< 23 April	25 April >

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph G. Davies[edit]

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

Does not appear to be very notable. JDDJS (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my intrusion, I'm new, but Davies is extremely notable in his field. Definitely "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers." User:Prastol1958 —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- But he has insufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. There is a wide range of notability guidelines that are used to determine notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete An author's own works doesn't convey notability. Nothing else here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Immediately Fails WP:BIO for notability. Article states that he is "award winning" but no WP:RS to justify the statement. What awards? Presended by? Fails WP:BLPSOURCES with no in-line source at all. All of the books listed with Davies as author are published by Microsoft Press, his employer; none of the books are notable. Web search of the name "Joseph G. Davies" showed that a thoroughbred horse owner and trainer by the same name is far more notable (and might be a suitable subject for an article if his horses keep winning races). I also noted in my search that this article returns as "a shopping enabled Wikipedia page" (I can't include the link because it's on Wikipedia's blacklist) which I judge constitutes advertising the Davies' books via Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Brown (New Age musician)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable musician. no references JDDJS (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has now been tagged for speedy deletion via A7. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the tag for speedy deletion because the article is almost six years old and it has been tag wit PROD before. In order to be fair, we should just let the AFD play out. JDDJS (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources can show notability.JoelWhy (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was clearly created by the artist himself. 74.103.91.50 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Claims of notability are not backed with sources nor could I verify them either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any coverage in reliable sources for this musician; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 23:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. B music ian 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western (airline)[edit]

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

Considering how quickly this airline collapsed and how few flights they successfully completed, it's hard to see much notability here D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see any reason to delete this: it was a commercial airline that actually flew, the article already has sources, and there appear to be plenty more potential sources at GNews[1].--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs more references if it's to be kept: 2 articles from the same source only count as a single source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not gonna find more source. This airline was a financial disaster before it ever even flew a single airplane. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that most companies which quickly go belly up don't warrant a Wiki page. But, getting an airline up and running is a significant event, and I can see people researching the airline (whether it be for a business class on How-Not-to-Run-an-Airline, or whatever...)JoelWhy (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – This article, in my opinion, is borderline on notablility, but the fact that it actually got off the ground, albeit for less than a month, is enough notability to have an article. I should mention that we do have Wikipedia articles for airlines that were proposed but never began flying, for example JetAmerica and FlyHawaii Airlines. —Comp dude¹²³ 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated those other airlines for deletion as well, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetAmerica and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyHawaii Airlines. Neither their existence nor their failure is notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while short-lived, the fact that it existed and operated scheduled commercial flights is enough for it to be notable. "Being a financial disaster" does not reduce its notability. Also, no-one would doubt the notability of a single-aircraft passenger airline that was currently in operation, and the fact that they're no longer operating shouldn't reduce notability either. --RFBailey (talk) 14:50, 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) 00:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Marlowe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion in 2006 resulted in a no consensus keep, so I'm bringing this back for a review of whether it really meets Wikipedia's contemporary sourcing and notability standards as they exist in 2012. Firstly, modern consensus has very much swung away from the view that merely having a role in a political party's organizational structure automatically confers sufficient notability to entitle someone to an article on that basis alone — and secondly, Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards have tightened up considerably since 2006, such that this article contains no sources that pass 2012 standards: one is an invalid primary source, one is a dead link whose content is impossible to verify, one provides an author's name and publication date but fails to actually name the publication that's actually being cited, and the final one is an article that certainly mentions his existence but fails to really be about him in any way meaningful enough to overcome the lack of other sources.

Furthermore, out of all the past presidents of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation, seven have no article at all, five have articles because they were subsequently elected to a provincial or federal legislature, and one has an article because of her subsequent prominence as a pundit, author and lobbyist. Thus, Marlowe's is the only article anywhere on Wikipedia which posits the presidency of the PCYF as its primary claim of notability; everybody else who's led the organization has an article only if they've gone on to do something more notable than merely leading a political party's youth wing.

And finally, it warrants mention that the original discussion was significantly skewed by sockpuppets with possible WP:COI issues.

As always, I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if someone can Heymann it up to a keepable standard with solid, reliable sources that meet 2012 standards of sourcing and notability. But as currently constituted, delete if such improvement isn't forthcoming. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that there is no "automatic" notability for the head of the youth wing of a political party. That the person is passionate enough about politics to get to that position indicates that they may end up in political office in the future, but until that happens, there should be no article. I can find no reliable sources providing significant coverage. There is this article but thaqt is a far cry from the sourcing we need for icnlusion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 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 redirect to List_of_Mario_television_episodes#Super_Mario_World. Sandstein 05:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Luigi[edit]

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

Uh, no. The sources are IMDb, a Super Mario World fansite and a user-submitted review. There are millions of memes surrounding the episode, but none have raised it to notability. I just know this will be undone if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sure, I helped out on it, but the issues are a little too much. WP:TNT this page, or delete it altogether. Zappa (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another "type what I see" article with nothing really to back it up beyond user-submitted reviews and plenty of YouTube parodies. A locked redirect to the show page may work if the closer and others agree. Nate • (chatter) 03:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect would definitely solve the problem, and frankly, the whole "reception" section is encyclopedically worthless. MSJapan (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Mario television episodes#Super Mario World. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above ^^^ Ducknish (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Redirect, Luigi. If there were sources about this episode specifically, it might be a different story. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:18, 1 May 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. I'm sorry about the stress this article has caused the subject's family but sources have been presented that demonstrates that he meets WP:GNG. The questionable content has been removed and I would urge those participating here to keep an eye on this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Stetson[edit]

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

I am nominating this in my capacity as an OTRS volunteer on behalf of the subject and his involved family. (see Ticket#: 2012012510015743). This is their reasoning:

1) This page was not created with his knowledge or permission. I'm trying to find out how the entry may be edited to omit the statement of "under mysterious circumstances, and without any of the normal fanfare and celebrations that would accompany the departure of a top University administrator." That statement is purely speculative and during the time when my father announced retirement, the University student body and administration were extremely supportive. The false notion that it was "mysterious" was eventually dredged up by the school newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian. I believe they are continuing to perpetuate this inaccuracy by not only creating the referenced Wikipedia page but also providing a citation, as if to prove authenticity, when in reality it is misleading.

2) It's somewhat of a cyclical nature as the *only* printed source that even mentioned his departure outside of the University's official retirement letter is the Daily Pennsylvanian articles. I also find it disturbing because I can only presume that the individual(s) who created my father's wikipedia page, which was done without his knowledge, is/are affiliated with the student paper. Much debate was created on campus at the time by those who felt it was unfair that my father was even targeted by speculation through the paper but of course, there is no printed source other than what is found in the comment sections of the two articles...hopefully this can be resolved through this discussion. My father and I just want a fair and neutral entry on wikipedia regarding his character and if that can't be mitigated, we don't want such an entry to exist at all.

3) After discussion this with my father...he would feel more comfortable if you would nominate this articlefor deletion on his behalf.

Thank you again.

-Lindsey Stetson

Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have found a few sources, looks like a little work is all that is needed to flesh this out. For example:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/education/19counselor.html?pagewanted=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems notable, and providing a more balanced treatment is better than deleting. I edited the article with more info on the consultancy and reduced the focus in the article on his sudden departure. Despite what Lindsey Stetson says, Lee Stetson's departure was covered in similar terms (left "abruptly", school "tight-lipped") in the Philadelphia Inquirer [2] which as the USA's third-oldest newspaper is a rather more reputable source than a student paper, and in the Chronicle of Higher Education, which called it a "puzzling exit"[3]. The CHE article (which unfortunately isn't freely available online) offers additional evidence attesting to his importance in university admissions beyond U of Pennsylvania, some of which I put in the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He doesn't fit WP:PROF very well, but after the recent changes to the article it seems clearer that he passes WP:GNG and is known for more than just his departure. However, per WP:BLP, I think we need to keep the innuendo about how mysterious his departure was to a minimum, and stick to just the facts of the event. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My view is admissions officers at universities would not meet WP:Prof or general notability except in special circumstances. It seems highly likely to me that the main purpose that would be served by our retention of this article would not be as part of series of articles on admissions officers but rather a venue for aiding, reporting or introducing speculation on this persons problems. Such problems and the surrounding issues I think would require more coverage in reliable sources before justifying an article such as this one. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
My opinion is that powerful people are notable, and they ought to be kept, regardless of their current desires for privacy, especially after years of seeking out major news coverage. The subject here voluntarily spoke to the New York Times, my hallmark for notability, and he can't take back his words and cry, "I want to be alone." Please note, however, that the consensus in the past has been to delete marginally notable persons. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Public figure, no available option to delete on request even if marginally notable. But Berian is wrong: we do not usually delete marginally notable people on the subjects request, which is what I suppose he means.--we never delete them if public figures; if private, we do not have a consensus to delete--only if opinion is divided can it optionally be closed as delete, and there is no firm consensus about when to use that option (except in cases clearly involving DO NO HARM). I think the recent trend of consensus is to interpret "private" rather narrowly. Myself, I would eliminate the option to close BLP AfDs as delete at the request of the subject in all cases. We should delete if require by Do No Harm whether or not the subject requests it, and treat their opinion otherwise only as any other contributor to the discussion. Otherwise they ask for the deletion of only articles not to their liking, which destroys NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 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. If somebody wants to fix this BLP, I'll be glad to userfy or incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Neufeld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although this was kept when first discussed in 2005, the state of the article is such that it does need a review to look at whether it really conforms to Wikipedia's contemporary standards and policies as of 2012. Firstly, today's consensus has very much swung away from the idea that being the president of a political party at the provincial or state level automatically confers sufficient notability to entitle someone to an article just on that basis alone — and secondly, our rules around reliable sourcing are a lot tighter and stricter than they were seven years ago, such that there is not a single source in this article which passes 2012 standards: several are dead links, and the others are either invalid primary sources or mere listings of his name which fail to constitute substantive coverage of him. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up to a keepable standard with real, reliable sources — but as currently constituted, it does not meet contemporary notability and sourcing standards. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is. Bearcat is right. Wikipedia has changed (me included). We don't keep BLPs because they might one day be fixed. We demand they be right now, not tomorrow. I think if somebody wants to take a few hours, they can likely find sufficient reliable sources and completely rebuild this article, providing coverage from numerous sources (He regularly gets his name in the news from his activism, having plenty of interviews). Thus meeting the general notability requirement. But, those sources just aren't in the current article. Right now, we just have primary non-neutral sources. Grant, if you're reading this, I hope you'll agree you're probably better off having this get deleted, since it probably does nothing but attract random idiots writing something stupid, that you or others have to forever be on the watch for. --Rob (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been up for deletion many times it seems and is still here. Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The core of WP:GNG is whether a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That isn't demonstrated by this article; every single reference cited in it is insignificant, unreliable and/or not independent. It's certainly possible that Mr. Neufeld might meet WP:GNG in principle — but the article, in its current form, does not. And while it was repeatedly nominated in 2004 and 2005 (and sometimes even renominated within minutes of the previous discussion being closed), it hasn't been discussed once, or improved one whit, in the six years since. Wikipedia standards around notability and referencing are now much tighter and stricter than they were at that time; you could get away with a much lazier, much more poorly written and much more poorly referenced article back then than you can now. And you can't just assert that a topic passes WP:GNG, either — that has to be demonstrated by the actual use of actual reliable sources, and there aren't any here. As I said already, I'll happily withdraw this nomination if the article gets improved — but it's not entitled to stick around looking like this. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed for inclusion. There is this article in a Calgary weekly, but aside from that, it's just passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. The earlier AfD was marked by a remarkable number of poor arguments, and I'm surprised it took so long for this to be renominated. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing and coverage to justify a self-standing BLP like this. --DAJF (talk) 04:53, 1 May 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. hoax or at the very least A10 slakr^\ talk / 01:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albany (band)[edit]

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

The article is substantially a copy of Slapstick (band), with much of the content unchanged. I'm unsure whether the article is a hoax or whether it is for an unremarkable local band and has been discarded, either way it should be deleted. Deadly∀ssassin 21:53, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah soule[edit]

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

Unremarkable criminal, no indication of more than local significance Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP, and because I cannot find any sources that suggest she is notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find evidence this case had a long-lasting impact, which would be needed to be notable; indeed there's almost nothing about Soule online. There's a URL in the article but it doesn't work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Save Just because you can't find her online, doesn't mean this case did not have a lasting impact or is not notable, it is factual and her actions had an impact on many lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisey101 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brutal and tragic though the events may have been, they don't seem to, per WP:PERP, have made Soule a "renowned national or international figure", and the motivation for the crime doesn't seem to be "unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event". Assuming that Soule is not notable for any other reason, one of these two things must be proven true for us to keep the article. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Save You can't tell me it didn't make an impact. http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/groups/NicholasMiller/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.146.64.137 (talk) [reply]
- Generally, a Facebook page is not a source of notability and is not reliable. A412 (Talk • C) 23:03, 24 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, JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PERP. No significant coverage found to show that Soule was anything more than one of many criminals, and sad as the crime was, that's not enough to meet our notability requirements. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRIME, not notable. - DonCalo (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PERP. The crime was not, is not and will never be a well documented historical event. The convicted perpetrator is no more notable than the event. DocTree (talk) 16:51, 1 May 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 deleted as copyvio of http://www.goldenagestories.com/node/724 Peridon (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Killer[edit]

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

The article is a copy and paste copyright violation. I haven't found the exact source yet, but this edit supports my assertion that this article is a copyright violation. Spidey104 20:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete ASAP per G12. Copyvio. ChromaNebula (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page for speedy and blanked it due to the copyright problem. Did I handle it correctly? ChromaNebula (talk) 01:25, 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 Keep. Yasht101 07:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2012 Mexico bus crash[edit]

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

Non-notable. Perhaps merge into an article describing multiple transportation disasters, but there's more here than should be in a Wikipedia article, and less than is required for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Also a clearly inappropriate name; there's likely to be more bus crashes in Mexico in 2012, although perhaps not as newsworthy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very tragic occurrence, but nothing would indicate that the event has any lasting notability. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Rorshacma (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A single bus with 43 deaths is notable. If this had happened in the US, UK or even Switzerland, then no-one would even consider it for deletion. This easily meets WP:GNG. Expansion, not deletion is the answer. Lugnuts (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This many deaths in a single accident is clearly notable. And to anyone who would like to dispute this opinion with me: Heard all the arguments before, don't agree with 'em, so don't bother. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it. This is an AfD. Opinions are actually what count here. I don't have to justify it by quoting spurious "rules" (which aren't, of course, this being Wikipedia) ad infinitem. End of. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin is supposed to determine which rules determine whether the article should be deleted, not count noses or bytes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that (although I would once again reiterate that Wikipedia has no rules - it has policies and guidelines, all of which are open to interpretation). I was just trying to stave off the usual tedious chorus of "X rule says Y so your opinion is invalid because I don't agree with it and look I can quote stuff so I must be right" that I usually get in these circumstances. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in major international media. Passes WP:GNG. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our own feeling that it is notable because of the umber of deaths is echoed by the media, and it therefore meets the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 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 without prejudice. Pending the results of the recount. If a neutral editor wishes to recreate this article with reliable sources, it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wendelin Fraser[edit]

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

While it's certainly possible that her past work as a faculty member at Mount Royal University might confer sufficient notability per WP:ACADEMIC for the article to be kept, as written this article doesn't actually demonstrate that — it's sourced almost entirely to invalid primary sources (e.g. the university's own press releases, etc.); its sole non-primary source is specifically about her candidacy (and even that source still skirts the edge of primary, as it's the student newspaper of the university where she was a faculty member); even if you discount the primary sourcing issue it still makes numerous entirely unsourced biographical claims; and its overall tone is quite peacocky ("community service has been prodigious", etc.) Fundamentally, it's quite clear that as currently written, this article's primary intention was not to be an encyclopedia article about a notable acdemic, but rather a campaign brochure for an unelected political candidate. Furthermore, the article was created and edited almost entirely by two anonymous IP numbers with no other contribution history outside of this article — meaning that while it's impossible to know for sure, there's a high likelihood here of WP:COI editing by her own campaign staff.

I'd be more than happy to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up into a properly keepable article about a notable academic — but as currently formulated, it's merely a bad article about a person who fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. In the absence of major improvements, delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think I am going to wait until after the recount to comment further. 117Avenue (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If she wins the recount, I'll certainly withdraw the nomination (and/or create a new replacement article if necessary). But even if that happens, the article will still require a serious cleanup job and won't be able to stand looking like this. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly promotional, regardless of the election. Rewriting this sort of utter advertising is beyond my ability, It needs to be restarted from scratch if she becomes notable as a politician. If not, I'm not convinced about meeting WP:PROF, but anyone who wants is welcome to start over. If this weren't so close to closing as a delete, I'd consider Speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 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. Almost all, apart from the author, agree that this is original research and should not remain here. Whether and where to redirect it to might need more discussion. Sandstein 05:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Base-2 scientific notation[edit]

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

Article seems to be a vague WP:OR screed on powers of two (which is already the subject of an article). Despite the name, the article does not even seem to define a "notation" as the word is understood in mathematics. (Of course, there is a base-2 notation described in binary numeral system, but we have an article for that.) The cited sources do not seem to use the terminology "base-2 scientific notation," and online hits for this term all seem to refer to ordinary binary numerals (or occasionally binary floating point).

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Camber

I have spent some time on your MIT web pages and your pages within Wikipedia. You are a scholar and I certainly welcome and appreciate your comments. I would like to involve some of my academic friends to do some heavy editing to see if they can get the article to sit up a little straighter. -BEC

Redirect to floating point. That seems the target most likely to discuss anything being searched for under this search term. OK to merge content if there's anything encyclopedic and sourceable to merge. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Camber

Regarding the floating point redirect, as I said in the article, "Base-2 scientific notation should not to be confused with the base-2 numeral system ..." - BEC

The point is that what other people mean by "base-2 scientific notation" is a binary numeral system of some sort (with scientific notation referring specifically to a floating-point-style enumeration). Wikipedia nomenclature is dictated by common usage (see WP:TITLE); editors are not free to invent their own nomenclatures (see WP:OR and WP:NOT). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Camber

Thank you. I'll continue re-reading scientific notation and the other uses within Wikipedia of that term as well as base-2 within radix. I am beginning to see your point, but would argue that base-ten scientific notation has set a more consistent standard for the use of the two combinations of words, "base-2" and "scientific notation." When referring to the binary numeral system, it appears that it is called base-2 binary notation. When used within logarithm, it does not impute floating-point or the binary numeral system. I'll continue studying Wikipedia. Yet, certainly I see your point when one puts the words "base-two scientific notation" in Google, they are all about normalizing numbers and floating point. Maybe we should change the title to "base-2 geometric notation" but then it looks like original research. Hmm, a Catch 22.

