Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday June 11 (Tue) June 10 (Mon) June 9 (Sun) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 13 August	15 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ek si jatt[edit]

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

Non-notable upcoming amateur film, no hits for "Ek si jatt" on Google Books, News, or News archives. See WP:NFF, as well. CtP (t • c) 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is not notable. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 15:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources and my searches don't even turn up a hint of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Release date of July 2013 and nothing notable about the production. Eeekster (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, specifically WP:NFF. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:54, 21 August 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 result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C. Ariel Wulff[edit]

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

This person is not notable. Topher Mackenzie (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be enough here to meet the WP:GNG, although it's closer than much I see here. I just can't accept this fannish stuff as reliable sources; it seems to me as though all the expertise is self-generated. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about the person although I can find articles written by the person. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and it's not clear exactly what her claim to fame is supposed to be. She has done some work in the comics industry and has created a non-notable blog. She has written two books but they do not appear to be notable - at least, I could not find any independent sourcing about them. Google News Archive finds things written BY her but nothing ABOUT her. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Content may be merged from the article history at editor discretion. Jujutacular (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salahidin Abdulahat[edit]

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

On a living (now released) prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used not even take the name of the subject WP:BOMBARD. Moreover they are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Subject is part of a notable group, however I don't believe that the subject is independently notable as an individual per WP:ANYBIO, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:GNG, therefore a redirect to said notable group is the best option.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay per WP:R#HARMFUL and WP:R#KEEP.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of secondary sources + WP:BLP. It would be better if similar articles were all discussed under one heading. First Light (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that was tried, and the nominator was told not to bundle. This after he had originally done individual noms and was told to bundle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay, as explained above quite well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The page history is preserved behind the redirect as usual. Der yck C. 23:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman[edit]

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

On a living (now released) prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The WP:BOMBARDED citations used merely take the name. Moreover they are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 21:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 15:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 15:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 15:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SOLDIER; however subject is an individual that can be verified to be a member of a notable group, and thus a redirect can be left in the article space to the notable list. Most coverage about the subject that can be considered in-depth would be about the subject's wedding in Palau, however one can consider that as routine coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. Not notable on own. GregJackP Boomer! 11:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay per WP:R#HARMFUL and WP:R#KEEP.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge with subsequent redirect - It is clear that consensus has been achieved regarding the appropriate usage of Military Reports, and that they may be used as administrative reviews of facts but not as reliable secondary sources to substantiate either notability or to promote a neutral point of view. However, it is also clear that the information contained within this article will be an asset to the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamed Hussein Abdallah[edit]

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

On a living (now released) prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used merely take the name. Moreover they are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 15:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 15:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Subject is not independently notable per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO; his detention is, but this is a case of WP:BLP1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees per WP:R#HARMFUL and WP:R#KEEP.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural closure WP:NPASR Nomination stipulates that reliable primary material is present, but there is no WP:BEFORE/WP:ATD alternatives to deletion as to what to do with this material. It is likely that there is no argument for deletion once WP:ATD is considered. Nor does the nomination provide verifable searches that this topic does not have secondary sources. Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, merging any information that can be referenced. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Editorial decision as to whether merging is appropriate. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba[edit]

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

On a living (now released) prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used merely take the name. Moreover some of them are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Subject does not appears to be independently notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SOLDIER. His detention maybe notable, but as an individual he does not appear to be notable, and thus this falls under WP:BLP1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees per WP:R#HARMFUL and WP:R#KEEP.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural closure WP:NPASR Nomination stipulates that reliable primary material is present, but there is no WP:BEFORE/WP:ATD alternatives to deletion as to what to do with this material. It is likely that there is no argument for deletion once WP:ATD is considered. Nor does the nomination provide repeatable searches that this topic does not have secondary sources. Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, merging as necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. I don't think the guy is notable by himself. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 18:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The legend of the 10 elemental masters[edit]

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

This book doesn't seem notable. Googling on Google Books, News, and News archives for "the legend of the 10 elemental masters" "nick smith" turned up the book itself, two other book hits which were false positives, and a Maltese article (translation) which is more about Smith than the book, spending only a few paragraphs discussing it. I'm also unsure of the reliability of the source. Overall, the book seems to fail the general notability guideline, but in the event that I've missed something, feel free to prove me wrong. CtP (t • c) 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the author meets the notability criteria, definitely the book doesn't QU ^TalkQu 20:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just no coverage in any reliable sources to show that this self-published book is ultimately notable. Zip. Zero. What doesn't help is that through my searches I discovered that this guy is one of those poor saps that seems to have gained the attention of ED, so even if it was notable there would still be the chance of this being a lulz magnet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have speedied if that was allowed for books Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 15:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten hope[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable video game addon Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's discussed some on gaming websites but I don't believe there are enough independent reliable sources that establish notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:34, 14 August 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) 15:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doubtful notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Tipaeva[edit]

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

Unsourced and - per WP:NGYMNASTICS - junior-level gymnasts are not considered notable. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Firstly, I can't find significant coverage from reliable sources about this gymnist. The article claims that Tipaeva won a Gold in the European Gymnastics Championships. This is impressive, but I don't think it's a "senior individual medal", as NGYMNASTICS criteria states. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 23:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no results at the senior level, and also I believe she is not eligible yet to compete at the senior level.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Sartori[edit]

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

Article about an Uruguayan businessman who does not seem to meet WP:GNG. External links are all homepages for companies that he is claimed to have founded, but they don't do anything to provide notability. His name doesn't immediately turn up anything special on Google/GNews/GBooks/GScholar. BenTels (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Juan Sartori article is quite relevant, specially for Uruguayans. He is an inspirational figure for people in that country, not only for his success as an entrepreneur, but also for his social commitment. Moreover, google searches display a lot of information about himself (just to mention a couple of sites: The National Business Review; El Pais; Financial Times;Espectador de Negocios). So, although his importance in Uruguay is far greater than in any other country, he is still an internationally relevant businessman as shown by the publications mentioned.(content editor)Bla - uk (talk) 14:27, 13 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apologies to Bla - uk; I didn't notice your comment before. It doesn't matter whether Juan Sartori is internationally famous or just reasonably well-known in Uruguay; as long as he is notable, he is notable. The National Business Review source you cited mentions a statement Sartori made, but Sartori is not the subject of it. Same for the FT and (as far as I can follow the Spanish) the other sources. So that doesn't help with WP:GNG. But if he is well-known in Uruguay, perhaps there are sources that are directly about him? -- BenTels (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In the following lines, there are some reasons why I consider the article in question meets the notability criteria: "Significant coverage" - There are a number of sources that address the subject directly in detail. Some of those websites are provided below. The main topic of these sources are issues related to both Juan and his companies. Profile related websites: Interview for Uruguayan Media^[1]; Article in Uruguayan Media ^[2]; Chronicle in Uruguayan Media ^[3]; Markets Data - Reuters ^[4]; Markets Data - FT ^[5]; Opinion leader for the Uruguayan media ^[6]. Relevant transactions reaching international media: Article in Bloomberg ^[7]; Article in Latinamerican media ^[8]; Blog from a wikipedia contributor ^[9]; Article in Uruguayan Media ^[10]. Social Work in Uruguay: Artist Website ^[11]. "Reliable" - the sources provided above meet the reliable test since the majority of them consist of national and international newspapers with an editorial quality check. "Sources" - as provided by the Wikipedia guidelines all of the sources mentioned above are secondary sources. There are both Spanish and English sources, from different countries including the USA, New Zealand, UK and Uruguay. "Independent of the subject" - as provided by the Wikipedia guidelines all of the links provided in this comment meet the independency requirement, since all except for the last link were produced by writers not affiliated with the subject or its creator. The reasons previously given seem to be enough to evidence the notability of this person. So, in my view and in the view of many Uruguayans he deserves a stand-alone articleBla - uk (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'm copying out the refences you cited here (inline citations don't work well in AfD articles):
    http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/217620/si-les-va-bien-a-los-accionistas-invertiran-mas/
    
    http://www.elpais.com.uy/110123/pecono-542623/economia/-Llegaremos-a-las-100-mil-hectareas-con-inversion-de-US-400-millones-/
    
    http://noticiasfdiuruguay.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/empresa-de-alimentos-emitira-hasta-us.html
    
    http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/officerProfile?symbol=UAGR.N&officerId=1612612
    
    http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Directors-and-dealings?s=UAGR:NYQ
    
    http://www.infoagro.com.uy/agricultura/253-un-buen-lugar.html
    
    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/nz-farming-gets-offer-from-uruguay-s-union-agriculture-group-outbids-olam
    
    http://www.infonegocios.biz/nota.asp?nrc=26118&nprt=1
    
    http://www.pablomontaldo.com/2011_07_01_archive.html
    
    http://www.elpais.com.uy/110706/pecono-577953/economia/Grupo-agricola-local-va-a-Wall-Street/
    
    http://www.santiagopaulos.com/noticias/catalogo-fundacionunion.html
    
    I'm not negative about the Spanish references, but I can't follow them. Someone else will have to take a look at them. The Reuters and FT sources are just short bios of Sartori as an officer of UAG, so they don't establish notability on their own. The same is true of the Bloomberg piece, which is an announcement of UAG acquiring land with a one-line comment by Sartori in it. -- BenTels (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Thanks for that. Regarding the Reuters and FT sources you are right, and I tried to avoid any misleading information by mentioning those sources were in the markets data section of both publications. As you mentioned those are short bios, so I believe they are relevant in this case. First, because in that way there is no need for original research. Second because those sources have high editorial standards, which guarantee their independency.Bla - uk (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't use those sources at all, I'm just saying that they aren't enough by themselves to show notability. They can certainly serve as supporting sources for an article. -- BenTels (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've looked and looked and I'm not convinced that a standalone article for Sartori is justifiable based on the sources presented here, and from what I cam across in doing my own searches. However, it might make more sense to morph this article into one about Union Agriculture Group which does appear to attract the coverage needed to establish per WP:CORP. My suggestion would be to have a small profile of Sartori who founded the company as a section in that article. If that is agreeable, I will take on the task of doing that at the close of AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: And I'll also add that I would appreciate and welcome Bla - uk's assistance in taking on such a task. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That certainly sounds like a viable course of action to me. No objections on my side. -- BenTels (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can see the point of BenTels and Whpq, but I believe that a lot has been lost in translation and he still deserves a stand-alone article. I have edit it, so it reflects better the notability of this guy.Bla - uk (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Relevant redirects to this page are retargeted to List of UFC events in 2012. Der yck C. 23:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in UFC events[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has deteriorated into a completely useless redirect page. The discussion for omnibussing UFC articles was long argued and ultimately decided upon as a bad idea. The structure has returned to the single page articles with a significantly increased emphasis on improving article quality. This omnibus page has become literally just a redirect to subomnibusses which are equally as useless and worthless. There is no value added and this page should be deleted. I remember halloween (talk) 19:26, 14 August 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 August 14. Snotbot t • c » 19:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has completely fallen apart from its original intent. It has been subdivided into subomnibusses that are not maintained and provide no relevant or useful information. It's time to put this abomination to sleep once and for all.I remember halloween (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the sub-pages now in effect, it makes little sense to have the same information on this page as it become redundant. All of the information has been removed and placed on their respective quarterly category pages. Udar55 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and per delete vote reasonings immediately above.Oxycut (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since we have the quarterly pages now this page is quite redundant.192.249.47.196 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. 15:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page really isn't useable anymore - I support the original nomination. One factor for this that previously hasn't been recognised is the massive expansion of the number of UFC cards since the UFC-FOX deal, which makes an omnibus article like this unworkable now (where it may have previously worked prior).Trok333 (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Useless and worthless, however true, are not sufficient criteria for deleting wiki pages on this specific subject when wiki inside interests are intent on keeping them. The nominator needs to look through the byzantine of wiki bylaws to look for some technicality that can be argue for this case, and hope that an admin hostile to the sport doesn't just arbitrarily decide against it anyway as has been historically the case. Best of luck and hope this stays under the radar. Agent00f (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page adds no value especially since we have four sub omnibuses, which makes this page redundant.Paul "The Wall" (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: if this does get deleted, the redirect pages UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller and UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis need to be changed to point to the sub-articles, but both are currently fully-protected. No opinion on deletion, since it makes little difference to either content or organisation whether we have an index of the four sub-articles or not. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Bible Center[edit]

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL, also poorly written and referenced Mdann52 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can tell, the World Bible Center doesn't actually exist. It's really only a proposal. Beastiepaws (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is best summed up as WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Beastiepaws (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject shows similarities to vaporware: long planned and announced, but not materializing. The article's sourcing is questionable, with three sources cited as of 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC):

a dead link
a Huffington Post article that does not mention the Center by name
a document in Hebrew

There is also an external link to a Hebrew language blogspot page "under construction."

Just plain Bill (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I Googled this, I found out that it's merely a proposal. Therefore, WP: CRYSTALBALL applies. Electric Catfish 22:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think no matter if it never built until now it is still waiting for final approvals for start this project that every old Testament scholars in Israel are still waiting for it and looking forward to it and it's not a canceled thing for the past. the construction of the building has been approved by all governments of Israel and most Israelis are already waiting to begin construction. I really think that there is no reason to delete.פארוק (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 15:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Once it happens it might be notable. Until it happens it's like a million other money things we're waiting for. It'll be notable when organizations meet their capital campaigns and can build new buildings, or someone gets their grant and can do their research, or when I, for instance, win five gajillion dollars -- the largest lottery prize in history! -- and can finally pay off my student loans from law school. But until it happens it's not notable. I'm pretty sure there's a Jewish proverb about this but until I can find it that's not notable either. --Lquilter (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was proposed and commented on by several government ministers, and there were several pages of parliament debate and newspaper publications on it. So it still passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed legislation often gets reported on in a routine fashion, as covering the business of government. But unless we're talking about something that actually generates something real in the world -- i.e., it passes, or it generates a massive backlash that prevents its passage (cough) -- then I would consider parliamentary discussion and related reportage as routine and non-notable. Coverage within the publications of organizations pushing for or promoting the legislation would not be independent, of course. (I say all this as a member of organizations that routinely push for or against legislation.) --Lquilter (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the arguments above. The building is just in the proposal stage and has no notable coverage. The only sources, as stated, are just routine reports that do not consist of any sort of in depth coverage showing any sort of notability.Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. CSD G12. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Components, Assemblies, Equipment & Supplies Association[edit]

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

I have tried (a) to find sources regarding this company and to (b) attempted to find any way to rewrite this so as to not make it a candidate for G11. I have failed on both counts. If someone else can though, yay! Otherwise, I think it's best that this is deleted. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.ecaus.org/abouteca/index.cfm -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and Wp:SALT. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniyal Alghazzawi[edit]

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

This is the third time this article has been created. It has been nominated for speedy twice for notability. For me, it fails to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps we can rest this finally. Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and Salt) - The author of the article seems to misunderstand why their article is being repeatedly deleted, unfortunately. They claim he meets WP:NPROF because he is chairperson of a university department. However, he is described elsewhere as 'Head of Information Systems', which is not the same as being awarded a senior 'Chair' post. Subject is only an Associate Professor. He seems to be doing a good job but not currently setting the academic world alight. There do not seem to be any in-depth, reliable news sources for him to pass WP:GNG at present. Sionk (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can move the article to the author's userspace to work on until some notable proof comes up? Warn them that they will be blocked if they continue to add it back before it is ready. My advice to use AfC was ignored. heather walls (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Agree with Sarah that this needs to go away. Strongly disagree with heather that it should be userspaced until references are found. This is not a case of unfound references. Sorry for the lack of "good faith", but I find it hard to maintain good faith when the author has shown bad faith by misrepresenting the subject of the article. The truth of the matter is, he is NOT the chair of an academic department; instead he is performing a tech job that doesn't necessarily even require a degree. If he is using his time to do a tech job for the university, it is doubtful he is even on a career track to full professorship, much less a department chair. IMO, the article should be deleted and salted and the author should be warned that any attempt to resubmit it will have consequences. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC),[reply]

I'm not sure why it's necessary to strongly disagree with a lighthearted question. I have no attachment to anyone having a Wikipedia article, and I suppose if authors refuse to comply with basic processes then other measures might be needed. heather walls (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

besides articles in some low quality journals,two books, one of which is a book chapter only and the second of which is not in WorldCat. A book chapter listed as a book is something I have not seen here before. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, nuke from orbit, whatever necessary to prevent the continued recreation of a textbook vanity article. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. The Department of Information Systems that he is listed as heading appears to be a real academic department — here is its list of faculty members — but department chair is far below the requirements of WP:PROF#C6 for notability as an academic administrator, which really only applies to heading an entire university. The criterion in #C5 for "named chairs" is also inapplicable; it is for an appointment at a level that is typically considered a step above full professorship, and he is either assistant or associate (sources differ). His citation counts in Google scholar are too low for #C1, and there seems to be no evidence that he passes any other of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England–United States football rivalry[edit]

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

Non-notable (that is, nonexistent) soccer rivalry. Can't find any positive coverage in reliable sources; some sources (though non-reliable themselves) even state that there is no rivalry. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage since American sources attempted to drum up some passion during the 2010 World Cup. Achowat (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree no rivalry exists in many minds, very subjective premise. Cruisealtitude (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable rivalry. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the rivalry sections of the two teams' articles, which is where minor or developing rivalries in just about any sport seem to go p b p 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, it fails GNG as it has no major coverage, plus the article is unsourced. Also, the article doesn't express why the rivalry is notable. Electric Catfish 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The rivalry really only exists when the US are about to play England and even then its not much of a rivalry. Heck I barely read the English media calling it one. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what rivalry?! No, seriously. Giant Snowman 08:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no such rivalry exists, unless every team England play occasionally are automatically considered "rivals" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not exactly Argentina-England or England-Germany, is it? Even England-Republic of Ireland have more of a soccer rivalry than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.97.73 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentalome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Incidentalome (2nd nomination)

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

Does not meet general notability requirements. Violates WP:COI: [1]. Lacks reliable secondary sources. Orphan since 2009 de Bivort 16:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was almost incoherent; I redid the introduction so that we can tell what it is talking about. I will evaluate later to see if the term has come into wider use than just the original paper that established it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked on google scholar and pubmed before nominating the AfD. I assume you'll come to the same conclusion about usage that I did. de Bivort 23:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, not yet widespread enough for inclusion. I found only one [2] usage of this term that is not directly traceable to Dr. Kohane, who both originated the term and wrote this article (and bragged, in the remarkable link cited by nominator, about how he was able to sneak it into Wikipedia). Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON and the term will eventually become mainstream, but for now it isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you have listed this as "second nomination" but I don't think that is correct. I think this is its first AfD discussion. The page was deleted twice previously [3], but it appears to have been done via speedy or PROD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell from the deletion log that it was speedy or prodded? de Bivort 16:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 one says "expired prod". The 2005 one was deleted as "nonsense" which sounds like a speedy. Neither mentions AfD, and there is no record of an AfD discussion on the talk page. Although I guess there wouldn't be one, if it had been deleted and this is a recreation. So call it a hunch, that there has not been an AfD. BTW considering that this is the third time the article has been created, by the same user who is on record as gaming the system to get it into Wikipedia, maybe we should consider asking for salt as well as "delete." --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any tricks to get more input here? de Bivort 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approximation for Mathematical constants[edit]

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

This article does not have any point because all of the articles that it is expanding on already have approximations listed on the page itself. Toasty (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I second Toasty's comment, this article does not have any significant point. tausif(talk) 15:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ... but is that enough? Bearian (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't examined the articles of each of the numbers this one approximates, but if it really is as redundant as you say, then you might be able to speedy delete it with criterion A10. CtP (t • c) 21:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 21:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please: One should not simply _vote_ on these AfD pages. One should present one's arguments. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arbitrary sig(nificant)dig(its) approximationCurb Chain (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every of the numbers included has its own article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mere tabulation is.....well OK, "tabulation" is not in all cases "mere". But maybe _this_ instance of tabulation is "mere" tabulation. I think "mere" (as opposed to other kinds of) tabulation has its place on the internet and maybe even within Wikipedia. But I have qualms about this article. It seems as if maybe a Wikipedia article should not be _only_ tabulation, and this one probably is. I think a good example of "tabulation" that is not _only_ tabulation, that deserves its place within Wikipedia, is a section of the article titled Initial-stress-derived noun. (Full disclosure: I created the initial draft of that article in about 2003 or 2004, or whenever it was.) I wonder if there's a place for an article with links to sections of other articles that have these long decimal expansions. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a format acceptable for Wikipedia, and does not actually present any encyclopedic content about approximation, despite its name. Maybe, this fits to Wikibooks? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant; approximations appear at the articles on these numbers. -- 202.124.73.158 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is even vuagely edifying. I don't see how to guarantee that these are in any way accurate. Most any arbitrary-precision software can print these out for you in a jiffy, and if you can do that, why is this article needed? That's what OEIS is for. linas (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak: A7 - no significance. (non-admin technical closure)Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free market fascism[edit]

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

No reliable sources demonstrating notability - only source is the author's forum. I've searched, and most of the sources I can find are also blogs and forums. I can't find, for example, any academic sources - at least, not ones that support the specific ideas presented by this article. There are some scholar and book hits for the term, but they don't look to be supportive of this article's specific contents - which look like the author's own ideas to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No reliable sources demonstrating notability"

That's because it is completely new idea. Freemarketfascist (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it doesn't get a Wikipedia article, because this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for publishing original ideas - see WP:OR, and WP:RS. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced original essay about a neologism. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay with no reliable sources to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basically, at best, synthesis of new sources. This could be subject to re-creation later, but it is still too soon to judge. This project is not a place to publish new ideas, but blogs are. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 23:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic essay. Clearly fails WP:GNG and runs afoul of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, & WP:V.--JayJasper (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank_Cordaro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frank Cordaro

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

As mentioned on the talk page, this individual is not notable per WP:N. Attendance at protests and being arrested for trespassing is not sufficient for notability. Biccat (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination apparently reflects a failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Frank Cordaro has been a subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources for decades. The sources currently cited in the article are sufficient to show this, but here is a sampling of additional potential sources taken from the hundreds of hits at GNews and HighBeam:

"Priest released after serving 5 months for nuke protest", Chicago Sun-Times, September 13, 1988.
Max McElwain, "Practicing Christian anarchy. (Father Frank Cordaro.)" The Progressive, May 1, 1993.
"Priest Vows to Continue Protesting", Associated Press, April 28, 1995.
Pamela Schaeffer, "Priest threatened with excommunication. (Frank Cordaro of Lacona, IA held a forbidden mass for members at a Call to Action conference)" National Catholic Reporter, July 18, 1997.
"Priest takes leave for 'acting up'", Associated Press, June 6, 1999.
Kate Gurnett, "Protester-Priest's Politics Have Landed Him In Jail." Albany Times Union, February 14, 2000.
Aarons Dakarai, "Activist priest to leave church", Des Moines Register, August 5, 2003 (paywall).
Abby Simons, "Cordaro, no longer a priest, remains a dedicated activist", Des Moines Register, August 11, 2004 (paywall).
Mary Nevans-Pederson, "Activist urges Christians to shun war; Former priest says Jesus embraced pacifism, not the "just-war' theory", Telegraph Herald, April 7, 2005.
"Former Des Moines priest says prison has not weakened resolve", Associated Press, August 27, 2006.
"Occupy Des Moines Steps Onto the Political Stage", PBS NewsHour, January 3, 2012.
Regina Zilbermints, "Occupy Des Moines leaders thrust into spotlight", Des Moines Register, December 31, 2011.

