)— Nuddlegg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So far, the arguments of those who want to delete the Foswiki article (or redirect it) are: "quality of sourcing" (Ravensfire) - "no notability proven", "Where are the secondary sources?" (Ten Pound Hammer) - "Insufficient sourcing to establish notability", "the only reliable sources among these [...] have only incidental mention." (Dialectric) - "not enough sources that give a substantial mention to this piece of software" (Steven Walling)

Please check the new sources! At least the following ones are IMHO high quality secondary sources which cover Foswiki substantially: See this, this, this, this and this and please re-examine the validity of your arguments.

And, if I may add, not as an argument to keep the Foswiki article, but to not lose track of the goals and values of Wikipedia as a whole: Compare the references and the value of the Foswiki article to the references and value of articles you submitted yourself to Wikipedia. Judging by "your" articles your interests are in chart hits, music albums, malls, sheep and other interesting topics. Fine with me, but remember that others are interested in other things, e.g. Wiki engines (e.g. see references). And they do not only want to know that there are wikis (albums, malls, sheep), but which wikis there are, what characteristics they have, and which one might fit their purposes.

So it seems to me that there IS interest in articles like this about Foswiki. There are even WikiProjects that want to "Document the Internet's common protocols and popular technology", to "improve Wikipedia's coverage of all software-related articles" and to "Improve Wikipedia's coverage of Perl by expanding existing articles and creating new ones."

So, please prove that all the sources mentioned above are not notable. If you don't:

• Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.111.79 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone else verify those links? The first three are in german, the forth one (the pdf) looks good to me, the last one is behind a paywall so it should not be taken in consideration. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravensfire, Spartaz, what about those links? The second one is from German Linux Magazine about Foswiki at Cebit 2012, digging a little bit more I found this english article , it is citing foswiki. I know this magazine (I read the printed english and brazilian version). Is it a reliable source for you guys? Jonas Fagundes (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the recently added references (21 April 2012 and later) show that Foswiki is used, reviewed and referred to. ArthurClemens (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC): — ArthurClemens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Tho the above user may have not made edits outside this topic, what he says is perfectly correct: the current sourcing is fully sufficient. I think that since this is the area where Wikipedia won its reputation for reasonable usefulness, and we should endeavor to be reasonably comprehensive and continue our strength. But whether or not you agree with giving this field any distinctive status, by our normal standard, it fully meets ourt ordinary requirements. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to TWiki, per WP:NSOFT, WP:TOOSOON. I found a couple more occurrences, but wouldn't consider them enough to keep the article at the present time.[5][6][7] If there were more unique content, a merge would be inappropriate, per WP:UNDUE. But having compared the two articles, some content is duplicated. Therefore, any merged content could summarise the differences/developments. A standalone article would be appropriate when more refs are available. -- Trevj (talk) 12:13, 30 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. consensus is clear after the explanation and relisting. I'm not salting, because it might possibly become notable under this name, or with a redirect from it. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clan McWho[edit]

Clan McWho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I found no reliable sources for this term. SL93 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment: This was deleted in a 2005 AfD. I also recommend WP:SALT. SL93 (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a commonly-used term. I can't find any reliable sources; may be an invention of http://www.wilsonofkilwinnet.com/ There are no hits in google books or google scholar, which suggests it's not a commonly used term in genetics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I will not vote because I have a COI. In my non-WP life as a genetic genealogist I invented this jokey term for a relatively small cluster of human Y-DNA haplogroup R1b, but I did not create this article. I think it has only been published about on private websites and in internet forums at this stage. I could probably prove that it is a recognized term in meaningful genetic genealogical discussions, for example I believe it is a recognized cluster of the R-L21 project, but not more than that. I therefore can not see any strong reason to keep and I doubt anyone knows better than myself. If the cluster ever gets published about I doubt it will be under the current name anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:20, 15 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - Per comment above by User:Andrew Lancaster. Also, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this term; fails WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No book or journal sources at all. -- 202.124.74.41 (talk) 07:19, 21 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstreaming[edit]

Mainstreaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Incomprehensible mess of largely unsourced management buzzword blather. The article itself asserts that this concept of "mainstreaming" lacks a definition. The article is also largely a coatrack for a vaguely defined and very likely not notable concept in EU bureaucratese. Should be deleted and redirected to Mainstream (disambiguation), which has some notable uses of the generic word "mainstreaming".  Sandstein  22:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The above AfD proposal reads more like a rant against management buzzwords than a reasoned proposition. Referenced articles provide definitions and establish that this is a term used in the real world. Room for improvement of course, but that's not grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a notable concept, but the first sentence currently reads "Pilot or policy Mainstreaming is the act of broadening the application of a change or innovation from a small-scale pilot to the whole of a programme or policy domain." A fair bit of savage pruning and rewriting in the English language will be required here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - I honestly don;t see a distinct topic here. All that is indicated is that the word "mainstreaming" has been used in various contetxs, sometimes in education, to describe moving from pilot to a full rollout. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's clearly psychobabble, but it's notable psychobabble, and has taken on a life of its own in popular culture as well as in scholarship. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 9 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, ‑Scottywong| express _ 18:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the concept may be of relatively recent formulation, but is certainly clearly enough defined to be usable, and its success is, not without difficulty, measurable. It is methodologically notable and is in everyday use among people developing policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobyJ (talk • contribs)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relist comment - Though more people have argued to keep the article, the arguments in favour are not really based on any substantial policy or guideline. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; article seeks to promote a vague neologism that's defined in meaningless, glittering generalities: ....act of broadening the application of a change or innovation from a small-scale pilot to the whole of a programme or policy domain. It involves recognising that the results of an experiment are positive and the learning deserves to be applied more widely. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to be complete bollocks, and indeed rather resembles one of the examples on that very page. Ou tis (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't see any arguments to dissuade me from thinking that the concept is still complete nonsense yet notable; see WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Mostly a verbose definition more suitable for Wiktionary if edited to be more concise. DocTree (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or possibly redirect to Mainstream (disambiguation)), per WP:NOTDICT. The term is used (Mainstreaming in education, Gender mainstreaming, Youth mainstreaming), but we're not writing a dictionary here: that's for wikt:mainstream#Verb. -- Trevj (talk) 12:21, 30 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 was a difficult AfD to close, because this event is still unfolding and new information is coming in each day which could affect its notability. At this point, it seems too early to determine whether this court case will have lasting significance. If the notability of the case is still unclear after the news reports have died down and once there are no new developments, then take this article back to AfD at that time. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R. v Evans and McDonald[edit]

