< 20 August	22 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mudd[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Sources given are either not reliable or do not mention him. Apparent autobiography. Only claim is to being a member of a band that does not have an article. noq (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as lack of independent, verifiable sources. NOt notable.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Referenced largely by primary sources, with no indication of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO independently. -- WikHead (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:34, 22 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 WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greeny Phatom[edit]

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

A PROD tag was removed without addressing the cited issues. Although "Greeny Phatom" exists on YouTube, most of this article seems to be a hoax; my search revealed no corroborative evidence that this has ever aired on a major network like Cartoon Network, there are no DVDs, and no reliable sources demonstrating that this is anything except the usual YouTube offering. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Yeah, this never aired on Cartoon Network (and they wouldn't have in '95 anyways as they only had a grand total of 2 hours, 15 minutes of original programming per week then), and Speakonia didn't exist in 1995 either. Videos are packed with copyvios. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Mrschimpf (talk · contribs), this article has no sources at all, I assumed that is a copyvio and likely a hoax. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 04:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as appears a hoax. Cavarrone (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Yeah, it really is nothing but a hoax, so I'm going to put a CSD G3 tag on the article. Interlude 65 14:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible hoax, and I have found no reliable sources on it. Electric Catfish 14:18, 22 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) 04:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking shit[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, see WP:NOTDIC. No hope for this ever becoming encyclopedic. Currently labelled as a dab page, but is disambiguating zero items (the two "see alsos" are not valid links, as they are not ambiguous with the title). France3470 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no hope of becoming a full article. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just declined a speedy placed on the article as "G6, routine housekeeping. This is not a disam page." Without any comment on the merits of the afd, this is not an acceptable use of speedy. It is true that this is not a disam p, but the solution to that --if the article were otherwise acceptable -- would be to remove the category label. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually when I created it, it was a disambiguation page with 5 items. Another colleague intervened deleting all the disambiguation items, but keeping the disambiguation tag... Thus the discrepancy. Here were the disambiguation items before being taken out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fucking_shit&diff=504981814&oldid=504981528 I can understand why some people are touchy about what they consider an offensive term, thus trying to delete such pages, but "fucking shit" is not only one of the most commonly used terms people use, but is also used in for example titles of songs released, books written, thus the need to keep the term not as a dictionary term, but as a disambiguation by re-establishing the disambiguation items as I have restored them. werldwayd (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the additions, everything on the page is a partial title match. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it's transformed from a WP:DICDEF/WP:PTM violation into an article. It being offensive is not a problem, the problem is that it's not its own concept. Book search shows typical use (that can be covered by a dictionary entry), no coverage of the term itself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no appropriate content beyond the sum of the two words. PamD 11:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails as a subject entry because it's just a combination of two swearwords (compare bloody hell which isn't notable either), fails as disambiguation because there's nothing called "fucking shit" to be disambiguated - it's all partial matches. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As perWP:NOTDIC Hillabear10 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion either way, but I can't believe we're arguing about this fucking shit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess Wikipedia is the place for practically anything under the sun. Fucking shit being one of the most used terms has a place in Wikipedia despite what everybody above thinks. You can delete it today and a concensus has been formed I suppose to do exactly that. But I'm an optimist. The day will come, quite soon hopefully, when we have enough Fucking shit books, albums, songs, even worldwide brands I dare say (should I register the rights myself before they are taken? FCUK anyone?) to justify the presence of this truly practical term that applies to ... oh so many people I know and doubtlessly you know as well... There are tens of songs that have titles like f***ing sh*t, yet they don't have the guts to print the full fucking title... Incidentally what a shame the domain name http://fuckingshit.com/ is taken but yet does not have enough valuable content on the site. The owner is sitting on gold shit and doesn't realise it BTW, I will be keeping it on my active agenda for later revival on Wikipedia with more valid entries. LOL werldwayd (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the listing of similarities doesn't have value. It might be welcomed on everything2 or other places. The problem is that it doesn't fit into any of the criteria that wikipedia has for 1) "an article" or 2) "a list" or 3) "a disambiguation page" (disambig pages are only meant to list exact title matches, ie we don't have a disambig page for every song/book/movie/etc with the word "green" somewhere in the title... See green (disambiguation) for example. Things are only listed when the title is just "green". (simplified. 10 years of figuring out what works, and discussing "edge-cases" = disambig details)).

If you do make a page at everything2, or one of the other places, be sure to do more searching first; you missed quite a few ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some mighty fine work you're doing here, Newyorkbrad. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dictionary / slang definition. Shadowjams (talk) 01:20, 28 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. G3: Blatant hoax, as shown through obviously falsified references. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Kumar Dwivedi. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IICCRD[edit]

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

Apparent WP:HOAX. I spot-checked cited 10 refs and they are all incorrect: they discuss "cloud computing" not "IICCRD" (or its expanded acronym), and some of the content is copied from Cloud computing and perhaps other sources. As if the whole idea is copy&paste and search&replace. DMacks (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have just checked the nominators description and it is correct. The article is bogus. Yaris678 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider a G3 Speedy. This is even a more transparent hoax than the other one at AFD by the same creator(s). In this case, even the article titles of real sources have been misrepresented to indicate support for this hoax, which makes the deception both blatant and unquestionably willful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Last year, an article at Iiccrd was speedied A7. I'm not able to see the text of that deleted article, but it's possible this is also reposted deleted information (especially if the huge blocks of text copy-pasted from cloud computing are excised). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (in response to a question at WP:AN about the content of the previously deleted article) The content of IICCRD is significantly different than the content of Iiccrd, which was a bare bones regurgitation if the organization's goals. No comment on the suitability of the current article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for looking, I thought it was worth the peek. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. The references are all falsified. -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - now I'm annoyed that I just did some gnomish clean-up on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:20, 23 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo MOS[edit]