--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Handily meets GNG based upon references showing in the piece and those cited by Arxiloxos above. Carrite (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – This person obviously passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Topic notability on Wikipedia is based upon significant coverage in reliable sources, which this person has clearly received. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment - The article was nominated because there is a lack of significant information on the page about the subject, and the information there fails to show that he is a notable figure. The substance of the page is that Mr. Cordaro left the priesthood, co-founded a local bi-monthly newsletter, attended some protests and got arrested. No mention is made of his involvement at the Catholic Worker page, nor is there any link to significant protests he has engaged in.

Further, the article should be deleted as it is almost entirely unsourced. Four of the five references provided are dead. The only live link tells us that Mr. Cordaro led a protest group in Nebraska and affords him a single quote. If the links Arxiloxos provided are relevant and establish that Mr. Cordaro is a notable figure, then the article should at a minimum be rewritten to properly source and describe Mr. Cordaro's notability.

And, despite user Arxiloxos' assertion, I did read and follow WP:BEFORE prior to nominating this article.Biccat (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - The nomination itelfs is considered a !vote, so there is no need to add "delete" again.

Keep - The sources presented by Ariloxos represents multiple signifcant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to David Farrar (New Zealand). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curia Market Research[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, in my opinion. I found a very few reliable sources mentioning company's name but none of them cover it substantially. Article talks about the researches/polls/surveys undertaken by the company on very notable subjects of New Zealand but it fails to answer the very important question that why there should be a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to this company? — Bill william compton^Talk 15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I think it is important: Curia Market Research is an relatively unknown market research company (intentionally so) that does extremely biased research on commission for political groups. Curia has over 200 studies all specifically related to important new zealand political groups. The group itself is not particularly relevant however their research is extremely important in the New Zealand Wikipedia entries for homosexuality, anti-smacking bill, legalized prostitution etc. I originally mentioned curia in an edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand&pe=1&#Public_opinio but have also mentioned it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand#Brothels_and_escort_agencies . I realized although it had significant relevance to the New Zealand topics but the clarification of Curia belonged on a separate wiki page. The intent was allow linking from their research being used as sources in the other wikipedias to the curia page to avoid duplicate information and off topic discussion. Notably the guy who runs curia David Farrar (New Zealand) has been judged significant enough to warrant his own wiki. I have yet to full screen for curia research but it is a very significant source in New Zealand Political debates

CRaZyKcNz (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand&pe=1&#Public_opinion

Currently the same-sex marriage section is being disputed 'because it goes into too much detail'. The Curia Market Research page was created to resolve that fair comment

CRaZyKcNz (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Farrar (New Zealand). Farrar is notable, but his company rather less so, and the article as it stands seems to be a coatrack on which to hang criticism of Curia's clients. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Yes, but are the coats notable? Looks to me as if this is a somewhat controversial outfit. They remind me a bit of the story about the researcher who put in a sample of various ages and occupations and sexes who were all in favour of betting on horses. They were queuing up for a train. For Newmarket, Suffolk on race day... Easy when you know how. Peridon (talk)
Delete per nom. Also, WP is becoming too much of a business directory rather than an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Farrar (New Zealand). As above. Mattlore (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Farrar (New Zealand). As above. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per G7 (author blanked) by RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Wilson Field Ltd[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Cited references indicate that 1) they have a nice website; 2) they exist (they are listed in a business directory); 3) they have been short listed for some awards, but not actually won any. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above. Not quite G11 material though. Syrthiss (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is trying to promote the company and should be allowed as an article as it is describing the company, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whether a company is large or not. Why should large companies such as Tesco get to have a wikipedia page, and smaller companies do not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeckyCleary (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tesco has an article because there are 127 reliable sources from which to draw information. Please refer to WP:WHYNOT for an explanation on why not every company gets an article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence that this firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rex (software)[edit]

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

Non-Notable open source software. A search turns up several links but they are merely press releases and trivial coverage and mentions. Hu12 (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Comparison of open source configuration management software: There don't seem to be enough available sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Beyond that, this software is just another Puppet or Chef, so it's not likely to meet the significance requirement. And so far there aren't manuals about Rex, nor is it covered in courses. -- BenTels (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Konstantinidis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." and it's still valid. PROD contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. – Kosm1 fent 13:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 13:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PROD'er. He's not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league meaning this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Tyler[edit]

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

Article about non-notable actor. Only reference is to IMDb, which is generally not reliable. Possible conflict of interest, looks like a resume. jfd34 (talk) 13:30, 14 August 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 August 14. Snotbot t • c » 13:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited to remain as neutral as possible without reverting to list-form. Additional references have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeTylerActor (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since I know the actor will be reading this (or at least that's what the name makes it appear who it is), I apologize for any ego bruising. To put it very, very bluntly... this actor is not notable. There is zero coverage of him in any reliable sources. The sources on the article are not notable, with the sources being IMDb, a movie site (which would be considered a primary source), and non-notable blog reviews and interview. A reliable source would be if First Showing interviewed Tyler. I don't see where he's been in multiple films that have been overwhelmingly notable either. Not every film ever made is notable, not even if they star someone who is considered to be notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Even then you'd still have to show that the roles are notable. Having a character with a name other than "Cop 2" doesn't mean that it's considered notable. I don't see that part of WP:NACTORS being filled. I also don't see where Tyler has a large or notable enough cult following to fill the second guideline. Don't feel bad- you'd have to have an exceptional fan following and I've yet to see someone fit the second criteria without fitting one or both of the other two. As far as the third qualification, that one isn't met either. Tyler just isn't a notable actor at this point in time. Will he be one day? Maybe. The acting world changes pretty quickly and I remember seeing Galifianakis in similar roles in his past. The thing is, we can't keep articles based on the actor one day getting notability, especially in the complete absence of reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, also a bit of a vanity page, with unattributed — Luke was praised for an honest performance — although that's damning with faint praise in itself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just not notable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Yet, but maybe soon....... - I looked up the references and it looks like sometime in the near future he may be notable, but falls just shy at the moment. I did a little formatting with the page and included a reference that shows he is in the movie Dark Tide. From this reference that is self-published by whoever is promoting the movie [4], it even says he is a "newcomer" to the movie scene. There is just not enough press about him at the moment for me to be able to vote keep.--MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Napier Kennedy[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be much more than a locally-known artist from 100 years ago. In addition, this article is way too short, and can't be of suitable length without getting COPYVIO from one of the two "sources", neither of which appear to be reliable. Google Scholar only turns up two passing mentions. p b p 13:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable enough to me. I added the following sourced sentence to the article: He was elected to the Royal Institute of Oil Painters in 1883 and became an Associate of the Royal Hibernian Academy in 1896. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks notable enough to me" sounds mighty subjective. There is only one source in the article, and it doesn't appear to be reliable. Also, the more you add from said source, the closer this article is to being a copyvio of said source p b p 18:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My "looks notable enough" comment related to the two professional affiliations, which I believe help satisfy WP:BIO. As for that Cornwall Artists website, it has a reputable list of sponsors and it conducts a verification process before it publishes anything: [5] and [6]. That looks like a WP:RS. (I didn't even look at the other external link that the article lists.) As for the use of the information from the source, using information from a source is not a violation of copyright. Copyright violation comes in when the Wikipedia article copies the wording and/or structure of a source. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fairly clearly a figure of some significance in art history. HERE'S A BIO and HERE'S A SET OF AUCTION PRICE RESULTS OF THIS ARTIST, COLLECTED BY NAME and ~~HERE'S AN ACADEMIC PAPER ON HIM]~~ (WHOOPS, wrong guy!) and HERE'S A BIO FROM A DICTIONARY OF IRISH ARTISTS and that's just page one of a simple Google search!!! Worst AfD nomination of the month, it would seem: see WP:BEFORE. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, BEFORE isn't and never will be mandatory. Also, it was satisfied with the Google Scholar search. p b p 21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but taking 30 seconds to run a simple Google search is an excellent way of heading off bad nominations like this one. Carrite (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:

Library Ireland entry
Londonderry Sentinel article
There's also this Cornwall Artists entry, the reliability of which may be uncertain.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Malappuram. Consensus established following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malappuram Urban Center[edit]

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

No such area defined for this city nor a separate governing authority exists. The article was created based on the urban agglomeration population (provisional figures). —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just 1 source: Census report. In India UA is not an administrative unit, but just a virtual concept used in many population reports. Similar articles do exist in WP; for example Kochi metropolitan area Vs Kochi. I'm not sure whether it should be deleted or not. AshLey ^Msg 11:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a separate authority for metros like Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and Kolkata. Does Kochi have an urban development authority for itself? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Malappuram. I don't know how small cities suddenly become metros overnight . --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude problem

The problem is not with article but with the attitude of the people who stays in Metro cities and think that Kerala is small village and there are only two cities Kochi and Trivandrum. See the comment of an Wikipedian, “I don’t know how small cities suddenly become metros overnight . --Rsrikanth05 (talk)”. Most of the Wikipedians have a attitude problem. They can’t digest new things when it comes up. For the record, Kerala is big Metro and Kochi and Trivandrum are new cities which just have 300 years of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.76.2 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even Trivandrum and Kochi will not come under that category. As Rsrikanth05 already said, this is not the place to promote your city. You may go for a blog. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the census results published by the government are more important, you may also have to go through this link to see what they say about the cities of Kerala. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan

So what is the problem? Is the word “Metropolitan” used in the copy is the problem or something else? 124.124.211.93 (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not have an attitude problem. As stated earlier,. I myslf live in a Tier II city. KERALA is NOT a Metro, it is a state. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant find anywhere in the article the word 'Metropolitan'. I would say the present title 'Malappuram Urban Center' suits it better.--Truebrother (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

There is a serious misunderstanding about Kerala urban population 2011. Am forced to say that the information found in pib website is completely baseless. Kerala Census Directorate has clearly stated that there is no adjustment in UA definition in Kerala. Same definition is followed through out India. Also there is no such inflation in population as stated in that report. ( for those who still doubt can file an RTI ) There can be rise in population between two census. That's why we have 10 years gap between each census. for better understanding of Kerala Population; There are three points, 1, Usual population increase due to migration from nearby areas. 2,The population rise due to urbanization of area which "were not considered urban" in previous census more than the increase in population within the previously defined UA area. 3,The % of people engaged in agriculture getting dropped below 25%, causing more regions in Kerala to be considered "Urban".

These three are the primary reason which made more places that are dependent on the principal city getting added to the UA. So you cant deny the fact that Kerala has bigger urban profile. Coming to the article 'Malappuram Urban Center', no one is adamant that the article should be retained, we could merge it with respective city article. But the question is whether all the articles on city UA in the name of Metropolitan city, Metro, Urban Agglomeration etc that are present in Wikipedia need to be deleted or not? If Yes, delete all. If No, retain All. But never try to keep your 'legs in both boats' by retaining what you like and deleting what you don't like.--Truebrother (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your original research. Do you mean to say that the Kerala Census Directorate is more credible than Press Information Bureau. The reason for increase in urban population in Kerala is mainly due to the relaxation in criteria for defining a urban areas. Migration can be a major factor but do you think, a small town like Malappuram which had a population of 1.7 lakh in 2001 has suddenly grown into a 17 lakh metropolitan city with in a span of ten years mainly because of migration. I recommend you to go through these articles: 1 and 2 If you look at the first article, it says the rural population has declined by 25.96% and urban population has gone up by 92.72%. All of a sudden the urban population cannot grow at this rate in a period of ten years that too a state which has 38000 sq.km. Even a fast growing city like Bangalore wouldn't have experienced this much growth in urban population. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's interesting. Answering your question whether PIB or KCD is more credible, i would say on this matter its KCD. Did i anywhere mention that Malappuram has grown to a 'Metropolitan city' within last ten years? If you fear Malappuram becoming one in future, this is not the place to show it. You might also want to consider talking to NIUA ( National institute of Urban affairs) regarding this as they have Identified Malappuram along with several other cities which has potential of becoming a Metro city in future. I can understand your frustration, no one is trying to exaggerate anything here. Malappuram UA along with few other UAs in kerala are million plus UAs. Its a fact, take it. Now if you could read what i said before, you would notice that there was 'three' points described as the reason to increase in Kerala UA Population not just migration ( may be migration contributed lesser, but dont say there wasn't migration at all ). Those three situations together made this drastic change. But that either doesn't mean Malappuram is bigger city than Coimbatore or Banglore. But with proper planning and central fund allocation, it could reach much heights in future (Kerala Town Planning department has already started planning for cities in kerala with a future perspective). And for your information, Kerala is a major state in India where rural-urban disparity is very narrow or low. It didn't happen with one day. There were several factors that helped Kerala to provide high standard of living (refer HDI) through out the state, contrary to other states where one metropolitan city stands over completely backward rural areas.--Truebrother (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if the links you gave as recommendation was referring to the population decline in the state, I recommend you to go and google 'Malappuram' with population tag. The same website given by you says "Malappuram District recorded increase of 17.09 percent to its population compared to 1991." Man +17 is a pretty big rate.--Truebrother (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm least bothered, If a small town like Malappuram nor any other village becomes a metropolis in the near future. The discussion is whether we should keep this as a separate article or merge into the main article. We are not concerned about whether the town will become a great city in the future. Nobody has denied the fact that Kerala is one of the most densely populated states in India. But if you look at the growth rate it is appears at the bottom of the table. Considering the 17 percent growth rate in district population is highly relevant here. Do you have any source to claim that the increase in population in the entire district can be attributed to the growth rate of the city alone. Even districts like Karur and Perambalur in Tamil Nadu have experienced a growth rate of 15 percent. With this I cannot say that those towns have become major cities. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all what do you mean by a "urban center". Is that a definition given by JNNURM or Govt. of India? Apart from the population growth do you have anything more to describe about the growth of the city in the last ten years. Statements like "But the question is whether all the articles on city UA in the name of Metropolitan city, Metro, Urban Agglomeration etc that are present in Wikipedia need to be deleted or not? If Yes, delete all. If No, retain All" is highly relevant here. We have 53 such areas and cannot go and orphans like this for all areas. Leaving the population growth aside, do you have any official sources that establish the notability of the so called "Malappuram Urban Centre". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fist of all, No village can become Metropolis, if that's what you have learned. And if some place is capable of it, it cant be either a small town.
I don't know whether the district population can be attributed to the city completely. Anyway current population of the district is 4 million plus, out of which only 1.6 million is the Malappuram UA population. Do you find anything wrong in that?. At present GoK as well as Central Ministry of Urban affairs is considering Malappuram as potential city. Infact Malappuam includes in the list of cities where FDI is proposed ( which is not going to happen though, as Gok is against FDI policy) . And also according to the State Urbanisation Report(SUR) 2011 published last month, Malappuram district is the most urbanised district within last ten years in kerala. Right now unfortunately, I don't have any official sources apart from what known through Newspapers on the notability. May be once 12th FYP comes, we would see better remark from officials on Malappuram Urban Area as well as others like Thrissur UA.
The term 'Urban center' simply means 'A large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts'.--Truebrother (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what we call original research. Does the census authority define the term "urban center". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the only problem here is the article being 'orphan'?, am collecting information that can be included in the article so that it gets out of the orphan tag, but would take some time. About other 53 cities, i truly believe they would have lots of information to be added to the respective UA articles.( UAs are not any imaginative urban area or some place in moon right?, people do live there and all sort of economic and social activities happens there too )--Truebrother (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per Vensatry. The key criterion is that "urban center" must have an official usage via a governmental body affiliated to the state government. POV pushing has little value here. Secret of success (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isn't census of India a relevant source? Yet, the Title need to be changed to "urban agglomeration".--106.67.171.109 (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your participation. But why don't you register an account before commenting. Otherwise, we might presume that you're a IP sock of User:Truebrother. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh come on, stop acting like a genius User:Vensatry. I had cleared my view on this earlier itself. I don't have any problem with it getting merged to its parent article. But my request is that keep a standard criteria for every such articles and show this same enthusiasm with other 'Metropolitan' articles as well. Hereby Am off the topic.--Truebrother (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made a direct comment to the anon IP. If that user isn't you, no need to intrude. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other metropolitan areas? Which one are you talking about. Other than big cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai and a few more, we don't have separate articles for Metropolitan areas. The Thrissur and Malappuram Urban agglomeration articles are the first of its kind in WP. We did not have that even for a city like Kanpur. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivandrum and Kochi articles were present in WP long before Malappuram and Thrissur articles came in to exist. And both of them mentions 'Urban Agglomeration' as well as 'Metropolitan Area' in their Infobox and details. I think i have done my part here, so it will be good if you could detain yourself from asking more questions to me. You guys can continue the discussion here and come up with a worthy and viable solution to the problems created by the article Malappuram Urban Center based on Wikipedia Norms. Peace! --Truebrother (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There exists an authority (1 and 2) to look after for both the Metropolitan areas. Perhaps that could be the reason why we have articles on Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority and Greater Cochin Development Authority. Do we have that one for Thissur or Malappuram either? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:49, 6 August 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Malappuram Urban Agglomeration and delete the redirect that is left for "Malappuram Urban Center". Why is this called "Urban Center" when the source calls it "Urban Agglomeration"? I think we want a separate article for each of the urban agglomerations since they are government recognized populated areas–this is useful as part of the gazetteer. But maybe this needs to be moved to "Malappuram Urban Agglomeration" if the current name is unsourced. Unscintillating (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per rsrikanth TheStrike Σagle 03:54, 14 August 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, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further commenters following the relist are strongly encouraged to focus on the question that determines whether we should keep or delete the article, that being "Do sufficient independent, secondary, and reliable sources exist for a full article on this subject?" Especially, please comment on this rather than commenting on other editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Malappuram. A simple google search on Malappuram Metropolitan Area returns zero hits. Leaving the population, I don't see any notability of "Malappuram urban agglomeration". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. While the vast majority of AFD debates are about notability, it seems this is the rre case where verification is the problem.No prejudice against recreation if better authoritative sources are found. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oocystales[edit]

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

No sources; appears to have been a database error at this point. Eau (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: There seems to be a genus Oocystis, and this and this list a number of genera in the order. I'm unclear on what the problem is (although the Algaebase entry doesn't inspire confidence).--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is probably molecular genetics coupled with a lack of competent taxonomists, or maybe even any taxonomists when it comes to algal orders; maybe the name was misued, reapplied, brought into existence when it did not really. Exist. Eau (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; the ITIS database does list this order, and includes Oocystaceae as the only family, but I don't trust ITIS as authoritative. A page for this taxon was also created on Wikispecies, with the sole member Eremosphaeraceae, which AlgaeBase currently lists in the Chlorellales. WoRMS lists the Oocystales, and although it says the source is "not documented", it cites AlgaeBase from 2010. This suggests that there was such an entry in AlgaeBase at one point, but that it has since been removed, for whatever reason. The other top returns I find are the usual mirror sites, or Wikipedia itself. If we can find out with some certainty what this name was replaced with on AlgaeBase, then this might be better retained as a redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a change in taxonomy, AlgaeBase keeps the taxon and gives the synonym for the unaccepted taxon. As they did not do this with Oocystales, I would feel safer deleting the article until a citation is found. Eau (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oocystis is said to be in the Chlorellales; the Algaebase genus page concurs. EOL concurs, but they probably got their information from the same source. This page puts it in the Chlorococcales; iiuc Chlorellales is a segregate of that. I agree with Eau that deleting it is at this point safest, because it's not clear where it should be redirected (other than perhaps Oocystaceae.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only lead I have is a bit I found using Google Books: "... the Oocystales or Chlorellales; both Eremosphaera and Oocystis satisfy this criterion." I can't view the full text of the original, but it seems to distinguish between the two orders, and does indicate that Oocystales does occur in the literature. The quote comes from a volume of Phycological Studies, published by the University of Texas at Austin in 1966 (volumes 6-10). I don't know whether the two orders of concern are taxonomic synonyms, so I can't recommend a particular redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on discussion so far.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suspect that this is synonymous with what is now being called Chlorellales, based in part on that Phycological Studies reference, but I can't find anything to serve as a legitimate citation. I'm used to historical plant taxonomy being ugly, but this algal stuff is especially obtuse. I would guess that there was some time in between the divvying-up of Chlorococcales and the formal establishment of Chlorellales, and that Oocystales may have been proposed in that interim. But that's really just speculation at this point. It doesn't help that there's clearly been a lot of other shuffling around in the area; if we accept AlgaeBase as authoritative, Eremosphaeraceae is still extant but no longer includes Eremosphaera (which means we've got some bad data in our articles). As an aside, I'm not sure how Chlorellales got a 1985 authority date; it's in use well before that ... which suggests it may have been adopted in a different sense than prior uses, which ... you know what, notability may be forever, but if someone is going to care enough about 30+ year old mostly-deprecated algae taxonomy to go find the journals and salvage this entry, it's going to have to be someone other than me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Evidence that this taxon is/was legit seems to be found here [7]; "... the Oocystales or Chlorellales; both Eremosphaera and Oocystis satisfy this criterion. Of greater controversy than their ordinal position, however, is the family to which these algae should belong..." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An order in the Chlorophyta has a single citation from the 60s, is not mentioned in a single algae text book from the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, or 10s, and Wikipedia should perpetuate this order through cyberspace? Why? Eau (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Hiranandani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Navin Hiranandani is not notable and got famous only due to 2 reasons. 1) Hospital started by his brother that has the same family name as his 2) His suicide. Please consider this article for deletion. I have nominated article Lakhumal Hiranand Hiranandani (his father) also for deletion. Thanks

Cheers AKS 07:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Secret of success (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 14:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not qualify for an article per WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. In fact I earlier suggested, at his father's AfD discussion, that this article should be considered for deletion as well. It appears that he was a reasonably successful physician, but not outstanding enough for an article, before his death. The fact that his manner of death was unusual and notorious does not make him notable as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW and WP:G4 - indeed, the current article has less content than the previously deleted one. "Soft-salted" (= semiprotection) as if he wins the election for Lord Mayor of Melbourne he'll pass the notability bar (I presume). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Nolte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted 20 June 2012 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Nolte, see no reason for it to be reinstated. Additional information about the by-election was added that isn't verifiable or is untrue, and is not backed up by WP:RS - removed section. Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 14 August 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 August 14. Snotbot t • c » 06:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly by speedy G4, as it is back less than 2 months after previous AfD deletion decision, if someone can compare the article then and now? Article text doesn't indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 01:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and, regrettably considering he was a Melbourne City Councillor, WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete salt and ban. More pr puff from markstone pr. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breag Naofa[edit]

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

Non notable band fails WP:band Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comprehensively fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 11:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 01:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seems to be short on notability. bobrayner (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wichita Junior Thunder[edit]

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

Regional amateur youth team. Does not pass WP:CLUB. Shirt58 (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many teams at this level have a Wikipedia page, which includes ten other teams from the exact same league as the Junior Thunder (Western States Hockey League). --ilamb94 (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at one team at a time. I'm fine with a re-direct to the league, by the way.

