< 1 August	3 August >

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pain – When Will It End?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Pain – When Will It End?

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

not notable, is a stub1man838 (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as the nominator fails to articulate a policy-based reason for deletion. WP:JNN, WP:TOOLITTLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per The Bushranger. Cavarrone (talk) 23:18, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Redirects are cheap. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Poriferology[edit]

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

This is a neologism; there's one Google hit for the word besides Wikipedia. Even if this were a real word, the article is only a WP:DICDEF. (An entry for poriferology was also added to Wiktionary moments after the creation of the Wikipedia article. The Wiktionary entry may also be deleted soon; see wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for verification#poriferology.) —Caesura ^(t) 00:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - No source, claims Britannica, but finds nothing with search. [1] Dictionary definition and not enough context, notability or even information to support an article at this time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sponge. Fails WP:N. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Μετάknowledge makes sense. Porifera is mentioned in the first sentence. Not sure if a Wiktionary shortcut needs to be added somewhere in the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-word isn't even worth a redirect. Qwfp (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does appear to be a valid word. Just try google-ing 'poriferologist'. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sponge maes sense Skier Dude (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sponge sounds like a good idea to me too. --DrCruse (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sponge seems like a better option. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:14, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive functioning[edit]

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

There's nothing here that's not already in Adaptive behavior and Adaptive Behaviors (which should probably be merged, but that's not why I've called you all here today). Nothing in this article seems worth merging to either of them. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into it's own small section in Adaptive behavior. Anyone wanting to know what adaptive functioning is may not know what adaptive functioning is compared to adaptive behavior is may appreciate "term that refers to the skillset necessary for humans to effectively manage demands by ones environment in a manner that is effective.", that is not currently? in either article. Creator of article, Mysterytrey 00:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from [2]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 8 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 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} 23:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Woods[edit]

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

WP:NN painter, created by a WP:SPA, possibly autobiographical. No reliable sources provided or found. Pburka (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I certainly see no evidence he meets WP:ARTIST, which requires influence, innovation, reviews, academic study, or holdings in major public collections. "He experimented with different mediums throughout his ‘education period’ but came to the conclusion that the formal art course could not help in my quest for a more traditional approach to painting and realised that he didn’t want to paint watercolour landscapes either. ... He uses a digital camera as photographic reference for many of my paintings" (emphasis added) Does anybody think this might be not only autobiographical but poorly edited? That isn't in itself grounds for deletion but does suggest that nobody else thinks he's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my own choice of the Yikes-providing line of the piece: "Not much is known about his early life apart from him hating school." — Well, if you're gonna write a bio of yourself, at least write a bio of yourself, eh? Carrite (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing anything that addresses GNG in the top 40 or 50 Google hits for (exact name + erotic). In view of the essentially unsourced nature of this piece, the subject looks to fall short of meeting GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find reliable, secondary sources that deonstrate notabilty under WP:GNG. Tried the usual Google searches plus Highbeam. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:00, 9 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 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 Already Speedily Deleted (Non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blip (Anonymous Leader)[edit]

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

No sources, and I question the notability. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Self-declaration of leadership is no claim of notability, as anyone can do that. Pburka (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as above. Meph^talk 01:09, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The problem here seems to be that there is no wider policy, guidelines or precedent regarding individual sports at a non-Olympic sporting event. Although some relevant policies about notability and routine coverage have been forwarded, it is very difficult to see what the consensus through the lens of Wikipedia policy would be where no sufficient policy exists. As there are a range of well-founded arguments on both sides, this has to be closed as no consensus. I would strongly encouraged those involved to begin a wider discussion regarding this kind of article: perhaps a request for comment about whether individual sports at specific non-Olympic sporting events should be considered notable. That would help prevent future confusion about this kind of article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karate at the 2001 Mediterranean Games[edit]

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

This article gives no indication of notability. There is no text, no independent sources, and the article consists solely of listing the medal winners. It's simply routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing shows notability, the article fails WP:ROUTINE, and there's no significant independent coverage of this event. Mdtemp (talk) 16:06, 18 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, Courcelles 04:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what to do here. There are several sport entries for the Mediterranean Games with some of the Sports (ie. Athletics at the Mediterranean Games) and even further articles for some of the years (ie. Athletics at the 1967 Mediterranean Games). A similar thing was attempted for Karate but there are several years with no intermediate article. Either we do an AfD for all the year Karate articles or write the Karate at the Mediterranean Games to tie it all together.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I like Peter Rehse's proposal. The articles in Category:Karate at the Mediterranean Games are short enough that they can be merged into one Karate at the Mediterranean Games article. The same should be done for other Mediterranean Games events, like gymnastics and handball.--SGCM (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles have any independent sources (the 2005 and 2009 ones have no sources at all) and the article consists entirely of the results--a clear violation of WP:ROUTINE. I'd say all of the articles should be deleted. Don't forget Karate at the 2009 Mediterranean Games – Men's Kumite Over 84 Kg and Karate at the 2009 Mediterranean Games – Women's Kumite Under 50 Kg which contain only the results of every match in that division--more routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of individual games is considered WP:ROUTINE, but general sport events articles (like Karate at the Mediterranean Games) must meet WP:SPORTSEVENT criteria. I agree with your concerns over the absence of prose, but I think that, if cleaned up, expanded, sourced, and merged, the articles should meet the WP:NSPORT guideline.--SGCM (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going through Category:Multi-sport events, there seems to be hundreds of articles with similar problems. Most Olympic and Paralympic event articles, which are given special coverage on WP:NSPORT, are nothing more than stats directories (see Diving at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Judo at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Field hockey at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament). This issue deserves a wider discussion. May I suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports?--SGCM (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I don't object to the individual articles on Olympic events since they're a breed apart--just like athletes are considered notable just for participating at the Olympics. However, I don't feel the same way about the myriad lesser events (like Games of the Small States of Europe). Papaursa (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion I am bundling the following into the AfD discussion. As to the wider issue of similar articles for other Sports it should be brought up at at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports but I am at a loss how to phrase the question.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   :Karate at the 2009 Mediterranean Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Karate at the 2005 Mediterranean Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Karate at the 2009 Mediterranean Games – Women's Kumite Under 50 Kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Karate at the 2009 Mediterranean Games – Men's Kumite Over 84 Kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Done. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karate at the 2001 Mediterranean_Games.--SGCM (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why aren't Basketball at the 2001 Mediterranean Games and other events being bundled into this AfD? --LauraHale (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should let Peter answer that, but I'd say it's better to keep the discussion focused on the original topic (karate at these games). These articles also all have a similar lack of sources and text, and I don't know if that can be said for all individual event articles at the Med. games. Depending on how the discussion at WT:Sports goes, a broader AfD can be done later. Papaursa (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Response from Papaursa makes this seem like WP:POINT of challenging notability related to all martial arts related articles as willing to bundle all martial arts but unwilling to bundle other sport specific articles. All of the articles about this particular competition have similar issues. Beyond that, nothing indicates Papaursa has done research to prove all the coverage is routine and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Sources do exist: [3][4][5]. What sort of sources exist in Arabic? --LauraHale (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a pointy argument, but rather an attempt to avoid lumping all sports for all Mediterranean games into a single AfD discussion because I think that's too many articles (and too varied ones) for one discussion. Concerning the sources you list--one doesn't even mention the topic, one is a one sentence mention about a competitor, and one is a passing mention that Egypt won medals in karate. None of those show the significant coverage required for notability. Pointing out that other articles also have problems does not make these articles notable. I have not advocated removal of the articles on the Mediteranean games in general. Papaursa (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments Those sources are for the Mediterranean Games in particular and Karate in passing. I don't think anyone is proposing a deletion of the Mediterranean Games and I don't think anyone would object the creation of Karate at the Mediterranean Games. The lack of the latter article not only isolates those bundled above (which makes them a special case) but there are no sources for those individual events. They just can not stand alone.

There is an ongoing effort to clean up Martial Arts related articles which is why these articles came up on Papaursa's radar and why for instance I jumped in. I don't think bringing them to AfD could be considered WP:POINT since it is being brought to discussion and not being force or disruptive. Further, the argument that we must now bundle all instances could potentially create a massive list if taken to extreme. Far better to take a small related group to completion and expand later if consensus suggests that is the best route.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The main purpose of these sub-articles for smaller competitions is to provide summaries of the events without having to excessively burden the main games page. These types of sub-article are vaguely approved of in Wikipedia:Summary style and questions of their independent notability are brushed over to maintain a format more desirable than games pages reaching 250kb. Some even reach good article status. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) exists because many don't believe in the general notability guideline alone. These articles are desired and valued and unless you want to force thousands of good editors out of the project for technical reasons, then it a situation worth respecting. The various Olympic articles are testament to this. One can point to various guidelines that disapprove of such inclusions, but the unspoken consensus is to allow them if they are on useful enough topics and well written.

This brings me to my second point. This page is not done well at all and contains no prose. By coincidence or design, this type of work attracts mostly non-native speakers who do not have the ability, interest, or confidence, to provide real English prose. Hence we get a few of these articles. They can be turned into something of value with a bit of effort (Athletics at the 2005 Jeux de la Francophonie for example). In their current form, the Med Games Karate articles do not reach that level.

First, I say that the 2001 Karate page should be improved or bear a merge into both 2001 Mediterranean Games (in a results section) and Karate at the Mediterranean Games. Secondly, I suggest that the 2009 Karate weight class articles be merged into the main 2009 Karate page (when most of the participants in a weight class are not notable, then it's safe to assume that the competition itself isn't either). Thirdly, if improved, referenced and written well, these international Karate competition should make for acceptable stand-alone articles. SFB 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very big "if"--you're saying all it needs is references and prose, but isn't that why it's up for AfD? Mdtemp (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your question. That's quite a circular argument you're making. SFB 18:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mdtemp is commenting on your statement that the articles would be fine if they were rewritten, sourced, and showed notability. His point, I think, is that the articles were nominated for deletion because they lack all of those things. Jakejr (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment A page cascade in itself is not a bad way of arranging things. Looks like the original attempt was to link everything together with Categories rather than internal links. If they were linked properly it is no different that many of the Lists we see and references to establish notability don't necessarily have to go all they way down. The question really is how far down do we go before it becomes non-notable fill - that becomes a case by case debate. For these articles I think the two weight class articles are too far.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The weight class articles clearly need to go. As far as making a "Karate at the Mediterranean Games" article goes, merely combining unsourced articles doesn't make them notable or sourced. Mdtemp (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These articles are not reliably sourced and are nothing but sports results. There's no indication of notability and they lack good sources. Jakejr (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Instead of deleting altogether, why not merge (together with categories on other off-year multi-event championships) into an Article on Off-year championships and make a category of daughter Articles around that? That could at least be notable as a larger topic. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is this a proposal for Willstro? Merging into 2001 in Karate? The Years in X articles seem to have worked out well for a number of other sports, and karate is probably another that could join them. SFB 17:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, that works. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:38, 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} 23:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to something like Karate at the Mediterranean Games. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As user Mdtemp pointed out above--"combining unsourced articles doesn't make them notable or sourced." There's nothing that shows these events are notable or have significant independent coverage. Jakejr (talk) 21:02, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 02:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America Is Ageing As The Dominant Player in The World System[edit]

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

Essay, not valid for CSD, but non encyclopedic and not usable in present format. BarkingFish 22:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free webhost for original essays and research. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:OR and probably WP:COI as it was created by User:Rafie Hamidpour, the name of one of the authors of the essay. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay and OR. Mysterytrey 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear essay.TheLongTone (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First time I've seen an article with an author. As per the article, this is a "study", which is WP:OR, and WP:OR is a reason for deletion under our WP:Deletion policy...lots of references, though. Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly userify first. Pburka (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again Essay and OR. Possible copyvio if the work was published, this is a paper or essay likely used for academia. The authors, Rafie Hamidpour Ph.D.,D.E.,DABFE and David H. Adams, B.S. have ownership of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not even particularly insightful as an essay. We already have the Superpower and Potential superpowers articles, which touch upon these points. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. Based on the formatting of the footnotes, I wonder if this may be a direct copy of a previously deleted Wikipedia article. But whatever else it is, it's a original research essay. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above as completely unsuitable for WP. Is it snowing yet.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:BIO, in view of NOTINHERITED. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casper Smart[edit]