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

The article has no references, and searching "Nintendo Mos" on Google gives no results. The article doesn't even make it clear what it actually is: it first claims that it is a user interface (program?) found on consoles, then it is a handheld independently sold...? Either way, there's no notability, no hits on Google and no references. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was contemplating nominating this as well. (I was the one who added the tags.) No indication that this is a real thing, let alone that it meets the WP:GNG. If it's real, it's much more suited as a subsection in the console's articles than it's own article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references from third party reliable sources, no hits on google, fails to meet WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It actually fails verifiability for me as I cannot find any indication that Nintendo has such an menu operating system. -- Whpq (talk) 21:42, 22 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) 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Female_State_Supreme_Court_Justices[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Female State Supreme Court Justices

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

I would like to withdraw my nomination; consensus is clearly "keep". dci | TALK 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the content of this article, but do not believe that the subject as a whole meets this encyclopedia's guidelines as to notability. The references seem to refer largely to single justices or to the female justices of a certain state, not to the broader topic of "female State Supreme Court justices", which is what this article has been entitled. dci | TALK 21:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although it seems from the content that the author meant this article to apply only to the USA, it is not clear from either the text or the title that that is the case. Other countries have states and female supreme court justices. if this survives, perhaps the distinction could be made clear in the title or the article expanded. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems an appropriate list per WP:LISTPURP, and it's fairly well sourced. See other entries at List of lists of women#United States. Expand and rename to List of female state supreme court justices. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the present scope is too narrow. It currently lists only the first female justice per state, when a list of all of them would be more appropriate (and intuitive, given the title). --BDD (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "List of female United States state supreme court justices", omitting the US Supreme Court and including every female state-level justice to have sat on the bench, would do. I'll withdraw the nomination of it's to be expanded or changed. dci | TALK 22:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"United States" probably isn't necessary. State supreme court suggests the concept only exists in the US. I'd leave it out if it's up to me, but it wouldn't bother me if it were added. I'm willing to work on expansion. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India has both states and courts to go with them, and that's just the first example that comes to mind. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of clarity? Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's always a question when it comes to article titles. I generally prefer more concise titles, and I think it's appropriate in this case. India's state courts seem to be called High Courts. My approach would be to create a hatnote here if a similar article for Indian judges were ever made. Perhaps an additional hatnote should be added to State supreme court. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is my article, but I can take the constructive criticism. I think the title should be changed for sure because it is misleading. But if it was changed to "List of the First Female Supreme Court Justice for each US State" this would a a comprehensive and accurate representation of that information. It could eventually be expanded to include every Female Justice that ever sat on that state bench, but if the title was revised right now with this information, expansion could be a goal of the future. It could also potentially be added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History, as well as the US Law one. --JMCrist52 —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as within the scope of WP Women's History, and I'll add Law. There's a project for United States Courts and Judges, but it looks like that might just be about federal courts. I don't think there's a problem with renaming now. Incompleteness isn't a reason to delete a list, and the broader scope would match similar articles better. --BDD (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly encyclopedic list with useful navigational function. Carrite (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is within the guidelines of WP:LISTPURP, subject is of encyclopedic value, and it sufficiently sourced.--JayJasper (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could be cleaned up and improved, but it's a good topic. Savidan 03:56, 23 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. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumiko Nishihara[edit]

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

I'm sure there are some language issues here, but I'm really not finding anything. The movies she's done are notable, but I can't find anything about her specifically. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a test case, Blade? One wonders what the notability standards are for voice work. One also wonders how it is that so many of these articles are nothing but a list of credits--or how it is that they still stand in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; voice acting is hardly my field of knowledge, so I'm going out on a limb a bit. This one was really badly written, so I'm trying to see if maybe I'm just missing a ton of sources or this is a huge problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For you to say that this article is badly written is unfounded given that most voice actors wikipedia pages follow this format. For that reason, I consider an extreme action to give this article for removal. If lack of sources was a problem I can give and I already did provide some, primary and secondary sources of the person in question. I can also provide more information. But I insist, deleting this article is premature, since Kumiko Nishihara is a veteran voice actress in japanese anime and videogames, voicing Iris in the Sakura Taisen franchise and performing in live shows as well as having many roles in anime, like Diana in Sailor Moon and Perona in One Piece. User:MauruNeko