There are four articles that I have found to be helpful in filtering these comments.

Abuse of notation, Exponentiation in the section, Powers of two, Mathematical_notation#Modern_notation, and Power of two -BEC

BruceCamber (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incomprehensible. 86.160.217.111 (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Camber

Is it still incomprehensible? I have made some changes to make it less oblique. - BEC

I honestly don't think this article has any hope of surviving in anything remotely resembling its present form. It reads like a bunch of personal ideas that you have had and connections that you have made, some of which aren't very coherent, loosely grouped together under a confusing title. It does not amount to an encyclopedic article in any way that I can see. Sorry to be so negative, but that's the way I see it. We'll see how the consensus turns out. 86.186.8.216 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC) (BTW, sorry my initial comment "incomprehensible" was so blunt; I didn't realise at the time that this was one person's work, I thought it was an accretion of various editors' inputs over time.)[reply]

Comment from Camber

Apology accepted. It was a bunch of ideas "loosely grouped together." I thought admitting it was project of five high school geometry classes would put the article out in left field immediately. It seems now that the consensus is with you and Stevenj. Again, as I said earlier (below), I can only respect your judgments. I am not well-versed in the deeper-seated traditions of Wikipedia. -BEC

BruceCamber (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be original research. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Camber

There is nothing original about it. Smarter people have blazed the trail. - BEC

Response to Camber - "original research" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. Unless you can show that the concept you are describing is documented in reliable third-party sources (and is described as "base-2 scientific notation") then your article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Saying it is an extension of "base-10" notation/orders of magnitude is not sufficient. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Camber

I grew up in the Boston area and we used an expression, "Dawn is breaking over Marblehead" when people were slow on their uptake. I am getting it. Slowly. See my comments to Stevenj.

Comments from Camber

Of course as a 64-year old newbie to Wikipedia, I respect your judgments. Also, given my prior work with many professors at MIT (including Phil Morrison of Powers of Ten fame), I respect your disciplined thinking. This note is not so much an apology but a statement about an early observation back in December 2011. I looked for an article about base-2 notation online and on Wikipedia and found none. Even within base-ten, there was incompleteness. Those cited works did not start at the Planck unit and did not go to the edge of the observable universe. As a simple exercise, I wondered how many base-2 notations there were and was quite surprised that the number was so small. I found it curious that so much had been done on base-ten, and nothing on base-2 so proposed the article and it slowly emerged.

So, although my writing style may seem a bit like a diatribe, it is not. It has been an earnest attempt to follow the spirit of Wikipedia.

I would like to see an article on base-2 scientific notation written well enough to be accepted. I would like it to be the strongest possible article. I am open to suggestions, yet, of course, I would gladly withdraw the article that I initiated in place of the editorial work of others that is acceptable to you all. If I had found a base-2 notation article in the beginning, I would have used it, but the message from Wikipedia was "This page does not exist" along with an invitation to create it. I am open to any conversations about writing an encyclopedic article about base-2 scientific notation focusing on its geometries as a starting point.

-Bruce Camber 214-801-8521

BruceCamber (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr Camber, I took the liberty to make the heading you wrote a more compliant bold text, and added a level of indentation. I didn't change one word. 217.251.155.227 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Camber Thank you, 217.251.155.227. Very gracious of you. I would welcome any word changes and word, sentence or paragraph deletions. -BEC

BruceCamber (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. The article mentions many different topics, yet it doesn't go into the necessary details with one. I assume it should treat the topic of powers of two and different phenomena at different scales, like the book "Powers of 10" does. But the writing is unclear and confusing because of the side topics. For example, buckyballs and nanotubes. They are example of structures at the molecular scale. They are not closely related to a base-2 notation. And in my eyes, 206 scales, each different from the others by a factor of two, are not 206 notations either. I would think that a notation is something like,

"Take the decimal number 9. Now multiply or divide by 2 to bring it into the 0.5 (excluded) to 1.0 (included) range, and note the factor as a power of two.

Thus, 9 = 0.5625 ^. 2⁴.

Or put back into the scales picture, the smallest scale to show an object 9 meters in size is the 2⁴ meters scale."

The other topics (buckyballs etc) should go into the other articles rather than this one, at least IMO.

217.251.155.227 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Camber I have deleted the buckyballs and nanotubes from the section "See more" and I have pushed a number of sentences around to focus on the nature of notation and the parallel constructs between notations in geometry. I agree about adding "...different phenomena at different scales" and anticipated that would be done eventually. Again, 217.251.155.227, thank you for your thoughtful response. -BEC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The gist of the article seems to be "We did the same thing that Morrison did in Powers of Ten, only we did it with powers of two; isn't that neat?" That's nice, but I don't see anything here that anyone would look for in an encyclopedia but that isn't already covered somewhere. I can think of lots of good webpages about science and mathematics that don't belong in an encyclopedia. —Tamfang (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as WP:OR/WP:ESSAY. The basic topic is covered at Floating point, but I see nothing worth merging. I'm all for putting the work of high school students on the web, but a Wikipedia article might not be the best way. An illustrated web site somewhere might be more appropriate. -- 202.124.72.217 (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The base 2 scientific notation does exist in both binary and decimal forms, see for example this tutorial note. I disagree that the floating point article would be appropriate - scientific notation would be better. But the base 2 scientific notation has its own areas of application, especially in computer science, and I would hope deserves an article of its own. The current content is poorly referenced inline, so it is hard to say what is valid and what is WP:OR. And anything worth keeping will also need editing for readability. Certainly, the notation itself needs to be properly explained. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give an example of the application of base-2 scientific notation in computer science – other than for floating-point representation – that is described in a reliable source? --Lambiam 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  [Edit] Oops, it might have helped if I had actually read your question first. Sorry. Substantial rewrite follows:
  
  Off-hand, no. I suppose there might be an argument for moving that bit of the article to a new one called "Base 2 floating point notation", or merging it with floating point, but the present title; a) is preferable because it refers to the more general case and is sometimes used, and b) it offers the opportunity to clarify the different usages of the more general term. To back this view up:
  
  Wallis, W.D.; A beginner's guide to discrete mathematics, Birkhauser (2011), page 20:
  "Floating point notation is a special form of scientific notation" (Wallis' italics)
  
  and
  
  "One can also use floating point notation in bases other than 10—in base 2, ..."
  As so often, experts coming from different areas have subtly different takes on meanings and definitions, so that drawing a consistent view from a superficial scan of sources is pretty impossible. I give you my best shot in the time I can spare, but am open to stronger counter-examples! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Errm... these examples do not exactly fit the profile of "other than for floating-point representation". --Lambiam 21:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies - now rewritten. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 20:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scientific notation#Other bases. What can be said about the topic does not justify a separate article. The present article is mostly synthesis of material that is not really about notation per se, but some of it might find use somewhere else in our encyclopedia. --Lambiam 05:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a disambiguation link rather than a full redirect. Those of us familiar with this usage have to keep an open mind over whether other communities might have hijacked the term to mean something else. If someone has, and if there is enough material out there, then that merits its own place on Wikipedia. I saw some evidence of this from Google searches, so at this time I find it hard to justify wholesale deletion. I think it fair to give the "cosmic" discussion of the term a chance to develop greater encyclopedic rigour before deciding whether to delete. Further, I don't think that computer scientists are best placed to make that judgement (having been disambiguated to the sidelines, as it were), the material to date suggests that this is more a matter for that community itself; perhaps philosophers, historians and teachers of mathematics and physics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You write "If someone has, and if there is enough material out there, then ...", but you do not give any verifiable evidence that this hypothetical situation has become reality. If we make this a dab page, we need at least two about equally plausible meanings for the term. I can think of only one, which is: scientific notation using base 2. --Lambiam 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. However the article was created by an inexperienced editor. I'd just like to give him and his community a little more time to see if they can fix it up, before we hit them with a wholesale deletion. Is there some way to flag this deletion request for say revisiting in a few weeks' time? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original author's explanations on this thread already make it clear that his other meaning (a sequence of "notations" describing lengthscales increasing by factors of two from the Planck length, along with various analogies in geometry) is WP:OR. No valid justification has been given for any delay here. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 13:09, 29 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. Speedy deleted, A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject Jac16888 ^Talk 13:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBN Earthmovers Ludhiana[edit]

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

I found no notability. Google News turned up blank. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 19:26, 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 keep. B music ian 04:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Ell[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of sources, but the sources present are: Her own site, myspace, local one-off coverage from the Calgary Herald, and what appear to be directory listings for her albums. She has performed at a couple notable places, but I'm not seeing anything in the way of non-trivial, non-local sources. Further searching has only found along the likes of "Lindsay Ell will be performing at X", which is not non-trivial coverage.

The deprodder said that she meets WP:BAND #5 with her discography, but one album is so obscure that Allmusic doesn't even list it, and the other was only distributed by a major company in association with a non-notable label. She is signed to Stoney Creek Records but again, her page on Stoney Creek's website is just a placeholder. Also, as stated with Parmalee, I work for a country music website and I have seen nothing about her releasing anything for Stoney Creek yet. This seems to be a WP:TOOSOON as it stands. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TPH did you check Google News? With GNews I was able to find this non-local coverage, and also found that the "Taking Care of Business" article was distributed nationwide and published in the Ottawa Citizen [4]. Other local coverage includes this and this. From what I can tell, it's not exclusively "one-off" local coverage. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First and fourth seem to be just fluff pieces with little substance and almost nothing to contribute — the fourth only mentions that she'll be in an award show and riding the coattails of others. Second one appears to be a press release by a PR agency. Third one, maybe. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quick to rush to judgment. The article you refer to as a press release was credited to Calgary Herald reporter Theresa Tayler [5], was distributed by a national news agency, and reprinted in the Ottawa Citizen and the Winnipeg Free Press. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ell meets the general notability guideline by having non-trivial coverage primarily about her in multiple sources each independent of the subject. There are six valid source articles from four different publications. Two source articles aren't free online to everyone, but I was able to read them (through my library's web site). I tried to remove some hype from the article. I think the sources are sufficient for expansion of the article --Rob (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, and the general notability guideline, with multiple articles primarily about her in the Calgary Herald, one of which was reprinted in newspapers across Canada, as well as coverage in such varied sources as the Guelph Mercury, Fast Forward Weekly, and Rocky Mountain Outlook. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep - Topic passes WP:GNG and criteria #1 of WP:MUSICBIO, with significant coverage:

Calgary Herald – A style all her own
Calgary Herald – Eyes of Canada on city for music awards gala
Canwest News Service (National coverage) – Taking care of business: Rock icon takes teen under wing

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:25, 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 (Non-admin closure) Obviously, speedy keep per snow. Let's wait until any other articles may no longer exist, okay? --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Davis (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Delete as an unnecessary disambiguation page. There is only one Sharon Davis with an article and a "not to be confused with" hatnote should suffice in case someone wants to find the Shar(r)on Davies'. Tavix | Talk 19:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Four valid entries (per MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION, two very valid see alsos, easily misspelt as Sharon Davis - clearly not a case for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with haste. This disambiguates nothing. If you have one blue link and three reds, what does it navigate? NOTHING. This should not exist until at least one other redlink is made blue; currently it's putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you looked at the guidelines? See MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks stupid and pointless to have only one blue link on a dab page since you're pointing people to nowhere. Why not kill it until after the other people have their own articles? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take that to mean you've read the guidelines and see that it meets them? There is clearly not one blue link on the page - there are six, so it clearly points someone to a choice of places. If you disagree with the policy, you should suggest changing it and trying to build up a consensus for that on the relevant Wikiproject. Not try to speedy delete a page which meets the current guidelines, which are born out of consensus. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per MOS:DABMENTION the 3 red-links are perfectly valid. I think the red-links themselves should possibly be removed so it fits in with one link per line. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The three redlinks just barely clear the notability bar and have acceptable secondary bluelinks. The spelling variations are a definite plus. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; all filled up now. bd2412 T 23:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep now that the articles exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this perfectly valid disambiguation page. LadyofShalott 03:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Virtual Realities[edit]

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

A class at one college. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, and Wikipedia is not a college course catalog. Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. There is no wide media coverage of the class. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have articles on every course at every school and college, and there is nothing at all to suggest that this one is in any way special. Early version of the article unambiguously qualified for speedy deletion as promotional, and the current version is not far off from the same fate. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTEVERYTHING Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep - Comments on the talk page indicate significant interest of several editors in improving the article to a high standard. While WP:GNG has not been demonstrated - there is an excellent case that it will be if these editors get some instruction. I also hope that we could meet this good will with a bit of tolerance — perhaps soon this type of course may become available in virtually all political study departments ;-). I therefore recommend it should be allowed to develop with a view that it could be deleted or moved to wikiuniversity in a couple of months. BO; talk 23:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles because someone speculates that notability may one day be demonstrated: we need actual evidence that there is notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- For the record, I have created a page to guide these editors. There is also a userpage version. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. As for BO's suggestion, that's what the sandbox is for. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sandbox is for learning to use wikisyntax. any page there is subject to deletion without discussion. Also it is not a good place for multiple editors to collabotate, they will not be able to find the article that they work on a subpage in the sandbox. BO; talk 09:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe he was talking about a user's personal sandbox. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete, fails GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable. Even the one and only person wanting "keep" says that notability has not been demonstrated. Need one say more? Elton Bunny (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others. No evidence of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 19:43, 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 no consensus. Sources have been presented by Trevj that he believes demonstrate notability but that have not been evaluated or impeached. I'm going to give this one the benefit of the doubt. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Cart[edit]

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

No evidence of sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline. Bulwersator (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. --J (t) 03:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Bulwersator (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any outside coverage that would reasonably allow it to meet WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRODUCT. Not great refs, but I did find a couple of books[6][7] and a university work[8]. Surely there must also exist some articles in newsstand computer mags? -- Trevj (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm of the opinion that topics which have been the subject of an actual published non-vanity-press book are notable by default. This appears to have several. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 1 May 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 05:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VirtueMart[edit]

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

No evidence of sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline. Bulwersator (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 26 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, B music ian 04:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:56, 1 May 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. The SPA !votes that were completely unsupported by policy were not counted towards the consensus of this discussion. B music ian 04:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Latif Yahia Verified youtube channel ===Latif Yahia===[reply]

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

As an OTRS volunteer I'm nominating this page for deletion per the subject's request in OTRS ticket 2012012710004117. Below is the request:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am contacting you yet again in regard to the Wikipedia bio page about me, Latif Yahia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latif_Yahia.I do not know how to put his more clearly, Take the page down, I do not want a Wikipedia page about me, I did not ask for or sanction the one you have now.

While you say that you have policies that ensure that pages about living persons are balanced etc, I fear that they fail when it comes to my page. It was suggested to me that I open a "user ID" for myself to open debate with the persons editing my page so that we may find some balance only to be "blocked" by Wikipedia itself. Have you any idea what it is like to see comments by people who have no idea who you are or what you have endured in your life like

" I think that this page is only to promote a book and a movie" and "does he even deserve a whole page? maybe a paragraph?"

What I find even more frustrating is that the only two sources of information that have been left on my page are negative firstly, even though there are thousands of interviews out there by respected "household names" in journalism and these have all been swept aside in favour of two Freelance journalists who have written articles for The Guardian and the Sunday Times, well, I have written articles for Newsweek , The New York Times and various other publications but that does not entitle me to call myself a journalist for any of these publications. It should also be noted that links to my blog refuting the allegations levied at me in the articles by Eoin Butler an Ed Caesar have been removed by editors citing that my own blog is not a suitable or reliable source, yet the links of these two journalists to their private blogs are left on the page.

Wikipedia has stymied me at every turn in not only my attempt but the attempt of other editors to get this page back to what may resemble a balanced and informative biography. Are you trying to make me believe that there are no favourable articles from respected authorities out there to be added to my bio page? Or is Wikipedia itself happy with the general tone and inference of the material?

Once again, for clarity, I will ask you to REMOVE MY BIOGRAPHY FROM WIKIPEDIA, I do not want it, I did not ask for it and considering Wikipedia's current stance on it's edit I certainly do not approve of it. ... I would like to see it deleted as soon as possible and I never, ever want another one opened.

I look forward to your response.