R. v Evans and McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A court case that is not notable. The two accused are notable but the case itself is not unusual or a landmark in of itself. EchetusXe 14:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created this article for the sheer practical reason that there was already a significant amount about the case in the biographies of the 2 players involved, and it made it easier to cover the case if this was combined into a single article. I recognise the article could do with improvement, but my computer is playing up at the moment, making some things difficult. I suggest that a trial for serious charges where the 2 accused are both notable is itself somewhat notable. Also, the case is attracting a significant amount of attention in Britain, as it touches on some wider issues of misconduct by professional footballers, by no means an isolated incident. PatGallacher (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be an argument for creating an article for dealing with British footballing scandals, where players hit the headlines off the field for criminal and immoral activities. I don't know what that article would be called however. You could say it is an issue in the sport like Homosexuality in English football is (for different reasons, obviously).--EchetusXe 15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This rape trial is about a Wales International Footballer and has featured across most UK mainstream media as well as globally. It is fairly notable. IJA (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the above. Almost voted Speedy Keep on this. Clearly notable per WP:GNG. Lord Roem (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, borderline Speedy Keep. Has the nominator even had a cursory look at the mountains of broadsheet / serious media coverage on this topic? --Mais oui! (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it would appear to be a news story. I was keeping the Clayton McDonald and Ched Evans articles updated with the events of the trial. There are hundreds of other news stories out there that have no Wikipedia article and will never have a Wikipedia article. The two men are notable, that is why it is a news story. The trial itself is not notable, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, like it across the world right now. Why do we need an article on the trial, saying exactly the same things as written on the two articles already? What purpose does this third article serve? Google 'R. v Evans and McDonald' and all you get is the Wikipedia article. I say again, the trial in itself is nowhere near notable, no legal precedent is being set, it will not be referred to in other cases, it is a non-entity. The two men are notable, hence the news coverage, hence all coverage should be in the articles of the two men. You do not create an article for every news story. WP:NOTNEWS--EchetusXe 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quote from Wikipedia:Notability (events): "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." It may well be widely report tragic celebrity news but it is not notable.--EchetusXe 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per argument above, the trial itself seems to fail notability and essentially is getting the coverage it is due to two professional footballers (thus being somewhat in the public-eye already) being involved. --Jimbo^[online] 22:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've striked out my !vote, I think it's become very prominent now what with recent Twitter developments. I'm in favour of keeping the article. --Jimbo^[online] 22:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for "Ched Evans rape" or "Clayton McDonald rape" and you get a pile of articles. The case is receiving a substantial amount of coverage, it just isn't using this exact title. PatGallacher (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is because of the individuals involved. The case itself is not notable. It sets no legal precedent like Roe v. Wade. It isn't like the Murder of Stephen Lawrence, no wider issues in society are raised by the trial. Neither is it like the O. J. Simpson murder case or People v. Jackson where the individuals are notable within in their own right AND the trial is also notable due to sustained coverage over a long period of time. This is a pretty standard trial that can be covered in a couple of paragraphs by the two articles already in existence. Harry Redknapp and John Terry both have had recent trials that received 100 times the coverage of this story and yet there are no articles on those trials. That is because the individuals were notable but the trials were not, as is the case here.--EchetusXe 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree - the trial itself isn't getting the coverage, the two famous people involved in it are, and to be honest not even that much. Compare the rolling news coverage in the US of the trials of OJ Simpson/Michael Jackson and this in the UK - nothing. I honestly haven't seen it on new bulletins once. GiantSnowman 12:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, this case does raise wider issues, which have been discussed on the internet, about sexism in football and abusive behaviour towards women by some footballers, a cause of some controversy in Britain over the past few years. PatGallacher (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless they are proven to be. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy about sexist and abusive behaviour by footballers isn't going to go away, whatever the truth of these specific allegations against these two. PatGallacher (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep why are we even having this discussion?. Notable trough reliable sourcing and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are having this discussion because an article has been created on a non-notable court case that has received minor coverage in a few national newspapers. Is anyone actually reading this discussion or are we all just saying 'keep' because it shows up after a quick look on Google?--EchetusXe 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes the trial is important enough to be mentioned on articles of the sportspeople effected, but the article should not exist in its own right as it is not a breakthrough legal case, nor does it warrant any additional weight due to the minor celebrity of the individuals involved. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All rape cases get coverage in the press, and this is being skewed somewhat with the alledged involvement of two notable people. This case is unlikely to change case-law, or have a long-lasting legal impact. Lugnuts (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "All rape cases get coverage in the press"? ^{[citation needed]} --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete plenty of other more notable footballers have been charged and convicted of rape. There seems nothing to make the case notable beyond the two defendants, which was bound to create press coverage. merge major details to Ched Evans. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - run-of-the-mill criminal trial with no particular historic importance, adequately covered in the players' articles. Some have said a separate article is needed because of the amount of information here, but we shouldn't be going into this level of detail in the first place (are future generations really going to want to know that 'She had drank two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade and a shot of sambuca.'?). Robofish (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GNG. Also Evans has just been found guilty and sentenced so there are more sources that have come out in the last hour which can be added to improve the article. It would be really ugly to put this in the Ched Evans article as there is too much that can be written. Spiderone 15:12, 20 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge to Ched Evans. (note: at the time of writing the case has just concluded, subject to any appeals. Evans has been found guilty, McDonald has been found not guilty.) The notability of this case is solely due to the identity of the defendants. The guideline at WP:CRIME suggest that when the perpetrator of a crime already has an article "it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." We have no such size issues here, a section in Ched Evans summarising the main points of the case would be appropriate. While McDonald was also a defendant, he has been cleared, and good BLP practice involves not retaining an article that drags his name through the mud. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per robofish. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To be frank I never saw this verdict coming when I nominated the article. If anything I saw the case being dismissed. But now that it has it has ended like it has it can be merged to the Ched Evans article, whilst becoming a paragraph in McDonald's article.--EchetusXe 16:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Does not need a seperate article, only often quoted cases, ones which form a legal precident, or ones that recieve large scale media coverage are deemed notable. Murry1975 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: The trial is not independently notable, and can be covered sufficiently in the articles on the defendants. AJCham 19:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In light of the ongoing coverage and wider consequences of this case, it seems to in fact be notable. AJCham 14:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge some of the content to the existing sections on the subject to the two players' biographies. It is in itself not a particularly notable or a landmark case, as English footballers have been charged with rape in the past.--SUFC Boy 23:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete and merge is an invalid option, if you merge you must preserve the page history. Please clarify your comment. Polyamorph (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and perhaps also merge any useful info into the existing BLPs. Nothing notable about the case itself.