The main problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the claims ("veteran voice actress"). What we have is a list, nothing more, and that list is unverified. What other articles have is irrelevant: if other articles are like this, maybe they should be sent to AfD as well. Encyclopedic articles need reliable (secondary) sources, plain and simple. The current sources in the article are unreliable (all but one)--this is a database maintained by a single person with help of other users--and don't discuss the subject of the article in any detail. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided a reference from the databse you said was reliable with the following information "Nishihara Kumiko (西原久美子) was born on April 27th, 1965 in Kanagawa. Her blood type is AB. She is 160 cm tall and weighs ?? kg. Her three sizes are 86-62-88. Her shoe size is 23.5 cm. Her production is Aoni Production." In that same Database you can find many information about her voice roles, which I have included in this entry, and other information too. Aside from this Database the other reference from Aoni Production in japanese also backs up some of what I have written in the article. I also provided other references too, which supports what I have written in the article. I cannot cite each and every role because not a single wikipedia voice actor page does this. Not even American voice actors that are recognized like Troy Baker or Laura Bailey does this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MauruNeko (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - However, this article needs work. Her career can be verified on the JP side without that much difficulty. The JP Wikipedia entry here [1] is much better written. This is an issue of the quality of writing in this EN article rather than notability, since her verifiable involvement in a number of JP anime/game productions are notable. Jun Kayama 21:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A basic question is, how many of these unverified items need to be listed before someone is notable. Sure, writing is a problem (as in "lack of it") but the big problem--for anyone who does NOT believe that a list means notability, for anyone who believes that even in these kinds of articles regular encyclopedic standards need to apply--is a lack of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this particular case there do exist reliable sources; however they are not currently sourced in the article itself, which reads like a CV. A proper article on Nishihara would have included references to her involvement in the JP theater/voice acting group 劇団21世紀FOX [2], her position on the Oricon Charts [3], or at least a video interview [4]. I suspect most of the people involved in editing this article lack the ability to source the references in JP required to make this article float. In Nishihara's particular case, there really is enough to warrant keeping the article up for editing and not pull the trigger on it immediately. Jun Kayama 23:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Keep - Passes WP:Entertainer due to multiple significant rolls in notable TV series and anime OVAs (such as the her rolls in Hello! Lady Lynn, the Sakura Wars franchise, and Kamikaze Kaito Jeanne). The first source given in the article is an official profile, which is certainly a reliable source, and which verified her major rolls. The sources from Hitoshi Doi's website also verify many of the rolls. His site is generally considered reliable, as he is considered an expert on Seiyuu, having been interviewed or otherwise cited as an expert by other reliable sources. Rolls not listed on either of those pages should probably be removed, but the rolls given by those sources seem plenty to pass WP:Entertainer. The rolls certainly aren't "unverified" as suggested above. Note that I'm not suggesting that she passes WP:GNG (the coverage isn't significant coverage, and the official profile isn't an independant source), but I consider passing WP:Entertainer to be sufficient reason to keep an article (someone with a long acting career with multiple major roles is, in my opinion clearly notable, and that's why we have guidelines like WP:Entertainer in addition to the general notability guideline). Calathan (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would very much like to see this article done up as more than just a seiyuu-centric one, as Nishihara is still very active and influential in the JP theater community [5], just as Aya Hirano has a singing career. My only issue with this article isn't the roles (which I've stated are verifiable and notable) but with the severe lack of biographical information in contrast to, say Aya Hirano. As far as Nishisawa's voice acting roles, I believe the Oricon list [6] is more than sufficient here as a reliable source to cross-check if anyone has an issue with either of the two sources you mentioned, but as of now it isn't included. Furinkan and Kamisama do not, however, add to source value. Jun Kayama 00:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Despite my signature, I have no knowledge anime or Japanese acting (my interests in Japan are arcane even by Japanese standards); if you have questions about the usefulness of a source, the best place to go would be RSN. I wish I could help more with this, but if I definitively knew the value of those sources I wouldn't have brought this to AfD in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you did bring up the AfD, it bears pointing out that many of these JP voice acting bios in EN Wikipedia tend to revolve solely around the anime/gaming roles and credits they're known for and read like a CV. Just because most ended up this way isn't grounds for keeping the format this way, per WP:WAX, otherwise there are grounds for someone as non-notable as a cell animator for several major animation films (like those of Hayao Miyazaki to get a personal article. Major Seiyuu have a presence in JP mass media outside of their speaking parts, and inclusion of these sources for the sake of WP:RS should really be an imperative in refining these articles. Jun Kayama 06:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well she is no Sachi Matsumoto, since she has played several major roles in popular anime. And Hitoshi Doi's website is considered a reliable source here, so that works for me. The article does need to be tidied up though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 22:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was previously a stub, and now it has grown more and more detailed. The biographical information needs to be added preferably by someone who understands Japanese. User:MauruNeko
- Done. Jun Kayama 05:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Clearly passes the WP:NACTOR guideline. Cavarrone (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. I agree with MauruNeko about the bio info needing sources (along with the trivia section). LlamaDude78 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:19, 26 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. Let's call it a hoax. It's obviously not appropriate. — Scientizzle 21:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tapeball[edit]

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

Month-old office sport. Obvious delete, but not technically speediable. Contested prod. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:30, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 20:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One does not add articles of this nature to ones encyclopaedia... and per WP:A SPORT MADE UP ON A SLOW DAY AT THE OFFICE. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not and cannot even make a claim to notability. Although not one of the categories of things eligible for an A7 speedy, I don't think anyone would be sad if this got excised early. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As a possible hoax, and most definitely because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The article was already speedy deleted once, and the page creator immediately recreated it afterwards. And then once this article was nominated for deletion, he recreated the article once again here: Tapeball (Lunchtime Sport). Rorshacma (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Am (2010 American film)[edit]

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

An August 2010 AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am (2010 film) was closed as "userfy". The consensus at an August 2012 MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stefanhajek/I Am (2010 film) was to return the article to the mainspace and list at AfD to determine whether the film passes Wikipedia:Notability (films). I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and continue WP:CLEANUP. Now that someone deciding to MFD an article userfied two years ago resulted in it being returned to AFD, we can look to see if it has perhaps enough coverage finally to meet WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. Now that he thing has been released, a different set of Find sources shows us enough so that all this needs is a little wiki-love, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This releases 2010 film asserts notability. It clearly passes GNG, having been mentioned in adequate reliable sources. External links provided as well. But yes, cleanup is needed. Though not deletion. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:41, 25 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Andam[edit]