Latif Yahia

Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person appears to satisfy WP:BIO. He is not a reclusive person known only for one thing, but is a widely covered person for many years. has written books about his experiences, and has participated in making a well publicized movie about his adventures. His approval is not required for Wikipedia to have a biography. There are remedies available if anything in the article violates WP:BLP, the policy for biographies of living persons. The article must be kept to a neutral point of view, based on reliable sources, without undue weight being given to anything. It could be protected or semi-protected if necessary. Edison (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make sure it respects neutrality. He has received significant external coverage so I don't believe he counts as only borderline-notable. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a welcome change from the socking, legal threats, and conflicted and disruptive editing done by or on behalf of the subject. However, this page is not amenable to WP:BLPDEL because neutrality and sourcing concerns should be achieved through the normal editing process, and deletion by request as a last resort. The subject is not "relatively unknown." In addition, the above request is very much a wholesale repetition of prior complaints raised at the article talk page and at BLPN. Editorial consensus — including that of the subject — seems to be that he is notable under WP:BIO and WP:GNG, even independently notable from the movie about him. That might change during this AfD process, who knows. (I'll point out there's zero indication through reliable third party coverage that the subject approaches WP:AUTHOR, so having written things doesn't seem applicable.) Assuming consensus doesn't change, though, the subject should bear in mind that he can't own his article, and that having an article at all isn't really about him. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has become notable due to his accounts of episodes in his life, published in autobiographical books, in his blog and in interviews and dramatised in a film with his co-operation. Having placed those accounts in the public view, he is not in a position to prevent balanced encyclopedic overviews that refer to his own accounts and to critical or sceptical examinations of them. NebY (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the post is heavily biased against the subject who clearly want no part of it. S.Todd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meesandee (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC) — Meesandee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Actually, it's best if the subject in fact takes no part in the article about him. Please have a look at the conflict of interest and article ownership pages. Can you point to a policy or guideline that supports your position that this "heavily biased article" should be remedied through deletion instead of normal editing? JFHJr (㊟) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a controversial article only because the subject is controversial. There is more than sufficient material and coverage by reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. WP:BIODEL is the relevant policy, and based on the subject and this discussion, the article should not be deleted based on that policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It encourages more research into the subject of Latif's reliability and truthfulness. There have been many 'imposters' and anyone PUBLICLY portraying himself in

questionable terms must be prepared for a staunch defense IF he is being honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.77.84 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The subject of the BIO does not object to further scrutiny of his story or indeed further research, what he does object to and the reason that he has asked for deletion is clear from complaints raised at the article talk page. The BIO has been edited by some users who have focused on articles written by two of thousands of journalists that have interviewed him in the past twenty years, no attempt has been made by any of these editors (some of whom are voting for the page to be kept) to add additional references that are positive to balance the article. To have any Wikipedia article lean to one side or the other is not within the framework of what Wikipedia is supposed to be and any article that remains unbalanced is as much anti-propaganda as it may be propaganda. If the article is not about "HIM" and is not "HIS" then it is within reason to believe that all edits and additions should be fair, balanced, impartial and thoroughly researched. As written by another commentator it should be a "balanced encyclopedic overview", it is not and from what I have seen through the edits, additions, reversions and deletions there has been far too much emotion attached to this article from editors for it ever to be fair, balance or impartial. On that basis I recommend deletion. If the story needs to be followed up, I am sure that we can do it through mainstream media etc, people are technologically literate enough to research the subject themselves. If there are any doubts about the subject's credibility, having a Wikipedia page will only drive more traffic to his website and onwards. 22:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.150.47 (talk) — 81.83.150.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Forest Development[edit]

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

I cannot find anything significant referencing "Montreal Forest Development" or "Desarrollo Forestal Montreal". Is this the correct name? If not, the article should be recreated under the proper name. If this is the proper name, I don't see how it is notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will find proper reference on the national registry of Costa Rica's web page and will be adding such reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggurdian1 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The property is registered under the number, Desarrollo Forestal Montreal 3-101-033166 in Costa Rica's national registry. Should I find more information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggurdian1 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following coordinates to the article which give exact location to the reserve. 10° 12′ 38.55″ N, 84° 6′ 56.99″ W Ggurdian1 • (talk

Delete. It is a sizeable area but there does not seem to be a lot of info about it. The greenie in me would want to keep it but without refs it does not deserve a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sizable nature reserve are like geographic features: if there is evidence of real existence and location it's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the evidence of its existence is scant. Maybe out mate Mr NorthAmerica1000 can dig some out of the darker recesses of the internet. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Sizable nature reserves are notable. Attempting to delete this, even given the current referencing, is a prejudicial assumption of non-notability when there's a whole pile of WP:BEFORE that wants looking at first. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have it kept but it is not referenced at all. The ext links don't count - they are generic and in Spanish or are primary sources.. Also, google gives nothing. There may be some stuff in Spanish but if it is notable there should be at least some info in English. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After some searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources yet. I've notified WikiProject Costa Rica about this article: link to notice. Here are some directory listings I have found thus far, obviously not to establish notability; perhaps others can find coverage vis-a-vis use of these links:

Legal notice: La Gaceta Digital (PDF), La Gaceta Diario Official
More notices: Google search, three pages
Directory listing: Mint Portal Bureau Van Dijk. This listing may be unrelated: this translates in Babel Fish as "Forest Development Montreal Anonymous Society". It's listed as located in San Jose, Costa Rica.
Directory listing: College of Agricultural Engineers, San Jose, Costa Rica.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Northamerica1000 cannot find decent info the article is doomed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Leaning merge to Braulio Carrillo National Park~~ Comment - Is there a set guideline or policy page for geographic locations? I've looked before, but not finding anything other than:

Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) – A failed proposal
Wikipedia:Notability (geography) – An essay, not official policy

– Per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (I added the underline):

“

Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc. The amount of sources and notability of the place are still important, however. If little information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist for a named geographic feature, there is probably not enough verifiable content for an article. Rather than deletion, these articles should be merged and redirected to a more general geographic article. For example, an article on a river island where there is no information available except the name and the location should probably redirect to the article on the river."

”

– The article/section title for a potential merge may need to be renamed. One option would be rename the article to "Forest Development Montreal" which is translated (roughly) from the Spanish "Desarrollo Forestal Montreal". This is similar to the article's current title. Another option is to rename it to "Desarrollo Forestal Montreal S.A.". Per the Tropical Cloud Forest website and links in my other post above, this is the registered name of the site/managing organization.

– ~~A merge to Braulio Carrillo National Park may be a viable alternative to deletion, because the area is adjacent to Braulio Carrillo National Park, per the Tropical Cloud Forest website.~~

– Per the Tropical Cloud Forest website, the location's current area is slightly more than 592 hectares, which translates to 2.28572478 square miles. This is a sizable amount of land; many villages and towns are smaller in size, yet are included in the encyclopedia.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment1 There is no formal guideline for geographic subjects because the process for adopting one in practice makes a small minority who objects to the proposal able to filibuster, until all the rational people willing to compromise give up entirely. the competing process is to make small wording changes that cumulatively reverse the effect of the guideline in the hope of their overall effect not being noticed . That's why the practical guidelines for notability are what we consistently do here at AfD, whatever that happens to be, Since IAR guarantees that no guideline can over-ride consensus over a particular issue, the effective guidelines are whatever have continuing consensus.

The practical guiding rule is that all named geographic areas have articles, and national level parks and similar are one type of them. We have consistently made articles on geographic features even if nothing can be established besides the identity and location, on the reasonable grounds that people will then add to them.

comment2 In the absence of a established English title, we use the title in the local language, rather than attempt our own translation, so we would use the Spanish title. A merge on the basis that it lies next to another area is an absurd principle. We could thus merge Westchester into the Bronx. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
' DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:FIVEPILLARS, because Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, and per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (also one of the five pillars), because it makes sense for all geographic areas to be covered in Wikipedia.

Per User:DGG's comment #2 directly above this post, I propose that the article is renamed to Desarrollo Forestal Montreal S.A. I've struck my "leaning merge" !vote above. Thanks User:DGG for the input regarding this matter. Unrelated sidenote: Bronxchester County???

Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have begun to change the name of the article to Desarrollo Forestal Montreal S.A. as suggested by Northamerica1000 I agree to change the name of the article to its proper name. How should I do so? There have been some studies done by the Organization For Tropical Studies in the nineties I believe. I could try and find them if neccesary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggurdian1 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Regarding a name change: perhaps consider waiting until the discussion has ended; sometimes people get chapped when name changes occur during an ongoing AfD discussion.~~ Feel free to add reliable sources to the article at any time, and to this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my comment above. Being bold and renaming the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been renamed to: Desarrollo Forestal Montreal S.A. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Northamerica1000 I shall be fixing the species in "flora" in order to redirect them to the existing articles. Ggurdian1 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 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. Although there are some reasoned arguments in favour of deleting the argument, the strongest arguments provided all favour keeping the article. An IAR appeal to a special situation is generally the argument made for deleting the article. However, many have pointed out that this person is notable because of their achievements, and that the contentious material is reliably sourced. There might be scope for removing some contentious content, but that would require a much wider content discussion at another venue. This the consensus, based on the arguments and policies used, supports keeping the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Georgieva[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion in my capacity as an OTRS volunteer on behalf of the article subject (re: OTRS Ticket#: 2012012510010846)

Dear Wikipedia Foundation,

My name is Daniela Georgieva I am writing to you because I want to request that my Wikipedia page please be deleted because it is badly informed and is causing me and my family to suffer emotional distress. Also I would not like for my personal information (date of birth and place) to be available to anyone. So I would like to ask you to please delete my page. Here is the link to my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniela_Georgieva

Thank you for your time. Best Regards,

Daniela Georgieva

Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral I am tempted to suggest honouring the request, out of politeness and out of the fact we don't like causing distress. At the very least, I have redacted the specific biographical details, per policy. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 17:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the points below, it doesn't matter if it's on the IAAF or whatever, it's just beneficial to be nice sometimes - and remember, it being on the IAAF weakens the case for keeping it here in other respects. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 19:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a very strange thing to want to deny date of birth when the IAAF and many other sports websites list it anyway. Would the IAAF censor her birthdate too? She appears to meet WP:ATHLETE. We cannot bow down on a whim to people who want to deny people the right to knowledge. Anything "badly informed" can be fixed. We should not delete articles like this. It comes down to pure embarrassment in front of her pupils that she was banned for doping and obviously wants to get on with her life and put it behind her which is fair enough but I think it would be wrong for wikipedia to hide it. If Marion Jones contacted wikipedia asking the same thing should we delete her article too? How about Jennifer Capriati? Should the German and French wiki articles also be deleted?

In all fairness though there isn't an abundance of sources about her, but the bronze medal at the 1995 IAAF, being a national record holder and being an Olympic competitor I think make her notable and it would be wrong to delete an article on a Bronze medal contributor. I sympathise that she wants to hide her past, but the information is present on the Internet anyway. At the very worst we could remove the mention of the doping and keep the info on her career intact but that would be censorship?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absent a more specific, reasonable request identifying inappropriate content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not hugely notable per WP:GNG. There are also signs of WP:ADAM as the biographical detail is rather thin. As for the date/place of birth issue, there is a source here which seems OK. Possibly there is a dislike of the failed drug test in 1996 being mentioned, but if anything is outright wrong in the article, it should be mentioned clearly as a reason for deletion. Attempts were made to blank the page in January 2012 [9], leading to suggestions of a conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. Blofeld.--В и к и T 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can someone explain why our policy on biographies of living people does not apply here? In particular the section which states "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because its a silly request when you are just one click away from finding her birthdate on the IAAF or sports reference website..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice for athletics websites to give a person's full DOB, so there is no great intrusion of privacy here. It is rather like Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) telling his radio listeners and Twitter followers when his birthday is, then complaining when Wikipedia mentions it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That policy doesn't say "if the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, and the person's birthdate doesn't appear on other websites". You're reading a limitation into the policy that's not there. It just says if they complain, period. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not what it says, period. It says "err on the side caution," which means we can choose to not err at all, where such is publicly verified. (That said her exact date is fine to remove, as far as I'm concerned, although "neutral" would really be my position on that, here). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently misunderstand the idiom. It does not imply a choice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I understand the idiom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is borderline-notable and there's been a request from the subject. Policy allows removal in such cases, and human decency requires removing it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD is a rerun of Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). Factually correct statements that have appeared in reliable sources are not a major cause of concern, although there are notability issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of the article easily passes WP:NSPORTS as she "has competed in the Olympics or senior IAAF World Championships"; the page should be kept despite her request for deletion as there are no notability concerns. Our guidelines allow for the exact date of birth to be removed if the subject requests it, whether or not it's easily available elsewhere is irrelevant; we should leave out the full date and protect the page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty notable when it comes to athletics, and I'd say that career info is pretty central to the biography of an athlete ("Adam" comment). Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable and it makes no sense to remove the date of birth when it's already in the public domain via the IAAF website. It seems to me that this is more about the subject wanting to control what is written about them than about any problems with the article itself. Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This AfD was linked on Jimbo's talk page (diff) about 35 minutes after it began, which probably explains the high participation rate. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Olympians qualify for WP:ATHLETE, and there's no good reason to censor a publicly available and reliably sourced birth date. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The date of birth and place is already publicly available information and the article appears to pass WP:NSPORTS. None of the independent sources appear to be in English so it's hard to see their reliability, but if the referencing is accurate, I don't see how the article is badly informed. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Olympic athlete. Birthday is a content issue. Agathoclea (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her athletic accomplishments make her notable. If by "badly informed" she means there is incorrect information in the article, let her say specifically what it is and it can be dealt with as a content issue, depending of course on what the reliable sources say (or don't say.) As for the birth-date issue, personally I think we should routinely grant these requests for removal of that information, at least for people who are not "very famous," however we would choose to define that. Neutron (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only valid point I think she has it that an article which mentions she was banned for doping could be ruining her professional life and students using it against her. For somebody teaching athletics it must be a terrible thing her students knowing she cheated and used performance enhancing drugs and could taint her whole career. Especially as the doping is mention in extremely few sources and very briefly, none apparent in English. If it is literally having a negative effect on her life I think we could remove the part about the doping but beyond that even the date of birth I see no valid argument.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the ban for doping could be "ruining" (or otherwise adversely affecting) her professional life, but if it is adequately sourced, it certainly seems relevant to an article about an athlete, and therefore there is no good reason to remove it from the article. I personally can't say whether it is well sourced or not, because all three sources for that information are in languages that I can't read. (The first seems to be in Italian and the other two are in a language I can only identify as "probably Slavic," and given her nationality, most likely Bulgarian. The first "Bulgarian" source seems to be some sort of error message, though that is just a guess based mainly on the graphic. Now I know we accept non-English sources, but only an editor who knows these languages can really say whether the sources support the text, are reliable, etc.) Of course, this is really a subject for the article talk page, not an AfD. Neutron (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[10] is from an Italian newspaper on 5 April 1996, and says that she failed an anti-doping test at a meeting in Budapest. [11] is in Bulgarian (registration required, 15 July 1996) and says "Даниела Георгиева бе наказана наскоро за 4 години, след като бе спипана с допинг по време на международен турнир" (Daniela Georgieva recently received a four year ban after failing an anti-doping test at an international meeting). [12] says "1996: В Будапеща на елитния турнир “Самсунг” от веригата на Международната федерация (ИААФ). Спринтьорката Даниела Георгиева побеждава на 400 метра с републикански рекорд. След награждаването е повикана да даде допинг проба. В пробата са открити 4 нанограма от забранения препарат метанолон." (at the Samsung meeting in Budapest, she tested positive for four nanograms of metenolone). I could not find the part saying that the four year ban was reduced to two, but it is probably there somewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely falls within our definition of notability for athletes. Remove birthdate, however silly that may seem to some of us, since it's within our parameters; reject her desire to cover up embarassing parts of her earlier career, per WP:NOTCENSORED. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subject. I hope that the scrutiny this deletion discussion creates can address the concerns about the content being "badly informed" GabrielF (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm one of the editors who's had to fight with anons trying to remove parts of this article. Please note that from past editing history it is more than clear that the subject's complaint is about the doping scandal. While it may be sad to people not expecting it, the Internet is the end of forgetting. This case is fundamentally different than the Jim Hawkins case, in that there is no question of notability--having won a medal at a major international sporting event meets our current notability requirements. I do agree with removing the date of birth per our policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not marginally but clearly notable. I can live without the date of birth, and we can semiprotect too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course and merge name into sports lists: This is another example of one person being "targeted" as an orphan article, when Wikipedia should have full lists of Bulgarian runners and their awards, not an isolated sprinter article here or there. It is akin to having 80,000 articles about American Congressmen, rather than 112 list articles (of the form "95th U.S. Congress") to cover all the various men and women who have served in the U.S. Congress during the past 220+ years (since 1789). There should be personal bio-page articles only for the exceptional cases, and avoid marginal-notability cases when the person objects very strongly. The same type of lists should be created for Olympic medalists for every 2 or 4 years of Olympiads, rather than have 810,000 articles about people who once entered into one Olympic event and lost. This obsession in thinking Wikipedia needs a separate bio-page, for everyone who ever kicked a ball or ran 200 metres, is just flooding WP with haphazard articles, when we need full lists of record holders in each sport, in each nation, without bias to an occasional Bulgarian sprinter and omitting all others. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daniela Georgieva meets WP:NTRACK, but the reason why I voted "weak keep" is that articles of this kind are not biographies in the strict sense of the term. They are likely to be too short and are basically summaries of a person's sports career.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per request by subject doktorb _words^deeds 08:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete or at the very least merge to a sports list. Sure, she marginally checks some of the boxes at WP:NTRACK, and sure, if you look hard enough you may find some reliable sources, but it is extremely shocking to me that an AFD for a BLP would get such a high number of outright keeps when the subject of the article has issued a personal appeal for the page to be deleted because it is causes her and her family to suffer. Has the Wikipedian community lost its sence of common sense and become a box-checking machine? Do the benefits of keeping this article really outweigh the harm we are doing to one person and her family? I expected some discussion, but to see so many "keeps" is both extremely surprising and very sad. Perhaps I've spent too much time away from Wikipedia to notice this change. Let throw out some quotations from our own policy pages and essays:

WP:COMMON: "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule."
WP:COMMON: "Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter."
WP:WIARM: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule."
WP:LIVE: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity"
WP:BIODELETE: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete".