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not possible to delete and merge, if you merge you must preserve the page history. Please clarify your comment. Polyamorph (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mainly per WP:RECENTISM. Absolutely no enduring historical significance, even if the general notability guideline is currently met. Leaky Caldron 11:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the trial is indeed absolutely notable as it (the trial) has had extensive coverage in numerous news sources. The article is exceedingly well sourced. Notability is not temporary, it satisfies WP:GNG now and is not required to have ongoing coverage. The original reasons for creating the article, detailed by PatGallacher, are sensible and perfectly acceptable. Any discussion with respect to merging can be had at the appropriate article talk page(s), this is articles for deletion, not articles for merging/redirection. Polyamorph (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamorph, please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed. Merge and/or redirect are appropriate options in a deletion discussion. AJCham 16:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know but in my opinion a merge proposal might have been more suitable than an AfD in this case. Polyamorph (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Chad Evans. While this seems notable, it seems to be notable due to the individuals involved. Nothing about the trial seems notable. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Ched Evans. The story has been reported internationally but this in itself isn't sufficient to warrant its own article (see Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria, which makes this quite clear). Possibly the verdict may be seen as notable in the future (I cannot think of any instance of a footballer being found guilty of rape). But I can't see any 'reliable' evidence of anyone drawing this conclusion and neither does the article make any claims of wider notability. Sionk (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered my 'vote'. Redirection seems pointless because no-one is likely to search for 'R. v Evans and McDonald'. Sionk (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't merge and delete! If you merge you must preserve the page history in order to comply with wikipedia licensing requirements! Polyamorph (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the clarification! In that case I guess I'm 'voting' for a merge of the pertinent information. Sionk (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect Yes, most of the notability criteria are met, but one of those is that this means a presumption, not a guarantee, of inclusion and editors can reach a different consensus. I agree that the trial itself is worthy of inclusion in the players' articles - especially Evans, as he was convicted - but the case itself doesn't warrant a standalone article as its notability derives entirely from those involved and the level of detail required is not great. Whouk (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument about notability deriving from those involved is reasonable. However the level of detail is not relevant to AfD since it's an issue that can be resolved through normal editing process. Polyamorph (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Within the boundaries of delete vs keep, and given the issue of duplication mentioned below, I switch to keep - with merging into the separate articles still an editorial option outside the AfD process. Whouk (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect as per arguments above. Can be covered adequately in the Evans and McDonald articles, and case isn't sufficiently notable in itself. HornetMike (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Considerable media coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, eg Guardian BBC. This is more notable than most court cases and is not WP:RECENTISM.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Those references also show that coverage is continuing after the event and regarding the repercussions of twitter use exposing anonymous victims and possible inadequacies of the criminal justice system. So those comments that say the case is not notable in itself outside of the fact that famous footballers are involved are mistaken. Polyamorph (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the more I read these comments the more I'm dismayed. The nominator gave no evidence based rationale for deletion and many of the comments have been along the line of "merge and delete" which is not possible - I don't think this article should ever have come to AfD, deletion is and always should be a last resort. The article itself gives numerous sources which indicate it's widespread notability. Other commentators have stated that there is no individual notability for the trial itself, i.e. it's only notable because of the famous people involved, but is that really a valid argument, after all there are still hundreds of reliable sources that discuss the trial, regardless of why it passes WP:GNG it does still pass it, a point that commentators arguing for merge acknowledge. Further reliable sources are available in the aftermath of the trial in the wake of twitter activity condemning and identifying the victim - this demonstrates wider impact. We must go with what the sources say. Polyamorph (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are additional notability criteria for events. When this AfD was raised there were no ongoing repercussions or evidence of the case's importance. Therefore the nominator was quite correct (though could've elucidated further!). It is debatable whether things have changed significantly because we're still too close to the event IMO. If one of the vile blabbing Twitterati is hauled before the courts too, maybe things will change! Sionk (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This court case raises a range of issues, including privacy and conduct on social media websites. In this respect, it is similar to CTB v News Group Newspapers in 2011. Saying that this case is not notable does not make much sense in view of the amount of media coverage and discussion that it is generating.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Aside from the verdict (which is so far incomprehensible in its inconsistency), the case history is identical for both men. Without this article, the relevant sections in the two footballers' articles would need to have virtually identical content, resulting in duplication of effort. – Smyth\^talk 12:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Police have arrested a number of Twitter users in the UK, and are also investigating the Sky News coverage of the Twitter incident.[8] Things have moved on considerably since the article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2012, and it is no longer a routine rape case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable event becoming more notable due to ongoing coverage. As indicated above its not a routine case.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would tend to agree. Seen as this has developed a new dimension, similar to the "Twitter Joke Trial", how about renaming the article to Trial of Ched Evans? As with the aforementioned Trial of Paul Chambers. "R." is legally unidentifiable and McDonald has been found innocent, so most of the title is irrelevant. Evans is launching an appeal so now I'm not sure that if that goes to court it will still be referred to in the courts as 'R. v Evans and McDonald'. Plus I have not seen anywhere reporting 'R. v Evans and McDonald', but variants of the 'Ched Evans trial'.--EchetusXe 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wait a minute, I made that comment after reading above that that "Police have arrested a number of Twitter users in the UK". That is not the case. Not so far at least. So there is the potential for notable legal issues to arise (people being arrested for naming rape victims on Twitter), but so far that has not happened.--EchetusXe 11:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Tuesday 24 April, The Guardian said that "a number of arrests" had been made by North Wales Police, but subsequently edited the story to say that police planned to make arrests. There may have been a mix-up here, or the police may be holding off to get more evidence. Either way, the ongoing coverage of this case and the issues that it raises about sub judice are notable enough for an article. North Wales Police are still saying on Twitter that "Arrests will be made following comments made on social media sites identifying the victim in the Ched Evans rape case (25 April)."[9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Three people have now been arrested over their comments about the case on Twitter.[10]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - prominent trials, especially those that have ongoing legal sequelae, are notable. The many reliable sources attest to the case's notability. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - since it's initial nomination the case has metamorphosed into a vastly more significant case with wider ramifications. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think the page is notable. Footballgy (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Agree. I also think the page is notable. Wallie (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Far too much to merge. Multiple sources highlight notability Francium12 (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Ched Evans, with content also summarised at Clayton McDonald, per WP:PERSISTENCE. If the case is in future cited in a number of works relating to the wider context of sexism in football, then perhaps it would be WP:DUE to reinstate the article then. -- Trevj (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The primary question here seems to be WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage, and I can understand why some editors feel that that bar isn't met--we wouldn't usually count a cluster of articles at the time of a crime and another at sentencing time as "persistent", and rightly so. However, the Twitter-related arrests, and their likely continuing is another matter. That, while recent, includes some coverage of this case past the routine. Perhaps to put it more clearly, when the Home Secretary gives quotes to the media to discuss the social implications of a side-effect of a case, some degree of lasting WP:EFFECT and notability has been, in my view, evidenced. --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:24, 30 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  04:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pen clicking[edit]