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

I am having trouble understanding how this middle of the road athlete meets WP:GNG. He runs (ran) quicker than I can and jumps (jumped) further than I can, but he's pretty unspecial. I need to be convinced that he is notable for more than he cheerful smile. I'm also finding the tone of the article is one that seeks to use Wikipedia to create notability, not to document it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to have gotten a lot of coverage in Utah press as a top student athlete, and a lot of mentions on "GhanaWeb" - but I am unsure as to whether he squeaks by as sufficiently notable. Better than "middle of the road athlete" however. Collect (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. It is also an umreferenced bio after four years of its existence. Also reads like a cv. Nice photos though. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do agree that this article needs additional refs, but needing additional refs does not necessarily equate to lack of notability. Therefore an article should not be deleted under such grounds. The appropriate tags for lack of refs would be more than appropriate. He worn the bronz medal in the AC and represented his country in the Sydney Olypics from what I can gather. I don't know your definition of middle of the road but that's certainly not middle of the road in my book. Here are some links. Hope they help. [7], [8], [9]. Tamsier (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & fix. It's not accurate to call this article "unsourced" given the IAAF entry as well as the BYU bio page. The current version lays on the puffery rather thickly, but his participation in the IAAF World Championships (and possibly in the Olympics, although the "famousmormons.net" site seems to say that his team didn't qualify) appears to satisfy WP:NTRACK. In which case the article should be kept, but with plenty of editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ghana at the 2000 Summer Olympics says the 4x100m team didn't advance out of round 1. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the refs provided and Arxiloxos' rationale.Tamsier (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Competed at an Olympics and medalled at the African GamesThe-Pope (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of independent, verifiable sources confirming notability. The argument that "he's notable because he was in the Olympics" is bogus. Not everyone who competes is automatically notable! It's not like he won a bunch of gold medals and had lots of press coverage for them...and to say "well, the article isn't good yet, but it can be, so don't delete it" isn't a vote.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyone who competes in the Olympics is automatically notable (just as baseball players who have had one single at-bat in the Major Leagues are). See WP:NTRACK #1. (Here's his sports-reference.com entry confirming he was in the 2000 Olympics.) Andam it, he also satisfies #3 by finishing third in the 2000 African Championships.[10] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, I am aware of WP:TRACK and like WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSIC and WP:BLP these are guidelines. Besides the promotional tone of this article which makes it hard to find the facts through all the WP:PEACOCK, he isn't notable. Not nearly enough independent sources.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Chances are pretty good he was written up in Ghanaian newspapers, which are a bit difficult to access. Anti-third world bias should be avoided. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where in the world did any concept of bias come from? Please do not make accusations of bias where none exists. Such accusations serve the reverse purpose and often create bias for themselves. WP:BEANS applies. No-one cares one whit for his original nation, nationality or ethnicity or any other similar attribute. The only 'ity' under discussion is notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bias has nothing to do with any "ity", it's entirely to do with people equating a google search with the existance of independent sources from a non first world country. I think you need to take a step back, read what it's written, don't red between the lines and WP:AGF. The-Pope (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read what was written. It stated that anti third world bias should be avoided. It was clear, in the open, and between no lines :) Since there was none this introduced it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "bias" refers to the systemic tendency of Wikipedia to cover subjects easily researched on the internet while failing to cover those that are not, and Wikipedia's particular tendency to under-cover African subjects. Please see WP:Systemic Bias, which (appropriately for this discussion) is also known as WP:WORLDVIEW, as well as the older page Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Geography. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be foolish to assume there is no systematic bias in the coverage of African topics or their nomination for AfD. I have commented on this several times and perhaps the most vocal and despised. I don't care. In deed the very nature of English Wikipedia is systematically biased. I have also sat and watched where several African related articles are brought to AfD. What I found astounding is that, had the nominator just taken the initiative to find reliable sources, notability would have been established. Many African related subjects have been saved from the chop in this way. So lets not delude ourselves and get back to the point.Tamsier (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and the relevant WP:SNG. I support the Wikipedia consensus that athletes who compete in the World Championships and Olympics are notable and encyclopedic, particularly when there are independent, reliable sources to back-up the claim to notability. This subject has other claims to notability: "High school Sportsman of the Year in 1995", "African junior champion in 1995", and "NCAA All-American in 1999 outdoor 4x100 relay",[11] as well as a bronze medalist in the African Championships.[12] Location (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NSPORT having competed at the top level of his sport as demonstrated by the World Championships and Olympics. -- Whpq (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those arguing it is open and shut via WP:NTRACK please note that the guidelines maintain that WP:ROUTINE--which constitute the bulk of these "references" apply to this article. Take those out, or even keep them in for consideration, still not notable. Not enough substantial, independent sources to make him notable.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If participation in the Olympics and IAAF World Championships is routine sports coverage, then I wonder what is not routine sports coverage. Location (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He had a brief appearance in the IAAF, didn't distinguish himself, and moreover, article still doesn't provide any substantial independent third pary coverage to establish notability. Sorry, but "he competed" isn't enough to give him an article. That's reading the guidlines too literally, a problem many gung-ho fans have. Glad to see someone cares enough about him as an athelete to create an article about him that promotes him as much as possible, but the puffery doesn't help establish notability. Only two references? Really? For such a "notable" athlete, I'd expect more. Plenty of votes here, but not much in the way of people finding anything that qualifies them. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to the Olympics, World Championships, and NCAA Championships (with All-American status, I might add) means he already has distinguished himself in the sport. And competing at that level isn't the same as you competing for an age group victory in your local 5K. As far as references, it shouldn't have been that difficult for anyone with access to a search engine to have a look around. Incidentally, his appearance on the August 2007 cover of The Deal (magazine) suggests that there are others who think this guy is the S irrespective of his athletics accomplishments. Location (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Olympian. Geschichte (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an Olympian and medallist at the African Championships is certainly notable. For sources try having a look Basement12 (T.C) 12:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Our sports/athelete criteria are astoundingly loose, so given that, he obviously meets those criteria. Whether some of the athletes kept under that criteria meet GNG is questionable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:22, 28 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. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that the sources provided are not specifically about Jensen, and are thus do not provide the in-depth coverage necessary for notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was userfied on request, rewritten, and now exists at Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic trainer). G4 does not apply, though a user may nominate the page for deletion again if they wish. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jensen (psychologist)[edit]