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

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: although this may qualify for CSD A7, I think it best that informed editors discuss it. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not speedily. Dating JLo is a reasonable claim of notability, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and I can't find any articles about Casper Smart on his own. He only gets coverage in the context of Jennifer Lopez. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Casper simply doesn't hold much notably outside of his relationship with JLo. I've been debating creating the article and even started one in my sandbox, but found he isn't notable what-so-ever outside of their relationship. Statυs (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited. Till 09:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - he's done nothing on his own to indicate notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:26, 5 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gurjar clans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced unmaintainable mess, and has as much place here as the headings in a phone book. This is an excellent example of what Wikipedia is not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – A functional WP:SETINDEX article, about groups that share a similar name. Also the article is not "unreferenced," as incorrectly stated in the nomination; it currently has one source. The information is also verifiable, see [6] for starters (already in the article prior to this nomination). Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A foreign topic and old source that deals with clans which is verifiable and obscure, but valuable information. Many topics on India on Wikipedia are a mess with language, sourcing and interwiki links, but deleting listings of recognized clans and their pages seems a bit much. Also, many of these can be interwiki linked, I don't have my good method since I lost my tool, but some of them seem to be similiar to Pakistan tribes like the Aheer and Alpial which are existing articles, but not linked yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ordinarily I'd say delete but, for a change, this list seems to come with a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 11:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the source is deceptive, a search within the source for "Miyana" [7] doesn't return anything, neither does one for "Khepar" [8], or "Bokra" [9]. However, another search for Miyana shows that it's a Pashtun tribe, looking at the Jat article, it's a different ethnic group, Patel is again a different group and so on. Just because a source is listed it doesn't mean that the article follows it. All this was highlighted in the previous nomination too. Apparently, the nominator appears to have confused Wikipedia for an encyclopaedia and has decided to nominate this article based on these absurdities. —SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should like to apologise for confusing Wikipedia with an encyclopaedia. I should know better after all these years of editing here. It is a social experiment to prove that the alleged Wisdom of Crowds provides lowest common denominator works. Those who don't spot this miss the ironic nature of the entire project. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:57, 5 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close, as target of this discussion is the talk page. I believe this was an accident on the nominator's part, especially since s/he used Twinkle. Will open a proper discussion on the article momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:J. X. Williams[edit]

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

This is a pseudonym used by porn writers in the 1960s. The current article has repeatedly be re-written to conform to a art project one Noel Lawrence created, whereby he recut old films and gave lectures claiming they were the work of this fictional character. See refs on talk page. The content of this seems to be part of this "art project", persistently recreated. Actual subject of dubious notability. T L Miles (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close and re-nominate correctly Did you mean to nominate the article, or the talk page? Talk page nominations go on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion but I'm guessing you meant to nominate J. X. Williams. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see somebody's already posted on the nominator's talk page to ask about this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insider threat[edit]

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

Original Research Essay. No sources. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. The article needs a lot of work, but the topic is notable enough as is shown by this link to "The CERT Insider Threat Center". Insider threats are the subject of scholarly research. Here is another link to "The Insider Threat. An introduction to detecting and deterring an insider spy." (FBI). CodeTheorist (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unsourced, fails WP:V, which is a reason under our WP:Deletion policy for deletion. There is nothing here to save since it would need to be totally rewritten to follow whatever sources can be found. Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC) No longer totally unsourced, so striking !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:. The topic is notable notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I gave the article a quick rewrite and added some sources. It needs further work, but should now be in a good enough state for it to be kept. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CodeTheorist has improved the article, and I added another reference and more information. The concept appears to be notable and has at least some reliable sources cited in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was little participation here, so I'll restore and relist upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sapediya[edit]

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

A number of these clan articles are being created, but without any reliable sources, and generally not written to Wikipedia standards. This one seems not to meet WP:N and WP:V. MrX 19:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most clans are not notable, although castes usually are. No reliable sources could be found online. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 2 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Plumbing Heating And Electrical[edit]

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

Not notable. User appears to be advertising business. ViriiK (talk) 19:47, 2 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 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle rap[edit]

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

non-notable neologism Mysterytrey 19:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, no indication that there is any notability to the term. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as self-promotional neologism. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable genre that fails WP:V. Meph^talk 01:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. I found a few passing mentions for the term but they do not contain significant detail or offer much in terms of defining the genre. Gongshow ^Talk 03:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TexasAndroid. AutomaticStrikeout 21:03, 5 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 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotlieb Bieri[edit]

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

I cant find any significant mention of him with google, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any significant, reliable, non-commercial sources for this person. There are actually plenty of references to this person, but they all seem to be on the commercial websites of various hearing clinics in Michigan, USA, and have drawn from www.bierihearing.com, the commercial source of this article. Also, a Google search reveals that these sites all use the identical text, which means that they come from a common source. The search was somewhat clouded by many references to a Hermann Gottlieb Bieri, an author; and another Gottlieb Bieri, an apparently unrelated person who died in 1938. It is faintly possible that Bieri Hearing Specialists, the company founded by this family, could be notable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If this article is kept, it should be moved to Gottlieb Bieri, the correct spelling. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The individual is not notable, and the article appears to be spam to promote the company business, Bieri Hearing Specialists. Article was created by a special-purpose account whose username, Customear1, suggests a conflict of interest. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice towards recreation in a couple years. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2014 Asian Games[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Brambleberry ^{☾of RC☽} 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I love the use of past tense for an event that doesn't happen for another couple of years. KTC (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, kinda like an WP:InUniverse perspective. Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, so it fails WP:V as per our WP:Deletion policy. Also fails WP:Not#Newspaper as an announcement of a future event. Preparation for such an event might be notable, but the event itself has not yet happened. Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 08:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:39, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Band-off[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a neologism with no widespread use. While I have no doubt that marching band competitions exist, I can find no reference to them widely being referred to as "Band-offs". In fact, I can find no references at all where such a competition is called one. While doing all the normal searches, I found only one hit where the phrase "Band-Off" was used in reference to a musical competition, but not only was it not a reliable soruce, but it didn't involve marching bands at all. Rorshacma (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a self-professed band geek, I can say as an expert witness that not only is this term just a phrase occasionally used, the image included of Kansas State was NOT a "Band-Off" anyway and was simply a halftime show for a regular season game. I will remove the photo.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable neologism. cmadler (talk) 18:03, 27 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL This one should be closed, not relisted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you'd like to offer a per-policy reason for deletion, because "it's occasionally used" isn't sufficient reason for deletion, and it's irrelevant for AfD if the photo's wrong. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:NEO? cmadler (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about fails all of the following: WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DICTIONARY, WP:MADEUP, and any other measure of notability or inclusion that I can find, including WP:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find coverage of this type of marching band competition. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 8 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 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DEP International Studios[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Through Google Books can find a few references to the DEP International label, but cannot find there or through Google News UK any reliable source links to the studio. Been here for almost 5 yr with no reliable sources. TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability, nor evidence of it via google. If there's any point retaining the content it could be salvaged into the UB40 article, but it seems not worth it to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:25, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of evident notability and shortage of reliable sources. Kilopi (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fil Barlow. Whether and what to merge are editorial decisions, as always. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zooniverse (comic book)[edit]

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

This article describes a comic from 1987 which seems not to have had a legacy in the arts. It ran for 6 issues. No reliable sources are identified giving information about it. Information given in this article does not meet notability criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Zooniverse is notable in that it was one of the very first Australian written and drawn comics that was published and distributed by a US comic book publisher. I have added a number of references to verify the article. Dan arndt (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Zooniverse Fil Barlow has returned to comics and is working on animated versions atLoop De Loop and a collected album of the six issue comic series with publisher Milk Shadow Books along with smaller black and white comics of new Zooniverse work, the first of which was published last week. Thank you to Dan Arndt for helping with the verifications. Pungence (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Pungence (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 11 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, BusterD (talk) 20:58, 17 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:44, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fil Barlow. The sources added to the article are, with the exception of Design & Art Australia, not reliable sources; notability is not established for this comic series. A merge and redirect to the comic artist seems appropriate for this subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fil Barlow per The Bushranger. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fil Barlow. This series does not appear to meet notability for a stand-alone article, but the artist is notable - so a merge/redirect would appear to be apt PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:42, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. This would inevitably be just a pile-on if left open longer. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names and meanings[edit]

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

An article without any definite purpose. How big could this go. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. -- Luke (Talk) 17:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, improper list. Mysterytrey 17:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this could be cool, that alone isn't a reason to keep an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the article is unsourced as well. Zaldax (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. A decent article on the meaning of different names might be worth keeping, but there is nothing worth saving here. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTDigg[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks independent, reliable sources and does not establish notability. It is also written in a promotional/advertising tone. MrX 16:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I didn't even have to search sources, as the article references news items on makeuseof, Download Squad and TorrentFreak. As all these sites are well-established reputable resources with no affiliation with BTDigg or its authors, I conclude that the article passes WP:GNG. Among these at least this, this and this claim this service's significance (they even call it "unique"), which makes the topic pass WP:NSOFT. That said, the article itself indeed features several unambiguously promotional phrases, but this issue can be addressed with editing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article has some problems – it needs copy editing – but, as Czarkoff demonstrates, lack of reliable sources and notability is not among them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:17, 7 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 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of singles by European artists that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, for the same reasons given for List of songs by American artists which reached number-one on the UK Singles Chart and List of singles by Australian artists that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart. Borders on listcruft and appears to be just a content fork – all the information here is repeated at List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart. No sources are given to justify why this isn't any more than a non-notable intersection of topics. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's untrue to say "all the information here is repeated at List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart" because that list doesn't include nationalities. Deleting this would lose valuable information, which is generally considered a bad thing per WP:PRESERVE. Since the consensus is that separate articles of this form shouldn't exist, the only reasonable action is to merge this info to List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart or the relevant sub-pages of List of UK Singles Chart number ones. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedents noted by nominator. If country of origin is so important why can't it be added to List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart, athough years of songs and songwriters might be more appropriate! --Richhoncho (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, As some wag has noted on the talkpage, where's all there British acts - they are european too! LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Richhoncho. Add nationality to the main list if it is important. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing special about a European artist reaching number one on the UK chart (or any nationality reaching number one on any chart). Delete as WP:CFORK, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Till 14:42, 9 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 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly/images[edit]

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

RE user:IShadowed proposal for merging this subpage I created with the parent article page - have moved this gallery of images to Wikimedia Commons as a category Brass razoo (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment I'm confused, did you intend to nominate the page Images, which is a DAB, or another page, which from what I can tell is Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly/images? Nomination is malformed and I think the nom needs help (seems like the slash screwed things up). Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Intended Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly/images, yes the slash confused the nomination Brass razoo (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons content this is a Commons content and (the page) should be created there! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fixed the formatting of this Afd. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:31, 21 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, Sandstein 14:38, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copied to commons, doesn't belong on WP. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All content now on Commons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 7 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 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Wingett[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article originally came to my attention because it has clearly been written by the subject. The only claim of notability is his contributions to the writing of several episodes of a TV police soap (on which his brother plays a significant character). It is likely the cited TV Weekly article talks about the Wingetts, but one news article is not enough to prove notability. The Portsmouth News article only mentions a 'Mr Wingett' who is a local hypnotist. Wingett's books are self-published e-books and I can't find any reliable reviews. Therefore he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage to qualify for WP:GNG. He was a writer on one series, over ten years ago. Not a large show, either. Other than that, yes his books are via vanity press and thus don't meet WP:WRITER guidelines. This article has been around for years. Good catch! Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:40, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some coverage in the local paper doesn't meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 8 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 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For This Cause (band)[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 17:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails to meet WP:NMUSIC and is not sufficiently supported by references from third party sources:

"Facebook, Purevolume, MySpace, Band Camp", all obviously self-published and also ambiguous
"iTunes", unreliable
~~"alternativemusichub" is a 404 - though I have found~~ The correct URL is merely a press release.
is an "Email from Google", unreliable
is a direct link to an image of one of their tour schedules.