Pen clicking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This just doesn't seem to warrant a Wiki page. Perhaps some of this could be merged in...I don't know, the OCD page? Is there a Bad Habits page?? JoelWhy (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination does not give any policy-based reason to delete and seems to recommend merger rather than deletion. The article is remarkably well-sourced and so I'm now going to give its creator a barnstar for such a fine first draft. Warden (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator. Thankyou Warden :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' -- With all due respect, Warden, did you really take a close look at the page? If you want a policy-based reason, we could go with notability (but there may be others, I would have to think about it.) The vast majority of the sources mention pen clicking in passing (far too trivial to be used as a source.) There are books where a character happens to engage in pen clicking. Several of the citations are to non-notable blog posts. Perhaps the best reference is an article from Australian Broadcasting which discusses a blogger saying pen clicking should be investigated, and a psychologist saying it's an interesting idea. There's virtually no substance here. This article really should be merged elsewhere, IMHO.JoelWhy (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason that it should be deleted. At the very worst merge it with OCD. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 16:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Although references which specifically label it pen clicking are blogs, it was used in the plot of GoldenEye. [11] Dru of Id (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Bond had a pen which, when clicked, would trigger an explosion. The plot of the story was not even remotely related to the clicking of a pen. I really keep hoping this is all just a lark, and you guys are having a bit of fun at my expense. What next, an article on door closing? Surely I could find a million references where someone in a book slams a door, where someone in a movie does so, etc. I'm betting I could even find an article or two where someone with closes a door repeatedly. It still doesn't make the article notable.JoelWhy (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See Door closer, Close the Door campaign, Close Every Door, Close the Door, As One Door Closes, Just Get Up and Close the Door, Shut-door theology, Shut That Door!, &c. Warden (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is starting to get ridiculous. I'm going to assume that little comment right here is actually meant to be humorous, and not actually an argument of any sort. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• These counterexamples disprove your contention about "an article on door closing". Any humour arising from this is incidental but it seems best to approach these discussions in a jocular way as this may help us keep a sense of proportion. Warden (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear things up, it was actually JoelWhy that mentioned the door closing, not I, I was just the one to comment on your response. But more to the point, my question of whether this was supposed to be a joke stems from the fact that none of these articles are actually about the concept of closing a door, but about things that happent to have the word "Door Closing" in them, such as a music album, a TV Series, etc. This not only doesn't address the poing the nominator was trying to make, it is also starting to go way out of bounds of what this discussion should actually be about. Point taken about keeping things in perspective. Please excuse my more contentious sounding remarks further down the page. Rorshacma (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing out who said what - these discussions can get confusing. I disagree with what you're saying about door closing though as the first two of those articles are very much about the physical closing of doors. There's a bit more to it in both cases but the same can be said of pen clicking. It's not just the physical action of clicking the pen which generates comment but the way that this affects people. I was particularly interested to find a source which indicates that it may be used as a code by students cheating in exams. In my experience, such topics often have such hidden depths and so time should be allowed for them to be plumbed. Warden (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that someone happening to click a pen in a movie once does nothing to help establish any sort of notability. Its kind of silly that this would even be an argument in the article's favor. On that note, the fact that the last quarter of the article devolves into a list of random times pen clicking was used in pop culture, with their "sources" being things like youtube videos of The Simpsons, really isn't doing much in the article's favor. Rorshacma (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seriously, did anybody aside from the nominator actually bother looking at the sources? This is one of the worst sourced articles I've ever seen anyone try to claim was a "good" article. I'm not sure if a single one of them actually counts as a reliable third party source. The vast majority of the sources are from completely unreliable "Top Ten" humor articles. There's a youtube video, a "Yahoo Answers" link. One of the so called "sources" is from a passage in a fiction book, where a character in it happens to be clicking a pen. Even the sources that seem halfway decent barely talk about pen clicking specifically, merely mentioning is as an example of a bad habbit. So, if you want a policy based reason for deletion, WP:Reliable Sources is a good start. There's also the question of whether or not the subject even passes the WP:GNG. While there are sources that mention the phenomenon as an example of a bad habbit, I'm not seeing much here that talks about the subject itself as anything that is independently notable. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the first person to use the word "good" here so please don't use misleading quotation marks. The article is obviously still in need of work but it is not yet three hours old and so it is quite inappropriate to be demanding that it be high quality. Our editing policy makes it very clear that we welcome such good faith starts on a topic: "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. ". Warden (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then its a good thing that deletion discussions last for 7 days, giving ample time for actual real sources to be found to establish notability. I may have been the first to say the word "good", but I'm certainly not the one to have claimed that the article was "remarkably well-sourced", which at this point is blatantly false. If it tuns out that the article's subject actually can be referenced by multiple, non-trivial reliable third party sources as stated in Wikipedia's policies, I'll be happy to withdraw my deletion vote. At this point, I stand by my statement that there's no way this article passes the requirments of WP:Reliable Sources and the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Warden is correct, he did not use the word "good". Instead, he said it was "remarkably well-sourced." Admit it, Warden, you did not look at the actual sources before you said that. I don't mean that as an insult, but I just don't see any way an experienced editor could look at the sources cited and agree this is a well-sourced article. The article is a patently trivial topic -- silly, even. And, its sources reflect just how non-notable the topic is.JoelWhy (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is indeed remarkable to see such an article here which already has such a stack of sources. This seems to be due to the use of an editing tool called ProveIt and I'd not seen this before. I did enough checking of the article to satisfy myself that it was worth keeping. Obviously this topic is not rocket science like the recent FA about general relativity which I also read with interest. But the facts it recounts seem reasonably accurate and interesting and we have room enough for both. Warden (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I started work on the article, I did consciously wonder if it was suitable for Wikipedia. I concluded that it was and got stuck in. I do think that all the info here (while lots of it not being backed up in reliable sources) is "true", so now that the groundwork has been done, we just need to do a bit of digging and replace the contentious sources with reliable ones. From there we can expand, turn discrete sentences into paragraphs etc. Also, I agree with Warden in that for a first draft on an arguably "trivial" or "less notable" topic, what he saw was impressive as a first draft. I used what I could find after a relatively shallow search, and the result is in the page. As I have said, the info gathered from non-notable sources will most probably be fixed in the near future. No biggy. :)--Coin945 (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Warden (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Folks who have voted to keep, I just need you to really think about this. All of the arguments for keeping this page -- and the same level of citations -- equally apply to the following potenial Wiki pages. Door Closing, Desk Tapping, Leaning back in your chair, Chewing with your mouth open, Making fart sounds by sticking your hand under your arm, etc, etc, etc. I suspect I could find just as many of the same "quality" citations, references in pop culture, etc, to create the same quality page. I'm sorry, I am not questioning anyone's good faith here. But, I am questioning your sanity!! (Just kidding, please don't be offended.) This page is completely and utterly deserving of being deleted (with the better stuff possibly merged elsewhere, but even that is debatable.) I urge you guys to look again at the sources. (Or, I at least pray that other editors will objectively review the page and sources and either support the delete option, or explain to me how it is that I cannot understand why anyone is defending inclusion of this page.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where's the article on Twisting paper clips into improbable shapes, I ask. (not on my must do list, for sure) This article should be cut down to size and merged into fidgeting.TheLongTone (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The following are references currently in the article that are comprised of significant coverage from reliable sources:

• "Pen-clicking 'should be investigated'". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. April 1, 2009. Retrieved April 20, 2012.

Book sources, not quite significant coverage, but beyond passing mentions:

• Smithrim, Ronna (2011). Accepting the Radical. CGW Publishing. ISBN 9781908293107. Retrieved April 20, 2012. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Phipps, Robert (2012). "Body Language: It's What You Don't Say That Matters". Retrieved April 20, 2012.

Very short news piece:

• "World record of pen-clicking". The Telegraph (Illinois). Retrieved April 20, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

Passing mentions

• Scott, Robin (July 24, 2009). "Stop clicking that pen and other annoying habits". Dalhart Texan. Retrieved April 20, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

Note that these are culminated only from sources currently in the article, and that other's may be available from internet searches.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be kind of hard pressed to say the source from the Dalhart Texan to be signifigant coverage. The concept of pen clicking is just briefly mentioned in the lead in of the article, and then again at the end, both times as just a singular example amongst a long list of what are annoying habits in general. This again just leads credence to the idea that if anything, parts of this article could be merged into a more appropriate article such as the suggested fidgeting, but really lacks any independent notability. The same could be arguably said about the the two book sources as well. In both cases, the subject of the book, or even in the section of the book, is not about pen clicking. Pen clicking is just used as an example, amongst many others, of certain concepts in general. Invasion of ones boundaries in one, and a possible sales tactic in the other. Both cases just kind of show that this concept can be used as part of a larger subject, but really has no business being a wholly seperate article of its own. The ABC article is decent, but its is so far the only decent reference included in the article so far. As for the potential of finding other sources online, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if multiple reliable sources on the subject can be found, but I've already spent a good deal of time today searching for these on the subject with little luck. Rorshacma (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After revisiting, agreed about the Dalhart Texan article being less than significant coverage; moved this entry within my comment above to "Passing mentions". Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some stuff in the history of click pens and also various youtube videos demonstrating how a click pen works. Even the patent These seem to add notability to the topic.--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you trying to make this article about? Before this, the entire article, and all of the discussion here, has been about the specific action of clicking a pen. But now you're adding general information about the actual type of pen itself, which is a completely different subject. If that's what you're actually trying to do here, create an article about this kind of pen in general, I would suggest that you completely rework this article from scratch. Remove 99 percent of the content here, including the numerous terrible sources, and actually try to create an article on Retractable Pen. Find reliable sources on this kind of pen itself, and then perhaps include a brief section on the repeated clicking of the pen as an annoyance using that single good sorce from the Australian Broadcast Corps. But the way you're going about it now is just all over the place, which isn't exactly working. Rorshacma (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main point was that some of that info could be used as background information, so the article (which is still being worked out....) would have a history/background section, then a "so how exactly do you click a pen and why does it made that noise" section, a "why does one click a pen" section, then moving into the effects of rapid clicking. The article might seem very confused at the moment, and I'd have to agree with you. That is what happens when you have a draft that's kinks are being worked out. P.S. What is your opinion on an article on "Retractable pen" then? Shifting the focus of the article might to it some good notability-wise.--Coin945 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Help I found this sound clip of a pen clicking (I think it's free). [12]. I've never been that good at uploading pics/vids/sounds to Wikipedia so can someone do it for me, please? Also this flickr pic--Coin945 (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Take the sourced parts that are related to how pens work and move them into ballpoint pen. Take the sourced parts that are habit-related and move them into fidgeting. Delete the rest. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and you'll spot results straight away. Pen-clicking 'should be investigated [13] "pen clicking can reflect how stressed doctors, nurses and allied health professionals are in a ward." Other results are there as well, just read through the summaries. Dream Focus 02:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This has already been discussed somewhat at length. The ABC article you quoted has already been noted as being the singular decent third party source presented so far. The rest of the articles that come up with a google news search are either humor pieces, which are not suitable as reliable third party sources, or trivial mentions, merely briefly mentioning pen clicking amongst a long list of general bad habits. Rorshacma 03:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are mentions of entire bands comprised of pen clickers. It is mentioned as a common method of stress release in the office setting. Pen clicking helped a university student memorize information, allowing him to then win big on JEOPARDY, two days as a champion, and the third day just got less money but still a nice amount. [14] Dream Focus 14:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except how many of those examples are actually notable, and actually within the scope of the article? The pen-clicking band isn't. Its a novelty act that performs at places such as the Doo Dah Parade, along side other such acts like a briefcase drill team. Where exactly would that go in the article that would help establish any sort of notability of the actual concept of "Pen Clicking"? It would be just a random bit of trivia, about as relevent to the article as that link to James Bond having a bomb that was activated by a pen click. That doesn't establish notability, its just a unnotable factoid that just happens to have involved a pen. The same goes for the Jeopardy winner. What would we actually say about that in the article, aside from just listing at the end a piece of trivia that says "One winner of Jeopardy says they used a pen click to practice"? And that's really what the problem with this article is. Yes, there are going to be plenty of articles/books/etc. that mention the words "pen clicking", since that is an actual normal everyday practice. Very few of these are both: A. Reliable third party sources, and B. Shows any sort of independent notability of the subject itself, and isn't just a brief, trivial mention. If you're actually finding sources that meet both of these, then add them to the article, so we can base further debates with them included. But right now, there are 33 references listed in the article, and only one of them so far seems to do this. And that, I'm afraid, does not meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and all of the arguments would work equally well for my other proposed articles (Leaning back in your chair, Chewing with your mouth open, etc.) Maybe a Jeopardy champion didn't perform these acts, but perhaps King Henry XIV was known for his bad habit of chewing with his mouth open. Or, perhaps JFK would sometimes fall over when he leaned back in his chair. Such anecdotes don't make it worthy of a Wiki page.JoelWhy (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a world record for pen clicking notable enough for a major newspaper to cover it. [15] The article is filled with references, which taken as a whole indicate notability. Dream Focus 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there was also coverage by another major newspaper on the world record being broken for "Human Matress Dominoes" here: [16] amongst some other very strange records, but I don't think anyone will be clamoring to have Wikipedia articles written about them. :) On a more serious note, though, JoelWhy's point is kind of apt. That so many of these sources are just minor, anecdotal stories that happened to involve a pen. I'd also like to point out that some of the other sources in the article are not even about the right subject. The one about the insulin pen, for example, does not use even remotely the same mechanism as a retractable pen, and is obviously just something that was included because it happened to include the words "pen" and "click". And when you take out all of the references that are either wrong, come from unreliable sources, or are things like Youtube videos and fiction, how many are actually left? And then amongst those, how many of them can be seriously considered to be more than just passing mentions? Rorshacma (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per COMMONSENSE if nothing else pbp 02:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How does COMMONSENSE apply to this situation?--Coin945 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "How does common sense apply to this situation?" Funny, I thought common sense was applicable all the time. And common sense would say we don't need an article on such a trivial topic pbp 13:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sourced information to Fidgeting and Ballpoint pen articles, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm sorry for repeated comments here, since at this point I'm just beating a dead horse, but somehow, the references for this article keep getting worse the more it is edited! The so-called references now include a Facebook page, and actually includes an article from The Onion as a source. And no, the article does not actually list this as a joke, it actually includes information from an Onion page as a factual occurance. I'm sorry, but this has got to be a joke at this point, because there's no way someone would put in so many references in an article, so obviously without actually reading them. Rorshacma (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ... splutter, gag, stagger, sharp intake of breath... Delete of course!!!. WTF is happening here. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia for goodness sake. This sort of rubbish makes us a laughing stock. 00:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Very little of the things that people routinely due is trivia. That a conventional encyclopedia might not have had an article on this topic is evidence of our superiority in coverage to the limited outlook of traditional encyclopedias. Ridicule is not an argument. I could write a sentence or two showing anything is preposterous, if i was just trying to be clever. This is related to boredom only in the sense that kissing is related to affection - a notable manifestation of general human behavior. We could of course, reduce all 4 article to human behavior, but we're an encyclopedia, and if things have sufficient references, we write articles on them. The arguments for deletion amount to the well known phrase, IDONTLIKEIT. Those who want to read only on the topics they consider serious enough are free to do so. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest that if some of the sources in the article aren't that notable, perhaps a few of you could hop over to Pen clicking and give me a hand. As well as just adding more notable content, the article needs to be reformatted etc... it does have its problems, no shame in admitting that, but perhaps some assistance is in order.--Coin945 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and Warden. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 26 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in the Firebird series[edit]