On my part, there's no question on the right thing to do here. Delete this article, or at the very least summon up some human decency to merge it away. -Well-rested ^Talk 08:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we understand why she might have a problem with the article and I would reluctantly remove the mention of the doping if it was really causing her life problems but at the end of the day we are an encyclopedia and it is ridiculous to delete an article on an Olympian, a national record holder, a three time European cup champion just because she says so. If every BLP contacted wikipedia to demand it be deleted. If Marion Jones contacted wikipedia and said "Look I want to wipe the slate clean with my basketball career, please delete my article" would that be reasonable? Knowledge is the most important thing to wikipedia. If you really examine the article what do you think is really the reason for causing the distress? The record of her achievements or the doping? For sure its the mention of the doping which she is surely upset about. I see nothing in the article which could possible cause her family real distress except for the mention of the doping. There would be something very wrong about wikipedia deleting an article about a Bulgarian record holder in terms of knowledge and what we stand for and if you genuinely think the entire article is causing her distress I think its wildly exaggerated. Its the doping she is obviously very embarrassed about and we can remove that if needs be out of human decency, not the whole article which is obviously not the real problem. We can modify it at worst case scenario but the information is present on the other wikipedias and her birth dates on all the athletics stats sites..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply. Hello! Just a quick reply. :) The argument that every other athlete will suddenly ask for their articles to be deleted is a slippery slope, and what exactly she's concerned about in the article is entirely irrelevant because it's a pointless exercise to speculate on what she's thinking. The fact is that (1) she's expressed that the article is causing her and her family distress, and (2) the article or a summary of it can easily be merged into a list without loss of significant information. This is an encyclopaedia yes, but we don't cause suffering just to to ensure that a little information has its own article. Well-rested ^Talk 10:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) complained that the article was causing him distress too. I think anybody who doesn't want to have an article about themselves is likely to exaggerate. An article on wikipedia cannot really literally harm a family at the level you describe unless it contains private information or is defamatory or blatant lies and negativity and reveals something about an individual which could literally affect their life. In Daniela's case I understand fully that the mention of the doping and her noe being an athletics coach could do just that and I could accept removing it. But information about her athletics career and even birthdate which is available on IAAF and other websites I see no credible argument that it could harm her family in any way whatsoever.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@>Dr. Blofeld "I think anybody who doesn't want to have an article about themselves is likely to exaggerate. " WOW Note that you have just called two living people liars WP:BLP applies here too. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Daniella is clearly concerned about the drugs thing so I have no doubts it is causing her problems. But to say the whole article is and information about her athletics career is damaging is practically impossible. Its obviously the doping she is concerned about. Jim Hawkins also claimed the article was distressing to him and when confronted couldn't identify any real flaws in it. Its not so much lying, it just comes down to not wanting an article about themselves.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the figure was marginal then I would probably lean towards deletion because I believe that the benefits to Wikipedia of complying with a borderline notable person's request not to have their personal information and mistakes on one of the world's most popular websites outweighs having an article on them - a great use of WP:IAR. In this case, however, the subject not only meets the word of the relevant notability guideline WP:ATHLETE, but the spirit as well. If she met WP:ATHLETE just by having appeared once in a world championship or edition of the Olympic Games, I would probably suggest that it be redirected to a list in this case, as we wouldn't have much to say other than what could be represented in say Bulgaria at the 2000 Summer Olympics and there would be no need to have a negative article for an article's sake. Once you get to the point of someone having won a medal at a major international competition, however, I think there's no question that Wikipedia's coverage of important topics suffers from leaving out the article. I can see the argument that, particularly if the doping offenses have not been reported in English, that Wikipedia may actually be causing her stress by making the information more accessible (even if it had/has been reported in English, Wikipedia would almost certainly draw more attention to it). If we don't believe the information on doping has a clear foundation, then I have no objection to dropping it, but that's no reason to discard the entire article. If the doping information is based on verifiable information, however, then at the end of the day, Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia and it cannot be that if it chooses to overlook verifiable negative information at the behest of its subject. Canadian Paul 14:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Foundation, Thank you all for spending time to discuss my request for deletion of the article about me. I read all your comments and honestly all of you are right. I have decided to give you some explanation about my request. Let me start from the beginning because if you want to judge me you have to know me a little bit better. I love sport it is my life I started practicing track and field in middle school with my teacher in physical education. It was a special excitement, I was so proud, getting excited over every little medal that I won. I loved to run we had no fancy outfits, no running shoes, I had to bike about 2 miles to get to the place where I could train where the track was made of cinder. I was full of dreams- watching sports and dreaming. My family is the classic united Bulgarian family my parents were hard working people, quietly and steadfastly my parents taught me hard work, discipline, responsibility and honest only by letting me experience their working everyday lives. I know they are with me and would withstand the storms and challenges of life. I have been married for 18 years and I have a 15 year old son. Today I work in sports and really enjoy it. A person comes to this world, lives, educates himself and realizes his dream. There are ups and downs during this journey, successes and failures, joys and sorrow. I know most of you will say, “what does she want?” and you are right my request was because of the negative information causing me and my family to suffer emotional distress, that is the reason I am asking you to just delete all my achievements even though they are not too many. First the information you have is not exactly correct, about the date of birth I asked you because that information in Bulgaria is very important, in Bulgaria the DOB is the first 6 numbers in your SSN. I said that negative information is ruining my professional life and I live every single day in pain because of that. I respect and I really like Wikipedia it is my favorite site, and I still want to use it 100 times per day. That information appeared in Wikipedia on November 2011, 16 years after that incident. I am asking you is that the right time for me to pay for my past, but believe me I am thinking about that every single day I am never going to forget it, everybody makes mistakes but I think that we have to forgive and forget, that is the reason we are humans. Why did that information show up 16 years later? I am asking you, do you think it is good for my son, my husband, my mom, or my brother to answer questions about me at school, at work, or so on? I assure you I feel very bad, all my life I want to be a good person, a role model, and a good example for my son and my students but this is keeping me from doing that. I am really sorry about what happened in my past but it has already happened and we can’t change it but life is very short we have to go forward. I know most of you want to keep the article that is your right but please take a look from my side and decide if that is important after 16 years, for that nightmare to come back in my life. I am asking you to understand me and to take a second and feel with your hearts I don’t want to be famous I just want to have my job which I love. Last but not least I will die but I don’t want my family to suffer and feel bad because of me. Thank you for your time. Best regards, Daniela Georgieva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgieva1996 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Fight 34[edit]

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

Fight card is for a non-major organizaion and has no notable fighters. Does not qualify under WP:MMANOT Luchuslu (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 24. Snotbot t • c » 16:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero cited statements. Significantly under the WP:MMANOT guideline and not demonstrated a significant reason for why it should be included under the WP:GNG line. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt any demonstrating any lasting significance, fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOT. Mt king ^(edits) 07:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and fails WP:EVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. B music ian 04:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. James's Place[edit]

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

Contested prod. The reason given for prodding was "Unremarkable street, only one block long, that appears to fail WP:N, as I can find no substantive treatment in reliable sources." The reference supplied when the prod was removed hardly constitutes the "significant coverage" required for the establishment of notability, and the other reference is a Web page that doesn't even mention the street except in the addresses of a couple of businesses. If this street (51°30′21″N 0°08′23″W / 51.5057°N 0.1398°W / 51.5057; -0.1398) is worthy of an article, then every street, no matter how small, in every city is worthy of one. Deor (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is rather depressing. I found this central London street name yesterday under the name of a company, St. James's Place Wealth Management Group, so I moved it and started a stub on the street itself. The street is several hundred years old, with lots of interesting buildings on it and famous former tenants. Within 14 hours of creation, Deor had prodded it, and when I removed the prod and added a source who described it in 1720, he nominated it for deletion 33 minutes later. I can see no reason to do this to stubs. Why not wait to let them grow? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the title: it should be St James's Place, without the dot after St. I don't want to move it now in case I mess up the AfD template, so I'm leaving this note to explain the discrepancy between the title and the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The street is notable and I shall add a source to demonstrate. Note that, per WP:5, Wikipedia has the function of a gazetteer and so should have links for all such historic streets. Whether they lead to separate articles or articles about the districts should not be a matter of deletion. Warden (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a street becomes notable just because someone notable (even Breakfast Rogers) once lived there. Or did South Greenwood Street in Chicago become suddenly notable when a former resident became president of the United States? Deor (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the street were hundreds of years old in the centre of the grandest part of an old city, and several famous people had lived there, then yes it might make an interesting read, if given time to develop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is that the street is actually quite notable because lots of famous people lived there. I have added a few more and there's more to come. Warden (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 17 separate entries, some with multiple components, on the National Heritage List for England, ie "notable", Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, notable and interesting but needs development...Modernist (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maculosae tegmine lyncis's National Heritage List link. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clear notability and adequate available references, though the article could be expanded. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now well-sourced enough to satisfy the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close, the article needs expansion, not deletion. Notable as said above. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently historical and with enough of architectural interest to justify an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Contrary to nom, it is a remarkable street, as indicated by the number of listed buildings and notable residnets. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and passing User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Streets by flying colours. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the 15 listed buildings on St James's Place, which is a very high proportion for a short street, there are three bollards and seven lamp standards listed, which is evidence that the street, as well as its buildings, is considered to be of significance. --AJHingston (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herb the movie[edit]

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

Non-notable movie (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As non notable. No sources exist outside of the movie maker's personal site. Fails WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Michitaro (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing W:NF and WP:GNG. While the thing exists, it is only sourcable to non-rs.[13] If the author wishes it back for continued work, best of luck to him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable film, no outside coverage as noted above. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pîrşan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no particular attachment to this article (or to Alexandru Moisuc), but doesn't WP:PROF criterion 6 imply that university heads tend to be notable? And he is the head: a rector is what Romanian university presidents are called, and he definitely is now rector. Of course, it's not an especially significant university; even at the level of agronomic institutes in Romania, Timişoara and Iaşi are second-tier (below Bucharest and Cluj-Napoca), and since WP:PROF speaks of heads of "major academic institutions", we might say USAMV-Banat doesn't qualify and thus Pîrşan shouldn't have an article on the basis of his position. No vote from me for now, just some ideas. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:02, 26 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, B music ian 04:47, 1 May 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)} 18:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgeford Properties[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Google and GNews hits are all directory listings and press releases, nothing amounting to extensive coverage in independent sources as would be required by WP:NOTE. It's also worth noting that the creator of the article was indefinitely blocked for having a spam/advertising-only account. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because their only claim to notability is that they are associated with Ridgeford Properties, so if that entry is deleted, these should be too:

Delete all. Utterly unremarkable real estate agents advertising on Wikipedia. No claim to encyclopedic significance is made in the articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Smerdis. No more to add. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Klimeck[edit]

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

nn per WP:ONEEVENT Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Klimeck's death was a tragic loss to his family and friends, and the Wikipedia community needs to be respectful, this obituary is properly classified under WP:ONEEVENT. Bigturtle (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.--Lilduff90 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is mainly focused on a person's death and does not provide any notability and biographical information on the person. Tomcollett (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can produce other information about him and demonstrate notability. And Introducing... A Leg (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Save" . I believe because his death was so unusual, this is the real reason it's being considered for deletion. As for notability, he is as notable as all the Roman Catholic Prelates that is incessantly listed here. Leave Tiago HERE. [USER: Olympiias] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympiias (talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC) — Olympiias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First, votes go in chronological order, so yours goes at the bottom. Second, keep your conspiracy theories, the reason I nominated this is because it's not notable, just as I stated.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:12, 29 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. Yasht101 07:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

List of Iyers[edit]

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

The article is not a encyclopedia material as it is trying to superimpose peoples work and achievments with their cast or religious beliefs , is not approving with wiki guidline of Verifiability as the caste cannot be verified , and the article is also against wiki guidline of no original research, for which their is no reliable & published source exist and are not verifiable Shrikanthv (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - caste can be verified and therefore it is not original research. The fact that this list, like so many others, contains unverified entries is not a reason to propose that it be deleted. Clean it up, as you will notice that I am doing both on that list and on umpteen others of a similar type. Should the list end up being very small then the correct procedure would be to merge it with the main article concerning the caste. This has long been the way and I see no reason to change now: we are not censored. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Sitush's comment. In case the list ends up having little entries after cleanup, merge it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: moved to list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions postdlf (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clean up if required.LinguisticGeek 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Worthy information. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ : or merge with the article Iyers only if the personnels involved (people listed in the article ) are contributors to growing Iyer society or culture.

1) Scientists like C. V. Raman, whos work or achievment are not remotly related to he being an Iyer , grouping or listing the scientists here will lead to false sence of original research, and is wrongly being qouted in the list just because his ancestors believed in certain section of religious beliefs which is not even remotly connected to he being a scientist .

2) Informative significance(Knowledge) is zero, As for an encyclopedia listing the names because of their ancestors beliefs is not going to add any information or match with . and is not confirming with wiki CLN

3) I am still skeptical on verifiablity of source, as some sources qouted or either questionable or simply does not match with the actuall reference being qouted ! .

e.g

Ghurye, G. S. (1991). Caste and Race in India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

Zvelebil, Kamil (1973). The Smile of Murugan on Tamil Literature of South India. BRILL. ISBN 9004035915.

the refernces qouted above does not have any specialists of Iyers!! . and has been falsly attributed.

please come up with reason for "" Keeping"" the article rather than simply qouting "KEEP" without informing why it is worthy ? . Shrikanthv (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Struck out the !vote above because it's from the nominator, and editors are only allowed one !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : We can keep the article only if the persons being added to the list has something to do or have contributed to Iyer society and culture. Not just because his ancestors were born in it . agree ? Shrikanthv (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see any problem with this list. Also, I don't think nominator needs to !vote for speedy delete as it's pretty much obvious what he/she wants. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dislike this idea of lists, but this one is decently sourced, and lists are far preferable to categories.Pectore^talk 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sitush et al. This is the sort of list our core readership of students may need. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Why is the need of a separate article for the list of notable iyers? The important Iyers can be listed in the article Iyer. Chitransh Gaurav 07:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - because as things stand, the list is long. I explained at the outset of this discussion that should the list become short then it is normal practice for this type of list to be merged in the manner that you suggest. Basically, it seems you are not objecting to the content, nor to the rationale for having such a list, but rather to where that list is shown. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Along with other similar lists such as List of Nadars etc. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:51, 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 keep. B music ian 04:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance management[edit]

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

Clear neologism. JoelWhy (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rewrite and Keep per WP:NEO. A rather obvious, self admitted neologism at that. No third party sources exist to verify any sort of notability.

Changing vote per explanation below. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Several third party sources exist, see my post below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having read the article cited, it is clear that Ignorance Management is a novel and alternative approach to Knowledge Management; hence, I don’t see any use of neologism as you have noted. The definition provided as well as the content of the article is exactly same with the source provided. By proposing to delete this article, you are preventing the release of information (including new definitions/concepts) which is useful to many academics and practitioners within the field of Knowledge Management and generally improving the encyclopedia. However, if you think that there is a more appropriate way to incorporate the contents of this theory, please feel free to make any suggestions.

Comment- Please read the above mentioned Wikipedia policy on neologisms at WP:NEO to get a better idea of what we're dealing with here. Particularly, the parts where it states that neologisms, even those that may already be in wide use, are not ready for a Wikipedia article until there are multiple secondary sources that talk about the term, rather than just using it. Of the three non-first party sources included, one of them does not speak of the actual phrase at all. And while I can't actually see the text of the two books sourced, the fact that this particular phrase is explicitly stated to be defined in this way in April 2012, and the books were published years ago, leads me to believe that they are not talking about the term as was defined by Israilidis, Lock, and Cook. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "release...new definitions/concepts" which may be useful to academics. This is an encyclopedia, not a professional journal. Information is added after it becomes notable, not so that it will serve to hopefully spread knowledge of an as-yet-not-notable concept.JoelWhy (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this article falls within the Wikipedia content guidelines. Ignorance Management is increasingly recognised as an important concept within the field of KM and deserves an entry here. It is substantiated by empirical research and published papers. It is important (IMO) that Wikipedia is current and the primary source for understanding the world about us. As such, ommitting a potentially important concept like this would be a mistake.----- WP:AVOIDCOI louise5258
CommentLouise, you are one of the authors of this article, correct? And, I take it, Yannis05 is also connected to you and/or the article in some respect as well, is that correct?JoelWhy (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the topic passes WP:GNG, per sources in the article, and per:

Roberts, Joanne (2009). "From Knowledge Management to Ignorance Management" (PDF). Vrije University Amsterdam. Retrieved April 25, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Balda, Wesley D. (Ph.D). "Minding the Gaps: Organizing Ignorance and Managing Development (abstract)". St. George's University. Retrieved April 25, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Deschene, Lori (December 12, 2007). "How to Manage Ignorance; Inside the Book Peter Drucker Never Wrote". CBS News. Retrieved April 25, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Galvin, Tammy (June 1, 2004). "Ignorance management (editor's notebook)". Highbeam Business. Retrieved April 25, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, as I said above, the opening of the article claims that the term was defined by Israilidis, Cook, and Lock in 2012. Which would mean that either the sources, which were written years before, are not speaking of the same concept, or, more likely, the article needs to be rewritten to make clear that this is not the origin of the concept. The way the first half of the article is written now gives the false impression that this is a newly created term that was invented by Israilidis, Cook, and Lock, which seems to not be the case. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just copy-edited the article to address this concern. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice work on that so far. I might further suggest that we actually take out the seperate section labeled as "Israilidis, Lock and Cooke description", and just integrate the information from their paper in with the rest of the information that's currently in the "Research" section. Otherwise, it seems to give the sense of undue weight to a single work on a concept that is clearly older and more widespread. Rorshacma (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I agree with you Rorshacma - however I do not think that an integration would be appropriate. I suggest we create a 'Definition' section instead - it is important for the reader to actually see what this concept is about. If there are more definitions of the concept, I'd suggest that we put them all in this section - Yannis05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannis05 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dear users, First of all many thanks for your contributions. Having read numerous articles articles on Knowledge Management and also worked extensively in this area, I believe that this article is credible and worth to read. When I initially wrote this article I had no intention to make it a neologism - I was purely interested in the nature of the topic. However after reading your comments, I tried to modify it accordingly, so please feel free to look at the modified versions - in the meantime other users have also added more edits too. I strongly believe that this is a significant contribution to the encyclopedia; this is also illustrated by the multiple relevant sources cited. In the past I have used Wikipedia to look up various theories as well as different explanations of terms - and to be honest, this article is no exception to this. Anyway the last thing I want to say at this point is that before taking the final decision to delete this article I would appreciate if you could suggest any comments/changes to improve this entry. Undoubtedly, this theory is very remarkable and widely talked about. Hope we can all find a solution on this and look forward to reading your suggestions. Yannis05

CommentIf we're satisfied with the current version, I'm fine with keeping.JoelWhy (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:02, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK professors of complementary medicine[edit]

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

This list appears to be an original synthesis and not covered in reliable sources (edit: and hence not notable). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on notability terms rather than synthesis terms. bobrayner (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify my thinking: Usually a "synthesis" problem is when somebody puts a few different sourced pieces of content together in an article to advance an overall position which isn't actually supported by one of those sources. That's less of a problem with list articles; if you wrote a List of Jewish sculptresses it would be sufficient to have a different source identifying each person as a jewish sculptress, and it doesn't matter if there are no sources which cover the entire list in one place - as long as you're confident that the concept is notable generally (based on some source which discusses jewish sculptresses as a group). If one individual list item is founded on synthesis, delete that item instead of the whole list.
- Here, I think individual list items could be synthetic, but not the general concept. Rather, the general concept isn't notable. Particular professors might be notable in their own way, but they get their own articles for that. The concept of "UK professors of complementary medicine" itself fails the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. I realise that nitpicking over the exact boundary between synthesis of a concept and notability of that concept is like counting the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody knows that the answer is 42 and any heretic who tells you that the answer to this hugely important question is different should be burned at the stake!! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little :>, the reason I said synthesis was that the lack of coverage in reliable sources for the concept of UK professors of complementary medicine is what makes the combination of sources in the article an original synthesis, it also makes it not notable at the same time, I've edited my initial comment accordingly. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you mean now, if the list is notable it's an allowable synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry for my flippant comment above, I just couldn't resist :-) I agree completely with bobrayner's analysis: not notable as a subject. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that most of the people on the list are not notable enough to have their own articles. Maybe this is a way of sneaking them into Wikipedia anyhow? --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The existence of 'professors of alternative medicine' could be styled as a new and interesting (troubling?) trend. I agree with Bobraynor's analysis re: synthesis. lws (talk) 06:16, 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) 01:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Christian Church (Milson's Point)[edit]

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

A church with no particular notability; asserted to be the "largest Chinese church community in Australia", but no evidence provided. Only sources I can find mention it solely in the context of being the location of an event. Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a regular non-notable church. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be substantially different from other churches its size. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. And delete Template:Churches from Chinese Christian Church (Milson's Point) while we're at it. St Anselm (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agree that template should go too. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Milson's Point: a church that has planted two othersis probably at least of local significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 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) 01:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Parameswara Iyer[edit]

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

Tagged for sources since 2008 and I can find nothing but mirrors etc using GSearch, despite the claims of state and government awards. This article was previously PRODed. Sitush (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles in Wikipedia require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A Google book, news and web search failed to yield any results satisfying the above criterion. Secret of success (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the above comments, I concur. Lord Roem (talk) 22:34, 1 May 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 Redirected by User:Jagadhatri. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of C.I.D. episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating for deletion an unreferenced long list of episodes. The list has nothing encyclopedic in it. Only episode name and date of airing. Wikipedia is not a Directory.
Previous AfD was closed (non-admin) by nominator in Oct 2010. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 25 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 article has been speedily deleted. It was unambiguous promotion, both for an organisation and for a book. There may or may not be a good article on this topic waiting to be written, but this coatrack was not it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non violent direct action in Australia[edit]

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

Delete unless the article is going to be substantially expanded. As it currently stands it does not do the topic any justice and I suspect that it will not go any further. It seems to be used as a promotional vehicle for an Aiden Ricketts publication. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks very promotional, unlikely to be expanded to an all encompassing article. If it is we can address the issue again then.