Additionally, Google News returns nothing for "For This Cause" "Journeys", which (for me at least) is pretty indicitive that something has not received significant coverage in third-party media. Nik thestoned 15:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding mentions on social networking sites, non-notable blogs, and a couple press releases, but nothing I consider independent reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 18:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about this band in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the usual garage band stuff, but nothing that indicates that the band meets or is close to meeting any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to United States foreign aid. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by U.S. economic aid vs GDP[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is an obscure list currently with no content. Theopolisme _TALK 06:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's content there, now. Farolif (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--let's give the article a chance. I am assuming in good faith that User:Farolif can and will expand and improve upon this article. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) See my comments below.[reply]
- I'm open to suggestions. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are little more than a list. Since there's no article specifically for "United States economic aid", I can see this as a possible starting point for one. Farolif (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there is: United States foreign aid. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 08:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And lo and behold, on that exact page is a list of countries by U.S. economic aid vs GDP (here), if I'm not missing something. Theopolisme _TALK 08:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look again - that table is total foreign aid, ie - economic plus military aid. I worked and debated on that table, I'm quite familiar with it. There are also on that page a couple of links to a separate article for United States military aid, but again, nothing for "economic aid". Farolif (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you think about potentially merging the articles? Theopolisme _TALK 09:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Merge per Theopolisme above. I already added a merge tag to the article. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 09:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:53, 2 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) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Notable enough to not delete in any case. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:47, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus is that Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abimilku[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 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really encyclopedic, as wikify tag says, "more appropriate for Wikiquote or wikisource" Mdann52 (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is "not really encyclopedic" about one of the more significant Amarna Letters authors, who in the 1300s BC was the ruler of Tyre and vassal to the Egyptian pharaoh? This topic is exactly what encyclopedias should be made of. I have never seen such an argument for deletion, and can't believe you seriously nominated it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the style of the writing - read it then compare it to other pages about similar topics. Mdann52 (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rulers of Tyre are notable. However, we don't need letters quoted in their entirety. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is noteworthy in encyclopedia.--BMWcomputer (talk) 18:02, 5 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Note that the article creator cut-and-pasted the article to their user talk page; I have taken this as a request for userification and have accordingly done so. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Rosen[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 17:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was deleted in November via XFD. Recently recreated by User:Bigbreastslover18. Article was correctly tagged for speedy deletion on G4 grounds, but was denied by an admin because "Nope, completely different content."[10] As far as I recall the article looks the same as the deleted article, except for perhaps now it utilizes sourced entirely inappropriate for a BLP. brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Clearly not notable. Fails WP:PORNSTAR. Article claims her biggest accomplishment was winning an AVN award for a group sex scene, but per WP:PORNSTAR: "Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." And we won't even discuss the ridiculous sourcing in the article, half of which comes from the subject's own website. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been speedied. Epbr123 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails specific tests for genre and makes no other claims of notability. Celtechm (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, natch. I'm the one that put it up for speedy delete. It's essentially the same content that I remember and it still fails WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 17:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, not the topic of multiple instances of independent published coverage in so-called reliable sources. No, Boobpedia doesn't count... Carrite (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG without substantial reliable source coverage. Fails PORNBIO without individual awards or nominations. The 2005 scene-related AVN win is questionable. IMDb says she won but AVN doesn't. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: PORNBIO; no claims of notability. Electric Catfish 01:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really good article, it shall be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbreastslover18 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC) — Bigbreastslover18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This article is too sparse in its current form, but Rosen is an adult movie producer and a radio personality, and hence notable in those aspects. She also founded Cutienet.com. I vote keep as it can be improved. Asarelah (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources that can establish notability per WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT? My searches only find Rosen's website, Boobpedia, adultfyi, etc. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! If you can find sources for that and add it to the article, I'd be willing to change my opinion. I know Rosen is well known in the industry but this is one of those cases where someone is well known and not been written about much at all which makes verification of notability tough. Dismas|^(talk) 20:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't seem to locate anything meeting the criteria. =/ Asarelah (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and is not well written. as is it also Fails WP:DUE... BO | Talk 23:14, 6 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Chinatowns in Canada and the United States. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinatowns in the United States[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Chinatowns in Canada and the United States with the latter having significiantly more page views and better sourcing less OR etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the nominator has considered merge or redirect as options. It makes sense to have something at that title; it more closely follows the nomenclature of List of Chinatowns than the other article does. Also, there are significant numbers of Chinatowns in the United States that U.S. and Canada should have separate articles, titled List of Chinatowns in the United States and List of Chinatowns in Canada, rather than being lumped into one article p b p 14:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both of those are acceptable outcomes from an AFD? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, the reason I picked the Canada and US version over the nominated version was due to Template:Chinatown which is a nav template pointing to the CA&US version. It really doesnt matter which one sticks around, but they are clearly duplicate of eachother. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While they are acceptable, you don't need an AfD to do them. Merge and redirect Chinatowns in Canada and the United States to List of Chinatowns in the United States and List of Chinatowns in Canada, and obviously change the navbox links to reflect that p b p 14:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge intelligently per the above. We don't really need an AfD for that unless someone objects... Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge in only US content, move Canada content to a Canada page and delete Chinatowns in US & Canada as very irregular and non-standard for an article, for every other "by country" topic we use either "X...in the United States" or for a larger region, "X...in North America", by not for pairs of countries such as "X...in the Czech Republic and Slovakia" or "X...in the nations of the Mercosur trade bloc"LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...pretty much what I said above. I am probably going to propose a split at the merged-to page when this AfD is over p b p 22:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as above, after which a decision can be taken whether Chinatowns in Canada and the United States is too long and needs splitting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chinatowns in Canada and the United States --Artene50 (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested: redundant. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge try to keep as much from this article intact on the other page. Way too valuable to delete.--T1980 (talk) 20:21, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Chick-fil-A. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day[edit]

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

Content from this article has been moved into Chick-fil-A, where it belongs. Talk on the main CfA page as well as the nominated page indicate no support to keep the page around. Non-notable event outside of the context of the larger controversy swirling around CfA these days. MsFionnuala (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-redirect as is customary after a merge. It is reasonable that someone will search for this. On the issue of keep versus delete, this is no more encyclopedic than the article on the controversy. Ryan Vesey 13:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy redirect - unless this somehow becomes an annual event it is merely a POV fork of 2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy which is WP:TOOSOON spin out from Chick-fil-A. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:45, 2 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 2. Snotbot t • c » 13:53, 2 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as obvious promotion. JIP | Talk 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLOSSOMS International Play School[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DePRODed by User:Vintelok without addressing the issues. Concern was: Non notable chain of pre-school playgroups. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Preschools are not inherently notable, and there is no indication that this chain is notable. The article was apparently created by a COI account, User:BlossomsInternational. --bonadea contributions talk 12:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, verging on A7 territory. Note that I have blocked User:BlossomsInternational for a username violation, so they will not be able to respond here. If necessary, they may comment on their talk page and I will transcribe their !vote across. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable and promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a WP:SPA and WP:COI are both coming into play here. Appears to be a promotional article. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:12, 2 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mukarram haidari[edit]

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

Claims to be the editor of a Urdu newspaper. Fails WP:GNG Anbu121 (talk me) 11:07, 2 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Electric[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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(({text))} Jgeddis (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails the Notability requirements outlined in Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) in numerous categories. Namely, the "independence of sources", "depth of coverage", "audience" categories. For example, most of the "sources" linked in this article are self published or reprints of marketing materials generated by HE. Blogs by employees have been routinely cited in this article and they are specifically prohibited by wikipedia. The list of public free peering points is not considered a "source" by any wikipedia standard. If someone would like to create an article about free public peering points that may be a valid article. However, using free public peering points (which anyone with an internet connection in a colo can connect to for free) to establish the notability of this tiny organization with no global impact is not valid. as far as primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Not one single "News Organization" is, nor has it ever been, cited in this article. This article has existed for 2 years now. The fact that no one has ever come up with a single article by an acceptable news organization (even a local one where this company has their one rented facility) is a testament to the lack of this organizations notability.

The article has always read like an advertisement. A brief review of it's edit history over the last 2 years would show that it has been repeatedly had to have all it's spamvertizing cleaned out.

As this article stands today, even with all the attention from the deletion nomination it contains in total a single paragraph and a list of free public peering points. There is no useful content in this article. Again, if someone would like to create an article on peering points, they should do that. Because that list makes up 95% of this "article".

Hurricane electric has no network. All they do is peer at public exchanges in shared data centres. They have no backbone and wouldn't even be rated on any level of the Carrier Tier system. They are a 1 building colo provider who lease extremely limited space in other company's data centers yet this article blows them up to be some massive global carrier. In fact, i couldn't verify a single peering point or facility that this organization actually owns. It's totally (and I'd argue intentionally) misleading. Not a single Tier 1 or Tier 2 provider uses Hurricane electric for transit or transport.
There is no possible hope any of these issues will be resolved because no wilipedia approved sources exist to establish HE's notability. In two years of a few people editing this article not a single source has been provided that meets wikipedia's guidlines outlined in Wikipedia:RS has ever been brought forth. Indeed, only sources that are specifically prohibited by wikipedia have ever been cited in this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeddis (talk • contribs)

Improve and keep HE is a well-known ISP, well-known in the trade for its position as the centre of the IPv6 peering universe, and they get plenty of trade press coverage: see, for example, the following non-press-release-driven stories:
[11] -- "Global IPv6 leader Hurricane Electric claims the top spot as the biggest IPv6 provider to African ISPs."
[12] -- "Hurricane Electric, arguably the world's largest IPv6-native Internet backbone and co-location provider,"
[13] -- "Hurricane Electric's role in pushing IPv6 traffic is being noticed across the Internet. Arbor Networks said in a blog post that Hurricane Electric's free tunnel broker introduced in April was one of the main reasons that global IPv6 traffic grew more than 1,400% from September 2008 to September 2009."
[14] -- " In particular, Hurricane Electric (AS6939) maintains a commanding lead over its nearest competitors in the IPv6 world."
[15] -- "Nation's largest IPv6 network welcomes rivals" ... "Little-known Hurricane Electric, the nation's leading provider of IPv6 services"
Also (and yes, this one's from a press release: I'm not citing this as a RS) if they have no network, what do you think they're doing with all this 10G layer 1 transmission kit? [16]
Having said which, the article needs to be significantly improved from its current state, to be based as much as possible on reliable sources such as the above. -- The Anome (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well known ISP is opinion, not fact. Further they are not an ISP.
your first link is not a usable source
your second link is BLATANTLY self published material.
you've already disqualified your third link by labeling it a blog. further, if you actually read it it clearly says it's regurgitating "Hurricane Electric claims to be No. 1"
your fourth link is another blog
your 5th link, funny enough, in your quote refutes your opening statement "little known hurricane electric" thanks for supporting the notability question in this nomination.
your 6th link, read the actual press release "optical transport solution to significantly expand its network in California." They are using that no namer gear on LEASED dark fibre METRO (read LOCAL) links between their 3 leased facilities. having local metro links between your facilities does not count as a backbone and you know that. Backbones are at minimum interstate. This doesn't even leave the city of fremont. Are you purposely being misleading?
your last point, no the table does not belong there at all. Once you remove it, what are you left with? You're left with 2 paragraphs that are 100% sourced from self published material. Further, how many times has the conversation of it requiring "massive cleanup" been raised over the last two years? In that two years what have anyone produced of substance? The reason this article and this company has been suffering from a lack of sources for over two years is because there aren't any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeddis (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To address this point by point:
  - By definition, they are an ISP. They peer with other ISPs using BGP, and sell IP transit service to others. How their infrastructure is constructed, both technically and commercially, is irrelevant to this point. Denying this undercuts your other arguments.
  - mybroadband.co.za meets all the criteria for a WP:RS
  - The second link's opinions expand upon the press release it reports, in the editorial voice of ZDNet, a WP:RS; the opinions are Vaughan-Nichols', not HE's
  - Network World is a well-known RS. The report cites a blog, but it is speaking in Network World's authorial voice. Moreover, Arbor Networks is a well known organization known to be impartial in the field on which it's commenting.
  - Renesys are a well-known authority in their area, and independent of HE.
  - Yes, HE are "little known" to the general public. However, the article (again, from Network World, a WP:RS) considers them noteworthy within the industry: the article is all about their prominence in their field.
  - Are you really saying that you only "have a network" if you wholly own the fibre it's running on? By that token, many ISPs do not have a "network" in that sense, relying on leased fibre, L1 transmssion, and even L2 services from telcos. Are you saying that this does not exist, or is not a "network"?
  - Once you remove the table, you have a stub article about an important niche player in the ISP business.
  By the way, although I have a background in the industry (as it appears, do you) I am not affiliated with HE, nor do I have any business relationship with them or any stock position relating to them. Do you have some sort of personal stake in this matter? -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improve and keep Hurricane Electric is a major international backbone/wholesale capacity ISP and has routers/equipment present at nearly all of the major internet exchange points in the world. The sheer scale of their network and number of BGP sessions with other ASNs (and ASN number below 10000) make them notable. Take a look at: http://www.fixedorbit.com/AS/6/AS6939.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.185.44 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — 76.10.185.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Inconsequential colo with no coverage - fails notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.160.20 (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — 64.111.160.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails notability requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.88.194 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — 216.110.88.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Improve and keep - I see many talking about HE's IPv6 tunneling. A large ISP like this deserves at least a stub.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references highlighted above by The Anome show notability of this company. The counter-arguments presented by the nominator are unconvincing, and were aptly and successfully refuted. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i tried to find references a while back, but i remember reading that they were in the vanguard of IPV6. that seems very important. NO coi.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:31, 9 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 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 already deleted - ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myneox[edit]

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

Non-notable website Anbu121 (talk me) 10:12, 2 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. Blatant spam, possible copyright violation of [17] and of course it is unlikely that an organization whose website just launched today is already sufficiently notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GPB Global Resources[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising article, not notable. ViriiK (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Sumkin.gpb (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Thank you for the attention to the article. The article is to be extended today and tomorrow. It is aimed at explaining consulting businesses of Gazprombank (major Russian bank) abroad. Today an official website has been launched (www.gpb-gr.com). I will be grateful for any help and advice to improve the page to avoid its deletion.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homegrown: Community Agriculture and a Better Tomorrow[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As yet to be published (?) book. None of the references given mention the book (all are about an organization, Homegrown Kentucky). The external link is an excerpt from the book. The "Cosmopolitan Journal" seems to be a blog. No indication of notability, does not meet WP:NBOOKS. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though it would be best to create an article about the organization, "Homegrown Kentucky", and to place the information about the book within its context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmesonholmneson (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Holmesonholmneson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What information about the book? It doesn't exist yet, as far as I can see, and we don't even know its publishers. And I doubt that the current sources show notability for the organization, either. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the credibility of the book in question, but based on cursory searches, it seems as though the Homegrown Kentucky organization is fairly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linenman (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Linenman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I can see that. Perhaps beginning an article for the organization now would facilitate the transition process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbynew (talk • contribs) 01:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC) — Gabbynew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unless you have better sources than currently are in the article, I strongly counsel against that approach, because it will only mean that we'll have to have yet another AfD... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references mention any book. Kilopi (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As far as an article about the organization goes... it's debatable. Creating an article for the organization was one of my first thoughts, but most of the coverage has only been within the last few months. There's no depth of coverage here at this point in time and while the award they received isn't nothing, it's not entirely something that would necessarily be considered so notable of an award that it would automatically merit the organization having an article to itself. HK would have to pass WP:ORG, which is actually harder to pass than WP:NBOOK. I'm not entirely sure that an article about HK would survive for very long on Wikipedia. If any of the new users are interested in creating an article about this, I recommend doing so in their user space and cultivating it until it gets more notice. (If you make it in your userspace then it won't be easily deleted through AfDs.) In the meantime you might want to get the assistance of a person from Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations or Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky to help you guys out as far as verifying sources and determining when the article meets notability guidelines. One warning though- if any of you are involved with the organization, the college that it goes through, or have any other relationship with HK, make sure that you read through WP:COI. Having a conflict of interest might make it harder for you to be non-partial, which is why I recommend getting an outside party from one of the WikiProjects to help you out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:17, 9 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 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 Already deleted by Yunshui (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Genuine rapper (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine rapper[edit]