List of places in the Firebird series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I am not sure how this even remotely satisfies the general notability guidelines. My rationale is pretty much the same in another AfD so I shall copy it here:

Through a recent lengthy discussion about the notability of fictional places, an editor Juhachi came to me with a concern that fictional locations with no "real-world" notability probably fail the general notability guidelines. Although I may not know much about the Firebird series, or how well known they are, but the fact that there are only two articles about books in this series (the third is still yet a redlink) does perhaps at least say something about how widely known it is. Even if the Firebird series is notable, notability is not inherited, especially for something that is not well-known. There are no secondary sources on this article either. New questions? 10:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Seems to relate to a particular series and there are many articles similar to this one (i.e., list of characters in (blank), et cetera). Seems like someone would gain from this particular article and it may not fit within the main article of the series. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The series certainly is notable, but none of the places have received enough attention by independent sources to qualify for an article, let alone a listing of all of them. The group itself hasn't received attention either--that is, there aren't any reliable sources critically examining the places of the Firebird series in general. Lord Arador (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Much like characters articles, lists of fictional places like this serve as a place to record not-individually-notable elements belonging to a notable fictional franchise, where the individual elements--or at least some of them--are reasonable search terms, and there is either no single article to which locations can be redirected OR the single target would not be able to mention each redirected term without balance or size issues. Thus, this should derive notability from the fictional franchise, and serve as a landing spot for redirects from non-notable but reasonable search terms of other fictional elements. Think of it as one manageable, improvable list that serves to prevent the creation or re-creation of otherwise non-notable fictional element articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment However, doesn't that conflict with not WP:INHERITED? After all, all articles have to have notability based on reliable secondary sources; it would be incorrect to suppose that something has notability based on popularity alone.--New questions? 07:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rework into a series article, Firebird (series), which currently doesn't exist. Yes, a list of locations in such a shape shouldn't have a individual page for itself. But it's a good starting point for a series article. How the information is portrayed therein, is a matter of editing, not AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:42, 13 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete- despite the excessive and unconvincing special pleading above, the notability of elements of a fictional universe do not inherit the notability of the parent work of fiction. All articles, and lists do in fact count as articles, need to demonstrate their own through reliable independent sources. This hasn't got any, and I can't find any. If this article is sourced at all it's only to the work of fiction itself, and I suspect that it actually consists of the authors' personal impressions of it. In my opinion this article is untenable as a stand-alone article and contains no content that can stand from an encyclopedic point of view. Reyk _YO! 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Places in a notable work of fiction are not automatically notable, but major places can be if the fiction is famous enough, and for even minor places in really important fiction, a combination article is a useful compromise, if only to prevent the proliferation of individual articles. NOT INHERITED has nothing to do with the situation of dividing up an article. But this is not such an important work of fiction as to warrant it. It's a matter of proportion. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely unsourced, only fancruftish in-universe plot summary, no apparent notability for this aspect of the fiction.  Sandstein  10:45, 28 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  10:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kags[edit]

Al Kags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete because:

• It does not meet the notability criteria.
• Lacks authoritative references. The references given either don't work or are irrelevant.
• It has been written by the subject himself, and therefore constitutes of self promotion. Abbasjnr (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable and/or not cited very well. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:25, 20 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R. Swaminatha Merkondar[edit]

R. Swaminatha Merkondar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Consists almost entirely of original research and written in a very positive tone, not in a neutral point of view. Also possible lack of notability as per GNG, Google searches with
"-wikipedia" do not show anything except lists of the candidates/winners of the election which he contested. jfd34 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost appears to be promotional as well as having an incorrect tone.--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 15:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as rewritten. I found a reliable source that he was indeed a member of the Madras Assembly, which by WP:N is unquestionably notable, & rewrote accordingly. The nom seems to have found that source also, but says above he decided to ignore it. (The article had been originally nominated for speedy A7 despite that ). The material in the article when nominated here was grossly unsatisfactory; as correctly noted above the tone was wrong, suggesting probably copyvio. It certainly needed attention. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, inherently notable and verified per DGG's work, I've added another, largely redundant source. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG.Pectore^talk 20:09, 26 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon-smith[edit]

Weapon-smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Trivial portmanteau of two words, unreferenced. Not even up to WP:DICDEF standard.