- Keep I am writing as the author of the contribution. The article is meant to be read in the context of the whole entry on non violent direct action and follows an entry on non violent direct action in the UK. It is a first start at beginning an entry on NVDA in Australia that i would expect to see grow over time, both from my own and others contributions. It could be expanded to include further sources other than the sources currently featured. It is true that it is a small entry about a single organisation, but it is also the case that the North East Forest Alliance is probably the most significant and successful proponent of NVDA in Australia and one of the most studied. My aim in citing the sources I have cited is to make an initial entry using sources that are readily available to me and that are at least existing publications. I would need time to develop it more extensively as a referenced article citing wider sources but this is eminently possible as NEFA has been the subject of study by a number of authors. I would suggest keeping the entry on the basis that it is is likely to be expanded in the near future into a more fully rounded article that is likely to include a range of sources and refer to more recent organisations that have taken on the mantle of non violent direct action in Australia. Australia has a unique contribution to make in any discussion of NVDA because environmental protest in Australia has been prominent in the use and further development of this tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activ9 (talk • contribs)

There is a lot of work needed before it should be an actual article. From an environmental activism perspective alone you have the include the Franklin Dam controversy, old growth logging in Gippsland, the Gunns 20, logging in Tasmanian etc. I suggest it is done in project or user namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

Delete - A vast topic (every strike, every boycott, every protest, etc. in the entire history of Australia which did not end in violence is technically "Non violent direct action in Australia.") We have here instead a small, scantly sourced piece on a single event. I hope the content creator isn't discouraged, but this is a case of the content not coming within 100 miles of living up to the title. That content which is there, even if properly titled, needs far more in the way of sourcing. Try making small, incremental improvements to already existing articles working from published sources to get the feel of WP writing, it seems like an attempt to jump into the deep end of the pool before the rudiments of swimming are mastered. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-violent direct action's set of strategems, of which not doing violence is only a small part, is always changing and adapting to new counter-strategies, making the focus of this article considerably narrower than Carrite suggests. Anarchangel (talk) 06:48, 25 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bangalore Open – Singles (HINDI)[edit]

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

Just a duplication of 2008 Bangalore Open – Singles, written partly in English and partly in Hindi. jfd34 (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion as A10.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Whitehouse[edit]

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

I'm not generally one in support of the "deletion upon request" bit, but will note that someone claiming to be the article subject has brought up concerns about it: [14]. However, the issue here is quite fundamental—the "sources" in this article by and large aren't. Blog posts, web forums, etc., make up all the "sourcing" to be found on this article, and I can't find anything better when searching. I do not therefore believe that this article has sufficient sourcing to sustain it and fails notability as a result. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'd also spotted the speedy request the nominator linked above, and was researching this at the same time. I was not convinced that what sourcing I was able to find rose to WP:GNG. Additional sourcing showing greater-than-marginal notability would be required to change my mind. Checked Highbeam as well as the usual Google searching suspects. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 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 keep.

Wow, that was quite a discussion. There were a few problems here with unhelpful comments - too much WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Comments on whether this events deserves so much coverage do not really have that much bearing - it may seem ridiculous for a newspaper to cover an event like this, but we need to decide whether their coverage is enough to make the event notable, not whether it was justified. There were also many comparisons made with other articles, which were not incredibly helpful. The Obama dog incident, often mentioned, bears little resemblance to this case. Other events were mentions, yet they were also insufficiently similar to make a useful comparison.

Those concerns out of the way, we come to two main issues: does the article pass the WP:GNG and, if it does, are there any other consideration which would require its deletion? It was established quite early on that the article did meet the GNG, and this was not opposed too strongly. The duration of the coverage and the depth of coverage in a wide range of sources were particularly strong arguments, and a good case was made for each of the WP:NEVENT criteria, strengthened by the impact this has had on the presidential campaign. Thus, there seems to be a general (though not unanimous) consensus that the event is notable.

The second contention was whether, if the article was indeed notable, any other significant factors should be taken into account. Key to this were the policies, guidelines and essays WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:COATRACK, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:GOSSIP. It was well noted that NOT#NEWS was summarising the news coverage that already existed; the contention was whether this went beyond routine coverage. Many of the GNG arguments were significant here: the depth and duration of coverage takes the article beyond routine news coverage. It was expressed that this events has enduring notability, rather than just being a one-off news report, as evidenced by the depth of coverage in multiple reliable sources. COATRACK was used in discussing whether the article served simply as a coatrack for smears or political campaigning. There were decent arguments about the neutrality of the article - it may be skewed against Romney - however, it was never demonstrated why deletion, rather than just improving the article was necessary. Again with reference to the GNG debate, the quality of sources, especially for contentious comments, seemed to resolve that issue. Nevertheless, there is no reason that the neutrality of the article cannot be improved. Finally, ADVOCACY and GOSSIP were generally presented together; the same points as applied to COATRACK apply in this case.

A brief discussion existed about the name of the article and a possible merger. However, it emerged that difficulties with the last attempt at this (edit warring and giving the issue undue weight on the Romney article) make this untenable. Merging with the Obama dog article, as noted, would not be correct as the two issues are very different in nature. The latter article has also been deleted. There was, however, a decent consensus for renaming the article to redefine the scope as the controversy, rather than the dog itself. No clear name emerged in these discussions, however. Therefore, although I have kept the article at its current name for now, I suggest that a RfC is opened regarding a potential move where this issue can be discussed more fully, without the distraction of a deletion discussion taking place simultaneously.

I appreciate that this article is and will always be contentious. I did not take this decision and spent a long time weighing all the arguments presented in the debate. If anyone has any questions or concerns, they are welcome to raise them at my talk page.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus (dog)[edit]

Also see Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about a dog once owned by U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Well, actually, it is almost entirely about a single day in that dog's life in 1983, when the dog was transported on a family vacation in a carrier tied to the roof of a station wagon, and about the fact that Romney's critics have attempted to repeatedly bring that up as a criticism of Romney in his 2012 campaign. The prior AfD in January and February closed as "no consensus". More recently, though, someone realized that Barack Obama, in his memoir Dreams from My Father, had mentioned eating dog meat in Indonesia when he was young. That prompted the creation of the article Obama Eats Dogs meme, which is itself up for deletion now. Perhaps Wikipedia editors who are not intent on using the encyclopedia to score points against rival political candidates can agree that neither of these articles is worthy of being a separate article. I recommend deletion for this one. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the political season is upon us, and our sometimes-reliable sources are covering issues like this with great depth and breadth. I recommend merging this article and Obama Eats Dogs meme into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election, which seems to possibly be the consensus forming at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs. Kelly ^hi! 05:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such merge target and there should be no such merge target — that proposed article is unencyclopedic, too. It would be nothing but a disruptive edit-war playground for POV warriors of both sides. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That target was suggested sarcastically [15] but Kelly jumped on it because it serves to equate the two unrelated incidents. El duderino ^(abides) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regardless of why, Seamus is quite the notable canine. There is plenty of source material to sustain the article, and the incident has played a significant role in a US presidential race and is likely to continue to. This is not a flash in the pan incident, and regardless of one's personal views on it, it is an appropriate and sourced topic for an encyclopedia article. In conclusion, I'm unsure of the relevance of the Obama meme—that should also be considered on the basis of sourcing or lack thereof, not anything else, and not on the basis of anything else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question at hand is not whether we think that the Seamus incident was serious or not, but whether the dog or the incident surrounding the dog has become notable under Wikipedia's policies. Considering the amount of media attention that this issue has received, I would say that it is notable. When Diane Sawyer interviewed Mitt and Ann Romney, Seamus was the issue that the most amount of viewers were submitting questions about. Debbie W. 11:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And ban multiple people participating herein for violating WP:POINT Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MergeNotable incident, but I don't know that the dog needs his (her?) own page. And, Hipocrite, should you now be nomiated for violating WP:AFG? Nothing said by the other editors evidences that they are trying to be disruptive, or trying to prove a point.JoelWhy (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, I meant it should be merged (or, at least, mentioned) in the Romney page. Why the heck is there a Dogs in the 2012 Presidential Race page? That's a page that should be deleted, IMO...JoelWhy (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, there isn't a Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election page. Where you joking? Or gave the wrong title?JoelWhy (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a bad idea that came up yesterday during the debate over the equally insipid Obama Eats Dogs page. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both this article and Obama Eats Dogs meme which are the result of embarrassingly childish political posturing. They are not encyclopedic topics. (They are not even newsworthy topics, and the fact that the national media consider them so is proof of our nation's decline.) Ban everyone from Wikipedia who thinks these articles are a good idea. Peacock (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These two memes (Seamus and #ObamaAteADog) belong as quickie blurbs in the general discussion for the 2012 U.S. presidential election article as parts of the campaign. They certainly do not deserve their own separate or even merged article. --McDoob AU 93 14:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or merge. Simple WP:NOTNEWS; dog tied to car, ideological foes make hay of it during political silly season. Give it a mention in Romney's campaign article if need be, the sources mentioned justify that much . Not a standalone. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably, or at the least merge into the main campaign article. This and the Obama Eats Dogs nonsense are nothing more than stupid political posturing, and have little, if any, encyclopedic value. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same Result as what ever the outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs is. The two dueling stories are unavoidably intertwined. If we decide one qualifies for NOTNEWS, then both do, and if one gets deleted and not the other it would rightly be seen as representing a partisan bias. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not deleted on the basis of ideological pairing, each case must be argued independently on the basis of policy and precedent. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles passes the minimum threshold for notability, which means that if we delete them we are doing so for prudential reasons. As such, I think avoiding bias or favoritism, and the virtue of treating like articles alike are valid considerations. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect one holding the same position for both pieces, keep or delete; it relates how one views the applicability of NOTNEWS. Regardless, though, the deletion processes are independent. Hopefully they'll both be appropriately nuked. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carrite in this line of reasoning. The Obama dog meme is a political reaction to the Romney dog controversy. I believe it's too easy, maybe even editorially lazy, to conflate the two because of political considerations. El duderino ^(abides) 03:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is 2012 American Presidential campaign fooliganism. The dog in the 1980s of an unelected candidate for office is important ONLY to his political opponents. It is not a topic for encyclopedic coverage. If the incident of putting pup on the roof of the BMW is significant in terms of historical importance, it should be part of the biography of the politician in question. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS and it is NOT a running chronicle of endlessly cycled and recycled campaign allegations of the two multimillion dollar Presidential propaganda campaigns of the two "old parties." And no, I'm not voting for the slimy position-shifting right wing religionist front man OR the golden-tongued-but-pyrite-programed corporate flack in the White House — I'm a third party to these shenanigans, if you will. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many people believe you can judge someone's character by the way they treat animals. Especially as an adult. El duderino ^(abides) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can judge his character by what he did in 1983. But this matter is not just about what Romney did in 1983. It's also about what he's doing now. It's important to notice that Romney still maintains that what he did was not a mistake. Animal cruelty is a serious character flaw, and refusing to take responsibility for a mistake is a separate, and also serious, character flaw. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. He's still trying to excuse it. El duderino ^(abides) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia cannot be sucked into becoming a free voice for Superpac nonsense. If Checkers doesnt warrant his own page, this pup certainly dont either.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FART.-Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. It is already mentioned in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, and that's about the extent of what the notability of the topic deserves. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was there LSD in the water supply this morning, or am I actually, truly seeing that we have an article on this topic? No, no, it must be hallucinations confusing me. There's no possible way that we could have a standalone article on this. ... could we? Because if it really, truly is a real article, Delete the bloody thing instantly and include the material as a short (very short) bit in Mitt Romney if we absolutely, positively must. I know it's an election year down your way, Americans, and that there's a tendency to get insane with it, but Christ on a pogo stick there's absolutely no value to having this whatsoever. Yes, it's a controversy. No, it's not worth having a page for the goddamn DOG. Ugh. ... okay, I've said it, I feel better. Now off to the *other* stupid article's AFD... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - WP:NOT#NEWS. It is already mentioned in a couple of lines in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, and thats what the notability of the topic deserves. Creators and bloaters of such partisan NPOV content need topic banning to help avoid such creations/expansions.Youreallycan 17:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For better or worse, this story took on a life of its own quite some time ago, and is independently notable because its coverage meets the GNG. That various partisan advocates are lately trying to capitalize on it should be recognized in the writing of the article. The article title doesn't reflect the substance of the underlying topic; note the form of Checkers speech, dealing with another prominent political canine. Wikipedia doesn't stick its head in the sand in covering political subjects, even though keeping the articles in proper form may be harder work than articles on uncontroversial animals like Socks (cat), Buddy (dog), and Fala (dog) -- especially since this one has been covered in the context of multiple campaigns. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this utterly unimportant article about a single event in the life of a dog long since dead and buried. Wikipedia should have some standards of decorum and professionalism, and clambering down into the day-to-day political muck of U.S. Democrats and Republicans is really beneath us. At the very least, the article should be renamed to Mitt Romney dog controversary, since the dog itself is not notable per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Whatever the final result, the same needs to apply to the equally unimportant Obama Eats Dogs meme (or whatever its name is today) article. Honestly, both articles should be deleted. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we should not be adding articles for every single talking point Team Red and Team Blue use in their endless battles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and per WP:COATRACK. The article is an example of trivial things being blown up as part of a US presidential campaign. The coverage is about what Romney did, not about anything the dog did. The references do not state that this was in any way a remarkable or noteworthy dog. It is adequately covered by one sentence in the Mitt Romney article. Edison (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the Romney incident is important as one example of the man's character. An adult abusing the family pet is alot different than a child eating what's given to him. Just because the latter is used as political retribution for the former doesn't mean we have to. El duderino ^(abides) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. "I don't like Romney, so let's stick it to him good". Charming. Not really quality encyclopedic material, though. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said at the article talkpage( when another editor falsely accused me of this bias with no evidence except his own presumptions), I've never said such a thing. I think readers have a right to decide for themselves what Romney's actions mean about him. An unfortunate result of editing neutrally and countering conservative POV-pushers is being accused of left-leaning bias. Just like you've done at the Santorum pages.. So is it your contention that voters looking to learn more about Romney here should not be allowed to do so? El duderino ^(abides) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your let the reader decide attitude here hard to reconcile with your attitude that we should delete the Obama dog eating article. Why shouldn't the reader "have a right to decide for themselves what" ~~Romney's~~ Obama's "actions mean about him" as well? Monty ₈₄₅ 22:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can only surmise that you didn't look closely enough. I gave tentative support to a rename of this one and possible inclusion of that one, after initially opposing the latter because of Kelly's proposed text and non-collaborative mien. Part of the overall problem with these various discussions, at least procedurally if not wiki-politically (?), is that Kelly has several different balls in the air, so to speak. El duderino ^(abides) 02:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Romney, have you stopped beating your puppy???? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless merged with Obama Eats Dogs, trimmed, and moved to Dogs in the 2012 US election (sorry, Michelle). Doesn't even deserve a paragraph in the Romney campaign article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a better target is Stupid political nonsense of the 2012 Presidential campaign - gather all the crap into a single location that can be quarantined from the rest of the encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is a pretty good idea, I mean we would need a slightly less pointy title, but creating one Controversies of the 2012 US Presidential campaign article would allow all the minor controversies that will inventiably crop up in the coming months to be merged to one place where we can keep the NPOV in check. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per NPOV my suggested title would need to be the one. I would also suggest an automatic editing ban of any other article for any editor who partakes in such a slimefest. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we subtitle it "Giant D__che vs. T__d sandwich?" Let me know when; have lots of nominations beyond dog gate aka dog-crate vs dog-gout (don't know the wiki for the French accent). If you wanted to make it Political memes of the 2012 election, large article.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability other than the single incident, which has been dealt with appropriately in other articles. WP:NOTNEWS as others have pointed out. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLD1E. The suggestion of TheRedPenOfDoom sounds reasonable, too. --Conti|✉ 23:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WOW, cooler heads have arrived. A few days ago, I did not see it as a possibility to get this mess cleaned up the way it should be, by deleting. Delete is the appropriate option and I am about to go change my compromise !vote on the other page, too. This is a flash-in-the-pan, election year, bashing topic which has been thinly (very thinly) disguised as a dog biography, of all things (see WP:POVFORK). It is here only to disparage its true subject and should have been deleted on first sight. This needs to go, forthwith; and I am glad to see that that is a real possibility.WTucker (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this one. It is entirely political propaganda. I almost nominated it myself a couple days ago and then forgot about it. If anything, this should be nothing more than a passing mention in the article on Mitt Romney. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with the Obama Dog meme. This is actually the third nomination. The first was a speedy delete, the second was a merge, and the review of the second was a no concensus. As I stated from the very beginning, the actual dog has done nothing to warrent an article. The actual incident itself and the corresponding response regarding Obama may be worthy of an article so long as care is taken for the article to not become a coatrack/POV fork. Arzel (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original speedy delete (A7) and corresponding review. Arzel (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This story, and subsequent grassroots campaign that has survived against all odds for years, aided by the rise in influence of social media, is a case study of the evolution of the American political process - as is the Obama dog-eating furor of late. While I can entertain the argument that neither deserves it's own page, the only fair, unbiased solution in my view is to document both fully. If they don't deserve individual entries they should be included within the 2012 Presidential Election page - perhaps under a "Dog Wars" heading, as the U.S. (and numerous International) media have dubbed it. Most importantly, neither story should be successfully suppressed - or perceived as having been suppressed - by an organized effort of political partisans. — CScottCrider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

~~Delete~~ Undecided - This isn't a question of Wikipedia being 'fair' or not, it is a question of whether we are a gossip rag or a well-respected encyclopedia. This story and Obama story are not notable in their own right. Nixon's dog Checkers is noteworthy on its own because it helped Nixon win his party's support to run as Vice-President and win. A family trip with a dog in a crate is not. The president eating a bit of dog is not. Wikipedia needs to acknowledge its own policies, admitting that we are not a political soapbox or advocacy platform for any party, we're not here to spread the latest gossip, and while the standard of Wikipedia notability is met by both stories, it is worth reminding that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion", and our other policies and guidelines rail against unencyclopedic material being added. We're not TMZ and we're not Yahoo! OMG. We're supposed to be better. -- Avanu (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, Checkers on his own is not noteworthy for an eneyclopedia article, he is being referenced only as the coloquial name / subject mentioned in an important presidential speech.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, the story should be kept, or perhaps change the title to "Romney dog story" or similar. Anything that is mentioned so often in a presidential campaign about a major candidate is likely to be researched by people trying to find out about it. This is one of those things that have to be reported, even though the story is relatively trivial (such as many murders that become notorious, even though there are thousands of murders every year: for example, Leopold and Loeb, OJ, etc.). Who brings up these deletion requests? They try to delete stories that are, if not important, media sensations, and influential because of that. People should spend their time filling up the articles that are deficient in facts, and yet deserve more attention and filling out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.236.56 (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As is quite usual in AfD discussions, people are misunderstanding and mis-applying the deprecated WP:NOTNEWS wikilink, which no longer even exists as a separate shortcut. If you click on WP:NOTNEWS you land at a soft redirect which says, quite rightly, that it has been deprecated in favor of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ( that has significantly revised language ) "to draw attention to the actual policy, not just the potentially misleading shortcut". The following are the relevant policy considerations that correctly apply, however:

(1) This article is "is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", per WP:SIGCOV, also known as the General Notability Guideline, since it has "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

(2) Our WP:NTEMP policy, confusingly named as "Notability is not temporary", applies: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." It's worth noting that there are other passages within our policy pages which express an opposing view in the "recentism versus significant coverage" debate, however.