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

Contested PROD with rationale: "Does not seem to pass GNG, seems clearly promotional, no sources for most of the claims (except a team roster)" ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as prodder.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass GNG and makes unsourced claims about the subject which have been challenged and without which the article could not be coherent. Formerip (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as aboveHillabear10 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)~~ Blocked sockpuppet. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have trimmed and page-moved the article pending the outcome of this discussion. Formerip (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a Toronto Star source in 2 minutes -- and it appears that the Toronto Star is a Canadian reliable source. The person appears notable, and the weird renaming of the BLP should be undone. [13] Edmonton Journal is also a Canadian reliable source. [14] CBC is a Canadian reliable source. Mentioned in Washington Post [15], [16] Boston Globe, [17] Chicago Sun-Times and a host of other US reliable sources. Clearly notable with any looking at all, and clearly labeled by reliable sources including Canadian ones as a psychologist. Close this non-utile AfD, please. Collect (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those sources independent of the subject, in the sense of not having taken their information from him? Do any of them contain information as to why he might pass GNG? Formerip (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- did you look at the list? I added more below in case they were hard to read. The Maple Leafs material likely came direct from the team. Once I reach at least fifty mentions, I figure that is quite enough. As for your quite cryptic note on my UT page that something "reely sekret" (my words) is involved - all I use is Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we didn't look at the list - those Highbeam links only give most people a paragraph or two of the original article. (To be clear, it's good you found them, and I'm not finding better alternative versions online by searching Google with phrases) Wnt (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jensen is not the subject of a single one of those links provided (though the CBC link appears broken), but rather, all of the mentions are trivial. Not seeing a WP:GNG pass here. Reso lute 22:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? When the major person mentioned and quoted in an article is ignorable, then something is amiss. Rocky Mountain News February 29, 1996 Toronto Maple Leafs have enlisted the aid of sports pyschologist Peter Jensen to help snap them out of their doldrums. Boston Globe Orser has visited his psychologist, Peter Jensen, twice a week in the last four months, Rowing News special presenters included Mike Teti, coach of the U.S. men, and Peter Jensen, a noted sports psychologist, Catherine Garceau in her new book says We had adopted this recap technique on the advice of Peter Jensen, our team sport psychologist, Journal of Sports Medicine lists him. Is all the niggling over the word "psychologist" which in the US is not a medical discipline, while psychiatry is a medical discipline? If so - the US usage is fine for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the debate over his profession. Call him whatever fits best. But the fact is, for all of your sources, this is the sum total of what we can say: "Peter Jensen is a sports psychologist who has worked with hockey teams and figure skaters." That's it. Full stop. That... is not an encyclopedic article. I could find a hundred articles that mention Calgary's recently retired head of bylaw services, most including quotes. That doesn't make him notable. Reso lute 19:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any difference between the use of the terms "psychiatry" and "psychology" between the US and Canada. According to this article, psychology is a licensed profession in both countries under a single umbrella body. But the matter for discussion here is GNG, not the definition of words. Formerip (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the sheer number of reliable sources mentioning this person is the essence of "notability" -- book review in ABA Journal [18], writer for HuffPo Canada [19], etc. His article may have been puffy - and I am known as an enemy of puff, but deletion is rarely logical when the dang person has this many reliable source mentions. Collect (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I broke my arm my doctor provided care. Infact, my doctor is also the doctor for Brett Hull, John Kelly, and Brian Williams. While these three people are notable, myself and the doctor are not.Hillabear10 (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, and in its previous iteration, was purely promotional. Without the promo material, there's no worthwhile content here. City Of Silver 23:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed my RS addition to the BLP -- it is troubling when during an AfD, reliably sourced and non-contentious material is removed. And I would note that "LinkedIn profiles" (mentioned in the Ice Hockey project page) are not reliable sources for anything on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that, when more substance was on the page, the article read like a pamphlet. City Of Silver 23:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a content concern - not a notability concern. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're half-right, from where I stand. That there is no worthwhile content indicates a lack of notability. A cursory glance at the sources listed above does little to change my impression that Jensen isn't very notable. City Of Silver 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously any Canadian Olympics icehockey coach will be mentioned in various sources. But if nothing is written about him specifically then he lacks notablity. I notice also that Collect is claiming in the article that he is a psychologist, although there is no source that he ever made that claim and it is illegal to do so if one is not registered as a psychologist. TFD (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such claim - I stated that reliable sources used the word. And it is not i;;ega; for reliable sources to use that word. Nor does Canadian law affect what we write in Wikipedia using reliable sources like the Toronto Star etc. Cheers - but next time please do not attack me personally for what the reliable sources uses as a term. And also note WP:NLT if you were implying in any way whatever that I was doing anything "illegal." Collect (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Ontario Psychology Act, 1991, 8. (1), "No person other than a member shall use the title “psychologist”...." See 10. "Every person who contravenes subsection 8 (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence...."[20] While it is legal to call someone else a psychologist, it makes no sense to do so if that person does not or cannot make that claim about themselves. TFD (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to remember that, although we may have legitimate reasons to wonder about Jensen's professional status, we do not have hard evidence that he has done anything illegal. Formerip (talk)

Inndeed, TFD's post might be viewed as an explicit "legal threat" which he would apply to the subject of the article, and not to any editor as we clearly do not fall under that act. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP, no one has made that claim. The point is that if someone is not recognized as a psychologist, and does not claim to be one, then we should not call that person one. As for "legal threats", Collect, no one has broken any laws, no one has accused anyone of breaking any laws, which is quite clear from the discussion. TFD (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A serious matter of public saftey and needs to be corrected. There is no justification to why the title should apply to a person who is not legally entitled to use it. Hillabear10 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The so-called "essence of notability" Collect postulates is found in no notability criteria. The GNG is clear: the subject must be discussed in "significant detail" and the references must be about the subject, not merely quoting him. Casual mentions do not count. So he's casually mentioned in a number of sources? 0+0+0+0 = 0. Ravenswing 07:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources mention him or quote him, but are not about him. Unless we have some sources actually about Jensen, he fails the tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added even more sources - including NYT and CBC mentions quoting him specifically as an expert, noting media interest at Olympics (160 media interviews at one Olympics != non-notable person), use by other reliable sources - usually folks are way past GNG at this point. I can add about a dozen more if this needs to be userfied and replaced in mainspace after they get added, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And which of these sources "address the subject directly in detail", such as to actually meet GNG? Reso lute 14:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CBC article says "Peter Jensen has spent more than two decades working with Olympians. This will be his seventh Olympic games and right now, he's working with the Canadian women's hockey team..." That's not just a one-off quote; it's actually about Jensen. Yes, he tends to share the limelight, and yes, those paywalled sources are annoying, and yes, the article seems weirdly written in reaction to the AfD, but the point is, he should be covered. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has verifiably been training Olympic-level athletes pretty much continuously since at least 1986 [21], and the athletes concerned seem to have been attributing their success to his training for just as long. And even if the man is legally speaking not a psychologist (something that, as far as I can see, we have not established one way or the other), it looks as if newspapers are quoting him not just as the Canadian women's ice hockey team mental trainer but as the foremost Canadian Olympic-level expert on something suspiciously like sports psychology (and the number of different sports in which he has trained Canadian Olympics and international teams seems to suggest that the various sports have a similar opinion. The fact that, over the past twenty years, he has been building a business career on this reputation should be seen as largely irrelevant - the reputation fairly clearly preceded the business, even if many of the most likely references for that are behind paywalls. PWilkinson (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/1458388561.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+08%2C+2008&author=Donna+Spencer&pub=The+Spectator&desc=Hey+doc%2C+I%27ve+got+a+problem%3B+Sports+psychology+breeds+success%2C+just+ask+members+of+Team+Canada&pqatl=google. Although that source is under a paywall, I was able to locate a non-paywall link from NewsBank; see http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/11FEC8EE59854B70/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A (archiveurl). The article begins with:
At the 1988 Olympics in Calgary, Dr. Peter Jensen was inundated with more than 160 requests for media interviews.
Sports psychology was so new and novel that everyone wanted to know about how an athlete's brain worked. But Jensen wanted to work behind the scenes and said he didn't respond to even one of those requests.
The third sentence explains why Jensen, as Wnt (talk · contribs) notes, tends not to "share the limelight" because he is disinclined to interact with the media.
There are several more paragraphs about Jensen, so this The Hamilton Spectator article provides nontrivial coverage about the subject.
Combined with the other sources found by Collect (talk · contribs), it is clear that Jensen passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had been pretty ambivalent about whether it should be kept or deleted. Just didn't believe it should go the prod route. That being said the work done by Cunard, Wnt and PWilkinson has pushed me over the edge to believe it is a keep. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 28 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) 04:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed 10-carat Fancy Intense Yellow-Green Diamond[edit]