This was a contested prod of Weaponsmith, with the comment, "deprod; such a neologism that it appears in the Oxford English Dictionary as first being recorded in 1849! Do your research before you falsely accuse other editors of making up words" However "weaponsmith" doesn't appear in the OED. "Weapon-smith" does appear in the OED, but are we interested in trivial articles with no referencing, on a word whose only vaguely reliable existence is just as a hyphenated composite of two trivially obvious words? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weapon-smith appears in the OED: "a forger or maker of weapons". One of its citations indicates that there are interesting things to be said about them: "(Expositor Sept. 265) The settled weapon-smiths of ancient Egypt‥were quite a different class from the nomad clans of tinsmiths and coppersmiths.". Warden (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If "there are interesting things to be said about them", then perhaps the article should say them. As it is, there is simply nothing in this article beyond the trivially obvious, that a weapon-smith is someone who smiths weapons. I've seen Lolcats and "This is a flammenwerfer. It werfs flammen" that had more information in them than this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want content added then please go ahead but AFD is not an article-writing service as we're here to decide just one thing: whether an admin should use the delete function. Our editing policy indicates that the answer is no. Warden (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Attempted justification at poor research by saying that "weaponsmith" doesn't appear in the OED, although "weapon-smith" does! And that is a good reason for deletion is it? In any case, the unhyphenated version does appear in a number of other dictionaries and is in common use. An article can certainly be written about this. The fact it is currently only a stub is neither here nor there and not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to blacksmith Here I was thinking weaponsmith and armorsmith were commonly used terms for blacksmiths specialized in making armor and weapons, but it turns out that was basically invented by fantasy books and videogames. I did find this book, which contains an interesting quote: The Anglo-Saxon weapon-smith himself was celebrated in two Old English poems, one of which speaks of him shaping the helmet, the corslet, the gleaming blade and the round shield. Clearly weapon-smiths did more than just make weapons. Based on the extremely limited coverage we seem to have now I would suggest merging to the general blacksmith article, starting a new section on blacksmiths specialized in the production of weapons and armor, which the blacksmith article is clearly missing. If the section grows large enough to be a separate section, rather than a useless stub with incorrect information, it can be unmerged again. Yoenit (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case somebody is going to argue that blacksmith is not a good merge target, because the article claims it "can also refer to firearms (gunsmiths)": Until you can present a source to back that statement up I am convinced it is bollocks. Yoenit (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We're here purely to decide the question of deletion, not to write or develop the article as AFD is not cleanup. There is an article bladesmith which is obviously related to this topic and who knows what else is already here. We should not rush to merge into any of these without full consideration. Warden (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoenit - historically, "weaponsmith" as a maker of arms and armour is just as much bollocks (sorry, ballocks) as it is for gunsmith. Although armouring and cutlery were both branches of smithing, neither of them were carried out (at anything beyond the baggage train expedient level) by the same smiths. It's a Victorian fancy to even think of some Wayland character who turned out the whole lot. We can source this "weapon-smith", but never to any more than a post-period hyphenated portmanteau. It would be hard to stretch this to a WP:DICDEF, it would be impossible to write an encyclopedic article on such people in period, because this supposed overall role just didn't happen like that. Probably the first historical "weaponsmiths" who really did make the whole lot would be Armstrong or Krupp! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no doubt that this was an important historical craft. Evidence of this appears in, for example, this book. It is clear that it was not synonymous with armourer or bladesmith/swordmaker, because references suggest they might do both. A blacksmith might make weapons, but specialist weaponsmiths were clearly in a different class. Their skill was celebrated by contemporaries in works such as Beowulf, and has been written about in works on art and materials science. The topic is notable, could be expanded, and is unsuited to a simple dicdef. --AJHingston (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AJHingston. In particular, the second reference states, "To many Vikings, the weapon-smith was the most important of all such craftsmen". Bladesmith and gunsmith are subcategories of weapon-smith. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:11, 23 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harney and Sons[edit]

Harney and Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I'm not seeing any media attention for this tea company. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coverage in The New York Times and The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (paysite), among others. Seems to be a well-established and quite influential company in the tea world. Would also support a merge with redirect to John Harney (tea merchant) or similar, since coverage of the company tend to feature him heavily. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep: Passes WP:CORP per Yunshui. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 13 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, BusterD (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per Yunshui; ample coverage in independent sources, some of which is summarized on the company's press page[17]. I added some sources including an article from The Wall Street Journal.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:42, 20 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, primarily because it's OR and there is not agreement on whether it is an encyclopedic topic that doesn't overlap too much with an existing topic. No prejudice against re-creating this page as a redirect to an appropriate target. ‑Scottywong| express _ 16:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft graffiti[edit]

Aircraft graffiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The subject of this article is an area where graffiti can be applied and is not on its own notable (WP:GNG). In 7 1/2 years, no references have been found. I have tried prodding, but was opposed so we will try this approach. I note the article was proposed for deletion 7 years ago, but somehow survived. None of the keep arguments referenced policy. The talk page admits the article is original research (WP:OR) Op47 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - maybe worth a mention under the Graffiti article, but a stand-alone article is not justified here. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the topic of writing things on bombs, mentioned in this article, might be notable, but it doesn't belong here.--Colapeninsula (talk)
• Merge with graffiti. No reason to have a separate entry for graffiti based on whether it's on a wall or a billboard or a van or a plane, etc.JoelWhy (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – nose art, a form of aircraft graffiti, is a quite notable topic in its own right. I'm not clear that a delete is in order here. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Right now this article reads like original research. But there actually may be a topic out there to be written. We already have a decent article on Nose art, which is the best known variety of aircraft graffiti and certainly a notable topic. Also, there's a continuing art project called "The Boneyard Project" [18] that involves using abandoned aircraft as the medium for art projects: it's currently on display at the gigantic Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson[19][20][21]. For the moment, I'd suggest redirecting/merging this topic to Nose art.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an interesting topic, but unless there are reliable sources it's probably not a notable one. I suggest merging a sentence or so about this topic into the graffiti article. Note that nose art is not graffiti as commonly understood as its applied with official sanction (officially or unofficially; you obviously can't paint something on a military aircraft without someone in authority noticing!) Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I am in my 23rd year of working on aircraft; in that time I have worked on literally hundreds of different aircraft. How many had graffiti? One - I remember it clearly becuase it was the only time I have ever seen graffiti on an airframe. It's not commonplace, it's not notable. IMO neither nose art nor the art project Arxiloxos talks about are actually graffiti. YSSYguy (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that multiple sources about "The Boneyard Project" do refer to it in terms of graffiti, e.g.[22][23][24][25][26]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Interesting, obscure topic. Like the complex nose art on aircraft and the transient graffiti on munitions, there is also a less well-known tradition of mission graffiti to the aircraft. If this is merged though, it should be to nose art rather than graffiti.

There's also the tradition of graffiti applied to other unit's kit, often to show that one unit can outwit another. There are very well known photos of an Avro Vulcan that visited NZ and acquired kiwi roundels, NZAF style, as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Andy Dingley is talking about 'zapping', the practice of units applying not graffiti, but their unit insignias, to other units' aircraft. This is not aircraft graffiti, and is not a valid argument for retention of this article. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly that's only one aspect of it - some is self-imposed too, especially the propaganda sloganeering of the Soviets during combat.