(3) Here's a simple truth we can all agree on: "The fewer sources there are on a subject, the more a Wikipedia article takes on the qualities of a news source rather than an encyclopaedia." That's what NOTNEWS was trying to get at and prevent, but this article isn't making the news, it's summarising news, summarising significant coverage from independent sources, which is what we're supposed to do in our articles.

(4) It's tempting - and delightfully homely - to cite BLP1E in reference to a dog, but it's my opinion that the coatracky nature of that policy statement has, as it soundest basis, the reasonable preservation of privacy for a person who is thrust into the media spotlight over a single event. I doubt Seamus, may he rest in peace, cares much about his privacy at this point.

– OhioStandard (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that (1) is true for absolutely everything that is in the news, right? As soon as, say, AFP writes something, it takes a day and we have dozens of sources about a certain topic. Just go to http://news.google.com/, you could create an article out of any topic you find there that would satisfy our general notability guidelines. There's 222 sources on Obama appearing on some late night show[16], for instance. That sure as hell is enough to warrant an article, right? :) --Conti|✉ 15:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conti's analogy is specious. If a person who didn't already have an article here was written about in 222 news stories, then, yes, that would satisfy WP:GNG for an independent article. A better comparison would be to our Susan (dog) article; the dog became independently notable by virtue of the media coverage she received from travelling with Queen Elizabeth. The basis is the same for Romney's dog, and Seamus' mode of travel was much more spectacular, besides.

And, yes, I'm well aware of the rubric saying "notability is not inheirited"; I've not claimed it is. Axl Rose's current girlfriend isn't notable simply because she's dating him. But if he strapped her to the top of his car and drove 12 hours to a vacation spot, I dare say she'd become independently notable due to the media attention that would be focused her way. – OhioStandard (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No she wouldn't, as such an article would be deleted on WP:BLP1E grounds. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair point, Tarc, but analogies only go so far. Please see (4), above. – OhioStandard (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that a human involved in only one event is not notable enough for an article, but a long dead dog is???? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

***Comment*** For the record, I voted MERGE, by which I simply meant the story should be included (1 or 2 sentences) on the Romney page and/or 2012 Presidential Election page, etc. Is there a formal definition of MERGE for Wikipedia? I just want to make sure I didn't vote to have the entire contents of this page merged into one of the other pages.JoelWhy (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in question. It is the appropriateness of the article that was the issue raised by the nominator here. -- Avanu (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote. Your opinion will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. The close will be a weighted assessment of the arguments given and not just a tally of all the bold and uppercase words. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the story is sufficiently notable and should be kept. Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, again, the question as stated is not about notability. Do you have a rationale that addresses the point made by the nominator? -- Avanu (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; breadth and duration of coverage by significant reliable sources have established notability. I don't understand what contrary argument is being made in the nomination, unless it's that we shouldn't have articles on topics that the nominator doesn't think are worthy of articles, which is not an argument I would find convincing.Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 1[edit]

Delete, as stated above by many, per WP:NOTNEWS, unencyclopaedic, trivial and a one-time event in the life of the candidate/dog, which is already mentioned in the Romney article. Enough, already. As to Ohio's claim that people misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, it clearly states:
- While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion (my emphasis) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but read the very next sentence for what that clearly means: The examples it gives are, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Seamus is hardly "routine news". – OhioStandard (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not "clearly state" what the sentence I quoted covers. It just says, "for example, routine news reporting ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia", it does not say that these are the only form of newsworthy events undeserving of an encyclopaedic article. In fact, it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. To clarify. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next sentence gives examples of the kinds of things covered by the preceding one; it gives a sense of the scope and range of what is meant by the description, "most newsworthy events". Something that was first covered by Time, ABC News, and The Boston Globe in 2007, and that has been covered repeatedly since, and that has had dozens of articles written about it now, is hardly in the same category. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the "Delete" !votes amount to people saying, "I personally would not give this incident much weight in deciding how to vote, therefore it's objectively not important and doesn't merit an article." Well, the objective standard is whether it actually is a matter of widespread interest, not whether it should be in some ideal world in which most people agreed with the judgments of a handful of Wikipedians. The extensive media coverage is by itself enough to demonstrate that this is notable. Further, although we usually have to make do with drawing inferences about notability from facts like that, here we have an impartial expert directly stating that it is notable: "Mark Halperin, the senior political analyst for Time magazine and MSNBC, opined that 'for a lot of voters' the incident was 'a serious issue'." (from [17]) We have standalone articles on comparable political attacks against Democrats, such as John Kerry military service controversy and Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. Both of these, IMO, were complete horseshit meritless attacks, achieving notability only because of the relentless blaring of the right-wing noise machine (the Kerry smear was contradicted by Navy records and by the prior statements of the liars recruited by the Republicans; the Ayers thing tried to attack Obama for all the past acts of someone with whom he had only a slight connection). Nevertheless, these articles are properly kept because the subjects achieved notability -- undeserved notability, but still notability. Finally, the support for "Merge" is unrealistic. It's a call for endless edit wars about how much information (if any!) gets merged into some other article. The standalone article is a correct application of WP:SS, with the Mitt Romney bio having a very brief mention plus a link to this more detailed article for the benefit of readers who want more information. JamesMLane t c 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think merger is a unmitigated disaster. In the first AfD for Seamus, initially the decision was for merger, and the closing admin merged Seamus (dog) with Mitt Romney. This led to 24 hours of severe edit warring between people who thought that the AfD's decision should be adhered to, and people who thought that the addition of the Seamus story to the Romney article was undue weight. Both sides were correct, and so the closing admin changed the AfD to no consensus. Likewise, there have been several proposals on the Seamus talk page about merging the article with another article, but no consensus could be reached. I agree that a standalone article for Seamus is the correct decision. Debbie W. 21:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A number of editors have cited WP:NOTNEWS as grounds for deleting this article. Everything in the news is not entitled to a Wikipedia article. However, the Seamus incident is not a one-time news story. It has been in the news repeatedly since 2007, it has been covered by foreign newspapers, it has been mentioned in books, two super PACs have been formed just around this issue, national polls have been taken on this issue, and when Diane Sawyer interviewed the Romneys, this was the issue that the most viewers inquired about. As I said in my earlier post, the issue is not whether we believe that the story should have so much media coverage, but whether it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia's policy on notability of news states that notability is based on depth of coverage, duration of coverage, the diversity of sources. Based on the vast number and types of sources discussing Seamus over the last five years, it is pretty clear that the article meets the notability standard. It would be unusual for a topic with as much popular interest and media coverage as Seamus (dog) not to have a Wikipedia article. Debbie W. 19:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early articles:

Jennifer Parker (June 28, 2007). "Romney strapped dog to car roof". ABC News.

Neil Swidey & Stephanie Ebbert (June 27, 2007). "Journeys of a shared life". Boston Globe.

Ana Marie Cox (June 27, 2007). "Romney's cruel canine vacation". Time Magazine.

Blair Soden (June 29, 2007) "Dog on roof? What was it like for Romney's pooch?". ABC News.

Scott Helman (July 10, 2007). "Introducing Seamus Romney, 'Mr. Personality'". Boston Globe.

Foreign media:

Lara Marlowe (January 14, 2012). “Romney hounded by memory of Seamus the dog and 'Crate Gate'.” Irish Times.

Sonia Verma (February 16, 2012). “Treatment of family dog comes back to haunt Romney” Globe and Mail

Book:

The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman.

Super PACs:

Mitt is Mean - The Animal Lovers Against Romney Committee ::DogPAC

Polls:

Tom Jensen (March 20, 2012). "Polling on Romney's 'dog problem'". Public Policy Polling.

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS applies here. The article is merely a WP:COATRACK for political campaigning - the entire article is about politics, not the dog. The issue is already appropriately covered at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. That may not be enough for political partisans, but that's plenty for an encyclopedia. Deli nk (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS has been deprecated. Click on it: we shouldn't be linking to it. It "has been deprecated ... to draw attention to the actual policy, not just the potentially misleading shortcut." Can you tell us what actual policy you think this violates, and how? – OhioStandard (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I switched WP:NOTNEWS to WP:NOT#NEWS to prevent the use of a potentially misleading shortcut to our policy about routine news reporting. I can see how this must have been really confusing for you. My apologies. Deli nk (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, was that irony, Deli? But I was serious; the target of NOTNEWSPAPER - or its unfortunately-retained co-operative shortcut, NOT#NEWS - has changed. Is there some particular part of NOTNEWSPAPER that you think this article violates?, e.g. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopaedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."? – OhioStandard (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad that WP:DontbeaWP:POINTyWP:DICK as been deprecated. Deli nk (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: You're in the third grade. You should have said so, as that lets you off having to provide any policy-based rationale. – OhioStandard (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COATRACK. It's nothing but shameless political WP:ADVOCACY. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable event. Rename to Romney dog controversy to make scope clear per WP:BIO1E. SÆdon ^talk 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

( Moved following top-posted comment to current end-of-thread, along with one reply. No one's comments rate special prominence. Retaining "big" font and alt color used by Avanu, as a courtesy, although that's stretching it. - Ohiostandard 04:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC) )

COMMENT - While many editors seem intent on pointing out that the story of Seamus is notable, please be aware that notability is NOT in contention and is NOT the basis for which Editor Metropolitan90 nominated this article for deletion. The story clearly meets the General Notability Guideline, so it is kind of pointless to keep mentioning that as a point. Metropolitan90 essentially said this is a WP:ADVOCACY/ATTACK/GOSSIP piece, and that is the basis for deleting it. Thanks -- Avanu (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. The 'What Wikipedia is not' page states that advocacy and gossip articles are prohibited, but the Seamus (dog) article does not meet the definition of these prohibited articles.

WP:ADVOCACY: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

WP:GOSSIP: Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy.

Substantial efforts have been made by a number of editors to ensure that the Seamus article is written with a neutral point of view and with a high level of verifiability. The article quotes people critical of Seamus incident and people who defend Romney's actions, and uses the most neutral language possible to describe the dog, the 1983 road trip, and the subsequent political response. Because of the potentially controversial nature of the material, everything is the article is referenced, and some sections of the articles are double referenced. The article has 27 references, with most of them being to major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Herald, etc. Unless the Seamus article is written in a non-neutral manner, is libelous, or invades a person's privacy, it does not meet the above definitions of advocacy or gossip, and thus is not prohibited. I challenge someone to show me how the Seamus article violates the WP:ADVOCACY or WP:GOSSIP as defined above. Debbie W. 03:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The attempt to characterise this as "gossip" or "propaganda" is just more "I don't like it" hand waving. – OhioStandard (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I see it as an attempt to downplay the standard criteria for inclusion here, which is a combo of WP:V and WP:RS and their various subpolicies. This article is well written and well sourced, meets WP:GNG and although it's a situation that makes Romney look bad in the eyes of many, it's not an attack or gossip piece. I don't think we should ignore the massive coverage of the issue on the grounds that it looks bad. WP is neutral, but it's not unbiased; neutrality is a bias towards reliable sources. SÆdon ^talk 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I actually sat down and carefully read the entirety of this article (rather than skimming or having a kneejerk 'WTF why is this in Wikipedia' reaction), I learned something. I think there is something of value to be had here. The problem is, this is an election year and POV-pushing editors who have monopolized the article keep trying to expand it beyond all reason, and attack and rebel against and serve ANI notices on the brave editor(s) who tries to keep it NPOV. Another problem is that the article has spawned the clearly useless and egregious article Obama Eats Dogs, which in my view should not exist on Wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination, and people are actually suggesting that that patent nonsense should be treated as equal to this one and merged together? That I definitely disagree with. Lastly, the only reason I can think of for this Seamus article to exist, however, is if it doesn't fit in the Romney article. If the salient bullet points of this article can be fit in the Romney article, then I suggest it go there, regardless of the disappointment that ensues (yes, that means all of you editors who went wild when that was suggested at the first AfD). And then let's be done with it. Nothing more needs to be said about the dog than is already said here. Stop adding to this article, stop edit warring with those who try to NPOV it. Enough is enough. Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RE: "Perhaps Wikipedia editors who are not intent on using the encyclopedia to score points against rival political candidates can agree that neither of these articles is worthy of being a separate article." This is an unfair and inaccurate framing of the debate. To presuppose that all those who !vote keep are trying to score points against a "rival" politician is Poisoning the well. For the record, I don't give a shit about Romney, Obama or 99% of the world's politicians. I don't care who wins the next election - be it presidential or otherwise - I don't vote, generally don't watch or read political news and am not interested in the subject of politics in general. Believe it or not but neutral editing is possible on political subjects so long as one is apolitical, and not everyone has a "dog in the race," or so to speak. SÆdon ^talk 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Debbie says this isn't ADVOCACY or GOSSIP, so I went through and counted sentence by sentence the bias in each. The intro is fairly neutral and matter of fact, so I have it listed as "statement of fact". Most of the sentences after that point seem to have some degree of bias, but it runs 6 to 17 sentences against Romney and while I can see that might be fair, the general tone of the article is not neutral as Debbie is trying to say.

Statement of Fact (seems like intro is the only place this happens): 6
Bias Neutral: 5
Bias Pro Rom: 6
Bias Anti Rom: 17

In short, the article exists to magnify the incident and provide a platform for advocacy. Its proper place is not within a standalone article. The General Notability Guideline is "a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion", and many editors have given reasons why this is not a suitable standalone article. The material might have a place in Wikipedia, but unless you are willing to respond on the basis of the argument given by the nominator, I don't see how we can effectively communicate on this point. -- Avanu (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I agree with everything Avanu just said. Merge it into Romney. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Neutrality does not mean attaining a false balance, it means representing sources in proportion to their prominence. If RSs treat a subject negatively then our article will seem negative, the same holds true when coverage is positive. That being said, if the article is truly not neutral then it should be fixed, not deleted. Lastly, I don't know if you're relying on the acronym or the policy to make your point but nothing as written in those policies applies here imo. Even if your bias analysis were accurate, it wouldn't necessary follow that the article violates WP:NOT because it could be the case that it's a legitimate article with a bias problem which, again, should be fixed. SÆdon ^talk 04:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with User:Saedon. The neutrality of articles means that it reflects reliable sources. Read George W. Bush military service controversy, Gennifer Flowers, and Chappaquiddick incident, and you'll probably find more negative sentences than positive ones. However, that doesn't mean that the articles are unfairly biased against Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy. Debbie W. 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you can compare any of those articles with this one. A similar comparison would be to have an article about GWB and it be completely about his military service controversy. Gennifer Flowers actually did something, and her article also includes her other notable aspects of things that she did, granted it is focused on her most notable reason for having an article to begin with. Chappaquiddick is simply not comparable. The simple fact is that this article is about Gail Collins obsession with the story and her non-stop effort to bring it to national attention, and then of course the political talking points. Arzel (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Reposted *mostly* from my Talk page) Under the WP:SOAP section where GOSSIP resides:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda
nor Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political,
nor Opinion pieces
Articles must be balanced to put entries ... in a reasonable perspective (this bit specifically mentions current events, but this event is 29 years old, so what is a 'reasonable perspective' for that?)
nor for Scandal mongering,
"Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."