It would appear to be that "This article should be deleted because a Hockey team at this level in any other country in the world would not be notable" is the other side of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Being in the US does indeed mean that it might have received more significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject than if it were somewhere else in the world. (nb: I live somewhere else in the world.) --Shirt58 (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see WP:OTHERSTUFF and refer to this debate (I thought the same thing, that because similar articles existed so too should that one) Dave Fipp AFD debate. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This team has received plenty of independent coverage as do most teams at this level of hockey. It doesn't actually matter that it might not be well known in another part of the world as long as it is well known in one part. As long as it has independent coverage then that is all that matters. This isn't a youth team its a junior team, there is a big difference. Youth teams are for young kids and anyone can pay to play. Junior teams are teams with higher calibre athletes that are on the team based on skill. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant from "multiple" independent sources: The vast majority of articles are from the local Wichita paper, and a lot of them are about the Thunder association (ie hockey at every age level), not specifically the Junior (U-20) team. I found a couple references in the Kansas City paper of the KC team playing said Thunder association, but nothing significant beyond being the opponent of the day. TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because its a new team in the league that is starting this season. There is not a lot of point deleting a page that will have plenty of coverage in a month when the season starts. That being said. All it takes to meet "multiple" is two sources. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per DJSasso. Rlendog (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New team, the article certainly needs improvement... but notable none-the-less. DMighton (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep and rename to You didn't build that. Most of the arguments for deletion denounce this article as a POV fork without addressing the issue that the topic is actually a subtopic fork. There is clear consensus from the discussion below that the speech has adequate independent notability, and aptly so due to the controversy and criticism around it. Editors should be reminded that NPOV applies to the way Wikipedia editors present the content of an article, not the quality of the topic itself. Consensus is also clear that "You didn't build that" is a better title than the current article name. Der yck C. 23:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech[edit]

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate content fork from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. One speech in a campaign of many, only given an article because of a line the Republicans are trying to use as an attack against Obama. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, article clearly passes WP:GNG, has 14K google news hits, and 12.8 million general google hits; this clearly means that the speech received significant coverage. Although one can argue that the content of this newly created article can be merged and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, the content about the speech there was deleted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not a POVFORK. All viewpoints are neutrally represented. We must keep in mind the campaign responded to the controversy. The article is well sourced and passes WP:N. This speech garnered substantial coverage in RS. Deleting it would be tantamount to censorship.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 04:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question What is the notability threshold of a Presidential speech? I ask because President Obama has a number of other speeches with their own articles, even one 2008 campaign speech when he wasn't even the nominee yet (see A More Perfect Union (speech)). --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article A More Perfect Union (speech), it clearly received significant coverage per WP:GNG. If it were treated as an event, one can question if the event passes WP:EFFECT.

I am of the opinion that the speech which is the subject of the article being discussed here, if treated as an event, does pass WP:EFFECT given the impact it has had on the overall campaign since it occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a horse in this race; I've never set foot in America and never will. US politics is about as relevant to me as Chinese politics is. With that said, one look at this article tells me that it's deceptive from start to finish. This isn't an article about the 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech. It's about one US political group finding an excuse to bristle and take umbrage very loudly on national TV, so as to try to damage another US party. Cynical though it is, it could be notable in its own right. But if so, the article should be called You didn't build that (which is presently a redirect). Either we want a different article with this title, or we want this article with a different title, or both. We can't keep this article with this title.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning why I named the article the name it presently has is because I felt that naming it, "You didn't build that" maybe considered as non-neutral by some editors, even though it is that phrase which is the most well known of the speech. The reasoning for this is that although a particular passage of a speech is highly notable, as in the case with the "Ask not.." statement in the JFK Inaugural address speech, that doesn't mean that the article title should be named for that highly notable portion of the speech.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename Agree with S Marshall that it could be named "You didn't build that" and focus around that aspect. That one statement has been the campaign Meme from the right and unless things seriously change it looks to be so for the durration. Obama and his tema have also gone through great lengths to try and refine/clarrify his statements on the Meme as well. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a POV fork designed to highlight a Republican talking point. It pretends to be neutral by presenting all sides, but its very existence draws attention that it doesn't deserve. And the creator of the article should be chided for creating it, given their participation in discussions on this subject at Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As another participant in that discussion, I strongly disagree with Scjessey and consider that comment irrelevant here. Wookian (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I believe that the "creator of the article should be chided for creating it" is not assuming good faith of myself. Although I participated in the discussion as stated above, I had always maintained my position that the subject is notable per WP:GNG, and when the section was unilaterally blanked from the article which was being discussed, as appears to also have been the case in the You didn't build that article, it made sense to me that since the subject was highly notable that an article be created of it.

I attempted to be as neutral as possible in its creation, by giving balanced coverage of commentators from both sides of the spectrum, and naming it in a neutral manor.

Given that I have only include 30 (or so) references which give the event significant coverage and there are THOUSANDS of references that can be drawn upon to expand the article, if it is felt that the present article is unbalanced, there is room for those POVs (if presented in a neutral manor) to grow.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. I was not assuming good faith. I consider this to be a bad faith article creation on your part to further a political agenda. You went ahead and created despite oodles of comments telling you it wasn't appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} If the section can't be made WP:NPOV without context and it's too big for Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, the obvious solution is splitting. Morphh[8] invokes WP:SUMMARY. CallawayRox (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that a random political speech isn't notable, but the widely publicized "you didn't build that" phrase from the speech is notable and deserves a place in wikipedia. It has been discussed by both candidates. Since there is debate over 'context' of this phrase, I agree that the context is the entire speech, hence this article. Other option is to rename article as "you didn't build that" (not my preference). While the article name is debatable, the topic and its treatment here is solid, so don't delete. Keep. MPS (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there seems to be a place for political catch phrase articles... e.g., Read my lips: no new taxes, It's the economy, stupid, Giant sucking sound et al. MPS (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:COATRACK for the quotation—also, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. If kept or recreated, a rename to You didn't build that is appropriate; let the topic stand or fall on its own merits instead of burying it with another topic. The analogy to JFK's inaugural is spurious, as that event had lasting significance and notable passages besides just "Ask not." --BDD (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BDD, you deleted my "keep" entry when you added your "delete" entry. I am willing to accept it as an honest mistake, but it is still NOT COOL. Please ~~learn how to use~~exercise caution when using the Wikipedia editing system and resolve conflicts without damaging other content. Wookian (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was indeed a edit conflict. I'm not exactly sure how it happened; I got the edit conflict message twice and certainly didn't think I had deleted anything. But yes, assume good faith and don't, if you're someone who has only been around for a couple of months, accuse people of not knowing "how to use the Wikipedia editing system." This is attracting a lot of attention, and edit conflicts will happen. I'm sorry for removing your comment, but be cool. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I do not believe that the article falls under NOTNEWSPAPER.

1) This is not an article of "first-hand news".

2) Although it could be argued that the speech falls under EVENT, given that the coverage is greater than routine (which would be something like Subject A showed up and did B ... and moving on to next event (like huge bake sale in a large metropolis)) I believe that it passes EFFECT

3) The article is not a WP:BLP1E so "Who's who" doesn't apply, nor does I believe diary apply.

As for COATRACK, given that the amount of coverage of the speech relates to the EFFECT words from the speech has had on the campaign and the perception of the current POTUS, it can then be said that anything that has a potential POV that is counter to the position of the current POTUS or his campaign could be considered COATRACK. Rather, the article (and my work on it) has attempted to balance the POVs regarding the speech, in providing the balanced perception of the wording the article does not "fail to give a truthful impression of the subject". If it is felt that an opposing view of the conservative take on the speech is not presently sufficient please help by improving the article (see WP:BEFORE). As I said above, there are THOUSANDS of reliable sources that have not yet been included in this article that can be used to expand it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename ~~And I also disagree with renaming it to "You didn't build that". It's notable, but not notable enough to claim that verbal real estate.~~The examples cited below of other notable past famous phrases convinced me. The opposing sources lining up on both sides make it clear that even in full context, the entire speech is actually perceived favorably by Obama's camp and disfavorably by the Republicans (government versus free enterprise). So keep it neutral, present context and let the readers decide. Wookian (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What this is is sheer political idiocy, the usurpation of an encyclopedia for a political campaign. These are candidates for the highest office of the country; everything they do, say, eat, joke about, slip up over is going to be printed and reprinted hundreds of time over by the end of the day. There needs to be some critical thinking here about what is routine coverage of a politician in an election years and what is truly in the spirit of the project's notability guidelines. This is just a speech. A routine political speech does not need an article. This isn't a State of the Union address. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't believe that the coverage is routine, there has been in depth coverage of the event from both sides of the political spectrum, and thus why if viewed as an event it passes EFFECT; additionally it has impacted the campaign significantly in the month's time that the speech has occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 While the fact that it was picked up is ridiculous, the fact of the matter is it was picked up. It has received wide coverage and comes close to meeting GNG. I feel that it might be better off in the campaign article though. Ryan Vesey 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's obviously not a POVFORK. Ryan Vesey 16:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Although I can understand the Merge argument, I am wary of it due to the blanking of content, as I have posted diff links here of two occasions when verified content was removed concerning this speech.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point. The campaign article is poor as it stands, but it would be giving undue weight to this issue for the entire article to be merged in. Ryan Vesey 16:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As a refresher, here is the blanking in the proposed target article, and here is the blanking of the proposed rename target.

The campaign article does need work, and given the HUGE amount of coverage the speech has received it could easily dwarf the main campaign article, and if it is merged in its present form an argument for WP:UNDUE could be made, however to remove all that verified content would be a disservice to the large amount of coverage the speech has so far had.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012: The notion that this is a neutral, evenhanded article is immediately dispelled by the Commentators section, which instead of starting with the fact-checking or balancing the views, lists all the critical comments first, and the others later. Agree with Tarc, and also that yet another ginned-up political controversy from taking words out of context is not encyclopedic. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this shouldn't be notable because it is a "ginned-up political controversy", but shouldn't be notable is different from isn't notable. Ryan Vesey 16:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most ginned-up political controversies tend not to be notable. I believe this one is not. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The content could be reordered in the response section, even chronologically, however to remove critical comments all together would create a huge POV issue in my opinion. please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I (or anyone else) was advocating removing all critical comments? Indeed, why are you bringing up the notion at all? Deleting the article would certainly get rid of all comments, critical and not, and merging would presumably involve a huge trim to all viewpoints to avoid UNDUE. Sounds about right to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "You didn't build that" passes WP:GNG easily. This AFD smacks of trying to "end an editing dispute through deletion". AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is why the Article Rescue Squad should have been vanquished ages ago, their new members pick up the "keep everything" rhetoric ball an carry it just as readily as the old members did. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't drag the ARS down to your level. The article has lots of references so I didn't use the rescue list. CallawayRox (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ARS is well beneath me, I'm afraid. Your knee-jerk inclusionism of a clear WP:POVFORK is ample evidence that you do not actually read what you are voting on, and merely keep for the sake of keeping. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great way to WP:AGF. A separate article is the best way to maintain WP:NPOV by including all WP:RS viewpoints. It's WP:SS and WP:SPINOFF not WP:POVFORK. CallawayRox (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar topic, we should redirect WP:YOUDIDNTBUILDTHAT to WP:OWN. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why are we now going to keep bho-related controversy items? coatrack,notanewspaper, etc. any wp-reason will do. get it outta here.Cramyourspam (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Readers cf. [9] and [10]. Wookian (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cf cf. and so? Cramyourspam (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a ridiculously obvious POV fork. Passing GNG is not a valid argument if mention of it also exists in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. It has become an accepted practice to turn every burp a US presidential candidate makes into a negative campaign ad. That's fine and all, but we don't need to make articles about it. Trusilver 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it can be said that this is going to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, the reaction to the speech is as notable as the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy with as much EFFECT created from the event. The topic is still heavily discussed a whole month after it occurred.

Additionally, that subject only had 171 news articles, and 434K general Google hits and that article is considered notable, yet for some reason there is an argument here that the HUGE coverage regarding this speech is not notable?

Please see my response of the COATRACK & NOTNEWSPAPER arguements; IMHO they don't hold water.

Additionally, as for the arguement that this should not be kept because it is a controversial topic as it relates to the present POTUS, please see WP:NOTCENSORED. To delete it because one doesn't want to see critical responses to what the present POTUS says falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To paraphrase Representative Pelosi, Dissent is Patriotic.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the primary reason for an AfD is to determine the notability of a topic, are we to say that because one doesn't agree with the subject that that view overrides notability?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall at any point saying I give the slightest crap about what is critical to the president of the United States, or what I do or don't agree with aside from the fact that your problems getting this information into the parent article is not a sufficient reason to create a new one. That is the very definition of a POV fork. Trusilver 20:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. I love these fucking idiotic elections. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with merging, is that there are editors there who are blanking the topic from existing due to WP:UNDUE arguments, even though the content is verified by reliable sources. There are even arguments that the reliable sources are not reliable as they publish views that are not shard by the editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are editing matters, perhaps best solved by an administrator with a ban-hammer. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, this is enlightening. If editors are removing the material from the article, then that is an editorial decision made on that page. You citing that as the reason to create a standalone article based on deleted material is about as crystal-clear a violation of WP:POVFORK that one cna possibly have. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is appears to be a majority, not a consensus, of editors in the article that may want to suppress any content regarding the speech. Seeing as how I am of the opinion that the subject is notable in and of itself, even if related to other subjects, it therefore warrants its own article. I have always been of this opinion. Not that it is a POVFORK of the main Obama 2012 campaign article, but that it is related, but independently notable in and of itself.

Come to think about it the article is just as relevant to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, even though (as I stated above) it is itself independently notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, let us look at WP:DEL-REASON. The article does not meet any speedy deletion reasoning, the article does not have any copyright violations, the article is not vandalism, advertising, or spam.

As for content forks, the subject although can be seen as part of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, is notable in and of itself. It can be said that the Obama speech in Tuscon is part of the 2011 Tucson shooting, and that should be merged & redirected, however since it is notable in and of itself, it remains a separate article.

The article can be attributed to reliable sources and therefore can be verified, it clearly passes notability guidelines, if considered a sub-article of the Barack Obama BLP it meets BLP policies, it is not a template, a category, and it is suitable for an encyclopedia (as with other notable speeches).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the analogy. The Tucson shooting was a highly notable event, and Obama's speech was a notable reaction to it. The size of both articles makes a full merge impractical, but if you really think Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech gives undue weight to the reaction, feel free to propose deletion or merging. Obama's Roanoke speech is nowhere near as notable as the Tucson shooting, and probably not as notable as his reaction to the shooting either. Above all, be careful what you wish for—if this article is kept, someone is likely to make 2011 Iowa State Fair Romney campaign speech coatracked full of reactions to "Corporations are people, my friend." (And FWIW, that phrase only redirects to Political positions of Mitt Romney) Wikipedia hasn't looked very kindly on articles about individual gaffes; I urge you to consider the implications of a keep outcome beyond this article. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT (whether I do, or do not is for me to know) does not effect whether a subject is independently notable per the relevant notability guidelines, primarily WP:GNG, and secondarily WP:EFFECT.

The primary opposition is that the subject is a content fork. However, I have come to realize that it is related to a number of notable topics including both the Obama & Romney campaigns, modern liberalism in the United States philosophy, conservatism in the United States philosophy, and is also independently notable in and of itself.

Just because something is related to another notable subject, and itself is a notable subject, doesn't mean it should be merged into one of those related notable subjects.