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

Wholly unnotable, probable spam. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnamed things sourced to Tripod pages have an exceptionally high bar to meet in demonstrating notability. This one doesn't even attempt it; its assertion of notability is a suspiciously specific superlative ("largest Heart shape Fancy Intense Yellow-Green diamond"). Arguably a candidate for a G11 speedy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I de-PRODed this article back in 2010 on the understanding that its author was working on the sourcing, but it looks like not only has that not happened, but the original author tried to blank the article later that year and was reverted. As it stands, I see no evidence of real notability, and I suspect the author would be as happy to see the article deleted as the rest of us, if the blanking is any indication. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only reference is to a 404-ed website. Unuseful title. Carrite (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above; I too see no notability. The title is awful too. Although it technically doesn't meet criteria for speedy, it comes close with the author trying to blank the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably, it could still qualify for CSD G7, the sole author having blanked the page. Although the implicit speedy on those grounds was declined back in December 2010 because others had edited the page, I don't believe that prod/deprod and maintenance tags constitute significant contributions by third parties; indeed, even now, no substantive changes to the article itself have ever been made, only the slow acquisition of templates (and a 2nd declined prod). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ground regulatory system[edit]

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

No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources required per WP:GNG (that is, zero). Also rather dubious human biology with no WP:MEDRS sources. It gives no indication of the mainstream (required per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE), position and presumably can't because I couldn't find any sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could make the pedantic argument that this belongs at WP:RFD since it was a redirect immediately prior to nomination for deletion, but the redirect to applied kinesiology hasn't stuck before, so we might as well take a look on the merits. And those merits are lacking. This is WP:FRINGE material that doesn't even have significant currency in the alternative medicine context of AK, which is already pretty fringe stuff. And mainstream WP:MEDRS publications aren't going to touch this with a pole. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no indication that this concept or theory has received enough notice for inclusion here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches turned up nothing qualifying as substantial mention by reliable independent sources. Fringe even within the fringe community, and ignored completely by real-world scholars. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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)} 15:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the curb[edit]

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

Obvious dicdef, can't be expanded. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being documented in works such as A Financial History of the United States, The London and New York Stock Exchanges 1850-1914. Warden (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Stock Exchange, the redirect topic for The Curb and which both of the above sources seem to be referring to.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for references is complicated by the fact that the American Stock Exchange began its existence as the New York Curb Exchange (and, originally, was entirely unorganized curb trading). Many of the book uses of the phrase "on the curb" are actually references to activity "on the Curb". I do think there's room for an article on this type of financial activity, but this isn't the name it would need to be under. If there's consensus that such an article is viable, I'd suggest moving this to curb trading to enable expansion; if not, redirect to American Stock Exchange as noted above. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the curb appears to have originated in the 1800s. I found ar article that noted, "The American Stock Exchange's original name - the Curb - conveys its history. For decades, trading on the Curb took place outdoors year-round, with brokers on the street in New York City and phone clerks in nearby office buildings." As noted in, American Heritage August 1, 2005, "But while this decorous affair was going on inside, many brokers, even members of the New York Stock and Exchange Board, were trading outside on the "curb," a free-for-all market on Broad Street. Each lamppost marked a spot where particular stocks were traded. Brokers wishing to buy or sell a stock would go to the designated post and yell out their offers until they found a broker willing to take the other side." Another article[22] notes, "many Jews and Irish Catholics were denied membership in the NYSE, so they did their business out on the curb. That led to the founding of the New York Curb Market Agency in 1908." We do have a redirect New York Curb Exchange. For other on the curb articles, see [23], "During the 1800s, companies raised money by selling stock on the curbs of Wall Street. At that time, the stock market was called The Curb and brokers who helped companies sell stock were known as curbstone brokers. These brokers used elaborate hand signals to trade because there was so much shouting and confusion. It was not until the 1920s that the stock market moved indoors."[24]. (PREWITT: Is that just legend, Arthur, or did people really trade stocks standing outside on the curb? LEVITT: They did trade stocks standing on the curb. That was a remarkable institution which held on to its traditions long after it should have and eventually was turned over to the New York Stock Exchange.)[25] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny. The common term for securities traded off exchange is OTC trading and -- lo! -- even Wikipedia has a longstanding article about it! Over-the-counter (finance).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to curb trading - "On the curb" raises WP:NOTNEO issues, but curb trading is more descriptive of the topic. Redirect New York Curb Exchange, curbstone broker, curb exchange, and/or the Curb to curb trading. The topic seems valid as since it appears to originate from the 1800s and has an interesting history (see my post above). The US based term may have spread to mondern day India, Poland, and Belarus: Columbia Journal of World Business mentions "The short duration of trading hours and its corollary of trading on the curb represent other aspects of the markets weaknesses" for stock trading in India. In Poland, an article notes, "Large blocks of securities can be traded in off-session (on the curb)." Another article contrasts the open market with on the kerb (spelled "kerb") market for Belarus. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Curb trading per WP:HEY and above discussion. Many possible sources have been found per WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Too, too funny (this is an excellent example of incompetence though). Wikipedia currently has two articles on precisely the same thing. One is a stub for a now disused slang term (which is mentioned in the ASX article). The other is a better article on the more mainstream term for precisely the same thing. Don't hurt yourselves thinking on it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:09, 29 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 Hammered. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamrosophilia[edit]