The Seamus article, as well as the Obama eating dogs article, and any of this ilk, exist to shine a light on a long ago issue in a way that promotes the very things that Wikipedia speaks against in the snippets above. Bill Clinton smoked marijuana at some point... does it deserve a standalone article? Herman Cain made unwanted advances with some women at work. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was alleged by Anita Hill to have sexually harassed her. Look at these things and see what has its own standalone article and what doesn't. Bill Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky has a separate article: Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton, but the marijuana isn't even mentioned in his biographical article. Seamus, while an emotional and interesting story, does NOT rise to the level of being independently notable. It is notable because of its association with Mitt Romney, but spinning it out into its own article is the non-neutral act that makes it into ADVOCACY or GOSSIP. Leaving it as a part of the Mitt Romney article would be appropriate as a footnote in his rise to candidate for president, but beyond that, it is not THAT noteworthy. You may personally feel that it is, but if you look at the overall picture and the various sorts of scandals in politics, this is practically nothing. How has it affected Mitt Romney's career? If you can say "not much", then that is about how much it deserves its own article. -- Avanu (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert at these AfD discussions, but is it proper to try to re-frame the whole debate like that halfway through? ~~Or is this just a crafty lawyerly tactic?~~Seems to me like a lot of intentional contortion and possible obsfucation there, so let me see if I understand the argument's chronology, based on your previous comments too: you're saying the main issue is not notability but rather advocacy/gossip (both?), but then you're saying notability is the issue because it's a separate article. Or it isn't because of the NOTNEWS arguments? Yet isn't this article considered a daughter of Mitt Romney because of the subsection on public perceptions there [18]? Articles get split up all the time when too long; their daughter articles are still de facto a part of the parent article, project-wise. Speaking of which, suggestions to merge this into the Romney article are unrealistic. I'm surprised that was even attempted after the first AfD. El duderino ^(abides) 06:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, El duderino, I am putting the debate back where Metropolitan90 began when he opened this AfD. "Perhaps Wikipedia editors who are not intent on using the encyclopedia to score points against rival political candidates can agree that neither of these articles is worthy of being a separate article. I recommend deletion for this one. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)" (my underlining there)

The fact is, Metropolitan never claimed it wasn't notable. 'Score points in politics' and 'worthy'. Implied points there are advocacy and triviality. I'm not claiming it isn't notable either. It is notable, per the presumption in GNG, but it has not had much impact. You associated that level of impact with notability, but its more about providing a rationale for spinning this off. Once you spin it off, it clearly has problems under the WP:SOAP guidelines, and ALL articles must follow a NPOV policy. You lose the balance that is found by leaving it within its parent article of Mitt Romney (IF it even deserves a mention there). Like I said, Bill Clinton's marijuana use is absent from his biography. The point is that context matters, and you guys keep focusing back on one thing -- General Notability Guideline -- and that guideline says it isn't a guarantee of inclusion, and further it is a GUIDELINE, not a POLICY. Policies generally trump guidelines if they conflict and since Metropolitan90 based his rationale on a POLICY, specifically "WP:What Wikipedia is not" (particularly the WP:SOAP section), I suggest you address that before taking a tangent toward GNG (which is not in dispute). -- Avanu (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three points, Avanu: (1) Metropolitan90 didn't identify any policy basis at all for bringing this here. All he said, in effect, was "I don't like it, and I hope you don't either." (2) Concur with Saedon, who wrote, "To presuppose that all those who !vote keep are trying to score points against a 'rival' politician is poisoning the well." (3) This Afd has nearly depleted their reserves, and the Wikimedia Foundation is now critically low on bytes with boldface, color, & etc. Seriously, the repeated emphasis is beginning to seem rather shrill; can we please dial it back a bit? – OhioStandard (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Metropolitan90 DID identify a policy basis. You shouldn't have to speak in Wiki-ese to know how to read what he said and apply it to policy. I re-quoted his opening to assist with that understanding. If you choose not to see it as having any relation to any policy or guideline, I suppose that's your choice. "I don't like this" is not an acceptable AfD criteria, and I'm guessing Metropolitan90 knows better since they are an administrator and has been editing for 7 years at least now. As far as using color, bold, and font size to differentiate text, firstly, I dislike 'walls of text', and considering that my Wiki-signature is plain text and yours is fancy and green.... well you infer what you like there. -- Avanu (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to address your 'poisoning the well' comment. I'm certainly not claiming that people who !vote keep or people who !vote delete are doing so only because they like or dislike Mitt Romney or his dog. I could honestly not give one whit about all that. I just think it is inappropriate to have as a standalone article because we aren't a tabloid or a 'Ripley's Believe It or Not'. -- Avanu (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or similar. I am in the UK and have no interest in US politics but the incident of the dog has been widely reported here (without identifying the dog by name). Oculi (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A whole Wikipedia article about a dog riding in a cage on the roof of a car for a few hours 21 29 years ago is an attack piece and shouldn't be an article. The "re-elect Obama" campaign committee should put this in their ads, not try to game it into Wikipedia. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia (showing how easily gamed it is) that this article even exists. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was 29 years ago, to nitpick. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I fixed. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reason for deletion The required coverage of the article subject to meet wp:notability does not exist. The sources (and material)) are not about the subject, they are about what people tried to do with it. North8000 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, the article is not about the dog per se, but about Romney's treatment of the dog and the extensive controversy that ensued, which has been widely reported and discussed in notable and reliable newspapers of record in the U.S. and overseas for over three months. The simple fix therefore for your objection is to change the title to ""Mitt Romney dog controversy". Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are reinforcing my point on the current article. But under your idea, it would be circular/incestuous/primary sourced. The coverage by media opposed to Rommney trying to maximize this story is itself the topic of the article, yet such (which is the actual subject) is used as "sources". North8000 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The coverage by media opposed to Rommney trying to maximize this story is itself the topic of the article," -- No, the topic of the article is the extensive public-reaction and political controversy that has ensued from the original 2007 news-story, which extensive controversy has been reported (and occasionally commented on) by international reliable-source newspapers of record. It's comparable (though to a lesser degree) to Monica Lewinsky, who has no notability outside of the scandal she was involved in. Both Lewinsky and the scandal have Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is already Romney's article then that is all it needs. ~~If for some reason this has a long-standing stigma (for several months and post election season) then maybe it would deserve its own article.~~ I see no reason for this to have its own article at this time; the media is often unreliable when it comes to election year gossip and this is clearly no exception. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't need an article on every passing 'controversy' related to the 2012 election, given that there's a new one every week or so. This was and is a trivial story which has not yet proved significant enough to justify having an article on it. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or similar. The controversy has definitely had extensive coverage in a wide variety of notable and reliable news sources for well over three months, from the January 14 Associated Press article through and beyond the April 17 LA Times article (and overseas as well, as mentioned by a poster above), and so on and so forth. Please do not equate this article with the trumped-up reactive meme Obama Eats Dogs, an obvious non-issue which lasted less than a week. Please do not give weight to those posters who created that article and who are promoting it here. The Mitt Romney dog controversy is not a meme, but a serious and enduring news item. I encourage those against this article to please (re)read it, slowly and carefully. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widespread media coverage makes it pass WP:GNG. But rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or something similar because the media coverage is about the incident, not the dog. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy", as expressed in first AFD. Cavarrone (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then all of the "sources" would still not be sources, they would be participants, and the only real sources would be sources that covered/ analyzed what those medias did with this story. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if newspapers report something that ends up sparking a controversy then they are no longer reliable sources? So, for instance, all the newspapers reporting the Columbia secret service controversy can't be considered reliable after the public strongly reacts, and in the same vein because the Romney story ended up being controversial the newspapers that were once reliable can no longer be considered reliable because that somehow makes them "participants?" And from then on sources can only be considered reliable if they are reporting about the reporting? SÆdon ^talk 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy isn't applicable because the initial Columbia story has both substance and sources, whereas this case it has neither (only the Romneys themselves are real sources on the current subject). So folks that want to save the article are proposing renaming it to the "controversy" which consists primarily of what the media did with this story. My point is not about reliability, it is that the current "sources" would then be the SUBJECT of the article, not sources on the subject. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitt Romney#Political positions and public perceptions. Otherwise, delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK. Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article provides great insight directly from the original Boston Globe reporter who brought this story up in 2007.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-08/news/30605151_1_romney-family-mitt-romney-dog

I'm 100% certain that both the Keep and Delete sides will find fodder for arguments, but regardless, its an interesting read. -- Avanu (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons that should be self evident, but they seem not to be, so: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:COATRACK, WP:SOAPBOX, and Biographies of dead dogs known for one event.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article meets the general notability guidelines; there are a number of citations indicating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the incident is notable enough in the public memory for it not to fall under WP:IINFO. An article of this quality should have never been listed for deletion in the first place, since it is neither advocacy nor gossip. Miniapolis (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or similar. As a "bio" page, the subject fails WP:BLP1E. But as an article about an event, the event is notable. The POV-related issues should be worked out through the normal editing process, not through AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A further note in support of my Keep !vote: One legitimate role of Wikipedia is to help readers understand things they find mentioned elsewhere. There've been a slew of editorial cartoons on various points that use the dog-on-roof idea as a reference to Romney. Some involve dogs getting angry at Romney for his treatment of Seamus. Most, however, simply assume that the reader knows about Seamus, and comment on some other topic. Examples that I've seen: Seamus on the roof, kid in car explaining that he's there "because he asked to see Dad's tax returns". Elephant in crate on roof, begging Bachmann or Perry or Cain to free him from Romney. Romney in crate on roof while Tea Partier in tricorn hat drives car. In the same vein, we now have the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, and this report of Obama's remarks: "The highlight was a spoof Romney ad showing the former governor at the door of Air Force One with a dog cage on top of the aircraft." ([19]) People who dismiss this article as a mere political attack are ignoring the distinction between perpetrating an attack and reporting on an attack. There is no reason for Wikipedia, in reporting on the real world, to ignore those aspects of it that some editors find distasteful for one reason or another. JamesMLane t c 11:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "attack" is trying to make the largest possible deal out of a small incident. In this current configuration and title, Wikipedia is participating in that, not covering it. 99.135.170.19 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This story originally gained currency not as an attack, but because a reporter thought the anecdote was revealing about Romney -- see the original Globe story. The characterization of "attack" is more clearly applicable to the subjects of numerous other Wikipedia articles, such as John Kerry military service controversy, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In each of those cases, a neutral Wikipedia article about a widely covered subject does have the side effect of giving a little more publicity to a partisan attack against a Democrat. Should those articles be deleted? JamesMLane t c 16:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesMLane, You've given me something to think about. I think it is important to be fair in our coverage of such things, and I think it is important for people to get accurate information somewhere if they are getting told about such things. I guess the question is, when have we crossed the line from being honest reporters of worthy encyclopedic subjects, to simply following a media that doesn't mind digging things up whether they are worthy or not? Some of these so-called controversies are just political games to see what will make their opponent bleed. Others are legitimately important and serious concerns. I don't see it being a good idea for Wikipedia editors to decide that standard, but at the same time, we are asked to determine what is encyclopedic. I'm hesitant to say Keep on an article that really is so fleeting and so old, but I've, for the moment, removed my Delete. Who knows.... -- Avanu (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Romney did a loud fart during a May 3rd appearance, media hostile to Romney would cover it as much as possible. Then the Obama re-election committee (who has been hard at work on Wikipedia) would create the "May 3rd 2012 Romney fart" article. And seriously point out that the fart meets wp:notability as it is written due to coverage in sources. Maybe we need this article about what a long dead dog did for a few hours 29 years ago to exist to show how messed up the Wikipedia system is in certain areas. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your "loud fart" hypothesis were correct, then Wikipedia would have articles on Romney's $10k bet, on his new mansion with the car elevator, on his stated fondness for being able to fire people, on his disparagement of a popular bakery's cookies, on his tepid response to Rush Limbaugh's latest outrage ("not the language I would have used" or some such is all Romney could muster), etc. Each of these things is a campaign incident that's generated some bad publicity for Romney. Do we lack articles about them because none of them has achieved the level of ongoing media coverage of the Seamus incident, or because George Soros is late with his check this month and we in the Liberal Cabal are petulantly deferring our planned edits in retaliation? You might try AGF and go with the former explanation. JamesMLane t c 00:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your later comments, I never made any of those straw-man statements like "cabal", or high level or organization as you inferred. I did say that the O'Bama re-election committee is hard at work on Wikipedia articles. While the "committee" word is a bit of hyperbole, the rest isn't. I've run into some pretty severe cases of this. At the O'Bama Presidency article, they are not only warring out any criticisms, they are even warring out / deleting talk page notices of the severe npov problems there. So yes, I'm a bit jaded at the moment of Wikipedia being tilted for political purposes, and when I see a whole article on a long dead dog spending a few hours on the roof of a car 29 years ago, it certainly smacks of such. On your former ones, I don't have the time to run it down but I'll bet that the same folks are working for maximum coverage of those events. And a few of those are real topics and I'd say say "rightly so". I was also pointing out how easily wp:notability is gamed on things like this. Even the most non-notable event by someone in a political contest will get covered by opposing media in which case it technically meets wp:notability. (although this one, as titled, does not have that coverage of the actual topic, the only real sources on that are the Romneys.) So if Romney does a loud fart, that will end up technically meeting wp:notability for a separate article on that fart. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only merit in this whole sad saga is that it reassures me, as a non-American, that the sort of garbage that pretends to be sensible politics in my country is equally matched by garbage in the USA. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One point that turned my opinion about the article is that I had previously thought the dog was on the car roof for maybe 4 to 5 hours max. Someone mentioned, on one of the discussions, that the article "is about 12 hours of a dog's life". That astounded me because I hadn't read the article carefully. Twelve hours is an entire day, from sun-up to sun-down, and clearly a time period that would have a massive affect on anything and anyone on a car roof for that long. That's when I changed my mind about the article and read it thoroughly. I don't think this is a trivial incident that is being overblown here. I think it's a notable incident that has affected public perception even beyond whatever political ammunition Romney's opponents in both parties have made of it, and that it is a legitimate topic of encyclopedic exploration (even if only, as a poster above noted, to get all the salient facts laid out in one NPOV and verifiable place, something that's not otherwise available to people who want to learn more about this legitimate topic of discussion, even beyond the fact that this is an election year). Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would argue that its been the most lasting political controversy that Mitt Romney has had. Although Romney has had some other controversies (e.g., $10,000 bet, 'I like to fire people', cookiegate), they all have been transitory in terms of their news coverage and popular influence, and thus do not warrant a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's policy on the notability of news states that notability is based on depth of coverage, duration of coverage, the diversity of sources. An incident which has coverage on cable news shows for a few days is not entitled to a Wikipedia article. However, the Seamus incident has been in the news for the last five years, has been covered by foreign media sources, and has been the topic of national polls, and has led to the formation of super PACs. That's clearly notable. Overall, I see Seamus as having the same influence as Jeremiah Wright, who has his own article. Debbie W. 04:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's where the nonsenical POV attitudes of people here come to the fore. How on earth can what Romney did to the dog be a political controversy? Just describing it as political is POV. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your neighbor did this, people might talk about it and move on. Its political because its about a politician. Its just one of those things. Like trying to pull a duck out of a quack. -- Avanu (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an even better expansion on that thought is, "I don't like my neighbor, and now he is running for a political office. One time 25 years ago he transported his dog on the roof of his car so I am going to use that to attack his character in order to make sure he doesn't get elected." Arzel (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitt Romney per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEEVENT. Article isn't even about the dog, just the controversy from 30 years ago involving its owner who is running for President. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's about the continued and ongoing controversy, which is still occuring now and which has been reported, discussed, and publically responded to continually and internationally since January 2012, not to mention the reportage/controversy in 2007 and beyond. Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Mitt Romney dog controversy. I concur with Saedon's view that we've seen unfortunate attempts "to downplay the standard criteria for inclusion here, which is a combo of WP:V and WP:RS and their various subpolicies. This article is well written and well sourced, meets WP:GNG and although it's a situation that makes Romney look bad in the eyes of many, it's not an attack or gossip piece. I don't think we should ignore the massive coverage of the issue on the grounds that it looks bad. WP is neutral, but it's not unbiased; neutrality is a bias towards reliable sources." This has been covered repeatedly, and broadly, since 2007, and polls show people's concerns over this will exert some meaningful influence on how they vote. There's no way we cannot have an article about it; like it or loathe it, it's a significant issue. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP is not made of paper. The event and its attendant controversy is already more than merely some random, passing news story and/or minor web meme (such as acccording to my view would be to-date say the fact that the Romneys' San Diego beachhouse planned addition's architectural design is to include a car elevator - CNNLINK); rather, per the sources, it must be rocognized as a notable controversy involving a public person and be provided coverage according to WP's guidelines.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason we have kept the santorum controversy. As other have noted,the AfD is not about whether the subject meets GNG, it obviously does. If the article was called How Mitt Romney abused his dog then I would clearly advocate for a name change.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2[edit]

Merge to Mitt Romney, the dog is important as it relates to Mitt Romney, not as its own entity. There is plenty of info in the article that could stand to be consolidated as well. Ducknish (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the best way to evaluate the notability of controversial articles is via rigorous analysis using Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia's policy on the notability of events gives 5 factors in evaluating an event -- (1) lasting effect, (2) geographic scope, (3) depth of coverage, (4) duration of coverage, and (5) diversity of sources. So lets look at the Seamus article.

(1) Lasting effect -- "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects." Uncertain Two super PACs have been founded with the solely as a result of the 1983 road trip, and a Public Policy Polling survey indicates that 35% of Americans are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney because of the Seamus incident. However, it remains to be seen how much influence this issue will have on the US presidential election or Mitt Romney future political career.

(2) Geographical scope -- "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it. By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Pass There is a substantial amount of US media coverage of this topic, and the story has been reported repeatedly and in-depth by the foreign press (e.g., Globe and Mail, Irish Times).

(3) Depth of coverage -- "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)." Pass The Seamus incident was discussed in the book The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, and had a feature story in Time Magazine. Furthermore, there have been a number of articles analyzing what the Seamus story indicates about the role of pets in American culture[20][21].

(4) Duration of coverage -- "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Pass The Seamus incident has been in the news extensively since 2007, and will likely be in the news continuously for the rest of the year.

(5) Diversity of sources -- "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." Pass There is significant domestic and international media coverage of this incident. The Seamus story been covered by the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, International Business Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Irish Times, Guardian, Globe and Mail, and many other newspapers and media sources.