If there are objects to how the subject is presented, then we can discuss it on the article's talk page, however that is no reason to delete the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as content fork: Doesn't need a whole article. There are only a few sentences of worthwhile content, which can be moved to other articles. Being notable doesn't mean it still isn't a content fork p b p 21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Carrite and Purplebackpack89. Notable it is, but it is also a shameless content fork. FWIW, I also felt the same recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state sponsored terrorism, which ended up being deleted, so that should be a precedent. Now, if, and only if, it becomes a major issue in the campaign, then, it could be re-created later. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork: This is an obvious content fork and Coatrack. One can look at the discussions on the Obama 2012 Presidential campaign Talk page(as well as the article in question) and see this is an obvious attempt to deceive and use Wikipedia. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Dave Dial; this is clearly an inappropriate content fork. There doesn't seem to be much support for including the speech at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (see talk page). When the discussion there goes against you, you can't make an end-run by creating a standalone article - but that's what appears to have happened here. Delete this inappropriate content fork, trout-slap the people who created it, and direct them back to the presidential campaign article. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The numerous reliable sources which have covered this topic establish that it clearly satisfies WP:GNG. If editors are using this article as a WP:Coatrack (and I'm not saying that they are), WP:Coatrack is just an essay, and even if it's legitimate concern, this can be addressed through normal editing of the article. I see no policy-based reason to delete the article. Indeed, the nomination makes no policy-based reason for deletion. Instead, the nomination argues that the article should be deleted not because it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, but because "Republicans are trying to use as an attack". Since when do we care whether a particular political party likes (or dislikes) an article? Again, this nomination has no bearing in Wikipedia policy as far as I can see. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 per many arguments above as a POV fork and coverage of a single, minor event that was only covered immediately following the event. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A current Google News Search (not archive) turns up 386 hits on "You didn't build that". If nearly four hundred articles aren't enough to establish notablity, can you please indicate all the other Wikipedia articles that would need to be deleted as the result of this new standard? I cannot recall 300+ hits not being enough. Clearly, such a major departion from Wikipedia policies needs approval by the community at large. Can you please open an RfC to discuss such a major change? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you've been around the Wikipedia for 3+ years and still don't know that "google hits" and "but other stuff" are fallacious AfD arguments? Tsk... Tarc (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His argument is that we don't determine notability, news media does. This is the same reason that a lack of sources on someone or something that should be notable results in a deletion at AfD. Ryan Vesey 02:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits don't determine 'notability'. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. We can use Google News to see that a search(not archive) for 'Obama Broccoli' turns up 938 hits currently, perhaps you should start an article titled "Obama Broccoli". Or since a Google News search(not archive) of 'Romney Mormon magic hat' produces 1,950 results, we should start an article with that title. Tarc is correct, it's a fallacious AfD argument. Dave Dial (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Dave said. Or, to quote directly from policy: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This is the sort of "article" that Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) used to specialize in, reaching its apotheosis in Michelle Obama's arms (hey, they got lots of Google hits! And lots of news coverage! So we need a standalone article!) MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that these really short statements lend themselves to straw man rebuttals. The fact is, nobody is able to write a dissertation in two or three sentences. I don't think anybody is holding up the wide media coverage alone as the only reason to keep the article. As many editorial sources have described, it's also notable for the light it's shed on both campaigns, pushing them both into explaining further their philosophies of government reliance or individual reliance, respectively. Wookian (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The primary "keep" rationales seem to boil down to WP:GHITS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to make the case that this speech has a notable effect on the election, then you need to keep WP:RECENTISM in mind - is this really something that people are going to care about 5 or 10 years from now? MastCell ^Talk 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I think there are two truly legitimate keep rationales that I've seen. The first is on the basis that past practice allows for retaining this article. I actually looked up and read all the articles on Obama speeches we have. I will admit that I expected to find pretty much every single speech that President Obama ever uttered to have an article. I was pleasantly surprised to find that only a select few with wide-reaching effects have articles. That makes the first rationale baseless. The second rationale is the WP:EFFECT argument... which to be honest, I feel is a very legitimate one. However... aside from being shunted into a negative campaign ad, I'm just not seeing the potential for a lasting effect. I would be happy to reverse my opinion on that if we find months down the road that this speech has had serious effects on Barack Obama's re-election bid. But for right now, I just don't see it. Trusilver 05:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: So you've been around Wikipedia for how long and you don't know the difference between a Google search and a Google News search? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference at all when determining notability. Care to try again after strikes one and two, Casey? Tarc (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there is. Google indexes all web sites whereas Google News indexes a much smaller subset many of which count as WP:RS. BTW, pretending to have an argument and not having one at all are pretty much the same thing. You can't have a strike when you haven't even thrown a pitch. Looks like two balks to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. You're still just bean-counting, which is not a determiner of notability. Hit the showers, Mighty Casey. As for your attempted point below, no, it is pretty much the same as we're dealing with here; your inability to look past source-counting. There are many topics that have received coverage in reliable sources, yet they are deleted anyways, such as those that run afoul of WP:BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there is. Are you saying you honestly don't understand the difference between a general Google search and a Google News search, or the difference between an unreliable source and a reliable one? Please, if you can't even come up with an argument for deletion, there is no point in continuing to try to reason with you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Trusilver: Actually, there's only one legitimate argument for keeping the article: that this topic has received significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not only is it the only argument that is legitimate, it's the only one that matters. Most of the arguments in this discussion are incredibly off-topic. See WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No... I'm afraid you are mistaken. A lot of editors seem to conveniently forget the fifth bullet point in the GNG which reads ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Just because something is verifiable, doesn't make it automatically encyclopedic. Trusilver 16:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Trusilver: Sure, and if you're able to reach concensus to delete the article, then the article can be deleted. But obviously, there is no concensus for deletion, so the result is to keep. 16:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it "obvious" there is no consensus for deletion? This isn't a vote. I see some solid pro-delete arguments, beyond mine. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As regards the WP:PERSISTENCE objection, it's clear that the Romney campaign is making "you didn't build that" a continuing rallying point of their campaign. For example, see "you did build that" in Paul Ryan's speech as newly-minted VP candidate. For better or worse, this incident's legacy is sticking around. Wookian (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know whether the speech will have any persistence or not. It's one of many lines of attack that will be floated by both campaigns in the next few months. Obviously, the Romney campaign is trying to make it stick, but we shouldn't write an article about it unless it does stick, and materially affects the election in a way people will care about 5 or 10 years from now. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Noonan at the WSJ says they are the most famous words Barack Obama has said in his presidency. On one hand I'm skeptical of that assertion, but on the other hand would suggest that the gaffe (or whatever you want to call it) is clearly a big deal in terms of staying in mainstream focus. Wookian (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe WP:COATRACK applies in this case. If editors are saying the article is biased, the obvious solution is to fix the bias. If the case is that the article is mostly about the reactions to the speech rather than the speech content itself, that's pretty common; look at Reagan's Neshoba County Fair "states' rights" speech (where almost the entire article is about the reception to the speech - and correctly so IMHO) as an example. Speeches are measured by their impact. If the speech didn't have much of a reaction, then it wouldn't be notable. Whether the reaction is negative or positive is not relevant when judging notability. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, distinct subject. There's more than enough sourcing to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic, informative article. Whatever its flaws may be this article has plenty of useful material, and can be brought up to standards. It should probably be retitled, as the "You didn't build that!" statement is the nexus of notability - as a political expression, the subject of attack ads, a cultural phenomenon, and a snowclone / meme (you didn't nominate that!) - not the fact that Obama made a particular speech. If it turns out that this event has no legs, as they say, we could consider merging it later. My hunch (and not my keep rationale, just my hunch) is that it will be something worth reading about fifty years from now, though, for people sincerely interested in the mechanics of early 21st century American politics. My keep rationale is that it's a notable event in its own right, and not suitable for shoehorning into any specific article beyond a brief mention. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. At this point, it is not known whether this will prove to be a case of recentism or if it will be of lasting significance beyond this campaign. What we do know is that the incident has received considerable coverage in the short term and is a notable event within the 2012 Obama campaign. So for now let's limit it to the campaign article and see how it plays out long term. The article can be recreated if persistent coverage over time proves it notable beyond WP:1E.--JayJasper (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept, it should be renamed something to the effect of 2012 Barack Obama campaign speech in Roanoke, Virginia. The current title implies that it is about a speech given by someone named "Roanoke Obama".--JayJasper (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad suggestion. Maybe drop the "Barack" until there's another famous, campaigning Obama. Wookian (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, The article is certainly notable and qualifies for a page. Naapple (Talk) 06:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has this debate been included in the list of Liberal-related deletion discussions? Or any other WP location that would broaden the Liberal response rather than skew the results? ```Buster Seven Talk 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't seem to exist. Did it exist when you asked your question? Weird... Wookian (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't exist and as far as I know it never has existed. See Red herring. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if that was the only notification of this AfD you made, that is a clear case of canvassing. To me, that is an unbelievable violation. Dave Dial (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a violation. This DELSORT has never been promoted or advertised, and this appears to be the first time it has ever been used. Actually, I had forgotten it even existed, and it isn't even on my watchlist. And I am the creator, founder and Grand Poobah (easy on the poo, please) of WikiProject Conservatism, aka "The Greatest WikiProject on Earth", aka "The Happiest Place on Earth", aka--well you get the picture. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 03:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Lionelt - This entire discussion is being replicated in its entirety in 3 seperate locations; Virginia---list of Virginia-related deletion discussions, Politics---list of Politics-related deletion discussions, and Conservatism---As mentioned just above. That is 3 times the level of promotion and advertising than I have ever seen at a request for article deletion. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about how WP:DELSORT works? No WP:CANVAS here. CallawayRox (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soften your tone, User:Callaway. I don't spend much time in the Deletion Zone so I am little aware of the mechanics. Do you know how a conversation works? Questions inferring ignorance of the other party are disrespectful of a fellow collaborator. No need to bite at my heals. Thanks for showing me the way to WP:DELSORT. I feel a little smarter thanks to you. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you meant to say "Deletion sorting involves transclusion, so debates are automatically reproduced in the appropriate section after being sorted. Deletion sorting is a regular part of the AfD process and rarely, if ever, constitutes canvassing; note that anyone may sort an AfD debate, not just a nominator or a page creator. You can too! Furthermore, three delsort categories is not at all unusual. The norm is between one and three, depending on the complexity of the topic." Right?--BDD (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete this is not in the same league as the Checkers speech or Obama's response to the Wright controversy. If it's notable at all it's for the "you didn't build that" line. I'm not convinced it is; not every alleged "gaffe" or campaign dustup is deserving of an article of its own. Making campaign stump speeches, and saying things that your opponent sees as attack ad fodder, are generally the sort of routine election events that fail WP:NOTNEWS and can be covered adequately in the campaign articles. 169.231.53.116 (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we are past the short term really. The level of coverage this has attracted is massive and enduring. Gigs (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons given by RightCow, Sir Lionel, Peggy Noonan and Gigs. Merging it just makes it easier for POV pushers to minimize its importance. It really is "a big effing deal". --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - If we are going to have one article per speech, we will end up in a mess. Just summarize salient points on the campaing article. Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closer of this AfD should consider the downstream precedent of making each partisan political attack theme worthy of a standalone article. For example, based on the "keep" rationales given here, we should also create and maintain articles on Romney Hood (26 million Google hits, 49,000 Google News hits, ongoing coverage as campaign theme), Romney didn't pay any taxes (186 million Google hits, 110,000 Google News hits, ongoing coverage as campaign theme), and corporations are people, my friend (currently a redirect; but with 56 million Google hits, 20,000 Google News hits, and ongoing status as a central campaign theme, it's got a better claim to a standalone article than this one).
I believe that this is a serious encyclopedia and, as such, we should not develop standalone articles on every political gambit deployed by the Presidential campaigns. It's a recipe for disaster; it makes us look silly; and it brings out the worst in a lot of editors. (And let's face it - despite all the passionate rhetoric on this page, no one will look at, edit, or care about these articles after Election Day. It's not about the encyclopedia - it's about increasing the visibility of a partisan talking point before the election). But if there's consensus to the contrary, that these are notable encyclopedic topics, then I'm willing to abide by it. MastCell ^Talk 04:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's political articles on Obama and Romney are already skewed to the left. There are standlone articles on the Mitt Romney dog incident (which is just stupid, but notable for political reasons) and Mitt Romney's tax returns (even though the only scandalous thing about the latter is that nobody knows what's in them, which is not really a scandal). Quite frankly, reading the Obama and Romney articles one could get an impression that Romney is plagued by scandal and controversy, whereas Obama is an august statesman largely without any critics. Seriously, take an open-minded browse around both personal articles and both 2012 campaign articles and see if you agree. So I have no worries that including this content will result in skewing Wikipedia drastically to the right. Especially with fact check quotes, context, etc. Wookian (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney dog incident is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and should be deleted. Mitt Romney's tax returns is very likely to be deleted (since you mentioned it, I went and added my !vote there). I actually think both Romney's and Obama's articles are largely positive or neutral - in both cases there are "controversies" which are just too silly to warrant inclusion in the biographies, even though they've been covered by reliable sources. Part of that is because I think the overall quality of editing (and quality of editor) is higher on the biographical articles - a lot of the real partisan catfighting and ideologically driven editing gets spun off into exactly these sorts of sub-articles. MastCell ^Talk 08:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus was kept three times. CallawayRox (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We just keep learning more and more about the motivations of some of the article supporters. First the article creator readily admits the creation is because consensus was against including the material in the main article at all, so there was a clear WP:POVFORK admission. Now we have Wookian right above rolling out the "Wikipedia is liberal, so we must balance it with right-leaning articles", a pretty naked end-around of WP:NPOV with a touch of battleground mentality. Once this is wrapped up, IMo some editors need to be removed from the topic area. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar comments on this sort of problem were made in a thread on WP:ANI (see this permanent link), but were met with a generally negative reaction. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc, if you are advocating administrative action against me, it seems like bad form for you to use quotation marks around something I am alleged to have said, which you just made up out of your head. I didn't say that "Wikipedia is liberal". My meaning was that the Obama related articles currently have a dearth of material from mainstream sources critical of Obama, whereas the Romney articles are very well stocked in that regard. Neither the Barack Obama article nor the 2012 campaign article have anything critical of Obama at all that I can see, which is odd in the USA. We have a two party system here, and each side generally does a good job of holding the other's feet to the fire. Many conservative journalists characterize the Obama presidency as a failed presidency due to various major scandals, and other negative events and circumstances -- but reading these two articles, you'd never even guess such criticism existed. They could have been written by his campaign, and would probably read similarly (well, that's probably a slight exaggeration). Fundamentally, I am simply advocating against hagiographies and against an unfortunate attitude of hagiographical censorship I've encountered in articles touching Obama. I think my attitude is in the best interests of Wikipedia. So evaluate the message and agree or disagree with it -- don't shoot the messenger. Wookian (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "hear" Editor:Tarc threatening administrative action. Let us all maintain a social equillibrium as we enter this election season. We are all going to be bumping into each other all over the Wikipedia political article landscape. We may all edit at different times and for different reasons, but WE (Wikipedia Editors) are all in this together for the good of our reader not for the benfit of our candidate. Lets all give what we say a third or fourth look---and remove any venom--- before we hit SAVE. The elections will be over mid-November, but WE will still be Wikipedia collaborators.```Buster Seven Talk 14:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc also says (characterizing RightCow?) "the creation is because consensus was against including the material in the main article at all" -- however, just FYI, I think that is incorrect. I think consensus is actually nominally in favor[11][12] of including it. There's a bit of debate still going on, admittedly. Wookian (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's academic. At the time this article was created, the consensus was against inclusion. Tarc's statement is factually accurate. Since then, a consensus has begun to evolve around including the section, providing it includes the Factcheck material that you have exhaustively argued against. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was not a consensus against inclusion, there removal of the verified content was removed unilaterally, see the link above or better yet please see the diff here (as well).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaustively is a good choice of words; if anybody has problems with insomnia, I recommend reading the discussion in full. :) I see what you are saying here. The intent of my comment was not merely academic, but also to give an FYI as to the current state of the campaign article, which I think is useful info for the deletion arbiter. Wookian (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the same stunts that were tried on the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article are being used in this POV Fork. After editors try to update this article to conform to what independent, fact checking organizations have found about the so-called issue, it is removed repeatedly by the article creator(1,2) and another editor(1,2). Claiming the findings of these organizations "irrelevant". It's an obvious attempt to bypass Talk page consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this so-called consensus? I only see WP:OWN with failure to WP:AGF on top. CallawayRox (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LEAD, as cited in the change. Summarization of the article is what the lead should be. Introducing a whole paragraph regarding to reliable sources state when all other RSs are not specified in lead but in total summarized (as both sides of the commentators were prior to the large paragraph in the lead) introduced undue weight into the lead. Please see WP:NPOV.

As others have written, although there is NPOV as a pillar of wikipedia, there is an effort to remove critical material (which can be argued per BLP) for certain biographical articles, and include significant weight of critical material towards others.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely noteworthy and encyclopedic, though I would retitle the article as "You didn't build that" to bring it in line with similar articles such as "Death panel", "Two Americas", and "Evil empire". Kelly ^hi! 18:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Scjessey comments, can't this at least be determined a few months after? We should be looking at this article in terms of the long term picture.Lefthooksmash (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "You didn't build that" per Kelly above. I would also add to her list: "Drill, baby, drill", "Giant sucking sound", "Read my lips: no new taxes" and "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy".--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there has been a recent thread of discussion that support deletion stating it should be deleted because of the editors who support the keeping, and/or renaming of this article. The notability of this article is not related to who created this article, or who edits it, see WP:ADHOM.

If there is an issue about recentism, let the article stand until the end of the year, if it is still notable after the end of the election, it can remain a stand alone article, if it is determined at that time to not be notable per WP:EFFECT then it can be merged and redirected that that time.

Additionally, there are those who argue that it is a CONTENTFORK, and again let me reiterate that given the HUGE amount of significant coverage regarding the article it is notable as its own subject, even though it is also notable wtihin the context of other notable subjects. For instance the USS Kentucky and USS Illinois are notable within the subject of the Iowa Class Battleships, however at the same time they are themselves independently notable. It can also be said (using the CONTENTFORK line of arguement) that all ship class articles of the same type of ship are content forks of that ship type; however that is not the case, same as how it is not the case here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Major speech from an incumbent president. Is very noteworthy for its own article. —stay (sic)! 09:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what? It wasn't a major speech, and not every speech he gives is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it me, or are the majority of "keep" votes here are straight out of "arguments to avoid": Google-hit counting, "keep because it's notable", "other speeches have articles", etc. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Conversely, most of the delete arguments are variants of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The only issue here is whether this topic has received signficant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article already has 40(!) references, most of which are to major news organizations such as the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Tampa Bay Times, Vanity Fair, etc. The list goes on and on. You can see the full list here.[13] This is a 'no brainer' keep. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." (If that sounds familiar, it's because it's a direct quote from the notability guidelines). So no, whether the topic has been covered by reliable sources is not "the only issue". And the "delete" rationales include the obvious WP:RECENTISM, the fact that nobody will remember or care about this the day after the election, much less in 10 years, and the fact that every political attack ad doesn't deserve a standalone article. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        First of all, WP:RECENTISM is only an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Second, it is only your opinion of what the world will care about 10 years from now. You might be right; you might be wrong. But, if I had to venture, it is highly unlikely that the world will not care about the 2012 United States Presidential campaign. Third, WP:GNG establishes a "presumption, not a guarantee" of inclusion. Therefore, the burden of proof for achieving WP:CONCENSUS lies with those wishing to overturn this presumption. Tell me, have you reached consensus for deletion? If so, how many of the people who !voted for keeping the article have changed their minds? This article clearly meets WP:GNG. I have nearly 2 thousand articles on my watchlist and this is one of the most ridiculous discussions I'm currently watching. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That sort of strawman argument is really beneath you. Of course the world will care about the 2012 election ten years from now, but they're highly unlikely to care about this particular speech (or, more accurately, the attempt to turn this speech into a political attack ad). I can guarantee you that most of this article's creators and defenders won't have any use for this article even one day after the election, much less 10 years from now. It's up to the closing admin to determine consensus. It's my opinion that many of the "keep" arguments should be discounted as standard variations on "arguments to avoid" - and I say that as someone who's reviewed and closed quite a few AfD's - but it's not my decision to make here. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I apologize if I was unclear. Let me be more explicit. It is highly unlikely that the world will not care about the 2012 United States Presidential campaign, and the political discourse that was involved. If I recall correctly, when Thomas Jefferson ran for President, his detractors accused him of worshipping the devil because he was a Deist, not a Christian. Scholars still study this two hundred years later. We don't delete articles simply because they are controversial or that the accusation may be incorrect. I understand that this topic has become politicized, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. POV disputes should be addressed through normal editing of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but Rename to "You didn't build that" per several others above. In or out of context, this speech and these words will be what people remember many years from now about this campaign. Tom Danson (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What indication is there that this will be "remembered"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Romney wins the election, I guarantee that it will be remembered, because it will be seen as a factor influencing the outcome. Paul Ryan just capitalized on this in another stump speech, praising his mom for creating a small business and saying "Mom, you did build that". On the other hand, if Obama wins the election, it is possible that it won't be remembered as much. Ignoring polls, let's say there's a 50% chance that Romney will win. Not knowing the future, that sounds like reasonable odds to me that it will be significant. But all that is academic -- we don't really need to do any guessing about this. It wouldn't be continually rehashed in Romney and Ryan's stump speeches if it were merely a past blip on the radar. Wookian (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Keep but rename to You didn't build that. That sentence is the only reason this article exists at all. Otherwise this would have been just another (yawn) political campaign speech. This sentence has become highly notable and has massive news and opinion coverage in respected and reliable sources. I can hardly go a single day without reading some allusion to this speech in my newspaper. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "You didn't build that". This is a notable and defining moment in the campaign and deserves an article. Belchfire-TALK 21:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... this is a "notable and defining moment in the campaign". But Mitt Romney's tax returns... that's just - how did you put it? - a "clear WP:POVFORK... not sufficiently notable for standalone article." I'm sure there's an explanation besides partisanship for the disparate way you've approached these two political attacks, but I haven't been able to come up with it yet. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is just a small misspoken word or the defining momement in the campaign can only be seen after the election is over. Wikipedia is not a newsorganisation and should not be so. If it turns out to be important (I dought any gafs, Romneys or Obamas, will be important) it should be a part of the presidentiel election articles, it can not stand alone as an article itself, it can only be seen in context. All this seems like editors campaigning for their candidate and that is beneath Wikipedia to do so. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that one can not say that the article does not meet WP:EFFECT if taken as an event, the impact of the speech has well passed a month, with it still being an active subject in news sources (there have been 4K news stories about the subject in the past week). If we want to bring this up later to see if it passes WP:NOTTEMPORARY after the beginning of the new year (2013) or in a years time, I think we can do that. But given the HUGE amount of reliable sources that have discusses the subject of this article I believe that DELETE is ill-advised.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to "You Didn't Build That" This obviously meets criteria for inclusion due to the massive media coverage and cultural response to it. On the other hand, the only reason this speech is notable is due to the "You Didn't Build That" gaffe, and the article title should reflect it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to renaming, if there is a consensus for the renaming even if it is my opinion that the entire speech and the effect of that speech is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the speech that is notable, it's the Republican perversion of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the speech is an event, than the effect of the speech clearly makes the event notable.

"Perversion" is a matter of opinion, however it is not our place to insert our own opinion into articles, but to create articles about notable subjects, improve existing articles about notable subjects by using reliable sources to verify and expand content, to edit civilly, and to ensure that subjects are presented neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to remain civil, all (if not, than almost all) of the content is verified using reliable sources, opinions are properly attributed, and no source is given undue weight (there is actually a slight majority (1,000 characters or so if one includes the Romney 2002 quote) of the commentator content is actually critical of the Romney Campaign and those who have a critical opinion of the content of the speech).

As for WP:POVFORK, when I created the article, there was NO content regarding the subject in the suggested Merge & Redirect article target, see the the state of the article that was current (1944 12AUG12) when the article that is the subject of this AfD was created (2031 13AUG12). No other change was made to that article until the 18AUG. At that point there was an almost immediate (within 90 minutes) AfD of the article which we are now discussing, with the content fork claim. The guideline states the following:

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject.
— WP:CFORK

In this case the subject of the target article, which at the time had no content relating to the subject of this article, and the subject of this article were not, and still are not, the same. The subject of that article is about the Obama campaign. The subject of this article is a speech, an event. Therefore, CFORK does not apply.

Others claim that this is a POVFORK. Let me quote that:

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.
— WP:CFORK

This article does not seek to "avoid neutral point of view guidelines", as stated in the guideline; rather I believe I have shown that I am attempting to adhere to those NPOV guidelines to the utmost while writing about the subject, which is the subject of this AfD.

If anything, I am of the opinion that the lack of neutrality in other articles compared to this article is what is more worrisome to the project overall; but that's OK, for now, as wikipedia is always a work in progress.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear POVFORK. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. This article can be re-visited after the election when there is more perspective about the importance of this speech. Letting partisans hijack our encyclopedia to promote their political feuds is certainly something we should stop right now. Yobol (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a topic is something that a user doesn't like doesn't mean that the topic isn't notable. Additionally, although the subject is related to other notable topics, this subject itself is notable in and of itself given the HUGE amount of coverage it has received.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you prepared to support standalone articles on other partisan talking points which meet similar criteria for "notability"? For example, if the "keep" rationales here were applied equitably, we'd have standalone articles on Romney Hood, corporations are people, my friend, legitimate rape, Mitt Romney paid no taxes at all for ten years, and so forth.

When people say that this is a partisan embarrassment to Wikipedia, what they mean is that we shouldn't be devoting so much weight to these sorts of partisan election-year gambits. That's a valid deletion rationale.

And the concern about partisan hijacking is amply borne out by some of the hypocritical voting we've seen (e.g., Republican talking points are "notable and defining moments in the campaign", while Democratic talking points are "not sufficiently notable for standalone article"). I think it's obvious that for many editors, this AfD doesn't turn on broadly applicable notability criteria, but rather on narrow ideological grounds. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not control the actions of other editors, including editors who nominate other articles for deletion, see WP:ADHOM. Whether other articles exist does not determine whether this article's subject meets (or does not meet) notability requirements.

Whether those articles are notable are not is to be determined by looking to see if there are reliable sources that cover the subject of those articles with significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So if there are plenty of reliable sources discussing those talking points - say, at least as many as on this topic - you'll support the creation and expansion of those articles? MastCell ^Talk 00:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my opinion very clear here, and elsewhere on determining subjects based on relevant notability guidelines, and do not see the need to repeat myself again. Thanks for asking once again.

Normally, if a subject does not meet notability guideline, and the subject is directly related to a specific topic, I will suggest alternatives to save what content is verified in an appropriate redirect target.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and advice for closing administrator - So far, this ridiculous AfD has seen two different types of comments. The first are from conservatively-minded editors desperate to use Wikipedia to further their political agenda, and the second are from progressively-minded editors who want to do the same; however, the second group is joined by a third group who also want to see the article deleted because it is a clear POV fork, thus falling foul of Wikipedia policy. There's simply no way this speech needs an article of its own. Like voter ID, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It must be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget the fourth group of editors who think we should follow WP:GNG, that this topic has receieved significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a fucking POV fork. You guys just kill me, you really do. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's a sub-topic. Saying that this is a POV fork is a bit like saying Watergate is POV fork of Richard Nixon. Granted, it's not as significant as Watergate, but it does easily meet WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which group is WP:TAGTEAM edit-warring [14][15][16] to remove a simple ((main)) link from the Obama campaign article? CallawayRox (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an abuse of process. You've added a link to an article currently under AfD. Stupid, stupid, stupid move. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wah wah abuse of process wah wah. Show me the WP:POLICY or shut the hell up. CallawayRox (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Scjessey says "Like voter ID, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist." Doesn't it detract from your attempt to present a high level, neutral overview of the debate when you inject a highly partisan Democrat talking point as if it were recognized fact[17][18]? I am guessing humor was not your intent, but it is the result. Wookian (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there's snippy tempers all-around that could do with a cup of tea and some general chillaxing. Everyone needs to keep in mind that this topic area has been the subject of Arbitration cases in the past, and it is always within the realm of possibility that something could flare up between now and November and head there again. Everything done, said, reverted, and re-reverted could be scrutinized and questioned; I found that out during the Muhammad Arbcom. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Need something stronger that can raise the IQs of these idiots. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that an editor is not abiding by WP:AGF and the claiming of "conservative-minded editors" is clearly pointing to a conservative conspiracy. Odd giving the verified opinion that there is a liberal bias on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you. I have already accused you of creating the article 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech in bad faith, so there is no need for you to repeat your objection. It is absolutely clear you created the POV fork because you couldn't get your paragraph into the other article in the way that you wanted it. No way is that editing in good faith, so I'm just calling a spade a spade. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that another editor chooses to disregard one of the pillars of our editing community. I have not assumed bad faith because other editors have disagreed with my opinions in content, and have already showed (linked somewhere above) how that content was removed twice unilaterally by other editors, without there being a clear consensus for such removal. Other editors have claimed that there is a issue, in regards to WP:OWN, regarding the campaign article, and that is a matter of interpretation of it. Moreover, It is my opinion, that the content that has been added there does not give justice to the independent notability of the subject, and presents the subject in a manor that does not abide by WP:NEU, and does not give due weight to certain opinions regarding that subject.

Presently the article contains 51 reliable sources to verify the content contained in its articlespace, and as I have linked above there are THOUSANDS of additional reliable in-depth sources which any editor can verify content with (in regards to the subject which is the focus of this AfD). Additionally, we are over 1 month out from the speech and its effect on at least two notable subjects (not just the Obama Campaign of 2012) has been widely documented in a manor that far exceeds routine coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SPINOFF "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View." The speech article covers all WP:RS viewpoints, satisfies WP:NPOV and is not a WP:POVFORK. If anything, the Obama campaign article has POV problems due to WP:OWN. CallawayRox (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The campaign article is not written in summary style, so that is another bullshit argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012#.22You_didn.27t_build_that.22 isn't summary style??? Your argument is bullshit. CallawayRox (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:GNG per several thousand google news hits, as long as it meets that threshold, I see no reason to delete it. It is extremely well-sourced. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable; it's not a content fork that I can see; the political rationale for deletion is irrelevant to Wikipedia Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do think that it is a fork, and it has great potential for POV (if it's neutral in its current state), which is the only potential it has, in my opinion. Passing the GNG is easy given the 24/7 "news" cycle and the ridiculously politicized nature of the American media and its political system: everything gets reported on, but that doesn't mean everything is of encyclopedic value. I have a problem with articles that can only be made neutral by adding everything about it, where practically "everything" has a side, a perspective. Will this be notable a month from now, or a year from now, to the point where more objective publications, less driven by current events, will study this speech which in itself is of no value at all? I don't know (well, I think not), but if it does we can always restore this. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful input into the discussion.