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

I'm not sure what the user's intention is with this page. Lyrics? ViriiK (talk) 08:34, 2 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 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 moot. Kerim Agius got A10'd. No prejudice against speedy renomination of the co-nominations. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Result was delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerim Agius[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted WP:A7, this recreation is not clear whether it concerns an amateur or a professional sportsperson, and if it meets WP:ATHLETE. The boxer is apparently aged 14 and the article is an an autobiography.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Kieran Wright
Luke Nickelson
N/C vs. Luke Nickelson

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now there's also Kerim Agius vs. Luke Nickelson. You can nuke that one as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Bradley Holtom - this needs to be decided soon.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all are WP:TOOSOON and all are amateur meaning failure of WP:ATHLETE too. Seasider91 (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, all these articles created by the same user who appears to be Kerim Agius himself I have put a speedy tag on each of the boxers page but not the last one. Seasider91 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedily. Non-professional - you can't be pro at 14. The link to the alleged professional record goes to that of Floyd Mayweather Jr who is both a pro and notable (one other goes to Danny Garcia's). If we delete following an AfD we can use G4 if they try again, as I feel will happen if speedy is used. Agius & Co may have futures in pro boxing - but they're still at school for about two more years and then they have to establish themselves in the big world. Amateur boxers may be notable - if there is enough real referencing. One fake per article suggests there is nothing to be given. Peridon (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic me and my friends. Not at all notable - not even a likely to be notable in future. All are unreferenced Biographies of Living people so should be deleted as a matter of course.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely non-notable, no indication he will ever be notable.CaSJer (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is currently lacking sufficient prose to properly identify the subject. Though prose can always be added, there appears to have been no attempt by the creator to do so. It can't be left this way. Notability has not been established. -- WikHead (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schoolboys fighting - unsourced and probably unsourceable. Clear failure of WP:ATHLETE. Vanity pages. noq (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The first Article nominated is already deleted, and the rest are practically blank anyway. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Kerim Agius has been speedy deleted as a copy of an article that already existed as Kerim Agius (Boxer) which has also already been deleted. To avoid confusion in future, it's probably best to allow articles like these to retain their original CSD templates rather than create messy AfDs. The creator has been blocked for disruptive editing for the mass creation of non notable articles and possible socking. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk).

The only real advantage to AfDs is that once completed Speedy Delete is so much easier.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that where these articles were mostly clear CSDs, we now have to wait another 3 days before they can be deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when they're dealt with here, and then come back, we can G4 them... Peridon (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the Good of the Order: Can we please close this discussion ostensibly on Kerim Agius and start a new AfD Debate for the 3 co-nominated Articles that have not already been deleted? It would just be a little more concise, for want of a better word. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:57, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popboomerang[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DePRODed by creator. Concern was: Unreferenced. Searches fail to provide Reliable Sources that assert notability per WP:ORG criteria for companies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.162.45 (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Label has been around for 10 years and has released albums by notable artists --Outerrecords (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Popboomerang Records is one of Australia's most recognised small independent record lables, with several releases by notable artists. The article is now referenced, supporting its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deletion reasons no longer apply - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Kozak[edit]

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

Mother of two, spouse on one, notable persons. Notability is not inherited, nor born. No stand alone WP:NOTE criteria met. Ditch ∝ 05:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Ditch ∝ 05:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she isn't notable for anything at all apart from all the coatracking of other associated notable things.. - Youreallycan 05:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because: 1 Firstly this article was created less than 24 hours ago and has not been reviewed and read by more experts in this field to get their input, so this nomination is far too hasty. 2 Some users are involved in all sorts of ongoing disputes about the Milibands and seem to be conducting a campaign (vendetta would be a better word) on WP against the Milibands, often getting into disputes about the levels of their "Jewishness" or not, for unknown reasons in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:POINT. 3 The article cites plentiful independent WP:RS and WP:REF that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the subject is obviously by now the matriarch of a British political dynasty, especially since the 2010 rise of Ed Miliband to become leader of the UK Opposition. Since then, from all the media scrutiny and press coverage of her it emerges that she was very clearly a full partner with her famous husband Marxist scholar Ralph Miliband and has played a key role in the lives and political development of her two famous sons, Ed Miliband and David Miliband, who are at the apex of the leadership of the UK's Labour Party at the present time. 4 It's facetious and absurd to say, oh la-dee-da, she is just a "mother of two, spouse on one" as if she was the lowly washerwoman or maid. One could say the same thing for Napoleon's mother Letizia Ramolino that she was "just a mother and wife." Same goes for Sara Roosevelt FDR's mother, all she was was just a "mother and wife" -- until FDR rose to fame -- but she gets an article no matter that she did "nothing more" than support FDR to the hilt, and as later researchers have uncovered, her role in directing his political career as long as she lived. So Letizia Ramolino, Sara Roosevelt, and other such "mothers and wives" -- eventually recognized and acknowledged as matriarchs and progenitors -- eventually get WP articles about themselves because with closer scrutiny and research (today, good journalism does in days and weeks, what used to take scholars centuries to uncover and admit ). 5 Thus it becomes very clear she has and does play an absolute key role in the life and career of her family's (mostly Marxist and Socialist) ideology, politics and impact on British society and the world (her son David was the British Foreign Secretary in the previous Labour government), that anyone can see for themselves by just reading the articles cited in the article's references, and there are are many more like this devoted to her role and influence. 6 There are other factors that make Marion Kozak Miliband WP:NOTABLE by virtue of her status as a, by now well-known Holocaust survivor, political activist for radical causes that by simply adding her name and support to them gives it a "Miliband seal of approval" (her sons are complicit in her causes) that could not be understood without knowing more about her. 7 The fact that she chooses to remain private and mysterious makes scholars more curious about her and not less, because there is still a lot more to discover about this woman who with her family, has come into the public eye by taking more mega political power and clout for themselves, and therefore she has risen to fame whether she likes it or nor and whether anyone else likes it or not. In 2012 it's become a provable and verifiable fact. IZAK (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Kozak is the head matriarch of a British political dynasty.. ^{[citation needed]} - Youreallycan 08:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Marion Kozak#Influence and stance towards her sons and please click on all the sources that are cited therein and READ them. Her two sons have been a dominant if not domineering force in the Labour Party, and hence on the British political scene for at least twenty years rising in power every step of their careers from the early 1990s. What kind of "citation" are you looking for in any case? The Encyclopedia Britannica has just gone out of print, in any case it only had about 80,000+ articles, and who knows how long it will take them to make up their minds and write an article like this. In the meantime WP, with 4 MILLION+ articles and tens of thousands of willing and well-informed editors, is closer to the action to report on reality and facts far quicker...again, just read the sources based on good journalism in the article, all from reliable British papers that know their subject intimately. IZAK (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited, in either direction. Just because her husband and sons are notable does not mean she is. Claiming that editors who wish this article to be deleted are conducting some sort of vendetta against the Milibands is childish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Necro, it's not "childish" to point out that the Milibands' Jewishness has been a hot button issue on WP for years on various forums. It keeps on coming up over and over again. Just take a look at the current debate at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ed Miliband to see the ongoing yo-yoing about the Milibands' "Jewishness" -- what do editors want already when they wage into that aspect of the Milibands' lives? Makes one wonder. As for your first point, indeed notability is not inherited I agree fully, but once research reveals significant connections, beyond just being a "wife and mother" the story becomes important and must be told. IZAK (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether the Milibands' Jewishness is or is not a contentious issue, it is utterly irrelevant to whether an article on their mother should be kept and you should not be linking the two issues, which implies this nomination was due to some sort of vendetta. Nominating the article for deletion was prefectly acceptable given our notability guidelines. You simply cannot compare the Milibands with Napoleon or FDR, both of whom were heads of state and both of whom are vastly more notable than any of the three Milibands who have articles (and personally I'd even be on the fence about the notability of FDR's mother). My opinion stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Necro, I respect your opinion but beg to differ. Napoleon lived over 200 years ago and FDR died in 1945, so that's a long time ago, and at the time few scholars would have focused on their mothers as being notable for encyclopedias, something that was put into writing much later by researchers and scholars. But we have come a long way since then. Responsible journalism combined with the Internet have put important information at our disposal at lightning speed. The Milibands are young and are still rising stars in British politics. David has been Foreign Secretary and Ed is now leader of the Opposition, and they have held other powerful posts for the last 20 years in Labour politics, and they are still at center stage going strong. Their Jewish ancestry is a big deal in the public and scholarly eye and this article, among many other things, would shut off that debate on WP once and for all, as well as transmit a far more complex and multi-dimensional side to the entire Miliband family, father, mother, and sons. You cannot have or know any of them without knowing all the other components as well. IZAK (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ralph Miliband#Personal life, this person is not notable enough to have a separate article here, but the content itself is good. I propose that the content be merged to Ralph Miliband#Personal life, where it would be within that articles scope. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. ukexpat (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond the rush to judgment here, the coverage in multiple reliable and verifiable sources about here and her experiences, as in The Telegraph article cited here title "The miraculous escape of Marion Miliband", make it clear that the subject is independently notable. Whether her husband or children have inherited her notability should be addressed at those articles. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether her husband or children have inherited her notability should be addressed at those articles? - her husband was a notable Marxist and both her children are notable politicians, they did not inherit notability from her in any way - When all the content about other people and other events is removed there is/will be nothing left - she is not a notable holocaust survivor at all - she was seven when she left to Belgium - she has been written about due to her sons being notable but there is absolutally nothing notable about her. - If this biography is kept I will edit all the content about other people and events she was not involved in out of it and there will be almost nothing left - Youreallycan 18:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Youreallycan: Threats of WP:VANDALISM in the future are not a good argument to delete it now. Children of the Holocaust who rise to fame, no matter how young they were at the time are also known as Holocaust survivors, they don't have to have been notable during the Holocaust itself necessarily, unless you know that's the rule, which it isn't. Just to be clear, in light of all the lengthy and repeated discussions that have arisen on various WP forums about Ed and David Miliband's "Jewish" status over and over again, just for that this article about their mother would be WP:N because it clarifies once and for all that she was and is Jewish, had deep Jewish roots and definite Jewish parents in Poland, she went through the Holocaust in Poland, her large family was murdered by the Nazis, she was somehow saved by nuns in Warsaw, and then came as a Jewish refugee to England in the 1950s. Thus according to all the criteria as explained in Who is a Jew? Ed and David Miliband are Jewish by birth, full stop, regardless of what else they have done with their lives and there is no need to judge or question that issue over and over again on WP as this article would authoritatively close off that ongoing wasteful debate. In addition to the fact that her being a prominent Jewess of very left-wing political persuasions and lends her name and efforts to left-wing causes is important, as described in the article, because it therefore explains where her sons are coming from and why they too are such die-hard left-wing politicians, and why they identify with left-wing causes. Much like it being impossible to understand Napoleon or FDR, as cited above, without understanding the early and ongoing influences these powerful mothers had on their sons. IZAK (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, after reviewing what sources I can find on the internet, the subject does not appear to pass WP:AUTHOR, as the four publications does not appear to pass the third criteria of said guideline. Additionally subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG; although the subject is mentioned multiple times in news sources, and mentions in books, none of them appear to meet Significant coverage. One possible exception is this article in the Telegraph, however it can be argued that the "piece together" nature of the article, as the article itself states, can mean it (the article) is more about the events around the subject and not the subject herself. All that being said, what content that can be verified can be merged with the article & section Ralph Miliband#Personal life, as suggested by Quasihuman. If the content regarding the subject of this present article increases to the point where the article regarding Ralph Miliband expands to the point where said article meets WP:TOOLONG this article can always be recreated as a subarticle.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the woman is a Holocaust survivor. She escaped almost certain death at the hands of the Nazis. I am reading: "Marion’s story – a miraculous tale of survival against all odds – has never been properly told, and she is reluctant to speak about it publicly. But The Sunday Telegraph has been able to piece together fragments of her past; a past that shapes the characters of her two successful, competitive sons. Hers is a journey of survival through occupied Poland that relied on help from a German factory boss, nuns in a convent and other Jews and non-Jews alike."[18] The remainder of that article is equally astounding. She doesn't have to "inherit" notability from her sons or husband in order for Wikipedia to devote an article to her. Just her survival as a Jew in war-torn and Nazi-antisemitic Europe provides sufficient noteworthiness. Bus stop (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, are you really saying that every Holocaust survivor is notable enough for an article? Every single Jewish person who survived the Third Reich? Surely not? That really would be taking notability too far. Why not every single soldier who survived the Second World War? -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothes—There is a technical reason why every Holocaust survivor would not be notable for an article: sources. If sources are lacking then how could we substantiate any of the material in such an article? But even the sparse details that we have indicate that Marion Kozak's was a harrowing survival ordeal. For a variety of reasons another individual's corresponding experience in similar circumstances may remain undocumented. In many cases there could not possibly be an article such as this. The theater of war and the mechanisms of extermination were hardly trifling dangers. This is an article on someone who somehow survived an ever-present threat to her life. Sources are documenting it, although admittedly with insufficient detail. But the details we have should probably establish that this is one of the many who passed through the mechanism of destruction that was the Holocaust. That is significant and in my opinion that is notable. Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly an influential person in her own right who has been in the public eye independent of her husband and sons. Insufficient grounds for merge with husband, seeing that she clearly has independent notability. JFW | T@lk 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let some users edit the article for a few weeks, it certainly does not deserve a hasty deletion. --Yoavd (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm surprised nobody has remembered or seen reason to mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Miliband - it was only six months ago. Though I seem to remember that, even though it covered much of the same information, that article as being rather different from this on one, so I don't think we are in WP:G4 territory. Also, from a quick search back then and a quicker recap now, there are enough mentions of her (under both maiden and married names) on GScholar to suggest that she had scholarly influence that went well beyond just being her husband's wife and her sons' mother - however, there seem to be few if any explicit citations of publications by her, so (until someone, probably some years from now, researches that aspect of her life) it may not count all that much towards verifiable notability separate from that of her husband. I get the impression that that may be the way she wants it. PWilkinson (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Biographical article on Kozak is a major source on her; plenty of other sources for independent information about her. As for all the "notability is not inherited" arguments: Sure, some of the media interest -- maybe a lot of it -- stems from her more notable family members but that doesn't mean she, herself, is not notable. While "notability is not inherited" in terms of Wikipedia articles (one notable thing does not mean that all subparts or related topics are notable) notability can, and often is, "inherited" in the real world -- and if sufficient scholarship and popular attention has turned on a topic, then it is per se notable, regardless of whether we here at Wikipedia think the subject deserved notability. --Lquilter (talk) 06:50, 6 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The vote count is pretty even here, and both sides have advanced reasonable arguments for their positions. The main thrust of the delete !voters was that this is an example of WP:RECENTISM, although several editors also cited concerns about a WP:POVFORK violation. These are fairly strong arguments for deletion. On the other hand, a number of keep !voters cited the degree of coverage that this received as evidence of permanent notability. Other keep !voters expressed confidence that POV issues had been/are being remedied. So, the keep arguments seem pretty strong to me, as well. Since there are roughly even amounts of fairly strong arguments, I'm confident in saying that the community has failed to reach a consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy[edit]