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

Clearly a hoax, declined as speedy under G3, word does not exist beyond user generated content. No mention of refs in my 2 books concerning sexual paraphilia either:- I referenced against "Sexual Deviance (2nd edition): Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (D. Richard Laws PhD and William T. O'Donohue PhD) and "Gender Disorders and the Paraphilias (William B. Arndt)" Fish ^Barking? 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whack it with a hammer (that is, delete). It's never a good sign when an article is referenced to Urban Dictionary. I'm not sure I'd call this as a hoax, per se; it's plausible that the activity could occur within the more extreme subcultures of the BDSM community. But the word, describing hammer play in the language of paraphilias, is clearly a neologism with absolutely no traction in anything remotely resembling reliable sources. And even if that weren't the case, this stubby thing is literally a dictionary definition, complete with its purported derivation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:SPEEDY AFD. It is annoying that it is soooo easy to get an article into WP and reeeealy hard to get rid of them. Makes it hard for the declining number of editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The honest truth is, if you feel overworked, take a break. Getting new content into Wikipedia is getting continuously harder, getting rid of content is getting continuously easier, and that's why the number of editors is declining. Making it easier to delete things (and harder to get involved in the first place) just exacerbates the problem. WilyD 07:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, WilyD, you're wrong. CSD was put here for just this kind of thing, something you didn't agree with. That now means instead of being able to bin this crap is anywhere between 5 minutes and an hour, it's now going to take a week. The article took a few minutes to assemble and file, and it's now going to take 7 whole days to shift because an admin wasn't in the same frame of mind as the person who tagged the article. Nice one, WilyD. Fish ^Barking? 10:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, CSD was established to save time deleting articles that had no hope of being retained. This article is plausibly better turned into a redirect than straightly deleted. Or even plausibly expanded with references to establish notability (I really don't know enough about the subject area to know where to find references, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if someone can dig them up.) CSD criteria are narrow for a reason, and G3 only applies to blatant or obvious hoaxes, something this article has no resemblance to whatsoever. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it is what it is. Wily D 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And really, if you wanted to delete it with a minimum of effort, why'd you remove the PROD tag I added? WilyD 13:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would still take a week, WilyD. I was hoping that enough people would realise that this was a piece of shit with no hope of salvageability, and an AFD would conclude with a snow close, and we could get this crap out of the way as should have happened in the first place. Fish ^Barking? 14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So it would take a week. So what? That gives people time to salvage the article (which may be possible), or find a suitable redirect target (which is usually better than deletion). And if neither occurs; no harm has passed, it's all good. If one or the other does occur, all the better. Wily D 14:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a sensible redirect target for this somewhere. I don't know enough about BDSM to know what it is, though. Wily D 07:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable topic, as those handy links above to different searches plainly show. I oppose a redirect on the ground that no other wikipedia article mentions the topic, so there is currently no valid target that would explain anything about hamrosophilia. It's not obvious that any other article should mention the topic, either, so merging is ruled out. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For all of the above. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:47, 24 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. With a touch of salt. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas Multiplayer (SA:MP)[edit]

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

Advertisement. Woovie (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAMP articles have been created and deleted multiple times in the past under the following names: SAMP SA-MP Sa-mp and San Andreas Multiplayer. Once for lack of content/notability, and the other 3 times due to advertising. This new article is also lacking any real content or sources. Over the past 3 months the original author has had time to expand the article and include some basic references or content but failed to do so. Blokker 1999 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt -- we've been here too many times, and never has it passed WP:GNG. Asking for a salt of all possible article names. --Teancum (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Seriously? What else do we have to say? Zappa O Mati 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Per continually looking like an advertizement, and never meeting the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - A serious advertising issue and the article never passed WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:52, 24 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Hilliard (artist)[edit]

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

Article appears to be about a wholly non-notable artist. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added an encylopedia source and much more text. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Parsons, Sara-Jayne (2006). "John Hilliard". In Lynne Warren (ed.). Encyclopedia of 20th Century Photography. Vol. 1. CRC Press. pp. 695–697. ISBN 0415976650.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The easily-found press stories about his art, and the fact that he's been collected by the Tate, make it obvious that he's a photographer of some significance, and passes both WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Links in the article to a detailed biography on the British Council site and to works by him in the Tate Gallery collection are clear indications of notability. A case of WP:BEFORE. AllyD (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've even heard of this photographer and it's not like I'm knowledgeable in the field. Reference in encyclopedia (cited above), plus press and other references, make it clear that this is actually a notable photographer. --Lquilter (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Word to the nominator - I'm not sure how you ran your searches, but if you googled based on article title, "John Hilliard (artist)" you won't get much. If however you google scholar search "John Hilliard" and combine with "photographer" you get 130+ hits in google scholar. --Lquilter (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And about the same number of hits if you swap "camera" for "photographer": link to scholar search. I agree with AllyD's assessment of speedy keep. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the encyclopedia article that Binksternet found. Even aside from everything else, we'd be foolish to delete an article on notability grounds if its subject already appeared in another encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason stated by User:Nyttend. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 23 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11. (Non admin closure) "Pepper" @ 23:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HUMAN (rapper)[edit]

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

Artist who has not yet met the WP:GNG. All references all to non reliable sources and article also appears to be an autobiographical entry NtheP (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 00:02, 22 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) 18:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Sun Bell[edit]