One of the primary determinations of whether to keep or delete an article usually falls primarily in the realm of notability, in this case it appears that the user above agrees that it passes GNG, but does not believe that it should be kept due to possible POV issues that may arise in the future, please see WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Additionally, the article can continue to grow in length if necessary due to wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. As for the question of whether the topic will still be notable a month from now, or a year from now, I believe that it something that can be reviewed sometime after the beginning of 2013. If the event still passes effect at that point, then it can remain, if not it can be merged & redirected to an appropriate target (of which there are many (either campaign article, or elsewhere)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I've been here and I think I know what the notability guidelines are. Please take this as a friendly suggestion: fight the urge to comment on every "delete" vote, and saying "it appears" suggests I was being vague; I hope I was not. I think you read my comments partially correctly. My contention is that this article should not grow at all, that it's very growth is unencyclopedic. That we're not made of paper doesn't mean we should regurgitate everything written about something. On a side note, I hope that when I hit "Save page" FOX 2 Interview With Todd Akin will still be a red link. It is no different from this. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above it was was stated that the subject of this article has received passing significant coverage due to the news cycle, then I am reading this as believing that the above editor believes that the coverage is that of routine coverage for a speech during a campaign event. I would say this is not the case, there are many other speeches given at campaign events that.

For instance, let me point towards an event that happened not to far from where I live, where Romney attended a Memorial Day event at Balboa Park with Nick Popaditch, & John McCain. The event was covered significantly by multiple reliable sources (local, and major national sources, but this only created 300 some stories, that is something I can see as being routine, moreover the event does not appear to pass WP:EFFECT.

Now in regards to the subject of this articles, if we look at the coverage the event has received, and the impact of the event has had on both campaigns since 13 July (when the event occurred) it has created more coverage than what would be considered normal in a standard event news cycle.

Perhaps this speech may be as notable as the infamous 1988 George H.W. Bush RNC speech, however I cannot speculate per WP:CRYSTAL. What I can do is look at the coverage that has happened since the event occurred and render an opinion whether the subject of the article meets notability guidelines. I can understand that others may disagree with my opinion, however part of what AfD is a discussion of the subject as it pertains to WP:DEL-REASON, and attempting to come to a consensus as to what should occur to the article. Presently I don't believe that there is no consensus of active editors on this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second Drmies's request that you not respond to every delete !vote. Some poor admin is going to have to read through all of this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I am reading this as believing that the above editor believes that the coverage is that of routine coverage for a speech during a campaign event". I'm not sure how to negate "reading as believing", but I did not say that the coverage is routine (so where that belief comes from is not clear to me). Far from it. Routinely they don't get such coverage; the report makes it into the pool and is then forgotten. This did get coverage, because it was made into a nice political shit-storm. The media feed on the media, and all of it is forgettable. That's common but not routine: we are talking about coverage about coverage--about a political feeding frenzy and political ploys--not the coverage of the speech. Having said that, perhaps less "reading as believing" and more engagement with the argument (properly read) would literally be a better way going forward. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by Goodnightmuch as G11 - advertisement. (non-admin technical closure) Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diaperaday.com[edit]

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

Does not seem to signify WP:NOTE, written like an advertisement, no sources. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 03:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Speedy G11) - Does not need an AFD for this kind of obvious crap. Tagged for G11 per my !vote. Fish ^Barking? 03:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11, blatant advertising. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Daley[edit]

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

Article biased, written like an advertisement or as means of self promotion, no references. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 03:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:RESUME. This project is not a webhost or blog. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 01:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to be written by the subject herself. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as purely promotional to the point that it would need a complete rewrite. I can't be bothered to investigate any further on notability as this "article" is 100% advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect (non-admin closure) Current iPhone 5 target redirects to iPhone, this one can as well. Regards, — Moe ε 07:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 5 (phone)[edit]

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

Per WP:Crystal and the iPhone 5 page (redirect) is already in existence. Baseball Watcher 03:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with nom; redirect to iPhone at this time. みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you asking for deletion or redirection? If the former, could you please explain why? If the latter, just close this AFD and redirect it. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to what? Baseball Watcher 00:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus - numbers balance pretty heavily, but passing WP:N is demonstrated while failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOT (and the like) is merely asserted (and appears to be false, as far as I can figure it). Could be weak keep, but I think no consensus is closer. Wily D 09:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an unnecessary and trivial list about number two singles. Number twos are not notable and the article doesn't establish why they are notable. Note: this is a renomination following a previous no consensus close. Till 03:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only are number twos usually not important (as when calling a hit a hit it's either number one, top ten, top 20 or top 40) , them being number two on the week of Christmas is extremely trivial. Statυs (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The previous discussion, which was nominated by the same editor, closed just 13 days ago. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Warden (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Warden does not have the right to accuse people of disruptive editing when he ignored the AfD merge decision for this very article with this edit.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Excuse me? I was already given leave by the closing administrator to renominate the article soon. So let's not jump to conclusions. Kthanksbye. Till 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what are you expecting to achieve that we didn't do in the discussion earlier this month? Please see WP:NOTAGAIN, "Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when ... only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.". Warden (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "What are you expecting to achieve that we didn't do in the discussion earlier this month" ---> How about a consensus? The previous Afd was closed as no consensus and the closing admin gave me leave to renominate it. Till 13:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - And what has changed that will make consensus more likely? Per WP:CCC, "if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again.". Warden (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Stop playing the 'disruptive nomination' card as an excuse to keep the article, the rationale for deletion is too important to be neglected. Till 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Too important? Why is this so important that it couldn't wait for another Christmas, say? Warden (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The closing comment for the first AFD says nothing about starting another one "soon" (we normally relist an AfD if there are not enough comments, that had already been done and there were lots of comments after that) and I see nothing on your talk page about this. Please provide the diff where you have been encouraged to disregard normal practice. --Mirokado (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The diff is on my talk page, actually. My reply was unfortunately vague, in retrospect. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the prompt reply, Mark. If I may say so, the suggestion to start another AfD "soon" was wholly incorrect and I hope (assume) that you won't do that again! I suggest you close this immediately, with no prejudice to the opener or any subsequent review, as "out of process" and point out that the opener or anyone else has the option to procede to WP:DRV if they feel the closure was problematical. --Mirokado (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete (as I said before). I will make a further comment for those advocating keep - There is nothing to say that Number 2s are notable. If that was established then it would not be up for AfD. Just saying "keep" because you like an article does not cut the mustard. NB Again I promise to change to keep if notability is established. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have read the article which contains multiple sources establishing notability per WP:SIGCOV and WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colonel, there is no point being shrill about this, I do note that you consider (nearly) every "list" article as being notable, which is your perogative, as it is mine to vote delete as and when I think that is the correct decision, The AfD was closed as no consensus, not save, so a second nomination was fully in order. I nearly nominated it the second time myself! What is worrying though is the failure of those who want to keep this list to bother to establish why they are notable. Hint: Why would somebody voting "delete" suggest it could be notable? If you want to query every "delete" then the article should go as a matter of principal, we do not need to be browbeaten by members of the military at WP (LOL!) --Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It provides sources that they were indeed number two on the week of Christmas. Where's the sources to show being number two on Christmas is notable? Statυs (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the existence of these sources which establishes notability - please see WP:GNG. Compare an article created by the nominator - List of number-one singles of 2005 (New_Zealand). That has no independent sources and so does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Warden (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? We are here to discuss the article in question. Till 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a difference between both lists. One is number one singles in one year in New Zealand, while the other ones that were number two on the week that just so happened to be Christmas. Hmm... Statυs (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What matters for determining notability, per WP:GNG, is the coverage in independent sources. The article in question has such coverage and so passes WP:GNG; the other article does not. What you personally think of the relative merits of the UK and NZ is irrelevant. It is the verdict of external professional editors and publishers which demonstrates that there is external interest in the topic. Warden (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just create List of UK Singles Charts Christmas number 40's. If it got nominated for AFD, would you also vote to keep it? Seeing as how just because they indeed appeared at number two is enough for an entire list about it. Statυs (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop just flapping your gums and prove that being number two on Christmas is notable. Maybe a book talking about all the songs that were number two on Christmas; an essay? Statυs (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an unattractive turn of phrase; please try and contribute in a more collegial fashion. Talented scholars like the Colonel are in high demand. Disrespectful posts create an unpleasant editing environment and risk driving away good contributors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy close~~ (striking comment, user has !voted again below). The last one ended as "The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)" The same guy who nominated this last time, has started a new AFD 11 days later. What the hell? Someone close this already. No consensus does not mean to keep repeating things until you get the result you want. Do we need to contact everyone and tell them to repeat what they said last time? Dream Focus 14:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus means that there was no consensus to either delete or keep the article. I say "what the hell" to you saying "speedy close". Statυs (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a dig around but couldn't find anything that indicated that the number twos were particularly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable subject, a few sources does not establish notability. NapHit (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed incivility and assumptions of bad faith. IRWolfie- (talk)
Keep POINTy/disruptive nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Whatever. What about the merit of the existence of the page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Whatever" Shush - the grown-ups are talking. Lugnuts (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ah, very constructive. Thanks for your ongoing positive contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Likewise. Make sure the door doesn't hit you on your way out. Lugnuts (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Out of where? From your logic, perhaps it already hit you hard in the head. Calling me an idiot? Adults discuss things, they don't resort to name-calling. You think your edit history allows you act like a WP:DICK? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nice way to try and hide your own POINTy/disruptive nomination. Looks like this is a keeper. Better luck next time! Lugnuts (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Um, it wasn't my nomination? Sorry that you got confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] No one wants to hear from you. Your presence here is not needed. Till 07:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] It's obviously your first time here - read WP:POINT before you try again. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Remember that you are not always right, may I remind you of this in which your argument to keep the article completely failed. And can you please start to assume good faith first, there is really no need to act like an arse to everybody that you disagree with. You have now attacked two separate editors in the same discussion. 230,000 edits may be impressive but that is not an excuse for you to conduct with such a poor attitude. Which brings me back to my point before—if you have nothing to contribute here and just intend on insulting people, don't bother commenting again. Till 09:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] If you have nothing to contribute to this discussion, why bother !voting? Jeez. Till 00:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed incivility and assumptions of bad faith. IRWolfie- (talk)

Keep POINTy/disruptive nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever. What about the merit of the existence of the page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Whatever" Shush - the grown-ups are talking. Lugnuts (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, very constructive. Thanks for your ongoing positive contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Likewise. Make sure the door doesn't hit you on your way out. Lugnuts (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Out of where? From your logic, perhaps it already hit you hard in the head. Calling me an idiot? Adults discuss things, they don't resort to name-calling. You think your edit history allows you act like a WP:DICK? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Nice way to try and hide your own POINTy/disruptive nomination. Looks like this is a keeper. Better luck next time! Lugnuts (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Um, it wasn't my nomination? Sorry that you got confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No one wants to hear from you. Your presence here is not needed. Till 07:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's obviously your first time here - read WP:POINT before you try again. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Remember that you are not always right, may I remind you of this in which your argument to keep the article completely failed. And can you please start to assume good faith first, there is really no need to act like an arse to everybody that you disagree with. You have now attacked two separate editors in the same discussion. 230,000 edits may be impressive but that is not an excuse for you to conduct with such a poor attitude. Which brings me back to my point before—if you have nothing to contribute here and just intend on insulting people, don't bother commenting again. Till 09:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you have nothing to contribute to this discussion, why bother !voting? Jeez. Till 00:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After the nominator spoke with me on my talk page, I said "Since it was a "no consensus" close, you can feel free to renominate fairly soon." I suppose "fairly soon" is a vague term, and I apologize for being unclear with that. While I'm here though, from the perspective of a closing admin, I felt that the arguments were pretty weak in the last round. For the sake of whoever closes this discussion, please try to stick to the list guidelines and sourcing rather than "If we keep this we'll have to create X article" type comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you aren't closing this? Can we take every single no consensus close and have the same people renominate it 11 days later, and repeat it indefinitely with never ending AFDs until they get what they want? Seems like gaming the system. Dream Focus 21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way we usually handle renominations is to speedy close when there is a consensus to do so and to let it play out when there isn't. Am I overlooking a guideline somewhere? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am surprised to see that WP:AFD is neither policy, guideline nor essay, but if we cannot rely on what that says (last time I quoted something with undefined status the reversion of my update was upheld for that reason, quite possibly correctly) the whole AfD process would appear to have severe problems, so I will point out that WP:BEFORE B "Carry out these checks" .4 says "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with." Obviously the objections were dealt with only a few days previously. "No consensus to delete" means "there is no consensus to delete this article" based on the policies and arguments presented in the relevant discussion (is it necessary to explain that to anyone any more clearly?) If anyone wishes to contest that decision we have WP:DRV which has been ignored in this case. I suppose it might be acceptable to start a new request straight away if subsequent events or changes to the article mean that new policies become relevant or new arguments can be presented, but, far from doing so, the proposer presented no new argument. Thus a summary of the rationale for the current request is "I don't agree with the previous decision, perhaps I will get lucky this time". Total time wasting and disrespect for the community and our processes. So I'm afraid the answer to your question is yes you did miss something we should treat as at least a guideline as well as the appropriate route which should have been followed if your decision were to be contested. We all know that every admin decision is wrong, so it is important that decisions are respected even when challenged. For those reasons this nonsense should be closed immmediately. --Mirokado (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be formal, AFD is part of Wikipedia:Deletion process, which makes it a process. KTC (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Renominating after a "no consensus" close is not disruptive. The criterion "Christmas" + "number 2" is doubly narrow, far more so than the countless "List of Number two hits on X chart" that have been almost unanimously deleted. #1 songs are notable enough to warrant a list; #2s are not. There is a long standing precedent of deleting "#2" lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is OK for every dissatisfied nominator to repeat non-consensus AfDs every two weeks until they get a result they like? Rubbish. This is totally disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. --Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not disruptive. The previous Afd resulted in no consensus which is different to a keep closure. Establishing a consensus (keep, delete) in this Afd would be helpful. Now please zip it up, whining and carrying on about this isn't going to help. Till 07:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ten Pound Hammer. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same AFD, same people, same answer as last time. I read some of the references in the article and [19] and [20] do provide enough coverage to prove this subject meets the General Notability Guidelines. Dream Focus 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette. If you are going to change your opinion from the speedy keep above you are supposed to strike your previous comment. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette would be to not game the system and waste everyone's time with a pointless rerun. And I didn't change my vote. I said to speedy close it as a waste of time, and now I'm saying to keep since for whatever reason this AFD is going to be allowed to continue. Dream Focus 21:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So having said you said "speedy close" then "keep," but still have not deleted the superfluous comment. Hmm. Oh well it gives me a change to bring another thought, keeping it topical, I note there are no Lists of Silver Medallists in the Summer Olympics 2012 or similar, and yet I think I am assured that there are many many articles that would, according to some at this AfD, confer notability. The difference is that music, and specifically pop music, swims at the shallower ends of WP, that any kind of Expletive deleted is permissible. Yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't exist! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately close with no further nominations for a minimum of 180 days. This is old, repetitious, and borderline vexatious and has been discussed ad nauseum over the course of several years with no progress or change. My stance on this issue remains to keep as there is a case of notability (and cause for notability) established in the sources. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Omg, get over it! The Afd process has already begun, and it's not disruptive if the previous Afd was a no consensus result. Till 04:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this were indeed only the second nomination I would be somewhat more sympathetic but this isn't. It's at least the fourth by my estimate, and all three previous times we've had the same result. No consensus. We tried compromise, merging it with the #1s as a subsection, but that raised its own issues; then we tried to merge it into the main #1 tables and that raised its own objectors. Deleting would almost certainly bring even more objections (and headaches when somebody tried to retrieve the lost article). To continue to beat this issue into the ground when you, I and pretty much anyone with a connection to this topic knows what the result is going to be is the definition of insanity! (Of course, this is a British topic and British humour does tend to involve these sorts of long-running, frustrating jokes, so if this is all a ruse I would not be surprised.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as here we go again... The selection criteria is unambiguous, objective and supported by reliable sources [21], [22], [23], [24] which satisfy WP:LISTN. The list is not indiscriminate, all or almost all entries meet the notability guidelines for its own article a la ~~WP:CSD~~WP:CSC. KTC (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The argument used for keep at this AfD include

WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:GNG Which says, inter alia, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

This says a subject can only be notable if there is significant coverage, it does not say MUST be notable if there is significant coverage, I can think of several things with more listings than No2s that do not have WP articles, Daily TV listings, Race Cards, Football Results etc etc etc.

WP:LISTN which says, “There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists”

“No consensus” can’t be used as a reason for keeping the article. It actually justifies point 4.

WP:LSC which says, “Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources.”

This could be valid, except without naming the No1 there is no context to the article which does lead to ambiguity. One of the concepts claimed for making this article notable is that you can bet on No2s. This is irrelevant, you can also bet on No1s. too, You can also bet on who will be at No5 (providing you can prove you have no insider knowledge). You can also bet on who will be President, the end of the world and two flies crawling up the wall. – I, ahem, “bet” I can verify this too!!!

WP:DELAFD Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.

As far as I can see there is no time limit guidance, so although it was quickly renominated, remember it was closed as “no consensus” not “keep.” We should assume WP:GOODFAITH in any event.

I did originally suggest that No2s could be notable, this was because a No2 at Xmas sells more that a No1 in August- this has always been the case unlike what some of the cited articles say. Another reason was that some consider that the real hit of the season to take the no2 slot while the corny Xmas-styled song gets the No1 slot. But this is not true and without the No1s listed in this article we shall never know. Where this list gloriously fails is Wikipedia:Overlistification because it is the conjunction of C by T by D as provided B. i.e. Chart by Number 2 by date as provided by Betting Shop - and with no context! --Richhoncho (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I note that there is precedent that No2s are not notable, as per these recent AfDs. If No2s on their own are not notable, how can the further intersection of Xmastime make them notable? This needs explaining by those advocating "keep." --Richhoncho (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's now how things work. What happens in other AFDs, doesn't affect this one. If they had reliable coverage found, then they might've been kept. Dream Focus 14:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, one of the most important parts of WP is precedent and now we have precedent - as mentioned by TenPound above. No matter how shrill and often you all shout this article is notable, nobody has bothered to say why. Your response above does not address anything. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to articles in two major newspapers that proved it meets the general notability guidelines. And TenPoundHammer had a precedent of saying something has a precedent, linking to past unrelated articles, and ignoring any related articles that were kept. That's a common tactic of his. And its nonsense as always. Each AFD is decided by the arguments presented within. Dream Focus 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in my long post above, being in a newspaper does not confirm notability, but means it may meet WP:GNG. Being offensive about another editor is not helping your cause, nor does it negate that No2s are losing AfDs without opposition! You still fail to establish notability for this article! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't at the same time say no one has demonstrate notability for an article and yet just ignore links to different newspaper articles (and magazine and book) when it is provided. If multiple indepedent reliable sources are provided that disucss a subject in sufficient depth, then the subject meet the general notability guidelines, which means notability has been established. Just because list of all number twos singles isn't considered notable doesn't imply list of all number two at Christmas is also not notable. Otherwise by that logic, it could be argued that list of number ones is not notable because the superset list of all singles isn't. -- KTC (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deflects from the fact that #2s are deleted elsewhere, it deflects from the guideline quoted above that says being in a newspaper etc does NOT establish notability, it deflects from point I made that there is no context in a list of No2s. And most tellingly, it deflects from the fact you have not bothered to establish notability. Just look at the post below, "An interesting article on a highly notable subject" All I am asking is explain that and not one of you can!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't locate exactly which page you are referring to re. newspaper, but I'll take that as stated for the following. Merely being mentioned in a newspaper does not establish notability does not equate to newspaper articles cannot be used to establish notabilty which seems to me to be what you are implying. WP:N clearly give as an example in note 2 that newspaper is acceptable as sources for notability purposes. To establish notability under WP:GNG requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The four sources I linked to in my !vote above fulfil that. Did you even bother to read what I wrote before writing that I "have not bothered to establish notability"? You quoted FeydHuxtable saying that the sentence wasn't explained but only cared to quote one sentence out of the three. Could that be because Feyd provided that explaination you state was missing in the next sentence? Re. context, the context is that the entries are ranked second at Chrismas on the UK Singles Chart. One doesn't have to state who was number one that week to establish that a single was number two that week. -- KTC (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of not reading when you say "I can't locate exactly which page you are referring to re. newspaper" just look for one of my posts on this page. Longest post, First Para. Quote from WP:GNG. Simple to find. If No2s are so important and notable, why not Olympians who came 2nd, Racehorses that came 2nd, even duellists who came 2nd, none of these exist at WP. I understand that Feyd and others are saying "look it's in a newspaper so it must be notable" I really hope that is not the whole comprehension of notability round these parts. All I am asking for one of you to explain - using quotes from those same newspapers if necessary why No2s are notable. If you are right it must be really easy to do, if, on the other hand, as I think, Xmas No2s (at least as THIS article presents it) are not notable then you cannot establish notability by any other than "blah blah blah it's in a newspaper." The longer it takes one of you to give me a straight answer to this straight question the more convinced I am the article has no merit (remember I did originally hint that it *could* be notable). Are my posts that hard to understand? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. link that you did or did not linked to. It is norm to link to a specific section of a page if you are making a statment based on it. The comment I originally replied to was the first time you mentioned "being in a newspaper etc does NOT establish notability". You linked to lots of other pages in your earlier comments, but had not mention such a point, so it's not too unsurpising that one cannot locate what it is exactly you were trying to say and from where you based such a point. And instead of linking to exactly the section of the page you meant when I quried, you linked to GNG and referenced an earlier reply which contained 5 links just in the first paragraph. If you meant WP:NOT#NEWS, which is only a best guess from what you have written, which why not just link to it? WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply here as we are not talking about an article on a particular event reported in the news.

I'll start off by saying your example isn't exactly great considering List of gold medalists doesn't exist either. However, Lists of Olympic medalists does exist. More genearlly, it doesn't matter whether you or I believe no. X are important and notable or not. What matters is whether independent reliable secondary sources consider the matter noteworthy enough to cover in detail. What Feyd and I are saying are not "look it's in a newspaper so it must be notable". What we are saying are [25], [26], [27], [28] are independent reliable sources that is writing about Christmas No. 2 in the first 3 cases, and No. 2 in general in the last case, and that it had address the subject in detail and as such fulfil the criteria laid down in WP:GNG. As such, notability of the subject has been established for the purpose of WP:N. You can of course disagree with our interpretation of whether the linked to sources have covered the subject in sufficient details to satisfy GNG, but that isn't what you have been doing in the recent comments. -- KTC (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside. KTC wrote, I'll start off by saying your example isn't exactly great considering List of gold medalists doesn't exist either I have been laughing my head off at the delicious irony of this sentence. Using the non-existance of a list of No1s to justify a list of No2s. LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I quoted the fifth bullet point of WP:GNG which is what some of you are using as the reason this is notable. Go and check it out.

Secondly, The reason that No2s are notable is because... they are NOT No1, (are you with me still?).