Note: The page has been renamed to 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK spun off with zero discussion from Chick-fil-A#Controversy_regarding_LGBT_issues, which is currently seeing heavy POV editing and conflict among editors. Topic is notable but smacks of WP:RECENTISM (note RECENTISM and NPOV tags currently placed on parent article). Most events are scarcely 30 days old and establishing lasting notability necessarily requires use of WP:CRYSTAL. Absent additional developments, the section in the parent article needs to be pared down to avoid WP:UNDUE, not spun-off into a new article. Belchfire-TALK 04:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of a fork, but a "Controversy_regarding_LGBT_issues" fork instead.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion for a biased article title is informative. As much as I disagree with forking to avoid the inevitable slimming down of the parent article, I will at least give the creator credit for choosing a mostly accurate title. Belchfire-TALK 04:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is already a section in the current article, and current consensus is it is not biased there, so how could it be biased here? And for the record I'm in favor of any fork that is neutrally worded.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus ≠ neutrality. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 04:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since all articles are supposed to be neutral, and we edit by consensus, then yes -- the section title is neutral. That of course can change. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reasoning doesn't actually lead anywhere, just so you know. Belchfire-TALK 05:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belch... there's a very reasonable argument here for a rename, but not based on political orientation. You're not winning any arguments given your approach in the above thread. Focus on the RS, and what the media calls it, or maybe what the media doesn't call it. As I say below, I am undecided on whether or not this is notable. But focus on the relevant issues please. We try to keep political considerations out as much as is possible [with the obvious understanding that we're all human]. Shadowjams (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not arrive at the issue of renaming until we first conclude that a fork is called for. I note again that this was done unilaterally, with zero discussion. But a content fork is not allowable if done for POV purposes. If this is not a POVFORK, then please explain why the title of the new article obviously adopts a POV diametrically opposed to the title of the article section it is spun from. A review of the original Talk page and article history will show that I am on record agreeing with the POV of the fork creator! I am actually of the opinion that the original article section should be entitled along the lines of the new article. My argument is therefore 100% grounded in policy, not POV. I am actually making a policy argument here that cuts against my own personal POV bias. Belchfire-TALK 16:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy (or something similar that uses the preferred term "same-sex marriage" and removes "freedom of speech," which is not the source of the controversy) or to Chick-fil-A and LGBT rights (to encompass earlier issues). This is a content fork due to size that would facilitate the maintenance of due weight in the main article, since these details are relevant, well sourced, and persistent but do not make up the majority of encyclopedic content on Chick-fil-A. Article also needs editing (eg. Equality Matters's publishing details of Chick-fil-A's donation of profits to anti-gay groups is actually significant here, but it's given a single sentence, while the article incorrectly frames the entire public response as solely to Cathy's comments) but that isn't a reason for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Roscelese. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subsidiary article written from a certain POV without discussion on the main article. Fails POVFORK. How about that Builttiger (talk · contribs · count)? Pretty impressive first time at bat. Only here 6 days and already can write a wikified, sourced article with proper layout even to the point of adding ((cite)) templates. This is a C class article for gosh sakes. I didn't realize our tutorials were that good. It took me months to get to that level. You go, tiger. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Lionel.... Plaayaaa :) Builtiger (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as a WP:COATRACK. There is no impingement of freedom of speech, since that could only be done by the government. Speciate (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not the question. Renaming is certainly fine (probably called for), but that's hardly a reason for delete. Not to mention, a few major cities mayors were talking about not permitting new permits for the restaurant in their city, which certainly does involve government action. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Rename is fine. Speciate (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK. This can be adequately covered in Chick-fil-A. Ryan Vesey 05:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ryan Vesey makes a good point. He says that this should be covered in the main article however what's interesting is that the creator of this article actually started this page by taking material from the main article to create this page. Put it back and delete this article since it fails plenty of Wikipedia policies. ViriiK (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literal duplicate of this article exists in the Chick-fil-a wiki entry. This article is 1) Redundant 2) potential for criticism of wikipedia as a source of bias / support for issue one way or the other. While I do have my own beliefs on the issue -as I'm sure ALL of us do- I am positive we can all agree that wikipedia is not a platform for expressing our beliefs, one way or the other. Kyanwan (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For both Vesey, ViriiK, and Kyanwan. Those are all essentially POV fork issues, but that material was copied/moved is hardly relevant. The question is if it's a valid fork, or if it's a POV fork against policy. But the method to do that... like copying content, is pretty standard with most forks. See any recent major news event and you'll see exactly the same thing. The question here is how notable is the incident. That depends on reliable coverage, and it being notnews. Those are the policies you should be citing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This issue is not significant enough for it's own article in this enclyopedia (an article in a newspaper sure but last time I checked this is not a newspaper) it's is a footnote in the companies public relations history which seems important now due to all the news but in perspective it is very insignificant. When One Million Moms protested and called for a boycott for J.C. Penny for having Ellen Degeneras as a spokesman (since Ellen is openly gay) did we spin that off into an article included Bill O'Reilly's opinions and every else's no we included it as only a minor footnote in the companies history about it's public relations See the article here this controversy is practically the same and should be handled as such. Algonquin7 (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really do see both sides of this debate, and while I don't want to argue in principle against this separate article it does seem far too early to know whether this should be justifiably separated from the main Chick-fil-A narrative. Also I'm concerned about the removal of material from the main Chick-fil-A article, such as the Jim Henson withdrawal: given the high profile of the Jim Henson company, it is far too soon to decide this is just a "news blip" and readers will expect *some* mention of this in the article, otherwise it looks suspiciously like selective POV. Alfietucker (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this sort of thing is surprisingly common on wikipedia. Event happens that makes big newspaper splash, so has tons of reliable sources, but most of them repeat the same thing. In the end we keep many of these, unless they're local in nature. I don't have an opinion about it yet because I think many of these events are very hard to determine if they're notable at the time. This is where policy comes in. So I would just say that everyone commenting here should steer clear of the typical stuff and focus on the policy for this reason. And while I fully expected this AfD (I patrolled the article within the first 10 minutes of its creation... this afd was started within a few hours after... not sure the exact time) perhaps some patience is helpful. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - WP:TOOSOON it is far too soon to determine if this is an actual "controversy" which time and perspective will show had some type of effect and notability outside of the corporate entity or if it is just a storm in the media and blogosphere teacup. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Echoing what The Red Pen said, it is too early to know if this issue will end up being notable enough to justify a separate article. At the moment, it's a media firestorm, the long-term impact of which is very uncertain. We had a fairly extensive discussion on this last week on the CfA talk page, and consensus there reflected keeping the content where it was. For someone to say today that a new article is justified requires the use of a crystal ball. MsFionnuala (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a freedom of speech issue, therefore article should be renamed at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.42.216 (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious WP:POVFORK with a nonsensical title. It's already covered in the Chick-fil-A article from which much of the content was copy and pasted. The new article conflates two different issues: gay marriage and freedom of speech, and borders on WP:SYN. MrX 12:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - The article in question has morphed significantly since this Afd was started. As such, my commitment to deleting the article has waned. I would still prefer that the information somehow be summarized, condensed and included in the Chick-fil-A article. On the other hand, if these events have sufficient momentum and end up rising to historical importance, then I would support having a separate article. MrX 19:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "if these events have sufficient momentum and end up rising to historical importance, " - keyword is if so far the only evidence is that it is the typical slow late summer news period, and the news got tired of foolish "zombies on designer drugs" non-events where the designer drugs were not actually present -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:TOOSOON really is just says "wait for WP:GNG to be met." I don't think it's too credible to suggest that the topic doesn't have sufficient number of sources already to stand alone as an article. Renaming is an issue that can be considered separately. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It seems to me that many of the editors voting to delete this article are attempting to take part in some kind of political activism. Saying stuff like "There is no impingement of freedom of speech" or "written without discussion". None of those are wikiepdia policy. Either you guys really don't have a single clue about wikipedia policy, or you're desperately looking for a reason to delete this article. This can be only merged to the main article if much of the important information is deleted and/or oversimplified. --Bogu Slav 13:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting POV, considering that Page Size reports the fork article (Prose size (text only): 5936 B (946 words) "readable prose size") is actually a little smaller than the section it is spun-out from (Prose size (text only): 5969 B (955 words) "readable prose size"). I invite you to go to work reducing the size of the main article section forthwith, since it clearly needs to be done. Belchfire-TALK 18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The whole page smacks recentism. If it doesn't get deleted now, in a month or two when cooler heads prevail it will. But please, let's just delete it now and get it over with. I'm not sure who decided it'd be a good idea but it's clearly not. -- HappyHippo69(talk))
Delete as POV fork, and as possibly excessively small POV fork. As Ryan Vesey has already said, the Chick-fil-A article as it stands is sufficiently short that all the necessary content can be included there. Also, honestly, if there were to be a spinout article, Corporate culture of Chick-fil-A would probably be a better one, given that it would be able to spin out more material. So, in effect, this article seems to fail both as a spinout to limit the length of the main article, because the main article isn't too long as it is, and it very definitely seems to be basically existing for the purpose of giving the subtopic more weight than it apparently merits. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think John hit the nail on the head here. An article on Chick-fil-A's corporate culture would be perfectly appropriate and it would allow for summary style to be used on Chick-fil-A. That article would contain this information, but also information regarding being closed on Sundays etc. Ryan Vesey 16:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chick-fil-A#Controversy regarding same-sex marriage stance – It's a flash-in-the-pan news story, not a separate Wikipedia topic, and a POV fork to boot. There is no reason the information currently in the article can't be properly summarized and included in the main article and not follow our undue weight guideline. --MuZemike 16:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Roscelese. As idiotic as I find this controversy, it's clearly gotten enough attention to merit an independent article. Keeping this lunacy at a minimum in the main article is preferable and keeping this article, under a more suitable name, should make it easier.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator's concerns about WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS. I also agree with Ryan Vesey's and John Carter's rationales; I think this could be covered adequately in the parent article and would prefer to avoid forking controversial content when it doesn't seem necessary. Alternately, per MuZemike, we could redirect the article back to Chick-fil-A and merge the relevant content. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename, Protect/Improve I'd argue that this news story has received significant enough attention to merit its own article, regardless of my or any other editors political leanings. The recent statements by several city mayors (Boston, Chicago, etc.) alone makes the article notable and worthy of inclusion, in my opinion, as it has opened up a discussion on belief and business that is surprisingly rare in American political discourse. However, the current name is very POV (on both ends of the spectrum!) and needs to be changed. For those concerned that the article is a POV fork, I'd argue in favor of Protect and Improve to avoid non-registered POV editing, rather than delete. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK and WP:MOUNTAINOUTOFAMOLEHILL. This is yet another transient bit of political haymaking that will shortly blow over; it can be (and in fact already is) included in the main Chik-fil-A page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perfect example of content fork and recentism. Issue can be easily dealt with within space of parent article.Marauder40 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I'm always against deleting things too quickly. There are some informative stuff in here that should be merged into the Chick-fil-a article. But most of it is basically news that is not necessarily historically relevant...so I don't see a reason for a separate article on the subject. --haha169 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename. I am not against having this page kept because of the notable coverage that this controversy has received, as well as how parties other than Chck-fil-A have continued to preseve public reception and interest into this aspect of the restaurant. If all this were to be put on the Chick-fil-A page, then it would distract from the other aspects of Chick-fil-A that the page details. If this page about the controversy is to be kept, then I believe that the "freedom of speech" portion needs to be removed from the name because this isn't so much a freedom of speech controversy as much as it is a controversy concerning a social stance that Chick-fil-A upholds. I would want the page to be moved to something along the lines of what user Roscelese recommends. As much partiality as I have to keeping this page, I acknowledge that it does have some recentism. For instance, as of this post, sources 37-43 are all bare URLs; while this sources content from reputable sources, it hastily does so and only three websites and four URLs are used as the seven sources. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POVFORK. -- The Anome (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chick-fil-A#Controversy regarding same-sex marriage stance - This is big news now, but it is very POV and a compressed version already exists in the linked section. Unnecessary. ~ Pony Toast...§ 22:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps I'm missing something, but why bother have a redirect if we decide to remove this article? It seems highly unlikely to me that anyone is going to search for an article called "2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy". Better to just delete it and be done with it, surely? Alfietucker (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a link to it very prominently in the U.S. section from Google News, and I think there might be other links as well. At the very least, it seems like it would be convenient to have this as a redirect for the sake of external links from other sites.--108.20.144.127 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - being based in the UK with the UK version of Google News, I wouldn't see that. Fair enough. Alfietucker (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Due to discussion here, and on the talk page, I renamed the article to 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, removing the "free speech" reference. If there are better names it can be renamed again. Shadowjams (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename There has been substantial press coverage and political activism on both sides, with national figures drawn in. This article should be kept, but renamed. 'Freedom of speech' is only one dimension to a multifaceted issue, which may develop over time. Van Gulik (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename This topic has received enough coverage from multiple sources in the past few days to warrant keeping it. Name could be better though.XantheTerra (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-running notable controversy with lots of analysis and international coverage. Way too much detail for the Chick-fil-A article, which is suffering from recentism and undue issues right now. Jokestress (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. POV is subjective and after reading the article it does not appears to have a POV one way or the other. Others feel it belongs in the Chick-fil-A page but it is important enough to deserve it's own page. I agree the original name was an issue. --Tfschueller (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:POVFORK. A distracting bit of nonsense that could easily be covered within the Chick-Fil-A article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe fact of the existence of this "protest" is significant to Chick-fil-A, and should be mentioned in the C-f-A article. What the "protest" is about, though is not as clear. People have focused on the same-sex marriage comments of Cathy, and make these the topic; if you are just talking about Cathy's giving his personal views of gay marriage, and that THAT is the controversy, not worth an article. The original Equality Matters press bomb mentioned some organizations that call themselves "pro-family" that filed amicus briefs aginst gay marriage legislation or lawsuits, but that amounts to a few thousand dollars of donations, also not worth an article. Now, it also mentioned other organizations that did NOT lobby or support legislative efforts that they called anti-gay for other reasons, but that is not a same-sex marriage controversy. Certainly there may be free speech issues if city officials use their office to censor or ban businesses due to political views, but that has not yet happened; it is just threatened. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge The controversy although newsworthy should just be part of the Chick-fil-A article instead of a stand alone article. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 04:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you merge the page, then more than half the page of the Chick-fil-A article will be about the same-sex marriage controversy, which distracts it from being a page about a "restaurant franchise specializing in chicken entrées". At the rate we are going, we'll end up screaming for WP:NPOV ont the Chick-fil-A article instead. As much as you disagree with its COO, the entire history of Chick-fil-A is not solely defined by his opinion and the controversy. — Hasdi Bravo • 08:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to a non date based title. // Liftarn (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're hardly the first, but the article's been renamed for a while now... this just highlights how nobody bothers to actually look at the article at AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently (as I type this), the article still has "2012" in the title, so I think Liftarn's suggestion is still relevant (note - I don't mean to suggest that I agree or disagree with his suggestion). Calathan (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the current article title begins with 2012. If you're going to berate someone for not reading, it might be good to do so yourself. LadyofShalott 17:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if a trivial rename is enacted, you keep? or delete? Shadowjams (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hasdi. There has been more written on this controversy than about the restaurant. --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant chain is 66 years old. I think you meant to say "I've read more on this controversy than about the restaurant." Belchfire-TALK 15:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. What moron suggested this should be deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 August 2012‎