Overall Different people may come to different conclusions using the Wikipedia notability of events guidelines. However, I think that the Seamus article meets most of the criteria for notability, and should be kept. Debbie W. 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this has not been "extensively" in the press since 2007. While it is true that Gail Collins has been "extensively" obsessed with it since then, one persons extreme dislike of Romney does not matter much. Most of the covereage has been a mirror of Gail Collins obsession with the story. It probably would not even be a story if she did whine about it every time she typed up a story. I would say that 4 and 5 Fail, what is a story, however, is Gail Collins obsession with Seamus. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article pertained to pretty much anywhere other than the US would there be so many people calling for the article to be kept? Somehow I doubt it. (Note that this isn't intended to be a delete argument, just an observation.) --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannus Mundi, You bring up a good point but I think that we must focus on what news coverage and impact the Seamus story has had, not whether we believe it should have received so much news coverage. Each country has its own concept of what is acceptible or unacceptible for politicians. In some countries, the president or prime minister having a mistress is a non-issue, whereas it's big issue in English-speaking nations. In some countries, espousing the wrong religious beliefs or being from the wrong tribe is political career-stopper, whereas in many countries it's not. Whether the Seamus incident would be viewed the same way in a foreign country is not really relevant. In the end, I think our job at Wikipedia is to determine whether a topic is notable, not whether it should have become notable. Debbie W. 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about whether it's acceptable or not. It's whether it's significant or not. And it's only significant to the Romney's opponents and the tabloid media on their side. For Wikipedia to even be mentioning it is playing into the hands of those playing a political game. It's taking sides politically. We should not be doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with this assessment, HiLo (although I still maintain my delete/merge vote). We are not here to subjectively judge whether it's significant -- the issue is whether it has obtained notability based upon the coverage. To illustrate, we don't have a Wiki page on every person who has ever disappeared. However, we do have a page on Natalee Holloway , not because she is more important than the other (perhaps less white and/or attractive) people who have disappeared, but because the 'tabloid media' covered the case ad nauseum. If this story were to really have legs, then yes, we would have to include it as a Wiki page. The story wouldn't be any less asinine, but something that catches the attention of the public at large for a substantial amount of time is noteworthy. I do think it's ok for us to judge the liklihood of a story really sticking around and impacting the media. I suspect that this entire issue is little more than a flash-in-the-pan meme that deserves a footnote on the 2012 election page and/or the Romney page. However, if I am wrong and this is THE story of the 2012 election, it is not for us to exclude the article because it demonstrates all that is wrong with our political system.JoelWhy (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I respectfully disagree with that. Wikipedia should not be driven by the tabloid media on any topic at all. We are not a tabloid outlet. If part of the more serious and responsible media described the hype surrounding this matter (and we all know that's all it is), then we could include something paralleling that reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if the sources for this article were Gawker or the New York post, but that's not the case. Our sources are not tabloids, they're impeccable; major newspapers and news stations across the world over a period of at least a year. I don't think there's a major paper that hasn't done a story (though I suppose it's possible). Perhaps you mean that the subject is only worthy of a tabloid, which may be the case but that's not for us as editors to decide. We don't give weight and ascribe notability based on our feelings as editors, we do so based on the reliability of the sourcing, and that's one thing this article is not lacking. SÆdon ^talk 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And normally, while coverage is an actual gauge of notability, in this case coverage merely means that there is media opposed to Romney attempting to give even the most trivial negative thing regarding him legs. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, I find your argument most unusual. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but are you basically saying that we should ignore Wikipedia's notability of events guideline which puts a strong emphasis on the depth, duration, and diversity of news coverage? If you believe that media coverage should not a factor for assessing the notability of this article, what should we use as the standard of notability? Debbie W. 04:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that there is much depth and diversity in the media coverage. Most of it would come from shallow, tabloid style outlets which don't want Romney elected. That's neither a deep nor diverse cross-section of the media. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to trust my word or doubt it, you can check for yourself. Just pasting what Debbie wrote above (removing the last two as they actually are tabloids): New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, International Business Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Irish Times, and the Guardian. Are you going to contend that's not a deep or diverse cross section of the media? SÆdon ^talk 05:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Debbie W, my comment was about the coverage criteria in wp:notability which folks keep saying is a basis for keeping this. And and how it misfires / is easily gamed in cases where the media is a player in the event (trying to give a non-notable story legs as a part of their advocacy against that candidate) rather than a coverer of it. North8000 (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was a Wiki rule that allows for the exclusion of articles if conservative editors decide that the stories are all part of a liberal media conspiracy.JoelWhy (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this comment might be misplaced. It's under mine but bears no relationship to anything I said. 14:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You are advocating that the article should not be included because the media is perpetuating a story in order to advocate against Romney. That sounds a whole lot like 'it's a liberal media conspiracy' to me.JoelWhy (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about a conspiracy? (or did you mean that as just a straw man revision of what I actually said?) No "conspiracy" or even-co-ordination of actions is needed for this to occur. It just needs a few newspapers etc. opposed to the person, behaving naturally, in a way that further promotes their preference. A simple lack of objectivity standards will accomplish that; no conspiracy is required. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can rename it the Seamus Dog Incident perhaps. Massive media coverage, used against him in his campaign, and "As of March 2012, New York Times columnist Gail Collins had mentioned the car trip more than 50 times.[29]" You hear about this in the media everywhere regularly. Dream Focus 03:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail's obsession with the story doesn't mean much other than she really dislikes Romney, if anything her obsession proves just how non-notable the story really is. For years, she made sure to whine about it every time she wrote a story. The fact that it never got much attention until Romney appeared likely to be Obama's opponent in 2012 only shows you just how much this is a product of the election and is purely a political talking point being used by the left to attack the character of Romney. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic behind the idea that because an even is notable due to political issues it is therefore not notable. The fact that this story is notable because Romney is a well known politician and possible Republican nominee doesn't reduce the notability of the subject one bit - that's exactly why it's notable. Of course if you or I did such a thing it would never even make the news, but that makes sense because we're not national candidates. Politics has the ability to make issues and events notable that would otherwise not be, this isn't an argument against inclusion. If we decided to limit the encyclopedia to articles that were notable but only when not because of politics we would loose a lot of articles on obviously notable subjects. SÆdon ^talk 04:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. This is shallow, tabloid, POV garbage. There may be a lot of it, but it is still shallow, tabloid, POV garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your personal opinion on the content of most of the major newspapers of the US and many internationally. Our opinions, however, do not matter one bit here. SÆdon ^talk 05:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looking at the comments and the coverage, I tend to have to come down that this is notable (significant press coverage). Thus if it is notable, it should stay. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albeit with some regret. On a personal level, I think this is not important enough to be included - but the coverage in the press is significant, and the subject meets the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article - my personal opinion is not relevant here, the notability criteria is, however! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there is NO WAY that this article can ever be anything but ADVOCACY and GOSSIP. Not much possible debate that it is NOTABLE in the sense of media attention. EXACTLY the same as "Obama eats dogs". The only people who have any actual factual knowledge of either story are either Romneys or Obamas, and neither set has given out any ACTUAL FACTS or BACKGROUND that is in any way negative. EVERY other pseudofact that puffs up either article is, by definition, POV. ALL commentary is political (let's just quit the fiction that there is ACTUAL Science), and should be treated as such; merger of the two unsubstantive pseudoissues as competing political memes, which is what they are, is the appropriate action.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking, right? Please read the article before you make bizarre assertions. All the negative facts on the Romney case came from the Romney family. Not to mention, the article is about the continuing and lasting and very substantive controversy surrounding those negative facts revealed by the Romney family. Are you going to delete the articles on Monica Lewinsky as well? This is no meme; please actually read the article. Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - Fwiw, I do remember an article about Zhirinovsky's ass in recent Russian elections, and that page is apparently still around. That being said, maybe it is not a bad idea to set up one article for such "election elephants" (ELE-ELE) and just keep them all in one place (per election). That will help with NPOV. Invariably there are trivia and gossip that gets blown up by supporters on both sides. If they get standalone articles they just seem to get bigger and bigger. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:27, 2 May 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. Yasht101 07:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Carolyn Lamm[edit]

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

Only notability I'm seeing is through a press release through ABA. I'm not convinced the award alone meets notability requirements. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've fleshed out the article some, although I'm not entirely as savvy about the whole legal and government scene, so I'll refrain from voting for right now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tokyogirl is being far too modest. The article is now more than adequately cited with convincing proof of notability from a range of publications. The article, now much improved, hasn't a snowball's of being deleted now. Nom should note that the criterion is that RS exist, not that they're in the article, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - President of the ABA, presence in Washingtonian mag's list seem to be enough to establish notability.JoelWhy (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per JoelWhy. Lord Roem (talk) 17:41, 25 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 - consensus that the initial concerns over notability have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Equity[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The current article does not make any claims of notability. The organizations own history page suggests some notability, but it's hardly independent. Any independently verifiable references would do, here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My google scholar search (see [22]) turns up ten hits or so, but none seem sufficient (I can't actually look at the articles), as they seem to be merely mentioning the term in the context of lawsuits filed by the group (in some cases, the little snippet view looks like even the lawsuit is just part of a list of lawsuits, not an in-depth discussion). The very first reference, [23], does not seem to be about the lawsuit, but the tone of the snippet implies that it's part of a quotation from an interview of a research subject, not a real discussion of the group. Google News finds nothing for me. As such, I see no evidence that this group meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)see below[reply]

Keep. Gets 29,000 Google hits [24] and 9,400 GoogleBooks hits [25], plus a number of news hits in the areas of incorporation: [26]. The article just needs a citation or two. No reason at all to delete. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the pages listed in those Google searches, or have you just looked at the numbers? There are pages on the organisation's web site and on the web sites of other organisations that have a relationship to it, various unreliable sites (such as Wikipedia), obituaries of people including one-sentence mention of the fact that the person in question was a member of the Knights of Equity, a write-up in a newspaper of a press release giving the date of a picnic the Knights of Equity were planning to hold, a four sentence mention of the fact that they were planning to hold a convention... The mere existence of a large number of Google hits is no evidence at all of notability: we need to know that at least a few of those hits are to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Nothing I have seen suggests that that is the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This organization's primary period of existence is pre-internet. Don't mistake the group's status in the present for its status in the past in terms of sourcing. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^ ^ What Carrite said. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable organization. Skimming through the sources Softlavender has linked to merely lists random mentions in other publications.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I have indicated above, I have been unable to find any substantial coverage in suitable sources. In fact, there is not very much substantial coverage in any sources: mostly brief mentions, as Ryulong has said. The article does not make any significant claim of significance, so this could be regarded as suitable for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I see no harm in allowing this discussion to run its course. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Tracked by The Political Graveyard [27] includes 6 state legislators, with Caffrey (New York Assembly district), Fitzgerald (Michigan state senate), Fitzpatrick (Michigan house), Lamb (Pennsylvania house & senate), Lane (Michigan house), O'Connor (Michigan house), & Vaughan (Pennsylvania house). Dru of Id (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a Gilded Age & Progressive Era social benefits organization that has survived until the present much like a coelacanth. This should easily clear GNG, I'm guessing, I'll spend some time on this this morning... Carrite (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Pittsburgh has AN ARCHIVAL COLLECTION, preserved on microfilm, of "Records of Knights of Equity Court #9, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1938-1977." Clearly they believe the organization to be a topic worthy of academic study. Here's THE FINDING AID for the Pitt material, which includes a very brief (but substantive) history of the organization. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be evidence of a SECOND ARCHIVAL HOLDING, probably in Cleveland, although OCLC's listing doesn't provide further details, unfortunately. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually kind of interesting... This is SELF-SOURCED but indicates that the KoE had a women's auxiliary from 1954 called the Daughters of Erin, ALSO ARCHIVED at the University of Pittsburgh. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's SUBSTANTIAL COVERAGE on the website of phoenixmasonry.org/, placing the KoE in the tradition of Irish-Catholic fraternal organizations. The SAME SITE places the group chronologically with the Knights of Pythius and the Sons of Norway. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reaching out to the group and to a Masonic history museum for sourcing advice. I see that the group does have it's own self-published book, History of the Knights of Equity, but that's not going to add any traction here, being a self-publication. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is good — I found the second archive, which contains an online finding aid that has some substantial background info: WESTERN RESERVE HISTORICAL SOCIETY in Cleveland — a small collection, bulk dated 1895-1905. "History of Knights of Equity" is HERE. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. I had a sense that there would be something available out there in terms of sources, but it obviously wasn't easy.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Carrite; abundant thanks. Just a note, History of the Knights of Equity is not a book, it's a pamphlet. You won't find it in the Library of Congress or any used bookseller, not even bookfinder.com. Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I bumped into this one this afternoon: "Knights of Equity Plan Big Meeting," Pittsburgh Press, Aug. 1, 1908, pg. 7, col. 1-2. Most of the mainstream newspaper refs to the group are going to be of similar vintage (i.e. hard to locate in a Google search, but extant). Carrite (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another Pittsburgh Press piece, "Knights of Equity Open Convention," Sept. 16, 1948, about the group's 53rd annual convention, which included 500 delegates from 11 cities. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite's excellent factfinding. Deleting this page as nonnotable would amount to telling the University of Pittsburgh that it wrongly believes the Knights to be a worthy subject of scholarly inquiry. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And a sincere thank you to Carrite and Softlavender for there excellent work demonstrating the clear notability of this subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kind of moot at this point, but I received a nice email from Mark Tabbert of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial Association who suggested that the following sources include material on the Knights of Equity:

- Stevens, Albert Clark, ed. The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities: A Compilation of Existing Authentic Information . . . of More Than Six Hundred Secret Societies in the United States. New York: Hamilton Printing and Publishing Company, 1899. Republished in the 1930s
- Beito, David T. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890 -1967, Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
- Ferguson, Charles W. Fifty Million Brothers: A Panorama of American Lodges and Clubs. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1937.
- Pruess, Arthur, comp. A Dictionary of Secret and Other Societies. St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., 1924; reprinted by Detroit, Mich.: The Gale Research Co., 1966.
- Schmidt, Alvin J. Fraternal Organizations. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980.

I'll insert these into the piece as a reading section in case somebody wants to expand the thing down the line. Thanks, everyone. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you again, and kudos for a job very well done here. Excellent work!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, and once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 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 Keep. Yasht101 07:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

XPO Logistics, Inc[edit]

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

Delete. Run of the mill, non-notable company. Winning some awards and having refs is insufficient to be included per the sentiment of WP:NOT. Essentially it is SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which of the criteria at WP:NOT is being referred to in this nomination? It's an entire page of guidelines. Certainly the article doesn't fail every one of the guidelines there! Please read WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seasoned WP editors would know.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the author, I believe that this is a notable company, or is soon to become one, in that its current CEO (whose activities I have been following closely over the last two years) has built up 2 multibillion-dollar agglomerations of other businesses in the past, reducing competition almost to the point of a monopoly across the rentals and waste sectors. He now seems poised to do the same across the logistics industry, having already looked at acquiring over 100 companies in that field. -- NathanBermann (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note that the company was previously known as "Express-1 Expedited Solutions Inc". The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

Charlotte Observer
The New York Times
Heavy Duty Trucking Magazine
Vertical news, note that this is not a press release, as is stated at the end of the article, "This article was prepared by VerticalNews Transportation editors from staff and other reports."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, given your strenuous efforts at finding sources for all the company articles up for deletion, you seem to be want WP to become a business directory. This is an encyclopaedia and not theYellow Pages! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a little unusual to hear objections to sourcing an article. It is precisely such sourcing that differentiates Wikipedia from a business directory. A directory includes all firms; an encyclopedia includes all firms with sources for notability. There are two ways of destroying the objective inclusion of articles in Wikipedia: one is by including articles without evidence of encyclopedic importance, the other is by excluding those that are. There was one appropriate response from the nom for Northamerica's work: withdrawing the AfD and apologizing for not looking himself for sources. There are still those who object to requiring WP:BEFORE, but it is nomination like this which explain why it's needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 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 Speedy redirect, no deletion needed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mitchelmore[edit]

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

This article is an exact copy of the Christopher Mitchelmore article just under a different name. This duplicate article is unnecessary. Aaaccc (talk), 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Anderson[edit]

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

Shows no indication of notability and it promotional in tone. West Eddy (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the article is promotional and there is indication of nobility. However... The original editor has created ~10 articles today of roughly the same quality. A majority have no independent references or reliable references. Anderson's article also lacks independent references. I'm unable to find reliable references about her, only brief mentions of her work. Bgwhite (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: have found and added another ref, and I think there is probably plenty of coverage in less accessible sources (what proportion of South African newspapers are online?). This new editor has shown herself ready to learn (improved style of articles after I left a note on her talk page), and these articles should be given time to mature and find better refs. PamD 08:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And have found another source from Independent Online (South Africa) which although brief gives high praise. PamD 08:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 12 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) 00:29, 17 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) 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While many of the original problems in this article have been revised, it does need some more work before it is ready for the main namespace. Some secondary sources were found and I do not think it is promotional in tone, but there is definitely room for more references and information. I moved a copy of this article into the WikiAfrica Incubator, so more experienced and knowledgeable users can contribute to the article before it gets moved back into the namespace. It's probably best to delete this version to avoid further confusion. --Megzmurphy (talk) 09:21, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Roberts[edit]

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

Notability not established. Refs are internal "know the staff" type entries that do not establish any notability. Article created by a single topic editor. Looks like self publicity for a minor writer Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National Geographic Traveler and Travcoa 1st place is alone sufficient to establish notability. Article needs tidy-up not deletion. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:47, 12 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) 00:32, 17 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) 01:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does winning a contest entered by 500 college students who submitted a 300 hundred word report on a travel experience constitute a claim of notability. Coverage of the contest by independent reliable sources seems to be lacking. Guest9999 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The award doesn't hurt, but is the award one that Wikipedia would consider notable enough to carry an article by itself? I'm going to try to see if I can find anything about her books- does anyone know if her books are used regularly in schools or whatnot?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is now probably sufficient coverage in RS, for both the poetry and the travel writing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We As Human[edit]

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

With only one release on a major label, and an EP at that, they do not meet WP:BAND. No notable musicians. No notable tours. No other criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 18 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) 01:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, name is tough to Google (kept getting stuff with "We as human beings…") but searching with various keywords found no reliable source coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete * , Fact is that they are signed with a major label, and have recently wrapped up the "noteable" Winter Jam 2012 Tour in the company of several noteable bands. ( http://www.jamtour.com/ ) As musicians, they are just starting getting a start in the industry, who was "noteable" in the infancy of their careers? Respectfully, I don't see any real merit in the previous arguments to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.234.12 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being just signed to a label does not make notable. Touring lacks coverage. Charts are not WP:GOODCHARTS. Coverage lacks significant talk about them by independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage to date (that I've found, at least) does not appear significant; perhaps this group will soon meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND, but I don't believe they have at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 23:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steffen Vroom[edit]

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

PROD contested by SirEdimon (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article is being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirEdimon (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, as was stated in the opening sentence of this AfD. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Ljungskile SK. A similar system is used for redirecting band members to the bands they play in. Furthermore, due to some relatively confusing rules, his club has been promoted to Allsvenskan twice. If his club were to be promoted again while he was playing, he would be notable per WP:NFOOTBALL, then it would only be necessary to undo the conversion to a redirect. Should this not be redirected, it should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But a footballers's allegiance to a club is much more itinerant than that of a musician to a band. The redirect would need to be updated quite often (depending on how his career pans out) and there's not much chance anybody will be keeping track of him, meaning the redirect would likely become out of date. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete per Mattythewhite and Kosm1fent, plus my original reasons. I didn't think that through fully. Thanks for pointing it out. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as an obscure player who has not played in a fully professional league. A redirect would be plausible if the player had a significant history at the club and thus his name would become a valid seach term, which is not the case here. – Kosm1 fent 12:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redirect needed - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:01, 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 speedily deleted under criterion G4. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Toy[edit]

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

CSD contested by an IP so bringing it here. Same problems as the last AFD: non notable game, only primary sourcing SÆdon^talk 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CSD tag has been restored by another editor on the grounds that the original tag was removed without any explanation, so this may end up being speedied anyway. SÆdon^talk 04:54, 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.