Secondly graffiti doesn't stop being graffiti because it's a symbol rather than a word. Zapping (of ships at least) has also often used things that aren't unit symbols: silhouette frogmen or submarines painted onto the waterline of a successful target is just one part of that. As is Kilroy. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the sounds of it, zapping may well be an appropriate topic. However, if zapping applies to water craft as well as aircraft then that means it is outside the scope of this article and hence this article should still be removed. Op47 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a logical non-sequitur. Zapping might be a notable topic, and a topic broader than merely aircraft, but that doesn't imply that its occurrence on aircraft should be removed from aircraft graffiti and certainly not that aircraft graffiti is also made non-notable by it being broader than this! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that your mention of Zapping in relation to water craft is in actual fact a "logical non-sequitur." I am sorry I did not say so explicitly. Op47 (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO all sorts of things that are not aircraft graffiti are being advanced as reasons to keep the article. Nose art is not aircraft graffiti. Propaganda slogans painted on Soviet Union aircraft in WWII are not aircraft graffiti. Zapping (which is not exclusive to the aircraft alone - visiting crews also zap the mess, toilets and accommodation) is not aircraft graffiti. Scrawling messages on bombs or missiles is not aircraft graffiti - they aren't aircraft and it was also done on artillery shells. The Boneyard Project isn't aircraft graffiti. YSSYguy (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the !v below you're evidently such a WP:RS in your own right that your "real-life experience" (which I might point out is a little skimpy on combat aircraft) is axiomatic, all by itself. However that's not how WP works.

No-one is claiming that nose art is graffiti. Rather it was presented here as a contextual contrast (Which should be damned obvious to any closing admin, and quite frankly it's a rather pathetic argument to descend to claims that "nose art isn't graffiti" or "ships aren't aircraft"). I'm curious though as to why the Soviet sloganeering shouldn't be considered as graffiti? Do you dispute that this happened, or that transient chalked messages on aircraft somehow aren't "graffiti"? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military transport aircraft get zapped too, and the one instance I have seen of actual graffiti was on a civil aircraft, in a spot only accessible to engineers. As for the Soviet aircraft, everything I have seen has shown that the slogans were painted on and were the equivalent to nose art for other air arms in WWII, for example a Polikarpov I-16 painted with "For Stalin!" in huge letters on the side of the fuselage. YSSYguy (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and especially the real-life experience of YSSYguy. Any necessary material can go into our articles on aircraft markings. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:35, 27 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. There is little discussion, but the article is a unsourced one-sentence stub whose veracity is questioned, so WP:V compels deletion.  Sandstein  04:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian People's Liberation Army[edit]

Ethiopian People's Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article seems to be based upon a mix-up of names. the name only gives 4 google book hits, which is quite extraordinary for a major armed faction in 1990s. The article probably originates in this book or in What is the What, which seems to confuse this 'EPLA' with the EPRDF. There is a mention here, but it seems to confuse 'EPLA' with the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Army (armed wing of EPRP). The few other mentions of 'EPLA' could probably be explained by these 2 confusions also. Soman (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That sounds like an argument for redirection rather than deletion. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party with ((R from incorrect name)) tagging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, since it is not consequent what the name is used for (both EPRDF and EPRP) I think a deletion is better option. Also, there are only 2 links to the article at the moment, which could be easily removed. --Soman (talk) 07:00, 6 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  05:08, 13 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, BusterD (talk) 12:54, 20 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Days In The Smoke[edit]

Two Days In The Smoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I tagged this for PROD yesterday, but the article's creator (whose username suggests he is the director) removed the tag, claiming that "All future edits by third parties apart from official poster addition. Also third party references to be added" which may or may not be an admission of COI. Besides, I was not able to find enough independent coverage for the film. All I found were small blurbs in some sites. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now; unreleased film, which might be notable on release (it has a few semi-well-known actors) but as yet has no substantial independent coverage. It may be re-created if the film is released and reviewed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 13 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, BusterD (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• DeleteI couldn't find anything online about this movie that wasn't PR material generated directly by the studio. No evidence of notability.JoelWhy (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Incubate. Since it's release date is supposed to be relatively soon, with some notable people in it, I don't see anything wrong with incubating it for a while. As it stands now, there isn't enough coverage to show that it passes WP:NFF.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy without prejudice toward a return. As this only recently entered principle filming and there is currently a derth of coverage (even with an anticipated release to be in autumn 2012),[27] we can wait until there is more coverage. For now, the article is simply Too Soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThere appears to be consensus to delete so can an administrator please put this page out of its misery and delete it? Google searches for this film currently pick up this page prominently and this delete conversation is having an obvious unintentional adverse effect. Thank you.Thebenpickering 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with an early close per WP:SNOW. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 24 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 Disk image#History. No prejudice against changing the section within Disk image that it redirects to, but I'm thinking the History section will work, as its currently very short. The page history is still accessible, so feel free to grab any content from the history and merge it, if necessary. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RaWrite[edit]

RaWrite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, apparently lacking any reliable sources to establish notability at all. — Isarra (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also including the following for the same reason:

RaWrite2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: looking for the topic on Google Books I found quite a lot of coverage and I was preparing myself to arguing that these short passages of text indeed describe the utilities in detail. Still, the utilities themselves are so trivial, that I can't imaging possible article on them. I believe that both RaWrite and RaWrite2 should be redirected to Disk image#Software (as it is done with RawWrite, the similar application for Windows) and should be listed there. I see no need for admin action. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:29, 6 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) 00:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment: Disk image article no longer has a "software" section. Fleet Command (talk) 10:51, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge with Disk image and Redirect - Recreate the software section or similar and merge the info there. RaWrite was a pretty common program, particularly for us old timers, and having the information here as part of another article is better than losing it. I would agree that it won't pass WP:N for it's own article, but it is reasonable to assume that someone would want to search for the term. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 14:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Merging to Disk image would suggest that all the other software at Comparison of disc image software also get a mention there. Wouldn't that give undue weight to such titles within the context of Disk image? And (without changing the scope of Comparison of disc image software) it can't be included there unless it's notable. So, is it notable? Well, sources are difficult to come by... I've so far found a couple of mentions in The Linux operating system: An introduction, but not enough to establish notability in its own right. Was this sort of software discussed in printed magazines of that era? -- Trevj (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • It looks like everyone agrees that it isn't likely notable, so the real question is: what do we do with it? Even though it isn't notable, it is worth mentioning in another article due to its long history, hense the merge. As to undue weight, I'm not sure that applies here as its inclusion isn't a contentious issue nor likely to sway anyone's decision as to what disk writing utility is "best" or should be used, and nothing is preventing other utilities from having paragraphs in the disk image article either. It is reasonable to assume that people will run across the name, search the encyclopedia to see what it is, and then they would at least find a paragraph explaining its purpose. We have lots of paragraphs about items that themselves are not notable enough to warrant a separate article, this would be no different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:25, 30 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.