That is a personal attack and is unacceptable.– Lionel ^(talk) 21:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This has grown large enough to keep as its own page. That way the Chick-Fil-A page is not over run by this but keeps all the information and timelines open so not to keep it so limited to not understand the issue. 90moredays (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT/SUGGESTION In regard to the keep-delete issue: Can anyone find a single instance where any other company has been singled out like this (social/political views on a single topic)? I've searched, and 500 results into my search ... found none. This article is wholly political, highly biased - and has no true place on wikipedia. Having more eyes trying to verify this would be helpful. I feel using Wikipedia to report news is a VERY bad trend, and should be strongly restricted as a practice. Issues should be given time to pan out, to become history - so they can be documented clearly, accurately, and completely. Kyanwan (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Its not a company per se, but as an institution, it is close enough. Personally, I think this controversy is blowing things out of proportion. However, too many high-profile players like Huckabee and Bloomberg are involved, and too many news articles written. We shouldn't advocate any point of view, but need to keep score who said and did what. My 2 cents. — Hasdi Bravo • 20:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're comparing the systematic abuse of dozens of children over the course of a decade to this? Hippo nation will happily pay the bills for your needed therapy sessions. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think Hasdi is making that comparison at all. However it does answer the question that was asked: "Can anyone find a single instance where any other company has been singled out like this." The answer is yes. Also see Criticism of Walmart, Burger King legal issues, Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy, Corrib gas controversy, AFL siren controversy, Black Mesa Peabody Coal controversy, Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2... there are more. Shadowjams (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm going to assume once this gets deleted... Reality, as well as most editors, will disagree with you on that point. HappyHippo69 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There are indeed many. The Nestlé boycott leaps to mind, also Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, UC Davis pepper-spray incident, McLibel Case, Enron scandal... This case is unusual because most C-suite execs do not make public statements of these sorts. Jokestress (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The Boys Scouts controversy makes an apt comparison - a private organization fully within its rights that has won in court repeatedly, despite persistent efforts by outsiders to force their point of view using pressure tactics. Yep, that's a ringer. Belchfire-TALK 21:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Belchfire, glad you agree that article is comparable in notability to this one. I do, too. That's why both should be kept. Jokestress (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a straw man, and not even an especially artful one. I made no comment about any article. Belchfire-TALK 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If your comment isn't about the merits of keeping or deleting the article, I'll remind you this is not a forum for your irrelevant opinions on other issues. We have precedent, as you note, for articles on comparable controversies. Thanks again for agreeing with my comparison. Jokestress (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P & G -- MrX 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The overall article does not contribute any additional value as a stand alone article. Though it cites many sources, the organization of content highly suggests an under lying theme with an alterior agenda. Therein lays the conflict one encounters when in reading the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TXPamIAm (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework. This has rapidly become one of the biggest stories of the year, and the Chick-fil-A article is too narrow of a topic to contain it. The marriage donations, Jim Henson Company's protest, the mayoral blockings, the freedom-of-speech battles, the Huckabee protest, the kiss-ins, etc. Wikipedia isn't news, but this story is immensely influential and will be remembered by history - even if people forget Henson, Huckabee and Chick-fil-A. American Eagle (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N no question. Casprings (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Casprings nailed it. The policy: "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." It's undeniable that we have such coverage. The story is big enough to justify its own article, and the old POV name for the article is now gone. The massive coverage and widespread and intense public reaction to the events shows this to be a significant event in the US "culture wars" over gay rights, family values, free enterprise, free speech, and religion. Sure, it'll be a magnet for some POV edits, but that's no reason to delete an article. I don't know what the "Keep/Delete" ratio is here, but I think the right application of policy is pretty clear in this case, regardless. Nick Graves (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Widely documented and encyclopedic. But let's aim as much as we can for neutrality. ComputerJA (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OK, I'm now convinced. This issue, if you look at the world outside Wikipedia, is simply not going away and clearly is bigger than merely an episode in the history of a restaurant chain. And, as Casprings has pointed out, this has received wide and significant coverage in the media. Alfietucker (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh, so now you need to have consensus to create an article? This nomination is baseless. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a pointless article about a pointless subject, the topic shouldn't even be discussed on here, the entire article is based upon personal beliefs and opinions, from unreliable non-neutral heavily biased sources such as this one. People from both sides tend to hijack articles like this one to force there points of view into the conscious of the reader, articles such as this will only lead to edit warring, since both sides have strong opinions and neither side wants to give things could turn ugly really quickly. And wikipedia was founded upon truth and facts not opinions and exaggerations. Wikipedia should be opinion-less not for nor against gay marriage or Chick-fil-A. Pluto and Beyond (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your comment is a valid deletion rationale. Deletion policy is not about whether the subject is "pointless or not," but rather whether it is notable or not.--108.20.144.127 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think many eyebrows, and this hippo-brow, are raised at the assumption that an article can be notable and pointless. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this article is to inform on a topic that is notable. The charge of "pointlessness" sounds a lot like "I don't like it", which is not a valid rationale for deletion. Nick Graves (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this topic is notable and will be remembered, but there is a lot of work to do to make this article neutral and more informative. H2O (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is so much coverage in reliable, independent sources that one sees it in every direction. Highly notable individuals like the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and New York; former governors Huckabee and Palin; and former senator Santorum have all weighed in on this issue. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in RSs, but material would unbalance main article. William Avery (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reeks of recentism and a povfork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.188.131 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator's concerns about WP:RECENTISM, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOT#NEWS. I also agree with Ryan Vesey's and John Carter's rationales; I think this could be covered adequately in the parent article, and would prefer to avoid forking controversial content when it doesn't seem necessary. So my unwavering conclusion is - just delete the page. B-watchmework (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editing ramifications of proposed titleI would first state that yes, the same-sex marriage issues, which are clear, are the ones that people understand and have clear views on, which can be reported in an NPOV manner, and the term Same-sex marriage is the best AND most neutral. I would not want to edit based on the title until the AfD is concluded, but would point out that restricting it to Same-sex marriage issues would then exclude the then WP:COATRACK of what is called on the page "other LGBT Rights". Donations of WinShape to filers of amicus briefs is only about $6,000, and are designated funds, so even THAT isn't actually for political opposition to same sex marriage. The same sex marriage issues really come down to Cathy's comments, in an interview.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chick-Fil-A, which already has a Section on this subtopic. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've been seeing new news events around this story every week, it might have died down with the kiss-in but then that backlash was Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee calling for a national support day. Now it's turning into an election year issue as well that Romney hasn't yet offered any comment. Any neutral mention in the Chick-Fil-A would have to quickly turn into a large paragraph even if just mentioning each subsequent chapter causing undue weight in that article. The signing on of US mayors one after the next they a national chain is not welcome is news alone. We're past a tipping point. Insomesia (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name should not include "same-sex marriage" as that is only one focus of some of the sources, the larger issue is anti-LGBT rights promotion. It's one level to state one doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, it's another to do so representing a large company. It's still another to fund anti-LGBT groups. Imagine if they were found to be supporting the KKK or a pro-Nazi group? There would be protests and shutdowns. Insomesia (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the comments were quite specific to gay marriage, so the title is descriptive. To go beyond that would create NPOV considerations. Shadowjams (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as renamed -- covering this within the CfA article would badly unbalance it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. As renamed, it is restricted to Cathy's comments, free sandwiches to a PA group, and support for WinShape; that is all the Same-sex marriage controversy, and can be described by a small entry. The more diffuse and contentious issues, the allegations of groups WinShape supports being "anti-gay" or "hate groups", mostly do not directly relate to Chick-fil-A, but to WinShape, and should be mentioned and redirected there, or to EqualityMatters. Balance problem is easy to fix.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, that argument, while an argument, is very specifically not considered a valid one for use in AfDs, under WP:BHTT--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, BHTT refers to "unsourced material of no importance", which this doesn't qualify as. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WinShape is only notable as it's an entity controlled and bankrolled by the owners of Chick-Fil-A. I see no reason to treat it as a separate entity for the purposes of this discussion if it and Chick-Fil-A have the same individual holding the pursestrings. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh - this will die down in two more weeks. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be a valid controversy here, and a full discussion of it would be rather long for the main CfA page. POV problems in this forked article should be dealt with in the usual fashion -- by successive edits to address both POVs and thereby bring it closer to a NPOV. And of course by the usual insistence on citing sources and Verifiability.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 06:18, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The !votes are fairly weak here, so renominating is an option. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tonga National Tag Team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations. A recent AfD was closed as no consensus with two delete !votes, one merge and one keep. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Last time this article was nominated for deletion the 2 votes for deletes did not offer any reasonable evidence to support their stance. The one vote to merge was incorrect to merge as two different codes of sport cannot be merged and this was my reply to all the votes below. (copied from the previous nomination) :

... "Thanks everyone, Bwilkins, you and others have helped me get it to where its at.(IT was terrible at first) Thank you!!... One of the issues I have about merging it to Rugby is that Tag rugby is a variant of Rugby league not rugby union. And even though Rugby league and Tag Rugby are variants of Rugby They are Notable sports on their own. There is an article of Tag rugby on here. The links and references I have provided in the article is to show how this sport Tag Rugby is a Notable sport, despite being a variant. More importantly I have included other wiki links that show articles of other Tag/Flag football/Rugby National teams.