Each newspaper article refered to actually names the No1 in some form or another. If you remove the No1 from the WP article then there is ABSOLUTELY no notability for being No2 or anything other position. This is why this article, under its present title and present content should be deleted and other articles about No2 have already been deleted. Interesting or trivia, you decide, sometimes the difference is HOW it is done, not what is done. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I can see, the 5th bullet point of GNG clarify the meaning of presumption of notability and does not say "being in a newspaper etc does NOT establish notability". Re. your second point, again, that's your personal opinion. What matter is not personal opinion but coverage in secondary sources. The question is, does the sources cover the subject in question, in this case Christmas number two and I belive it does. Obviously, you don't. We just have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I have personal opinions and you don't? Because you are right? That really is a pile of No2s and you know it, as is the keep for this article. Oh well, I've have had a little fun in the shallower end of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake. How many time does I have to say it. It doesn't matter what your or my or any other user personal opinion is on the importance or notability of number two as a topic by and itself. What matter is whether there are multiple independent reliable secondary sources that cover the topic in details. Your opinion on that is more than welcome and like I said I can see differ to mine, which is fine, we just have agree to disagree. If you can't understand the difference between the two, then I can't help you.... -- KTC (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. An interesting article on a highly notable subject. At least two of the sources already present are entirely about the subject, which is more than GNG requires. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Get real, no one is going to "speedy keep" the article now that there have been issues raised by various separate editors. Also, it is the article's encyclopedic value and merit that is being disputed here. The list is trivial and indiscriminate, per WP:GNG (the same guideline you are citing), '"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Till 09:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly pass WP:GNG; per the above, also. TBran dl ey 19:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, meeting WP:GNG is irrelevant when the list is trivial and indiscriminate. Per WP:NOT, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Till 09:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does have multiple sources that cover the actual topic. It shows as well the impact of the Christmastime chart in the UK versus any other week and this race for being number one. The intro is kind of sucky because it seems to imply that being number two can lead to being a more revered song in the long run, but one has nothing to do with the other. Because of the sources, though, this has some merit compared to other number-two lists that have been attempted. Those are created by taking each week's chart, seeing what was number two, and making the list from that. The number-one lists I understand, because at least there is some anticipation as to each week's number one among fans and the industry (although I don't why we need a list of number ones for every minor and insignificant chart just because its published in a trade paper — I'm talking about you Luxembourg Digital Songs. I'd like to see the same type of coverage in reliable sources with those that this one has.). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person who rote that "sucky" paragraph, I wrote it there as a demonstration of the list's notability-- that although those songs ended up at #2 on a chart where #1 is particularly important, the #2 song also has widespread popularity as well. In some cases, that #2 goes on to become even more popular than the song that beat it (as stated in the paragraph, all three of the top three PRS top Christmas songs in 2010 were previous #2's). Is its presence a little clumsy? Perhaps, but I felt it necessary (or, at the very least, helpful) to establish why the #2 was notable in and of itself. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the above in mind, I did some significant revision of that paragraph that hopefully explains things better. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Though I acknowledge that such a quick nomination after the last AfD is bad form. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Comment to those voting keep If number twos aren't notable on any normal time of year, how the hell are they notable on Christmas? This question was asked earlier and no one cared to respond. Statυs (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what sort of answer you'd find helpful, so I'll try and answer you in three ways. From a guideline point of view, they're notable because there are multiple independent sources that cover the phenomena, with several sources not just covering the topic, but being entirely about Christmas No 2s.

The AfD you linked to doesn't prove No2s arent notable on there own, all it proves is that an AfD resulted in delete. Even as an irregular AfD participant, I can recall dozens of times when deletionists have falsely claimed a topic is not noteable due to haveing no sources. All thats necessary for a non attack page to be deleted is for few sensible editors to turn up at its AfD. This relates to why we object to the renom after such a short time - many of us like to spend our wiki time improving articles, not defending other people's hard work.

Thirdly, for the moderately Christian and / or traditionally minded folk who form the majority of the population in Great Britain and elsewhere, all kinds of things become more significant at Christmas. Hence they get coverage, and hence they become notable.FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't answer my question at all. Please take a look at WP:LISTCRUFT, and in the case of your third point "The list is of interest to a very limited number of people". Statυs (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is the key one, as AfDs are decided by policy based rationale. If you didn't understand my explanation, please read the excellent and very clear rationales from KTC, Dream , StarCheers and others. Its regretable if youre not able to grasp why this is notable, but happily it doesn't matter much for the fate of the article. The purpose of this project to preserve and display useful knowledge, not to destroy it, and hence no consensus defaults to keep. You guys have failed to convince that there's any merit in the case for deletion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it weird how everybody seems to dance around my question. Statυs (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles, list or otherwise, are only of interest to a limited number of people. And kindly read the disclaimer at the top of that. This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the Wikipedia is not a directory policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. Its just an opinion piece. Anyone can write those. Dream Focus 12:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct WP:LISTCRUFT is only an essay, but does reference the following policies and guidelines, some of which should be considered in relation to this discussion :-

Again you are being disengenious - you are fully aware that Status is using the essay as a shortcut to these policies. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? It seems unlikely you can read Dream's mind. Please dont make further comments on AfD participants, and instead explain how this useful and interesting article violates each of those policies and guidelines. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho, none of those policies or guidelines are listed on the essay page he linked to. Also, he specifically quoted a line from it "The list is of interest to a very limited number of people" which I did specifically respond to. Dream Focus 19:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since it is obvious that the requests to close this as invalid will not be actioned I suppose I must respond. In saying "keep" I'm agreeing in particular with KTC's contributions to the discussion, in addition:
- notability is clearly established by the bookmakers' decision to promote betting on the number two position, which is completely different from the diffuse ability for a punter to arrange a bet on more or less anything. In addition to the references already mentioning this, Digital Spy reports: "William Hill is encouraging punters to bet on who will reach this year's Christmas number two spot", quoting a William Hill spokesman: "The annual X Factor single has wiped out a national institution. There's little real competition for the top single on Christmas Day, so we've opened a book to open the race up again." Note "encouraging" and "opened a book".^[12] I will update the article to clarify this.
- notability also results from another consequence of the domination of X-factor: the race for the number two spot has become a significant commercial goal for performers and record companies in its own right, for example the BBC reports an interview with Ronan Keating of Boyzone:
  "We're five guys at the top of this corporate chain."
  Keating is equally blunt when asked if next single, Better, can indeed go one better than debut single Love Me For a Reason, the Christmas number two in 1994.
  "In this day and age, a single, without sounding too corporate, is a tool to sell the album.
  "We're not going for the number one for Christmas," he adds. "You can't compete against X Factor, charity records and so on. ..."^[13]
  
  This reference is a bit problematical as the reporter confuses "in the charts for Christmas and reached number two in early January" with "Christmas number two". In fact "Love Me For a Reason" was number three in the 1994 Christmas charts, but Keating's quote establishes the point about the importance of the number two spot. It was reasonably easy to find this reference so I imagine there are others too. I will look further before adding it to the article, but I think the this will do to establish the case for this discussion.
- the list criterion is clearly selecting a subset of number two hits which are notable, as indicated by the fact that out of 60 entries there are only two redlinks (both of which entries have an inline source) and another two redirects to the artist. It is also reliably selecting the items which are notable for the two reasons just mentioned (plus coresponding items from earlier years).

--Mirokado (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mirokado, many thanks for the above, it is much appreciated by me, if not others. I can't speak for other deletists on the matter, but my problem is "List of No2s" - I am not opposed to an article about the phenomena that is Xmas charts, (much of which you touched on above) including gambling, volume of sales, importance to artists, how the demographics of the buying public changes at Xmas, how it is perceived that the "great song" is No2 whilst the corny Xmas song is the best seller (something the links disproved for me last week!) - there is a real classy article to be written. Unfortunately instead we are offered a List of Xmas No1s and a List of Xmas No2s as separate articles as if there is no connection between the two. For myself - and I really do think I am amongst the majority here - If song X is No2 in 1985 I'd like to know what was number one in the same year. Irrespective of how the final !vote goes, I trust you all understand why I am not in favour of this article. Again, thank you, Mirokado for your time and explanation. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a true merger of the articles may be in order; i.e. a Christmas UK Singles Chart article or something along those lines (although merging the two lists together may be a bad idea) that doesn't give undue weight to the number-ones alone. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMyrleFuller, How about moving your thoughts across for a discussion on the relevant talk pages for a merger when this discussion is closed as keep? Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete a list of number 1's is barely acceptable on Wikipedia in any musical format. A list of runners-up? Pure fancruft. Delete, salt, light on fire. dangerous panda 11:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what WP:POLICY does this violate? And there's no apostrophe in "number 1's". Isn't "EatsShootsAndLeaves" a book about schoolboy grammar mistakes? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 12:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thanks. Till 12:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 12:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for the policy, he told you the policy. Why are you being so deliberately unhelpful? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing as above, and got an edit conflict. Statυs (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to reference the specfic policy instead of blindly pointing to it. If it's so clear, please point out exactly how it fails. How is asking for expansion of your !Vote unhelpful? Surely it will help the closing admin. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But your reason for deletion was "POINTy/disruptive nomination", and then you went on to attack other users? Hmm... Statυs (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it IS a POINTy/disruptive nom. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You need to reference the specfic policy instead of blindly pointing to it." Statυs (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! Wow. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly pass WP:GNG. Also Christmas Top 5 overall are a huge deal in the UK every year. So a list like this one and some additional information would be benefiting the Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It "clearly" doesn't pass GNG, otherwise, it wouldn't be here now. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed. Prove that number twos on the UK Singles Chart on the week of Christmas are notable. Statυs (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have to prove anything. This article passes WP:GNG. Why instead of questioning many of the Keep opinions, you just let this AfD run its course as you can not influence the read trough and final decision of the closing user/admin anyway. You can do that only by your own comments at your own !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide evidence that it supports WP:GNG; it "clearly" doesn't pass, as I'll say again, or it wouldn't be here. In a AFD, if you are voting keep, you have to disprove what the nominator is stating. You, or anybody else in this AFD, for that matter, have failed to provide any evidence to support that number twos on the week of Christmas are notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please, show me where I "keep question keep opinions". I believe you're the only person I actually even responded to. Statυs (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the whole disagreement seems to be soley based on each of our own interpretation of WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." To me, the sources present seem to indicate it has met these requirements. Is it that these sources aren't reliable, that the coverage is not significant, or that they are not independent of the subject? I'll gladly change my !vote to delete if I can be convinced of that, because I do agree that there are way too many lists like this that are even more meaningless (anyone see List of Social 50 number-one acts of 2012? Holy Cow!). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than one of us have provided links to what we considered sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. If you disagree with that assessment, please provide your argument on why instead of saying we haven't presented any evidence. Re. the AFD existing, it exist because someone has nominated it. The existence of a deletion discussion does not provide evidence one way or the other as to the merit of the nomination rationale. -- KTC (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting WP:GNG doesn't automatically make a topic suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. WP:NOT applies here, which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The fact of the matter is that number twos are trivial. I bet there's an article out there on the internet about berries with health benefits. Does that mean we create a List of berries with health benefits article? The answer is no. Till 04:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that Status is telling me to justify my WP:GNG say when he himself does not elaborate anywhere his reasons for actual deletion. Just saying. It meets WP:GNG and if you are looking for weak reasons for deletion..then look under this statement and you find two.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go Status, you definitly have responded to other users at this AfD who are of a Keep opinion.. And here you are questioning every single Keep sayer at this AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was non-notable listcruft the first time around, and it still is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need real reasons which are based in guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT—"merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Till 14:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a reason for deletion at this particular AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a reason—I gave you a reason—why are you rejecting it? Till 15:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this AfD.—indopug (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's now how this works. You need to state why you believe this article should be deleted. You can't just say, hey, something similar got deleted, so this should be deleted also. That article didn't have reliable sources proving it was notable, so totally unrelated to the situation here. Dream Focus 11:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but surely this AfD to merge is more than enough precedent for this article? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion which has nothing to do with the actual AfD process. Should be continued at talk pages if necessary.
(In best pantomime voice), "OH yes it is" because it is THIS article. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] That comment doesnt really help your cause, more so the opposit. I am aware of that, still it is not a precedent for the result of this AfD. And so invalid reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Please explain how an AfD on this article does not affect this article? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Because this is a new AfD process on the same subject but in my opinion improved article since 2010. If we followed your opinion if a article is Merged once then it can never be returned and kept. Also when looking trough that AfD discussion I have to say that I am confused how it could be a merge decision by the closing user. Anyhow,you can not use a two year old AfD result as a reason for deletion now, that is just odd just as odd as using another articles AfD result as reasoning for deletion as user Indopug is doing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Then I need explanations from you concerning your claim that an old AfD result can be used as a reason for deletion/merge now? --BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Touché! Because there was a consensus that it should be merged and one editor has unilaterally decided that consensus did not concern them, should have no affect on them and could ignore consensus entirely. I wouldn't want that kind of attitude rewarded - even if it supported my opinion! That editor should have raised a deletion review. After all the shouting about guidelines (from both sides of this debate) I can't see how we can ignore total disregard of all guidelines, decisions etc however historical!--Richhoncho (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] An old AfD can not be used as a precedent for the result of this AfD. You should know better. End of discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Guideline or opinion? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I am following the guidelines. And you are following old insignificant AfD results in this particular case.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Then please point me to those specific guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I dont feel any need to repeat myself as I have pointed out that in previous posts. You on the other hand is refering to an old AfD result which obviouslt can not count as a precedent for how this AfD should end. You are the one who has to explain yourself and this time without accusations and ridicule as response.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is all getting a little too long but is someone suggesting the result of a previous, very poorly attended and prematurely closed AFD should have some bearing on this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] You can join the discussion if you feel like it here user Rambling man.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] That discussion, if relevant, should take place here. And FWIW, in my opinion, an undersubscribed and rapidly closed/implemented merge with little consensus two years ago has no relevance to this much more expansive debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Good that you see reason Rambling Man. I agree a two year old AfD debate however closed is not relevant to this discussion. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] That discussion established that there is no guideline that says a previous AfD should be ignored. That leaves, "Is an old AfD relevant" - certainly to an extent, how relevant here is another issue. I am am happy that it is now noted there has been an AfD on this very article and the decision was merge. I am also happy to confirm that two other editors think it is not so relevant because it was poorly attended (i.e. went against their opinion) and closed early and was 2 years ago (actually nearer 18 months). --Richhoncho (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] The point is that the AfD you are refering to was closed to rapidly and anyone can see that it was closed without a clear consensus for merge. Also a factor in that being a non-reason for deletion is that the AfD was done and closed 2 years ago which can also not be used as a precedent for merge/delete now. Again, an old rapidly closed AfD with no clear consensus for keep can not be used as a precedent in this current AfD. And the fact that you can not let this particular discussion at this AfD go is starting to make this into a meta-debate. A meta-debate which have proved that you were wrong about your assumptions concerning using old AfDs as a reason to merge/delete this time in affect. And I leave it at that and refer anyone who wants to know what the previous closing user had to say here.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] You turned this part of the discussion into "there are guidelines not to use old AfDs." This is patently untrue. You knew it was untrue when you said it and so does everybody else now. If you read my comment I had already pointed out the reasons you and another editor didn't place much store on the AfD. Other editors will be able to make up their minds without thinking "there are guidelines that mean I have to ignore the old AfD --Richhoncho (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I didn't see where in that AFD we established that previous AFDs set a guideline for how future AFDs be conducted. Can you direct me to that explicitly please? Old AFDs are interesting background, but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hi Rambling Man, I am not sure I understand your question. Any previous discussion of any hue and at any place (whether you or I or anybody else agree with it) relating to this article for the very same reasons this AfD is marked "2nd nomination" is relevant. An Old AfD on this article is worth noting and is not subject to BabbaQ's "there are guidelines..." I think I have acknowledged that the amount of relevance is disputed. If I misrepresented you in this I do apologise. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] No, I disagree. Previous discussions, while interesting, are not really relevant. New contributors, new ideas, new guidelines, new references may be available since then, especially the previous AFD was two years ago. If you still think the comments etc from previous AFD relevant, have you checked each of them against previous and current guidelines, references etc? All I'm saying is that this AFD should now encapsulate the discussion entirely, taking into account the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hi Rambling Man, I agree with you to the extent that the closing admin will not take into consideration any previous discussion, and I wouldn't want them to either. Relevance for the contributing editors will vary the whole spectrum, If somebody doesn't think it relevant that's their choice, no AfD is written in stone. However, my complaint was about people who suggest, quite incorrectly, that there are guidelines to ignore previous AfDs and then go on to misquote me and call me a liar. As we no longer appear to be discussing the AfD more than happy to continue the conversation elsewhere (when this AfD is closed?). Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Again you were the one claiming that guidelines were available to justify old AfDs to be used at new AfDs as a reason for closure as Merge/delte. The only one misquoting someone else here is you. And now that I have proved that you were in wrong you dont even have the decency to respond back to me and atleast give an apology instead you direct comments to Rambling Man and continue to give baseless accusations towards me. But that is OK as we both know you where wrong here. So yes this is definitly closure for me too! Sincerely.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] BabbaQ, I thought you weren't responding to me! Your posts are a matter of record on this page. If you think I have lacked wikiquette, please report me. No further conversations between us are required or wanted.--Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] That is fine by me. But I am still just confused on this guideline accusation which is totally baseless as it was you that talked about guidelines. And I guess you stopped responding to me when I proved that in fact you were the one bringing the guideline business up in the discussion. Anyway, this discussion is over and as you say further conversation between us are not required or from my side wanted. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Richhoncho, you are the one talking about guidelines. Not me I am talking only of a personal opinion and have never claimed anything about guidelines. It is time for you to either bring the guidelines concerning the use of old AfD results in new AfDs to the table or stop these accusations against me concerning me bringing up any guidelines in our discussions. I hope that you do have guidelines to support your claims. Just for the record.... as you are once again accusing me of things without any basis, which is quite sad.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Richhoncho, you seem to be telling a few lies here. The one who started the guideline talk was you. And you claimed that you had basis for this "old AfD result trumps new AfD result" claim trough guidelines by this comment Because there was a consensus that it should be merged and I can't see how we can ignore total disregard of all guidelines, decisions etc however historical. I have to ask then, which guidelines did we disregard concerning old AfDs? Then you had to ask the closing user if there were infact any guidelines to support any side of the argument, but if you knew there wasnt any guideline how can you then claim there is a guideline for using old AfD results as basis for deletion of a newer AfD of the same subject? Troughout our discussion I have only told "my personal opinion" and when I wrote I am following the guidelines I was refering to my !vote on the basis of WP:GNG, while you kept throwing accusations and random "why is it not notable, because I say so" arguments around. So you see, you were the one turning the discussion into "there are guidelines to use old AfDs in new AfDs as basis for closure as delete/merge." not me. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] And I will not respond any further as we both know that I am right here. Just move on and let this one go. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion which has nothing to do with the actual AfD process. Should be continued at talk pages if necessary.

(In best pantomime voice), "OH yes it is" because it is THIS article. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comment doesnt really help your cause, more so the opposit. I am aware of that, still it is not a precedent for the result of this AfD. And so invalid reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how an AfD on this article does not affect this article? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a new AfD process on the same subject but in my opinion improved article since 2010. If we followed your opinion if a article is Merged once then it can never be returned and kept. Also when looking trough that AfD discussion I have to say that I am confused how it could be a merge decision by the closing user. Anyhow,you can not use a two year old AfD result as a reason for deletion now, that is just odd just as odd as using another articles AfD result as reasoning for deletion as user Indopug is doing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I need explanations from you concerning your claim that an old AfD result can be used as a reason for deletion/merge now? --BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touché! Because there was a consensus that it should be merged and one editor has unilaterally decided that consensus did not concern them, should have no affect on them and could ignore consensus entirely. I wouldn't want that kind of attitude rewarded - even if it supported my opinion! That editor should have raised a deletion review. After all the shouting about guidelines (from both sides of this debate) I can't see how we can ignore total disregard of all guidelines, decisions etc however historical!--Richhoncho (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An old AfD can not be used as a precedent for the result of this AfD. You should know better. End of discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline or opinion? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the guidelines. And you are following old insignificant AfD results in this particular case.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please point me to those specific guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont feel any need to repeat myself as I have pointed out that in previous posts. You on the other hand is refering to an old AfD result which obviouslt can not count as a precedent for how this AfD should end. You are the one who has to explain yourself and this time without accusations and ridicule as response.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is all getting a little too long but is someone suggesting the result of a previous, very poorly attended and prematurely closed AFD should have some bearing on this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can join the discussion if you feel like it here user Rambling man.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion, if relevant, should take place here. And FWIW, in my opinion, an undersubscribed and rapidly closed/implemented merge with little consensus two years ago has no relevance to this much more expansive debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you see reason Rambling Man. I agree a two year old AfD debate however closed is not relevant to this discussion. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion established that there is no guideline that says a previous AfD should be ignored. That leaves, "Is an old AfD relevant" - certainly to an extent, how relevant here is another issue. I am am happy that it is now noted there has been an AfD on this very article and the decision was merge. I am also happy to confirm that two other editors think it is not so relevant because it was poorly attended (i.e. went against their opinion) and closed early and was 2 years ago (actually nearer 18 months). --Richhoncho (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the AfD you are refering to was closed to rapidly and anyone can see that it was closed without a clear consensus for merge. Also a factor in that being a non-reason for deletion is that the AfD was done and closed 2 years ago which can also not be used as a precedent for merge/delete now. Again, an old rapidly closed AfD with no clear consensus for keep can not be used as a precedent in this current AfD. And the fact that you can not let this particular discussion at this AfD go is starting to make this into a meta-debate. A meta-debate which have proved that you were wrong about your assumptions concerning using old AfDs as a reason to merge/delete this time in affect. And I leave it at that and refer anyone who wants to know what the previous closing user had to say here.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You turned this part of the discussion into "there are guidelines not to use old AfDs." This is patently untrue. You knew it was untrue when you said it and so does everybody else now. If you read my comment I had already pointed out the reasons you and another editor didn't place much store on the AfD. Other editors will be able to make up their minds without thinking "there are guidelines that mean I have to ignore the old AfD --Richhoncho (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see where in that AFD we established that previous AFDs set a guideline for how future AFDs be conducted. Can you direct me to that explicitly please? Old AFDs are interesting background, but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rambling Man, I am not sure I understand your question. Any previous discussion of any hue and at any place (whether you or I or anybody else agree with it) relating to this article for the very same reasons this AfD is marked "2nd nomination" is relevant. An Old AfD on this article is worth noting and is not subject to BabbaQ's "there are guidelines..." I think I have acknowledged that the amount of relevance is disputed. If I misrepresented you in this I do apologise. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. Previous discussions, while interesting, are not really relevant. New contributors, new ideas, new guidelines, new references may be available since then, especially the previous AFD was two years ago. If you still think the comments etc from previous AFD relevant, have you checked each of them against previous and current guidelines, references etc? All I'm saying is that this AFD should now encapsulate the discussion entirely, taking into account the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rambling Man, I agree with you to the extent that the closing admin will not take into consideration any previous discussion, and I wouldn't want them to either. Relevance for the contributing editors will vary the whole spectrum, If somebody doesn't think it relevant that's their choice, no AfD is written in stone. However, my complaint was about people who suggest, quite incorrectly, that there are guidelines to ignore previous AfDs and then go on to misquote me and call me a liar. As we no longer appear to be discussing the AfD more than happy to continue the conversation elsewhere (when this AfD is closed?). Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again you were the one claiming that guidelines were available to justify old AfDs to be used at new AfDs as a reason for closure as Merge/delte. The only one misquoting someone else here is you. And now that I have proved that you were in wrong you dont even have the decency to respond back to me and atleast give an apology instead you direct comments to Rambling Man and continue to give baseless accusations towards me. But that is OK as we both know you where wrong here. So yes this is definitly closure for me too! Sincerely.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, I thought you weren't responding to me! Your posts are a matter of record on this page. If you think I have lacked wikiquette, please report me. No further conversations between us are required or wanted.--Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine by me. But I am still just confused on this guideline accusation which is totally baseless as it was you that talked about guidelines. And I guess you stopped responding to me when I proved that in fact you were the one bringing the guideline business up in the discussion. Anyway, this discussion is over and as you say further conversation between us are not required or from my side wanted. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho, you are the one talking about guidelines. Not me I am talking only of a personal opinion and have never claimed anything about guidelines. It is time for you to either bring the guidelines concerning the use of old AfD results in new AfDs to the table or stop these accusations against me concerning me bringing up any guidelines in our discussions. I hope that you do have guidelines to support your claims. Just for the record.... as you are once again accusing me of things without any basis, which is quite sad.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho, you seem to be telling a few lies here. The one who started the guideline talk was you. And you claimed that you had basis for this "old AfD result trumps new AfD result" claim trough guidelines by this comment Because there was a consensus that it should be merged and I can't see how we can ignore total disregard of all guidelines, decisions etc however historical. I have to ask then, which guidelines did we disregard concerning old AfDs? Then you had to ask the closing user if there were infact any guidelines to support any side of the argument, but if you knew there wasnt any guideline how can you then claim there is a guideline for using old AfD results as basis for deletion of a newer AfD of the same subject? Troughout our discussion I have only told "my personal opinion" and when I wrote I am following the guidelines I was refering to my !vote on the basis of WP:GNG, while you kept throwing accusations and random "why is it not notable, because I say so" arguments around. So you see, you were the one turning the discussion into "there are guidelines to use old AfDs in new AfDs as basis for closure as delete/merge." not me. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I will not respond any further as we both know that I am right here. Just move on and let this one go. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been canvassed to come here, unfortunately, so my opinion can be rendered moot by the closing admin if they wish. I'm going to say keep if only to keep this content well away from List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones and to avoid another merge to make a useful article (and a featured list, no less) completely pointless. If this could be deleted I'd say that, but I think there's enough coverage of number twos to keep this alive for the time being. — foxj 15:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Been through this before. It is not canvassing. I contacted everyone who wasn't here already regardless of how they voted last time. Dream Focus 15:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I think we should try hard here to make it either delete or not delete. Remerging this material into the Number Ones list is not clever at all, and would result in a lot of inconsequential data being added. This "number two" phenomenon is relatively new while the Xmas No. 1 has been going for decades. It's a blip on the edge of the significance of the number one. If anything, I'd prefer to !vote to keep this cruft than this discussion result in the corruption of a half-decent list of actually notable Xmas No. 1s. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how WP:NOT applies here. This goes beyond "merely being true, or even verifiable" because the topic has received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. A list of number 3s, number 12s and, heck, even most of the number 1 lists that already exist on Wikipedia would be/are based on true and verifiable information but receive no coverage in other sources and I would !vote delete every single time in AfD. I don't see that being the case here. This is a very entertaining discussion by the way, albeit understandably frustrating for some. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a tsunami in Narnia last week (Ho!). The headlines in the papers were, "1000s killed in tsunami" and "Million dwellings lost in tsunami" and if you look in the Narnia WP there are two list articles, one about houses destroyed and another about the deaths, however there is no article about the tsunami, with a only passing reference to tsunamis generally in the oceans article. There wasn't even a mention that many were killed in the destroyed houses. My argument has always been that the tsunami is the notable part, irrespective of what the headlines said. There is no article on Christmas Charts, just this and another list which contain much of the informaton and references that should go in that article.