The other important issue we must understand about Twenty20 a variant of cricket is that the infrastructure of that sport is totally different! Twenty20 and regular cricket co-exist with each other. The same Players contracted for Twenty20 also play regular cricket for their countries in between seasons. In most if not all occassions The national cricket team will also be the national Twenty20 team. Thats why there are no separate articles and is noted under the country's national cricket team page. Even though there is a world cup for Twenty20 now, the same national team is represented because this type of variant to that sport is different. For cricket there is 3 or 5 day tests, 50 overs, and now Twenty20 meaning just 20 overs. It is understandable that Twenty20 and Cricket are merged because it is the same game with the difference of only 20 overs rather than regular 50 overs. Twenty20 has become more popular because it is shorter,faster and big money but the sport is the same with the same players or/and national teams that play.

Can we please look at Rugby and its variant Rugby sevens. Now this variant is a better example of how it stands alone from its "Mother sport" Rugby union and is comparative to how Tag rugby is to Rugby league. Sevens rugby has its own national teams - Different Teams, different players, you actually have to change codes to play one or the other unlike Twenty20 cricket. You cant merge Rugby sevens with Rugby because they are their own bonfired sport with their own national teams New Zealand Sevens and All Blacks , Australia Sevens and Wallabies, Japan Sevens and many other countries. It is the same for Tag rugby. You cannot merge Tonga National Tag Team with Tonga national rugby union team or 'Ikale Tahi or even Tonga national rugby league team or Rugby league because they are all different notable sports with different codes despite the variants.

I cant say why there isint any articles on other national teams, maybe they just havnt been created? who knows? Im creating Nz and Australia tag Teams articles at the moment. (but as guided by some admins and users Im using my sandbox first) I dont have anything to do with the tongan team but I am a big sports fan in a wide range of sports and have very good knowledge of them either bacause I have played Internationally or I follow passionately for many years. I posted the Tonga Tag Team up first because they are the latest addition to the Tag world and there is not only a growing interest in joining this team from Tongans and of Tongan descent around the world but other nations competing against them has had very good competition fromTonga Tag. (Including beating Australia at the Pacific Cup 2012) I thought people googling Tonga Tag could find out more about Tonga's national Tag team in a factual and non biase way. It might not be of interest or impressive enough for some but thats not to say its not notable. ☻Ÿ 12:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs) " ...

I am trying to retrieve an archived article in the UK local paper as additional reference for the 2006 Tag world Cup. I have read the policies and guidelines of notability and it would seem to appear if there is anything lacking then editors should suggest improvement and other options for this article. The guidelines encourages to consider reasonable options before nominating an article for deletion. Many will agree there are articles here in Wikipedia that have less information, less references, are badly written, lack citation etc but doesnt necessarily warrant a deletion. In accordance with the Notability guidelines and the information on the article (more to be added) this article does not warrant a deletion. [[19]] ☻Ÿ 03:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs) [reply]

Keep - I was viewing Ireland sports and came across Ireland and Britain national tag teams article:Great Britain and Ireland National Tag Rugby Squad With all due respect to the author of that article but that has NO INFORMATION AT ALL?? Yet it has suggestions to improve not to delete. I clicked on this national Tongan team and it has alot more information and stats. But more importantly has references and resources that supports its notability. The nominations for delection is not suitable or correct.--PILTS (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)--PILTS (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)--PILTS (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)--PILTS (talk) 13:30, 24 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while there is certainly room for improvement, I'd argue this is certainly notable, given the popularity that Rugby and its derivatives enjoy in Tonga. Notability should not be colored by location, as per WP:Systemic Bias Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't relist discussions without a deletion argument. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When the "keep" !votes are not considered to have a sound foundation in policy, it's pefectly legitimate for a discussion to be relisted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If relisters think that a deletion argument exists, they can enter the discussion and make the deletion argument. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:20, 8 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 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} 19:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Phonetic[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. Article has only one reference which also doesn't cover them substantially. — Bill william compton^Talk 07:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 11 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, BusterD (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 13:52, 18 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above comment. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:17, 2 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 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. Given the lack of participation, I'll restore and relist this on request as if it were a PROD. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Bom-Bane[edit]

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

Notability per WP:MUSICBIO does not seem to have met. Coverage is trivial, and she is on a small indie label (self-published?). Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 20 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 2 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Given the lack of participation here, this can be renominated at any time. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi_Bhat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rishi Bhat (2nd nomination)

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

This person is not very notable. They had a supporting role in a minor movie over 20 years ago and sold two companies during the dotcom bubble. The movie information purpose can be equally served by imdb and countless people fulfill the criteria for the business endeavors Mr bzman (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could swear that I considered this previously at a PROD or AFD, but I can not find a history of this. However, this page name suggests that there must have been a precious discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only deletion related action I can see is an edit war between IP editors over a prod (reviewed every revision since creation), which it does not appear you were involved with. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone blanked my talk page Prod commentary. I have restored it. Why was this started as a 2nd nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I am kind of on the fence. His acting critical reception is only for nominations. I don't see any awards. I think his early life stuff may count as WP:ONEEVENT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 19 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A kid who acted in a significant role in a major notable production for which he received recognition by his peers, and who then several years later made his first millions by age 15.[20] He was noteworthy then and we do not expect someone determinable as notable when younger to maintain a high media profile when older. At least two different and unrelated sourcable events some five years apert that found their way into the media mean that this is A) not a WP:BLP1E and B) Notability is not temporary. WP:GNG and WP:N are met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As significant role in one and only picture is not notable. This information is better served by IMDB. Additionally in the notability guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers), there must be a significant role in multiple productions. The recognition took place in a single nomination. The suggestion for any biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography) are either an award (which this person has none) or multiple nominations, which this person has only one. This means that the first event was not notable and therefore this article may be a temperory notability or represent the notability of an event (dotcom bubble). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.245.6 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One significant role in one notable producton might otherwise fail WP:ENT, but the spirit of ENT is to recognize that a nomination for a notable award might be indicative of significant coverage for that role, and if such coverage were extremely persistant and enduring, the GNG could trump the SNG. But debating GNG vs SNGs is not the argument here. In concentrating on a nominaton, it is forgotten that WP:ANYBIO is not just about "awards". ANYBIO also addresses "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". We have a kid genius who made millions with his software at age 15, the creation of which was a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Weak on WP:ENT but surpassing WP:GNG for his overal life and career(s). If all he had ever done was one film role, I might have otherwise agreed to a deletion or redirect because the role was singular. However, we do not expect any child actor to remain a child or an actor. Five years after he left it, we have a whole new set of circumstances totally unrelated to acting... the creation of a software program and a website that made this youngster a multi-millionaire at age 15, and thus assured more coverage of this indivudual for other life events to further meet WP:GNG AND WP:CREATIVE AND WP:ANYBIO. In determining someone worthy of note, we do not quibble over the separate elements of an individual's career, or concentrate on what might be lesser elements in an attempt to dismiss the total. We instead look at the whole and provide readers with an inciteful and well sourced article that informs: Who did what and when? How did they do it and why?. What was their motivation and background or training? Properly informing the reader does not mean we simply delete pertinant sourced information from an article that could otherwise aid in a reader's greater understanding of the topic.[21] We instead find a way to better present such information... for the readers.[22] And while we might generally not find one film role enough, there is no doubt it was a significant role that garnered wide attention in multiple reliable sources. We add to that, the coverage five years later for an entirely unrelated set of circumstances to see Bhat has recieved coverage for more than just one thing. This is A) not a WP:BLP1E, and B) the cummulative coverage for his acting and for his entrepreneurship exceed the requisites of WP:GNG. Notable is notable. And by the way... we are not IMDB. We differ from them in that we provide users with sourced information that they do not. Why would IMDB care about something other than his acting?? We can... and do. Notability determined through the totality of one's life coverage is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 4 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 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} 19:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Burman[edit]

(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 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find significant coverage in any independent source. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has a single primary source, with no secondary sources. This is probably because there don't appear to be any independent sources. The subject of the article has had numerous roles in minor theatre productions, but seems to fail WP:NACTOR. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS given to establish her notability. --Artene50 (talk) 19:39, 27 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. No reliable sources to be found. -- Luke (Talk) 17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 03:16, 3 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 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MercyStreet[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 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No notable outside sources that aren't primary sources. Very recently created band as well. Shadowjams (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BAND Topher385 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 18:23, 2 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice towards future redirection Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tidal Waves Bands[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 18:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a real article, but merely a list of non-notable bands that happen to have had the same name. Essentially it's a disambiguation page — except that none of the bands has a separate Wikipedia article to link to, all of them claim mere existence ("with videos on you tube and a MySpace page") and fail to demonstrate any actual notability, and the two "references" both completely fail to meet our reliable source rules. Was previously prodded, but that was removed when the bad reference links were added. This simply isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia in its current form — and even if actual notability could be demonstrated for one or more of these bands, each would need to have its own separate article at a title more consistent with our naming conventions, rather than all five being discussed in one list. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 26 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} 01:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any notable bands should be listed on the disambiguation page Tidal wave. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no reason to have a page listing a bunch of non-notable bands on the spurious grounds that they have similar names -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Disambiguation pages exist to disambiguate existing articles, not the entire Internet. bd2412 T 14:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Tidal Waves and then delete The Tidal Waves Bands. At least two of the bands (the 1965 and 1972 ones) are clearly notable with reliable sources in both print and online media. Only the first of these is covered in any depth in the present article. In order to preserve the contribution history, the present article should be redirected to The Tidal Waves, and then all information not about the 1965 band should be removed from it. The redirect The Tidal Waves Bands can then be deleted. An entry for the 1965 band can be added to the disambiguation page at Tidal wave. (That page already contains an entry for the 1972 band.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:02, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected as per below. When there are no objections to a redirect, even after a week, that's a good indication that someone could probably have just redirected the article without actually going through the AFD. If someone had objected to the mid-afd redirect, obviously it would have been reverted pending this discussion. Since it's been open for the required time, I'm going to go ahead and close this. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satnami[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant: Both Satnami and Sadh are synonymous. It may be redirected to Sadh AshLey ^Msg 13:27, 26 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} 01:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems right. There's nothing useful in this stub to merge over. This could have been done by ordinary editing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected for the time being, per the comment of alf laylah wa laylah. If the consensus is to retain the article, it could be reverted. AshLey ^Msg 11:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it OK to do this before the AFD closes, given that it removed the AFD template from the article? I'm not accusing; I legitimately don't know.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have precedent like that (if it's not controversial). In a previous AFD discussion, I have observed such a move. AshLey ^Msg 13:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okey dokey!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:45, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Chuk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This page was previously kept after deletion reviews four years ago (first, second and third), however the article now fails to meet the notability requirements as set out in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO1E. The article was retained due to the notability of events in 2007. Chuk's role was discussed specifically in one source and other sources are peripheral. There has been no response to article advice on the notability noticeboard for Mathew Chuk. Australian Matt (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He was never notable, the rules on vanity bios like this one were just not well-developed or applied in the past. Good luck to Mathew as a young litigator, let's remove the inevitable temptation for him to edit his own article before/if he does something worthy of notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Australian Matt (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Australian Matt (talk) 01:13, 26 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} 01:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject, in my opinion, does not pass WP:ANYBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaldax (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 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 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 Change to disambiguation page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humdinger[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICTIONARY Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just noticed that the page actually existed as a redirect to The Humdinger for three years before it was made into a dictionary entry. One possibility is to restore the page back to a redirect. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possible redirect A straightforward dictionary entry. Redirect to The Humdinger or the Wiktionary definition - it's a possible search term and should point the user somewhere useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change back to redirect. As it stands now, this is nothing more than a dictionary definition. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to dab page: as well as The Humdinger there's also a notable-looking album Humdinger by Enda Scahill, which needs to be linked from a dab page or hatnote. And another album by The Brock McGuire Band, and one by Aaron Neville. Seems scope for a dab page. PamD 23:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have added entries for three albums to the page: to convert it to a well-formatted dab page all that would now be needed would be to remove the dictionary entry and its references. If the page is preserved as "primary usage" of the word, then a dab page with these entries is needed. PamD 20:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PamD that there is sufficient in-encyclopedia content for a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:57, 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} 01:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to dab page: agree w/ PamD zammy (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about hamdingers? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Agile software development. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radiator (information)[edit]