I would also opine, that unless this is addressed then this article will be nominated again and again as being NN until it finally deleted - and, for myself, I certainly don't want to see another AfD, whatever the final outcome! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - such lists could go on forever. List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number threes or List of (name country) Singles Chart Christmas number (name number). Is there no sense of what belongs in an encyclopedia? Anything goes? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because we have other lists on Wikipedia with songs doesnt mean this one should be deleted. And possible created lists in the future are not a reason either for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such lists could not go on forever unless there was significant coverge in reliable sources for each of those other positions. There isn't. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, but you see, they don't exist, so how does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS apply, again? Statυs (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example shows it includes other stuff doesn't exist arguments as well in that. Dream Focus 00:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/217620/si-les-va-bien-a-los-accionistas-invertiran-mas/ (interview)
^ http://www.elpais.com.uy/110123/pecono-542623/economia/-Llegaremos-a-las-100-mil-hectareas-con-inversion-de-US-400-millones-/
^ http://noticiasfdiuruguay.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/empresa-de-alimentos-emitira-hasta-us.html
^ http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/officerProfile symbol=UAGR.N&officerId=1612612
^ http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Directors-and-dealings?s=UAGR:NYQ
^ http://www.infoagro.com.uy/agricultura/253-un-buen-lugar.html
^ http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/nz-farming-gets-offer-from-uruguay-s-union-agriculture-group-outbids-olam
^ http://www.infonegocios.biz/nota.asp?nrc=26118&nprt=1
^ http://www.pablomontaldo.com/2011_07_01_archive.html
^ http://www.elpais.com.uy/110706/pecono-577953/economia/Grupo-agricola-local-va-a-Wall-Street/
^ http://www.santiagopaulos.com/noticias/catalogo-fundacionunion.html
^ Kilkelly, Daniel (October 6, 2007). "Bookies encourage Xmas number two betting". Digital Spy. Hearst Magazines UK. Retrieved August 17, 2012.
^ Allen, Liam (October 7, 2008). "Boyzone talk about comeback tour". BBC. Retrieved August 16, 2012.

The result was no consensus. Since there was so little participation, I don't think it's possible to close this with a definite consensus to do anything here. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Tibbenham[edit]

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

Non-notable and the links never support the article's content. The only nearly relevant and notable link I found is this NY Times article which requires payment. The other links I found were either promotional or never supported the present content. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to edit the above, as the article seems to have been removed. My sources are all contained with my 'Friends of Oakhurst page for checking, and include photographs from the War Museum (propeller made at the Frederick Tibbenham factory in Ipswich) plus FT auction items found via keyword search. Earlier career as picture framer found on Census site. Perhaps you could show me, or advise me on how this article needs to be managed, rather than deleting it, as I am trying to save his house from demolition by developers, and having a Tibbenham entry on Wiki is very important to this end, and because of his propellers which are in a number of private and public collections, and because of his house at the Ideal Home Exhibition (Tudor Cottage) which was found by the Daily Mail, I think my sources are in line with Wiki expectations! Look forward to hearing from you, Pandora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandoramelly (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think we may be able to demonstrate notability here, and I'll give it a go. - Ka renjc 16:20, 1 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 7 August 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, Gongshow ^Talk 02:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Capital punishment in Ohio#List of individuals executed since 1976. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Ferguson[edit]

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

fails WP:PERP. we don't create articles for everyone executed on death row. no long standing signficant coverage as per WP:PERSISTENCE LibStar (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No we do not create articles on everyone that are executed on death row.. only those who has recieved national and/or international attention or special cases. That is why Wikipedia only have a very small amount of articles concerning death row inmates when considering how many are on death row in the US. This article needs better sourcing which is available and not deletion. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERSISTENCE can not be used here as a reason for deletion. Ofcourse persistence in media coverage "dies" out when the inmate is executed as their will be no more additional charges or trials etc conerning the inmate. It can not be denied that this inmate was publicized quite alot to his final day. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @BabbaQ, can you provide some of the sourcing you've found? I wasn't able to find much, although I am still looking.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nominator, especially WP:PERSISTENCE. There was a burst of coverage of Ferguson's execution, seemingly mostly because of the satan-worship angle. I've added some of this to the article in case it survives this AFD. However, I can find nothing before or since except for one single, short article noting his arrest, then nothing again until his execution. I don't see anything that suggests Ferguson is notable. If someone can come up with sources showing some kind of persistent coverage, I'd happily change my mind. Contra BabbaQ, I think that WP:PERSISTENCE actually does suggest deletion in this kind of case. Many executed prisoners are discussed widely after they're executed (e.g. Caryl Chessman). This one, apparently not at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect— A redirect to the section suggested by two editors below is fine with me too. I apologize if this isn't the standard way to add to rather than change my position.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capital punishment in Ohio#List of individuals executed since 1976. WP:PERSISTENCE may or may not apply, but WP:1E certainly does, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:53, 13 August 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, Gongshow ^Talk 02:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Capital punishment in Ohio#List of individuals executed since 1976. The crime spree fails WP:EVENT and its various subsections (including WP:PERSISTENCE) and the criminal fails both counts of WP:PERP. The arrests, trials, convictions, and sentencings of many people are reported in newspapers worldwide and the consensus of Wikipedians, through the development of WP:CRIME, is that they are not all deserving of articles. For that reason, WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS trump WP:GNG. Location (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pampling[edit]

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

Promotional piece on a fashion designer that does not show how she is notable. Was created with many references but they were for the most part deceptive. Most did not verify claims made or are not independent reliable sources or were just links to organisations homepages. Some were dead but a look at the links and the websites they point to suggests more of the same problems. Given the deceptive and promotional nature of this article and the lack of independent coverage about Pampling this article should be deleted. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, together with the rest of the spam cluster. complainer (talk) 00:28, 5 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 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, Gongshow ^Talk 02:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spammy promotional stuff. I wasn't able to turn up any significant third-party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Harris (designer)[edit]

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

Promotional piece on a jewlery designer that does not show how he is notable. Was created with many references but thay are for the most part deceptive. Most do not verify claims made. Most are not independent reliable sources. Many are dead but a look at the links and the websites they point to suggests more of the same problems. All that can be seen from the few remotely acceptable sources Harris is a jewellery designer who has made personal appearences at a shop. No in depth coverage. Some of the fraudulent sourcing issues include using a listing of one address to claim products in many stores. Using a listing to claim green green credentials. Using an appearence listing to claim philanthropy. Given the deceptive and promotional nature of this article and the lack of independent coverage about Harris this article should be deleted. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no meat to the sources, this is just promo. complainer (talk) 13:05, 6 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 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, Gongshow ^Talk 02:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that the referencing is an attempt at carpet-bombing the article with sources in the hopes that it would appear to be well-referenced. As noted by the nominator, much of it appears to be just randomly sprinkling sources in the hopes that nobody would check and do not actually verify the statements which they purport to support. There is no significant coverage about him that I can find. His name is rather common and jewelry is also common enough that filtering is tough. I may have missed sources so I am prepared (as always) to consider any new sourcing I may have missed in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic Whispers[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable college a capella group, which are dime a dozen. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any of the myriad WP:MUSIC qualifications. Only sources are WP:SELFPUB or tangential mentions, not sufficient for notability standards GrapedApe (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben Folds Presents: University A Cappella!. I searched pretty hard for sources to show that this band is notable, but unfortunately all I could find were brief mentions in relation to the Ben Folds CD as well as sources that would probably be considered primary due to their relation to the college. As far as the other sources go, one is just an image of them performing, one is a link to a site to purchase the CDs (which would give it a COI), an IMDb page and a link to a site where groups can add and edit their own entries. The links on facebook to a performance/interview by a local FOX news station is good, but there would be issues of copyright since it's uploaded by the group itself and not by Fox. Even if we were to ignore this, there's not enough to show notability for the group. The sources for the Ben Folds album are more passing mentions (where they are given 1-2 sentences in relation to the other groups named), showing more notability for the CD than for the band. I'm not even sure that all of the sources are really that reliable, although I have posted them. Now the thing here is that while the Ben Folds album might be notable (and Folds himself certainly is) or maybe even some of the members might have some notability, that notability is not transferred to the group or inherited in any form or fashion. Their awards are not notable at the level they progressed to (they got to regional but did not win the overall competition), so the article cannot be kept on the basis that they've won awards. I'm suggesting a redirect since this is what they're predominantly notable for as far as the bigger scope goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article should be kept as the Mosaic Whispers are an important part of the St. Louis cultural community, the extended Washington University community, and the national a cappella community. They have performed a number of times on television and radio programs, have toured the country while representing Washington University for the last 21 years; have had their recordings on a number of national compilation albums (not just Ben Folds, but also Voices Only, CAMO, Top Shelf A Cappella, BOCA, and CARA Awards albums), and have garnered praise from national a cappella blogs/podcasts just to name a few reasons. Looking through the history of the page, you seem to have removed references to some of this relevant information, as you deemed it "promotional". No doubt there could be better references to show the notability of their 21-year history, but I think that's a matter of cleaning up the article, rather than a reason for deletion.Puponpup (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at WP:N. You are free to add third party sources to establish notability. Simply saying that they are out there somewhere isn't enough of a reason to keep the article.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted" - I will take the time to ferret out better sources when I can (note that a link to video coverage of a live television broadcast, and notable news sources were already given), but I don't understand the desire to delete an article when there is clear notability indicated (even if not sourced as well as it could be). I am assuming good faith, so I am confused; why do you want to delete the article given there is no mandate in Wikipedia's rules to remove it? I have read What Wikipedia is not, I understand that it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. But as a member of the St. Louis community and the extended Washington University community, I can earnestly say that information on the Mosaic Whispers is relevant and interesting to a broad audience. Do you know the group or either of these communities well enough to debate this? If so, I would be interested to have that discussion. If not, why the push for deletion? A number of television stations, radio programs, podcasts, blogs, compilation and awards albums, and newspapers agree with me, and they were mentioned in the article (some were deleted by an editor who deemed their mention too "promotional"). If an article refers to a topic with a 20+ year history and has intimately touched the lives of hundreds of people and, via various media, been introduced to millions, is that not enough to give its article the benefit of the doubt? Unless you have information to the contrary, why not assume good faith with me? I have no agenda besides sharing information that I think would be relevant to a broad audience. I am "here to build an encyclopedia" just like everyone else. There are other tags that exist and that are in place on the article stating that the article "needs citations for verification" and that the article's "references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources" - why are those two labels not enough? Puponpup (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GNG aside, this group still doesn't satisfy any of the WP:MUSIC notability standards for music groups.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do satisfy both 10 and 12 of the criteria for musicians and ensembles: They have performed music for 93.7 The Bull, both in video for the blog and audio over the radio (multiple times) (10); they have performed on a notable compilation album (10); they performed songs to a national audience on Hardball with Chris Matthews prior to the 2004 presidential and 2008 vice presidential debates that were held on Washington University's campus (12). Puponpup (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's national, regular rotation by radio and music stations. Performing on a local station does not count, no matter how often they performed. As far as the performance goes, you'd have to show that they were actually the focus of the spots and not just a random act among other acts that showed before the debates. Do you have a clip of the performance?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the other thing to take into consideration is that it sounds like it was less that Matthews went out of his way to spotlight the group and select them himself and more that the group was just one of several local groups that were selected to perform at the debates' pre-show. The thing about this is that this means that the group would be covered more as a default than on purpose, as the show would have covered whomever was performing at the location, whether it was the Mosaic Whispers or another singing group/band/performer. Without seeing the spot it sounds more like the group performance was filmed as part of a larger broadcast spot that was actually covering the debate and show as a whole, not specifically the group. That's why it's necessary to actually see coverage of the group on this show.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "national" an arbitrary distinction? If an artist or group is an important part of a city's cultural community, whether St. Louis, Missouri or Cordoba, Spain, or anywhere else, why must they be a mainstay of national radio or TV to be considered notable? (Unfortunately, I don't have a link to the pre-debate clips to see whether they were the focus of the segment or not.) Surely a national rotation makes them more notable, but we're looking for a threshold here. Not to mention, the Mosaic Whispers have had national recognition via appearances on multiple nationally distributed compilation albums as well as via their national tours. These compilation albums are one reason I'd be uncomfortable merging this article into the Ben Folds' album article, as it would imply the Mosaic Whispers' only nationally distributed compilation was that one. More critically, it's not clear to me why information important to St. Louis residents, as documented by St. Louis media and news sources, is not enough to consider a group notable. Puponpup (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DooPHP[edit]

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

I don't think this software is notable. –ebraminio^talk 07:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this software seems to enjoy the extensive coverage in PHP-focused blogs; this means that it enjoys the high level of awareness and still wasn't considered worth mention by reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:24, 30 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another PHP framework. I cannot find the significant sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Roth (actor)[edit]

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

Article on an actor who lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. Has lots of parts but they are mostly small productions or minor parts. (Currently has two bluelinked films but only one is notable.) Roth lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per other similar decisions related to this cluster. Any reason are we sparing Werner-Gray? complainer (talk) 07:32, 1 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have sought out a number of Roth films listed on IMDB and here on Wiki and have not be able to substantiate any of them as "Notable" productions. As mentioned by duffbeerforme, only one film that is bluelinked has not been flagged for deletion, though I am not quite sure why. This particular film The Man in the Maze, also includes Werner-Gray, another candidate for deletion from wikipedia. This actress also co-stars with Roth in an upcoming film as seen on IMDB. It would seem these pages were created to fulfill some future or existing interest with these actors both of which lack any notability. In addition to these observations, I was only able to find one film of his that is readily available to the public "Devils Racecourse" however this film does not have a wiki page. Further looking over Roth's sources, Source [1] actually links to the composer Andrew Roth not even the actor. Though even this page does not make any mention of the Composer's early life as the citation claims to reference to, let alone Andrew Roth (actor). The rest of these citations are a combination of dead links, questionable sources or spam. Per review of this individuals career and works I would say they are not notable enough to warrant a page. I base this on the following criteria, personal recognition from the industry in form of press releases, and news stories. The availability of the movies he has worked on to the general public, and the notability of those projects here on wikipedia. If someone was to dispute this, and the page remains I would say it needs a lot of cleaning up and some credible references to persist. Luky.MD 02:27, August 7th (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I can find no signfificant coverage about him. What we have here is not an encyclopedia article, it's a resume listing his acting credits. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has been systematically targeting and getting every article deleted that has anything to do with either Andrew Roth or Cody Knotts . . . Pages that have been up for years and only in the past 6 months to a year have all been marked for deletion or deleted. And all of them have been initiated by Mr duffbeer4me. If he is not notable then explain this http://mediagrinder.net/blog/2012/11/andrew-roth-named-to-mediagrinder-inc-board-of-directors/ Tearstar (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A link to a blog that has no credibility and no longer exists, I do not think that alone would qualify him as notable...Both actors wikipedia's contained no biographical information and as stated before read like a resume. Luky.MD (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation, the nominator is free to speedy relist. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lechitel[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper. It's possible that there are sources in Bulgarian, but I can't find them. There seems to be only this mention in English: here which doesn't convince me of the notability of the subject. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears to be newsletter of a alternative medicine company, rather than a full-fledged newspaper. Plenty of google hits in Bulgarian, but most point to the site of the company. --Soman (talk) 17:05, 30 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Profane[edit]

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

Non-notable musician/person. I looked and looked, but all I find is a blog, Youtube and Facebook references. If view counts on Youtube make someone notable, then he is notable. :- ) Don 05:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Delete - I passed this through AfC last night, but looking back I can't think why I did. I certainly would have expected to have tagged it at least as ((blp refimprove)) and ((wikify)). Anyway, no notability supported by reliable sources. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just edited the article, added a few reliable sources. What sources do you need on verify citation [12]? -> All the releases are from "No Parade" , you can also find these releases on Amazon, Spotify, Beatport with the name of the label/company! Co-writes and productions, credits & releases -> What do you need here, these are a bunch of people within the music business he worked with/for. Should the form be edited?! --M-Preacher (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe all this stuff has be released, that is easy the easy part to prove. The hard part to prove is: Does someone who is reliable and respected care enough to write something about nim? -- :- ) Don 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I checked the added references and they seem to check out, however the problem now is that I believe he was the writer and/or producer. Hitting a national charts does not seem to apply according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for composers and lyricists. If I am reading things correctly. -- :- ) Don 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No opinion about notability, but the green links need to be removed from the lead if this is kept. Hell, I'll just save my breath and do it now. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He did hit several national charts: Holland + Belgium + Germany + iTunes Charts | another example: Jesus On Extasy - Stay with me | written with Michelle Leonard was #1 German Charts also licensed under the major label Sony BMG Music Entertainment Confirmation Chart Entry This does satisfy more criterions/notabilities of [for musicians and ensembles]--M-Preacher (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you check the log, I took out over 1kB of links going everywhere in the world. -- :- ) Don 23:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -So what is the current status? Did someone check the page/article now, there is enough said to satisfy the criterions/notablilities..