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

Seems to me like a neologism, so I think it should be deleted per WP:NOTNEO Ducknish (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This term has been in common parlance since the early 2000s (see agile modeling -- published 12 April 2002), but only within agile software development circles. Similar phases such as continuous integration and Test-driven development have there own pages, and there is even an entry for Build light indicator, which is arguably a specialised form of information radiator. I intend for this article to grow to record the growing adoption of build radiators for continuous integration, and radiators for real-time metrics, but didn't want to invest the time if the article is just going to get deleted. Presumably Wikipedia desires new content generation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomDenley (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NEO, frankly it's just a Big Telly (TM) Greglocock (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I added a reference to a reliable source suggested by TomDenley, which discusses the term. This satisfies WP:NOTNEO. Unless there are other grounds to consider deletion, this AfD should be closed. To TomDenley: Yes, Wikipedia desires new content generation. Be patient with our process, though: we have to balance the desire for new content with the need to keep out cruft and keep the encyclopedia useful.--Srleffler (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Information radiator, per Wikipedia:Article titles--Srleffler (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary: it is a mere slang term, thus not an encyclopedic topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:24, 28 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} 01:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Agile software development. This is close to being WP:NEO or WP:DICDEF. As a term seriously proposed though apparently not very widely used it could simply be redirected to Agile software development where it would get a brief, cited paragraph. The term is related to but not a synonym for Build light indicator; that well-written article uses another term "dashboard" for a monitor-displayed project status summary, effectively an automated ""information radiator"" to coin a phrase. Cockburn did introduce the term in his book (Cockburn, Alistair. Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, 2002. pages 84-88); he is a respected authority, but in this case a primary source.

There could be some secondary sources for IR; Michael Swaine defends the term in Dr. Dobbs: Is Your Workspace Informative? (10 Dec 2007) where he incorrectly writes that Ian Alexander and Kathleen Maitland referred to IRs in their phrase "hideous neoBlairite jargon". They actually reported on a talk by Helen Sharp (Requirements Quarterly no 39, March 2009, page 6), writing of her work "Cards are kept on “The Wall”, or in the hideous neo-Blairite jargon “Informative Workspaces”. The wall can be a real wall, a flipchart easel, or a glass office-divider panel." Sharp did not mention "Information Radiators", but she was talking about the same things. Not convinced this adds up to Notability, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Agile software development (or similar article). (a) It's not obvious that this is independently notable, although there are quite a few books about agile so it might scrape notability. (b) It's unclear if there's any more to add to this very short article beyond the dictionary definition. (c) It should be included in a more general discussion of agile methodology which would help contextualise and explain its function rather than offering a short definition. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability for separate article not established. no redirect necessary as I found no evidence that this is common termonology. As an aside, I'm not convinced that Build light indicator is notable either and I have tagged it. --Kvng (talk) 01:12, 3 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 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 Already deleted Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lord[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 16:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a cluster of interlinked articles about a college band and its members. Created (in its most recent incarnation: see diff) by the same editor who created the other three. No evidence given that this meets the WP:BIO criteria, or that it is useful to keep it as a redirect. The Anome (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Miserably fails all notability tests. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Miserably fails all notability tests.--BMWcomputer (talk) 18:04, 5 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 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milica Lukic[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources. Searches combing her name with what appears to be her most notable works 'cityproject' and 'conversions' reveal nothing but Wikimirrors. J04n(talk page) 01:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some evidence found of at least catalogue documentation of the subject's work in association with Richard Deacon ([23]) but nothing that can indicates WP:ARTIST notability, or can even source the biography, as required. AllyD (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there's definitely a little bit, but not enough to establish notability per WP:ARTIST. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:08, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Steinacher[edit]

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

Appears to be vanity. Autobiography (by User:Steinacher) of an (entry-level) Assistant Professor(!) who has close to no citations in Google Scholar. No reliable sources whatsoever, no indication of any notability, scholarly recognition etc. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a long and respectful review of his book in the Wall Street Journal [24]. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, by an "author of eight mystery novels on Hitler and the Nazis" (i.e. not an academic). I don't think this is sufficient to establish his notability as an academic. Assistant professors are as a general rule always never notable, it's the entry-level position for an academic. I know of many academics including historians who have hundreds of citations in Google Scholar but no Wikipedia biography, this guy has 4 at most including self-citations. The person in question fails WP:ACADEMIC. Also, "writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged" per Wikipedia:Autobiography. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. The editor who has asked for deletion has removed a sentence from the lead of the Michael Faulhaber article which asserts "Historian Gerald Steinacher noted that he "for a long time maintained bridges between fascism and the Church." Anybody who knows anything of the history of the period would realise that there is nothing particularly objectionable to this statement except to apologists. It appears to have been placed in the lead to balance what is clearly a rose tinted, old view, from Britiannica that doesn't reflect modern scholarship - see the main body of the article. Cardinal Faulhaber wasn't a Nazi but like the rest of the Church heirarchy he did seek to maintain some kind of modus vivendi in order to reduce the pressure on the Church. The scholar in question may have only appeared in recent years but already his book (Oxford University Press) has attracted favourable responses from people like Michael Phayer ("Steinacher's fine "Nazis auf der Flucht"), Robert Gerwarth[25][26] ("Steinacher has set the bar for future research in this area") and from another recently published historian (Palgrave Macmillan) Paul O'Shea[27] ("From a teacher's point of view, I would recommend Steinacher's book as an example to students of how to use archives and how to piece together an often patchy and scattered historical puzzle")[28] ("Gerald Steinacher's excellent work")[29] Yt95 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I came across this article beause the subject of the autobiography himself had promoted his book by adding it to the lead of the article on one of the most famous cardinals of the 20th century. The Encyclopedia Britannica provides the balanced view, whereas the opinion of one single assistant(!) professor has nothing to do in such an article introduction (relevant policy: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, WP:UNDUE) and had apparently been removed numerous times before but got added again by an IP, likely the subject himself. The inclusion criteria for academics are listed at WP:ACADEMIC and there is absolutely nothing in this article that demonstrates that he meets any of those criteria. Per WP:ACADEMIC, it's rather obvious that one book review by a non-academic in a newspaper does not establish notability as an academic/as an historian. As an academic, you start out as an assistant professor, then you can become an associate professor, and at some point you can become Professor, and at some point after that, you can receive a "named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" and meet e.g. criterion 5 in WP:ACADEMIC. This assistant professor could be notable in 10 or 20 years, but he isn't notable now. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He may indeed be one of the most famous cardinals of the 20th century but with respect you do not appear to know much about him. You have altered what the Britannica said, i.e instead of "he became "a leading opponent of the Nazis" you changed it to ""he was "a prominent opponent of the Nazis." There is an important and none to subtle distinction between the two assertions. His viewpoint changed with time and that is why the cherry picked quotation from Britannica shouldn't be in the lead and neither for that matter should Steinacher's or any other scholars cherry picked quotations. If you take the time to read the body text of the article you can see that the lead doesn't summarise the Cardinals shifting viewpoints - of crucial importance is the signing of the Concordat in 1933. The unamed article writer of the Britannica article is clearly out of date in his opinions and the short stub length article probably dates from a long time ago and is a legacy of the printed version constraints that worked against easy updating.

Cardinal Faulhaber as a faithful son of the Church would always have opposed any Nazi teachings that went against Church doctrine but that is not the same as saying that he opposed the Nazis in principle as you wish to add via the hacked Britannica text. How could he since he approved the signing of the Concordat with Nazi Germany and also explicitly praised Hitler at that time. During this period the Church was indifferent to various types of political systems so long as it's interests were protected. It had already signed a Concordat with fascist Italy and supported other dictatorial regimes elsewhere in the world who agreed to protect Church interests. From my notebook (quotations to be verified) : Ian Kershaw summed up the ambiguities of these times:

"While more muted in the case of the Catholic Church, where the ideological clash with the regime was more fundamental and the 'Church struggle' a relentless was of attrition, recognition for the 'national achievements' of the regime and in particular the Fuhrer running alongside vehement condemnation of all interference in the domain of the Church amounted, here to, an uneasy dualism.....In a similar vein was Cardinal Faulhaber's combination - in a sermon delivered in 1936- of 'strong criticism of the present time', especially of the Nazi attacks on the denominational schools and the staging of 'morality trials' involving Catholic clergy, with a concluding request to the assembled congregation to join with him in an 'Our Father' for the Fuhrer." ^[1]

Similarly Roderick Stackelberg[30] who records:

As a convinced monarchist he was critical of the Weimar Republic and ambivalent towards Nazism after 1933. In this his attitude was representative of the Catholic Church hierarchy, which condemned Nazi racial doctrine in the early 1930’s but accepted the legitimacy of Hitler’s government and concluded a Concordat with that Government in 1933, renouncing all Catholic political opposition to the regime. ^[2]

and that:

Faulhaber protested against the Nazi’s secret euthanasia program, but remained loyal to what he regarded as God-given secular authority; he failed to protest the murder of the Jews.^[3]

And Robert S. Wistrich who notes:

Faulhaber was supportive of Nazi foreign policy at the time of the Anschluss with Austria and the Czech crisis of 1938. In November 1939 he celebrated Hitler’s ‘miraculous’ escape from Johann Georg Elser’ (q.v) assassination attempt with a solemn mass in Munich. ^[4]

Could you also please provide a link showing, as you claim, when Gerald Steinacher added the disputed quotations to the article and/or lead?

The above is just for starters but there is enough here and in the main body of the article itself to show that you are misrepresenting in the lead what modern scholarship records. I realise this page is about article deletions but I assume it is really about about pov pushing in the lead. I suggest taking out all cherry picked quotations from the lead. Yt95 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His 2011 book is held by ~900 institutions and has been the subject of a long review in WSJ. The credentials of the review author are entirely irrelevant. Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Several hundred libraries routinely buy everything published by that publisher and other publishers. They publish tons of stuff every year. It doesn't mean everyone who publish on them are notable. He is cited no more than 4 times (including self-citations). Josh Gorand (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest you go back and review AfDs that have turned on published books. You'll find that ~900 is a very large number for an academic author. Having a review on that book in WSJ is even more unusual because of that publication's selectivity (as compared, e.g. to Publishers Weekly that reviews a very large fraction of all books published). I would also review WP:PROF: citations are only one way a person can pass. The "academic currency" in the humanities turns more on book publication than research papers and citations, and books are judged on institutional holdings. (Again, there is an enormous amt of precedent here.) Finally, I would also suggest dropping the judgmental comments on the author of the WSJ review – that is entirely irrelevant. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep his book was given a positive review by the guardian in june last year [31]- he seems a notable respected academic writer- hardly just 'appears to be vanity' kind of article imo. Sayerslle (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- reviews of books in WSJ and The Guardian are sufficient for WP:PROF. Agricola's summary of the difference between humanities and science publications is very important. Online citation sites hugely undercount humanities citations, most of which are not published online. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Books[edit]

Robert Solomon Wistrich “Who's who in Nazi Germany”, Routledge, 2002, ISBN 0415260388
Roderick Stackelberg, “The Routledge companion to Nazi Germany”, Routledge, 2007, ISBN 0415308607
Ian Kershaw "The Hitler Myth", 1989, OUP, ISBN 0 19 280206 2

Notes[edit]

^ Kershaw, myth, 1989, p. 112
^ Stackelberg, 2007, p. 193
^ Stackelberg, 2007, P.193
^ Wistrich, 2002, p. 59

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sampieri[edit]

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

Part of a cluster of interlinked articles about a college band and its members, all created by a single editor back in 2009. No evidence given that this meets the WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Miserably fails all notability tests. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails all notability tests.--BMWcomputer (talk) 18:06, 5 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 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} 00:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckmann[edit]

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

Part of a cluster of interlinked articles about a college band and its members, all created by a single editor back in 2009. No evidence given that this meets the WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Miserably fails all notability tests. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:53, 2 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 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} 00:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Davis Band[edit]

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

Part of a cluster of interlinked articles about a college band and its members, all created by a single editor back in 2009. No evidence that this meets the WP:BAND criteria The Anome (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of them meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. De728631 (talk) 10:39, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. Misclick; meant to be at TfD and will be renominating there. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bethune-Cookman Wildcats baseball coach navbox[edit]

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

Navbox which with one exception, is totally composed of redboxes. What navigational purpose does it serve? WP:NENAN ...William 00:45, 2 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.