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. -> Added
This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. -> more other independent sources added (see above)
This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. -> added and listed more reliable sources

--M-Preacher (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per cite 1 & 2 put together, as a song writer per WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Notable composition according to WP:NSONG: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, or ...." The song written made the German charts, so I believe he meets the notability requirement as a composer. I don't see any thing else significant. As of this time, I do not believe notability for YouTube work has ben established. Take your trout home and fry him up for dinner, Ritchie333 -- :- ) Don 19:40, 5 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T PANIC (app)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/DON'T PANIC (app)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the creator added some sources to respond to my prod, I feel this fails on the notability for a product (software). The sources don't seem to be reliable; being listed on several websites offering software products is a far cry from being covered in any reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a software products listing directory. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all I can find on topic is blogger noise, and I would say it is rather moderate when compared to the typical noise level for each iOS or Android app out there. Unless being Android or iOS app is notable on its own, nothing merits the existence of this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:38, 30 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceGhostPurrp[edit]

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

It is a recreation of Spaceghostpurrp article that was deleted, only difference is title style/caps. Dan56 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: you might want to salt this if it's deleted, to avoid further recreations of the article under this name.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional. Admins might want to take a look at this user: User:SpaceghostpurrpTokyogirl79 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article requires proper sourcing, this artist has received plenty of coverage in the music press, especially since signing to 4AD records. Here is a biography at Allmusic, there are two album reviews at Pitchfork, another at Spin, more at NME, and a total of 19 reviews listed at Metacritic. He even made a feature on Rolling Stone. Meets WP:MUSIC, quite easily. — sparklism ^hey! 09:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think it's kind of amusing that the major coverage in Spin is in their "worst new music" section. In any case, I guess you can be notably bad. The article should reflect the coverage, however, and shouldn't be overly praising in nature. Gigs (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Metacritic lists 19 album reviews for this artist. Additional coverage exists (e.g., [29][30]). Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 15:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as G7 - non-notable (non-admin technical closure).Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim Shafi Mughal[edit]

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

Non-notable person (no hits for "Hashim Shafi Mughal" on Google Books, News, or News archives), although authoring a book is probably just good enough an assertion of importance to avoid death by A7. CtP (t • c) 01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He asserts having written it, but I can find no evidence of it having been published, at least that it's for sale anywhere like Amazon. Possibly it was published in another language, but there are no reliable sources discussing it either. There are no other assertions of notability present or found on search. Ubelowme _U ^Me 01:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per above. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Australian network television schedule[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2007 Australian network television schedule

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

My major reason for nominating these two articles for deletion is that it seems rather odd/pointless (to me) to have just these two articles out of the 56-year history of Australian television. And the fact that the second of these two articles was created in 2007, but since then (as far as I can tell) nobody has been sufficiently interested to create corresponding articles for 2008 onwards, suggests to me that the remaining articles in the series are unlikely to ever be created. Contrast this with the US and Canadian subcategories of Category:Television schedules, which contain full sets of articles up to the current year. I'm aware that both of these articles have been nominated for deletion before and that those discussions were closed as "no consensus". However, those discussions were 3 years ago, when these articles were a lot closer to being "current", and opinions may have changed since then. DH85868993 (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional rationale (arising from the discussion, reproduced here to avoid new readers having to wade through the whole discussion to find it): Due to regional variations, and program changes throughout the year, the articles are not representative of the entire Australian TV schedule for the year. Also, I do not believe that Australian TV schedules are notable in the way that American ones are.DH85868993 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 01:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 01:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous "AfD" that resulted in keep, also. TBran dl ey 01:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfDs resulted in "no consensus", not "keep". DH85868993 (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a deletion rationale; your problem is not that these don't belong on Wikipedia but that plenty of other such lists also belong on Wikipedia. We don't delete what we've done out of deference to what we haven't. And if the underlying problem is that we don't currently have enough Australian editors interested in covering that country's broadcast media, deleting work in progress just because it's still in progress certainly isn't going to encourage anyone. postdlf (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's my rationale for nominating these articles for deletion, so by definition, it's "a deletion rationale". You may not consider it to be a valid deletion rationale, but that's a separate issue. I also happen to believe that this information is insufficiently important/useful/notable to include on Wikipedia, but I was fairly confident that if I listed that as the deletion rationale, WP:IDONTLIKEIT would be quoted in response. And references to WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE would most likely have been rebutted the same way they were three years ago. Perhaps I should have made more of the fact that both articles are still completely unsourced. DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced ≠ unsourceable. So no, that wouldn't fly either. But you still chose the worst rationale out of your stated options. There's a point at which something is so bad at being something that it fails to even be that thing. postdlf (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. DH85868993 (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced, incomplete and misleading. It appears to be a snapshot of a single week in Oct 2006 from Adelaide, judging by the "The 2006 CrowsClub Championship" Friday night special! Other shows like "What a Year" also only ran for a few weeks. Australia has lots of cities and they don't always show the same thing. And very few shows stay on all year long. The-Pope (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside your cleanup issues, are you saying that Australian network programming is not national, and that it is not as stable as American television network programming? See group AFD for U.S. network TV schedules for comparison. I see that a lot of the Australian programming is not original, for example. So please let's substantively discuss that instead of just throwing out acronyms and unelaborated complaints. postdlf (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some degree of consistent programming across the capital cities (regional areas are a different matter - many regional areas have local stations which combine programs from the different major networks), but I believe these articles are not an accurate representation of it. If we look at 2006 Australian network television schedule, Thursday night, Channel 9, 9:30pm: Magarey Medal presentation - The Magarey Medal is a South Australian football award. To the best of my knowledge, that program was broadcast one time, in one state (South Australia). Taking the article at face value, a reader could be forgiven for thinking that program was broadcast nationally, every Thursday night for the whole year.

Regarding stability, Australian TV schedules change all the time. While there are certainly programs which are broadcast at the same time throughout the whole year (e.g. the news, some soap operas, some game shows, some imported series, etc), many other programs (especially reality TV shows) only run for 2-3 months at a time. Looking at the 2006 article, and based on my memory of the time, I'd be really suprised if more than half the programs listed were shown nationally in those timeslots for more than 4 months of the year. It might be even less than that. (In this regard, the 2007 article is an improvement in that it splits the year into two halves).

But now that you've encouraged me to think about it more deeply, I just don't believe that Australian TV schedules are notable in the way that American ones are. As someone who lives in Australia, I've heard of "NBC's 2012 fall schedule" (I may not know what's in it, but I've heard of it) but I doubt that many people outside Australia have ever heard of "Channel 7's 2012 programming lineup". And even within Australia, I don't think viewers attach a lot of importance to the network lineups; I think they are more interested in the individual shows they like to watch. DH85868993 (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only time people ever talk or write about schedules is in advertising/PR style articles where they promote the upcoming new shows, generally in a related/non-independent publication. Most shows run in 9-13 week slots between the non-ratings periods, with sport changing with the seasons. Few non-news/soap shows would run all year. The 2006 article as it stands is basically a copy (vio?) of a weekly program guide from Adelaide in October 2006. It in no way can be considered representative of the entire 2006 Australian TV schedule. This, coupled with the complete lack of independent references makes this an easy decision to delete, regardless of what other countries may keep. The-Pope (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good comments; you should have led with this. I'll watch what others say in response (and no, a TV schedule could not be a copyvio because it is just factual information—what aired when). postdlf (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a summary of the above to the rationale, for the benefit of new readers. DH85868993 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (3rd nomination). TV schedules are not inherently notable, this one is at best misleading and no one has actually provided evidence of significant coverage (and the article is unreferenced). Jenks24 (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. I suppose it's possible to complete a decent schedule article, but this isn't it, or even the beginning of one. There are significant regional variations, and programmes coming on and off the air all of the time. A snapshot of a single week in a single city isn't really all that useful to anyone. Until someone commits to coming up with a decent product that takes all these things into account, we're better off without these uncited and unreferenced articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obamaism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article with an obvious political slant about an unlikely neologism. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barack Obama. It's not actually a neologism, as the article is incorrect as to its first usage (New York Times March 2008 and The New Yorker April 2009 are just two examples, not to mention the previous AFD)—but there isn't necessarily a need for this article, and even if there was, this one isn't it.
Delete This is the second nomination and there really isn't a a reason for this article. (Natt39 (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. G4 Speedy. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 02:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a neologism, does have a number of hits in notable places, but this article is about something else entirely and is pretty slanted, and any article about Obamaism would need to be written from scratch. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless "Believing in nothing whatsoever outside of getting re-elected again" has been elevated to an -ism without my noticing it... More Campaign 2012 lemmingstupidism. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not awful, as they go, and it has been cited and defined in reliable sources, but unless I see some secondary sources, this article is to soon. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG & WP:NEO. No objection to a redirect to Barack Obama.--JayJasper (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, multiple reliable sources have the word which is the subject of the article, however it appears that not all of the RSs use the word to mean the same thing. Additionally, from just skimming through the RSs I am unsure that the they discuss the subject in a manor which would be considered significant coverage in WP:GNG. Perhaps, if it would be best to userfy to improve it before returning it to the article space. The WP:TOOSOON opinion may not be relevant as some of the usages of the word go back to at least 2010.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Delete The article I'm looking at, contrary to what RightCowLeftCoast says is 4 lines of text with no sources. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Platt[edit]

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

(I tagged this as a speedy, but it was declined with the incredibly vague summary "indicates significance". I fail to see the assertion of notability.) The subject of this article is an attorney in Coupeville, Washington, who has been mentioned in passing in several articles in the local newspapers (the Whidbey News-Times, the Whidbey Examiner and the South Whidbey Record are all owned by the same company, Sound Publishing); none of them mention him other than in passing (as an attorney representing a client in a court case). He garners a pair of mentions in the Seattle Times--one in which he is quoted fairly extensively as the attorney who represented a client who was acquitted (note that there is nothing in that article about him, only his client), and the other article contains only a passing mention of him with a single-sentence quote. The remaining link is a link to Avvo, which is essentially a spam link in the context in which it is used in this article. There is a lot of noise when searching for this individual, but outside of a few (additional) mentions of cases in the local newspapers in which he is defending a client, and sites discussing his failed bid for a county judge position, there is nothing to be found about him. He does not meet the notability guidelines. Horologium (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The decline was correct, IMO. There are claims to significance enough to pass A7. AfD, however is a different matter. CSD is a time saving quick check for the obvious - this is a deeper investigation with a higher lever of notability required. Being a lawyer is not per se notable, not is having an office in Seattle. Having an office in Coupville might be more unusual, given a population of 1723 (in 2000) - but the island has 58,000 people on it. That's more than Saipan has. I agree about the references. If nothing better is available than (for example) an article about an incident involving a death where the only mention of Mr Platt is a quote of a few words, or a professional profile, the article should go. I am not saying that Mr Platt isn't notable - I am saying that the article does not prove any notability by Wikipedia's definitions. Peridon (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the promotional aspect - "Platt is revered as an aggressive and passionate" is a little over the top, and suggests a close connection between the poster and the subject. Peridon (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peridon. GregJackP Boomer! 14:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete NO claims of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - people should be aware that a great amount of material (both promotional and critical) has been cut from this article. LadyofShalott 00:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 00:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note and most of this "(both promotional and critical)" material was not from wp:reliable sources, hence it was cut. — Jasonasosa 01:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; This article does not relate anything notable. It is based on a living person designed originally as a lengthy biography where wp:unsourced material was constantly being gathered. This leads me to conclude that the name of the person who lede's the article enjoys seeing his name as a title on wikipedia, promoting his User talk:Dougweller/Archive 24#David R. Hawkins self-published works. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 01:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You are lead to conclude that this 85 year old author enjoy's seeing his name on Wikipedia? And how did you verify that? For someone so keen on multiple verifications of information, your unverified personal conclusions are interesting. Last month when you attempted to have the article deleted, I took the time to write to the author because that's what researchers do, they confirm information. The author was contacted by Wikipedians back in 2007 to confirm various information regarding this debate. After he assisted those who contacted him, the article was deleted. The author actually has no interest whether he is included on Wiki or not. So your astute skills in deduction are simply, incorrect.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe you can publish something as an wp:independent source to vouch for him then, if only you were wp:reliable that is. — Jasonasosa 18:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You seem to still miss the point of my position, I gave the author enough energy and time. I personally do not agree with his ideas regarding "kinesiolgy" and I think he is more than a tad pompous, but that is just mere opinion; he is a notable writer and lecturer and has made an impact in his areas of teaching and authorship, to what end is not for me to say.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO; Google News Archive does not find any significant coverage by reliable sources (unless you count a Boston Globe article about the subject's marital problems). Fails WP:AUTHOR; his books are self-published and are not reviewed by any Reliable Sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC; nothing found at Google Scholar. Basically fails all possible criteria for inclusion here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the article's log is lurid. Deletions, restorations, OTRS requests, DRVs, claims of BLP violations - going back to 2007! --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail notability criteria I can think of. If, by some chance, the subject ever does meet notability requirements, it can obviously be restored. And, BTW, I don't think the subject's marital problems or spouse would necessarily qualify as notable based on the Boston Globe article either. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-The author does have notability according to wiki policy. The author is a legitimate writer and lecturer with books in 20 languages and a detailed bio on Wikipedia-German Language, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Hawkins . He has been shown to be notable during multiple forums on Wikipedia. The article has been RESTORED on several occasions. This article has been stripped by primarily one user, who has attempted to have the article deleted on multiple occasions. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His books are all self-published, thus not notable. To date, there is not one WP:INDEPENDENT source that can verify his notability nor his credentials, other than a skeptics website: The Skeptics Dictionary: David R. Hawkins. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again your comments are unfactual and misleading. As you yourself have pointed out in previous discussions that Hawkins has been published by Hay House, who has also published Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra, both of these recognized authors have referred to Hawkins as one of their contemporaries. The author is notable. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find where Deepak Chopra refers to David R. Hawkins as a contemporary... I will change my position to keep. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)\[reply]

'Comment: 'Not my job to hunt down that for you. I suggest you do your own research, whether you agree with what he advocates or not. If you want to find that mention from Chopra, I will give you a heads up, it is in a video clip. Not worth tracking it down for Wikipedia only to have it deleted.

Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... then as it stands, the only wp:independent source for David R. Hawkins is the skeptics website that I mentioned above and I can't even say that website is even wp:reliable. (watches this article flush down the toilet). Cheers, — Jasonasosa 18:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then let it flush. I really think that is all you really want is to do everything possible to see that the article be removed, whether he is actually notable or not; this is just some bias you have either against the author or me personally. The man is a serious teacher and lecturer, though undeniably controversial, who is respected and noticed among a segment of the populous and among his peers, and criticized and scoffed at by skeptics. Either way he is notable He personally nor any of his staff attempted to have this article here on English Wiki kept intact, so it is not as you describe "self-promotional". Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be true that this article is not self-promotional, but that was very hard to tell when we had his whole life story and knighthood without any proper references. I have nothing against you... it seems you are taking this way more personal, especially with you blasting me at User talk:Dougweller's page. And you just saying that he is notable isn't going to cut it. The only way you can save this page, even if its a keep (without being gutted), is if you can cough up some wp:reliable material. However, in accordance with WP:TE, I am not "demanding" anything... I am just saying for the sake of the page. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interesting further still, why then do you keep claiming that the article is self-promotion, as one of your bases and reasons for requesting deletion if you also concede that is possibly not a truthful statement? I have no emotion towards your desire to delete the page. I do find it disturbing, when you say to me that 'everything I say is null and void' based on some contention you have with something else I said about this articles removal. I personally think you have too much negative bias regarding the article to be very clear about it. This is obvious by your finding various reasons to remove virtually all information from the piece, who I might add a lot of non-bias persons contributed to in making the article balanced, then not to mention your numerous attempts to have the article deleted, as we can attest because here we are one more time at your behest. Again, I state, I do not care for the author nor the article but it has been repeated clear through the years the man is notable and the article deserves the mention here as such. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:06, August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum Also, calling you out about the way you have mishandled this article as someone who has "vandalized", is not "blasting you". It is obvious from the article's history that you have systematically removed the bulk of the information and requested, once again that it be deleted. You have even been called out by others that this was inappropriate action, in regards to this article, in the way you have gone about it. This goes beyond simple obligation you feel towards Wikipedia, this appears to be more out of some ill-contentedness or malice and that is why I address this as 'vandalism' in quotes. Possibly, you should leave this article alone and let others deal with it. I think you simply may be misinformed and just can't concede that the man has notability, both respect and disdain, in his field. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge I do not recall being called out for my edits to this article by other editors... only that I botched up the speedy deletion tags. If you have proof otherwise, please link me. Also, I can admit when I am wrong, if it is true that the article is not self-promo, a point that was based on my personal deduction of which I clearly stated before. There are other wikieditors who shed light with wp:civility that the inclusion of the Skeptic website in the article may not hold a case for self-promotion. I am also considering your statements, based on wp:goodfaith that perhaps you did have dialogue with Hawkins who may, according to your words, expressed "no interest whether he is included on Wiki or not." Therefore, at present, I deduce that the article being self-promotional is inconclusive. However, I still stand behind delete, due to wp:nn and wp:fringe and as MelanieN (talk · contribs) brought out, it fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and definitely, by far, FAILS WP:ACADEMIC. Thanks — Jasonasosa 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information you requested After tagging the article for deletion, you deleted 1,888 characters; FormerIP specifically names you and states that your action is not appropriate then undoes your action, to which you promptly reverse the reversal and justify yourself leaving the previous article text out. 19:19, 13 August 2012‎ FormerIP (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,667 bytes) (+1,888)‎ . . (Undid revision 507253314 by 'Jasonasosa This isn't appropriate'. Let your speedy request just run its course.). Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To set the record straight, here is the history of what happened:

1 First attempt to delete article (botched up placement of tag):

10:14, 13 July 2012‎ Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,478 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (sorry, had wrong tag... this should be the right one.... speedy deletion: self promotional) (undo)

2 Attempt denied; Tagged wrong.

13:00, 13 July 2012‎ Nyttend (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,376 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Spam does not call its subject pseudoscience) (undo)

3 Second attempt to delete article:

18:36, 13 August 2012‎ Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,878 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (somehow I messed this up the first time... Hopefully this will get to an admin now.

4 Attempt denied.

18:43, 13 August 2012‎ Panyd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,867 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Very much not G11. Looks rather like it's duplicating the applied kinestheology article though) (undo)

5 Consulted Dougweller (talk · contribs)

User talk:Dougweller/Archive 24#Deletion template clarified what I was doing wrong. Speedy deletions closed.

6 Edited article: Removed wp:unsourced material

(cur | prev) 19:10, 13 August 2012‎ Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,779 bytes) (-1,888)‎ . . (removed redundant material out of wp:scope and any wp:unsourced material) (undo)

7 My traditional edits were reverted, because according to FormerIP (talk · contribs), he was waiting on a speedy request that had already been closed by Panyd (talk · contribs)

19:19, 13 August 2012‎ FormerIP (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,667 bytes) (+1,888)‎ . . (Undid revision 507253314 by Jasonasosa This isn't appropriate. Let your speedy request just run its course.) (undo)

8 Reverted for uncalled for revert by FormerIP when Speedy deletions were closed.

19:42, 13 August 2012‎ Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,779 bytes) (-1,888)‎ . . (Undid revision 507254639 by FormerIP (talk) It is appropriate... because the speedy already ran the course when it was reverted.. now I'm improving this article by removing redundant wp:unsourced m) (undo)

9 Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) reopens the case for a consensus to delete

00:28, 14 August 2012‎ Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,172 bytes) (+393)‎ . . (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins. (TW)) (undo)

And that is what happened. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Again, the article was "inappropriately" handled during the deletion process and it has been noted, despite your personal justifications, it has certainly lacked couth in the process, but that is your choice. You are simply motivated to have the article removed because you are of the opinion that he does not meet your personal guidelines. As you aware Jason, many of the policies here on Wiki are rather arbitrary and somewhat convoluted; you can find dozens of reason to have most any article sufficiently edited down or removed, it is just the nature of an over-developed bureaucracy. Repeated consensus has been to continue to have this article reinstated.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that User:Iconoclast.horizon put notes on the talk pages of everyone who commented on this discussion. Just for the record, my opinion has not changed, namely that the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion under any of the three possible categories - WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:ACADEMIC - and Iconoclast's increasingly hysterical postings here are not helping their case. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW commenting on the remark above: I see from the page log that the article has been restored at least three times, but none of those restorations resulted from a discussion or consensus process. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your rather alarmest opinions of communications with others from somewhat of a "tattling tone" are noted, there is no hysteria here regardless of your comments or perspective. It is an open and public forum and anyone may communicate with whom they choose, that is why it is the way it is set up, to engage people regarding topics. Jason and I have been having this spar for sometime now about this article. I will leave it at that. Regardless I will get back some facts, here is the cover of the front of the 1995 Edition Power vs Force you might notice the notation from Wayne Dyer. The author Hawkins is notable, among his peers. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, I believe if you go back further, it is has been deleted more than three times. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If Iconoclast.horizon is trying to indicate that the notability of the subject can be based on a cover blurb of one of his books by another individual, I very sincerely urge him to read the notability guidelines more clearly, because I have never seen any indication that such promotional material qualifies to establish notability. Also, based on the information presented above, I think it may well be reasonable to salt the article, until and unless WP:BURDEN is met to establish notability according to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sadly, a promotional cover blurb in no way even comes close to doing so. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, I am afraid you are mistaken in that regard, I am not basing the notability on a simple blurb. Its just one point among dozens that have been made regarding this individual over time. Simply because you do not know who he is does not mean he does not meet the criteria, even if multiple levels of credibility are in question. He is obviously notable among his peers. Also, when the term "kinesiology" is mentioned he is generally the first person brought up in context with that fringe concept and he is associated with that work. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then produce those sources which meet WP:RS requirements as per WP:BURDEN, as is required. For all the almost obsessive interest you have displayed in this single article, it is remarkable that, despite your repeated claims to notability, few if any that meet WP:RS have been produced. I myself went over the material on the Highbeam Research site before my first comment, and found nothing that would indicate to me that the subject meets notability. I am sorry that one editor seems to believe that simply asserting things without evidence is of any use in these discussions, but it is not. Unfounded allegations of "obviously" are not and never have been sufficient, reliable sources as per WP:RS that clearly establish notability as per the relevant notability guidelines are. To date, so far as I can see, such have not been produced. John Carter 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEE PREVIOUS NOTES: I personally no longer wish to be a contributor to the article as it has been hashed in English Wiki to no end, the process at the moment is moot. The principle issue here is that the man is notable and not self-promoting on Wikipedia (as has been claimed repeatedly here). Personally, I think the man is self-aggrandizing and extremely speculative but he is notable. If you wish to lean more and speak German try German Wiki-entry for more information: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Hawkins Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak German... but I can pretty much see, blaitantly, that there is no reference section. Does the German wiki follow the same protocols as the English? I think we should mark that page for deletion too because there isn't a single reference on that page! — Jasonasosa 23:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think you should consider leaving the German project to the German speakers but that is just how I see it. And John Carter calls me obsessive! I don't have a contention with Dr. Hawkins; he has his place and those people who follow, believe and promote his work. He borders a lot of gray areas with spirituality, quasi-science and self-aggrandizement, etc. but that is only known because, though difficult to confirm, the information is out there in a number of ways, he is still notable. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, as I previously stated, I do not care about the article or the man. As you pointed out on the articles talk page, it sounds to me that you are failing to understand the difference in "promoting him" and defending his somewhat ominous notability. I have made no attempt to promote the man or his ideas, only be balanced in the delivery of who he is and what he does out in the world. He has gained in popularity in recent years and people who run across his work, particularly Power vs. Force, should be made aware that his other concepts are met with a great deal of skepticism. People very often turn to Wikipedia for just this kind of information to understand such people as Dr. Hawkins. Wiki is the proper forum for that. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BananaMan[edit]

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

I don't think this is notable. I would have tagged it for CSD, but I didn't see an applicable category. AutomaticStrikeout 18:31, 7 August 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, Hue Sat Lum 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far removed from WP:GNG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of particular notability of the costume beyond the Bananaman incident. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitesh Kumar Patel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article on an director/writer/producer who falls short of WP:FILMMAKER. Only has one film and none of the awards are major. Patel lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing that actually mention him are press releases or passing mentions. Nothing indepth. (Note that this is one of multiple articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:23, 31 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 7 August 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, Hue Sat Lum 00:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Henkin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR. It looks like he's occasionally asked to comment for news stories but I can't find anything about him in reliable sources. Google Scholar shows 15 citations for his book. Pburka (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 7 August 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, Hue Sat Lum 00:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-academic author, with no academic appointments, publishing self-help books.— James Cantor (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and James Cantor...I fail to see basis to keep the article. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Govert Westerveld[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt whether the subject is relevant, the draughts prestations are not relevant, the research works doesn't seem that relevant to me, but I'm not highly knowlegable in that field. The references mainly are self-references and some parts of the article look promotional. ("Over the years, Westerveld has credited, as a researcher, an incorruptible independence, and a scrupulous respect for the work of other scholars. His works, full of references, represent the effort and determination that Westerveld applies in his research. It truly is worth mentioning two of his outstanding contributions." Basvb (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 7 August 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, Hue Sat Lum 00:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The career as a draughts player seems to have ended after earning the Netherlands youth championship, which as an award falls short of what is normally expected for WP:ANYBIO, and given it is from 1963 there isn't any coverage to be found now, at least online. A thorough search on this forum may reveal more details on this aspect (see for instance [31] [32]). He fares better as an historian and author, as there are a handful of cites and mentions of his work from other authors, such as [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] (see also the GScholar results). I think it does serve to note a certain reputation within the subject area, but it falls short of WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, and I cannot find at least one source that addresses the subject, even briefly, in a biographical manner, so I'm leaning to delete in the end. I'd be happy to change if someone can muster one or two supersources, but I feel they might just not exist at all — Frankie (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]