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

An actress that I can not see passing the notability requirements for actors and performers. Although her filmography list looks impressive, actually investigating it doesn't really pan out. The actuall notable projects she has been in (American Reuninion and Lets Stay Together) were actually very minor bit roles. The series that claims that she is a series regular (The People of Airson Lane) appears to be a non-notable Youtube series that is still in production. The closest role she had of any sort of notability was in "My Super Psycho Sweet 16 2", but even that was not a major role, and is only a singular role of any importance. The rest of her resume is being in a series of short films, none of which I can find any information of outside of IMDB and their own official sites, so I'm not sure if they are even notable themselves. I can find no actual reliable references about her, and can only find first party sources or unreliable things like various wikias or IMDB. The PROD was removed by the article creator with the justification that she "deserves her own article", but I don't really see this being the case. Rorshacma (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails every possible criterion of WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's mentioned by name only in two news articles: (i) The Post-Crescent March 1, 2012 and in (ii) the May 21, 1998 issue of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution in an article entitled Gwinnett Top Students ("Students with the highest numeric averages were named valedictorian and salutatorian in Gwinnett public and private schools"), there was a photo of her and the article noted, ""Berkmar High School Valedictorian Jennifer Sun Bell. Parents: David and Jung Sun Bell Average: 97.048 College or future plans: Georgia Tech, computer engineering." Not enough source material from which to write a stand alone biography article on Jennifer Sun Bell per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:54, 28 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. (Non-Admin Closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Hill[edit]

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

Article about a corporate entity. Only uses in-house sources and does not demonstrate notability. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:NRVE – topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. This slightly modified news search alone strongly suggests topic notability: Customized Google News Archive search. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of potential sources turn up in searches. I added a couple of newspaper articles to substantiate the notability of Apple Hill as an apple-growing area and as a tourist attraction; there's quite a bit more at GNews, albeit mostly behind pay walls.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found multiple reliable sources regarding the subject and the organization that uses the subject as a trademark to warrant passage of WP:GNG. Article needs improvement, but that is not what AfD is for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:58, 25 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 Moors murders. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ann West[edit]

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

Ann West is known for only one event, the murder of her daughter, which is already covered in the Moors murders article. Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notable "only" for the murder of her daughter and subsequent events, all of which are covered in Moors murders. Parrot of Doom 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – what needs to be known is more than adequately covered in "Moors murders". Graham Colm (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – everything that needs to be known is at the Moors Murders article. (Edit: redirect to Moors Murders.) Mr Stephen (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moors murders like Pauline Reade, Myra Hindley, Lesley Ann Downey, &c. Warden (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moors murders per the above. Plausible search term. It appears as though the relevant information has already been merged. A content fork is warranted in some instances, but I'm not sure that this is one of them. Location (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moors murders as suggested above. No independent notability outside that event. Cavarrone (talk) 18:12, 26 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) 18:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royals Anthem[edit]

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

I'd merge the data, if there was enough to merge, this is the stubbiest of stubs and I could not find anything that wasn't likely to violate copyright (say the song itself) to round out information on this. Its been tagged since 2007 for notability, but I believe it should be noted in the main Reading F.C. article, if something is found. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At first I was kinda okay with it and thought it needed a revamp but the copyright of this song is the major downfall.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:37, 22 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 keep 1 (nomination withdrawn, no advocates for deletion). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Adams (politician)[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Locally elected office holder. Multiple unsuccessful runs for higher office doesn't make him notable.~~ ...William 13:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Adams was elected to the Maine State House and I had mistakenly thought he had lost the race. Could an administrator please close this AFD.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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) 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY OK YES[edit]

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

No non-trivial third party reliable source coverage. Taking a look at two of the "indie magazine" links reveals that the bios are nearly identical, suggesting that they might be press releases. [26] [27]. Created by a paid editor.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 78.26 (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I found some reliable sources (including Allmusic.com) and modified the article. Please check the updates. User:Sorryokyes (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Sorryokyes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The additional source(s) are blog postings, and so don't carry much weight as third party reliable sources (per WP:BLOGS). In additional, good-faith searches fail to find sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. (However, as the band is from Italy, it is possible there are sources in Italian or other languages.) Senator2029 • talk 20:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam by nn-band. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: references are basically blog/self-published posts. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:12, 25 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Grinning Man (paranormal)[edit]

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

None of the references come close to meeting WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, man, you know an article is in deep trouble when it tries to use UrbanDictionary as a source! Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are not reliable. No indication of notability. -- Luke (Talk) 14:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I managed to find mention of the urban legend in two different encyclopedias of the supernatural, but I can't find any mention of this in any other source that could be considered to be a reliable source. None of the previous sources on the article were reliable and there were also issues with the tone of the article. I do want to say that as the original editor is new, they probably aren't as aware of what's considered to be a RS as others might be, so I'll leave a message on their page and go over this a little more with them. If they're interested, I have no problem with them moving a copy of the article into their userspace so they can continue to work on it at their leisure. This isn't an UL that's completely unnotable, although I'll say that it isn't along the same lines as the Jersey Devil. It just hasn't been covered in a lot of reliable sources that would show notability beyond a reasonable doubt.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: in the hope that more references appear, and that the content of the article improves. I say let's give this one a chance to grow. HairyWombat 06:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There just isn't enough notability demonstrated to show this is a widespread enough urban legend to deserve its own article. Sources given are unreliable, and 3 young teenagers are the main source of the stories. Not exactly trustworthy. The subject may be appropriate to mention within the John Keel article, so a redirect there might be possible. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it appears that the article has been deleted before and I don't see any cited content in this recreation other than one booksource. Bob talk 18:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It tackles the same subject as the old Grinning Man article;Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grinning Man (2nd nomination); pure violation of G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion).Kj plma (talk) 07:27, 27 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Trainer[edit]

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

Originally deleted by PROD in February 2012. This player has not received significant coverage - failing WP:GNG - and has never appeared in a fully-professional league, meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was PRODed by me originally due to the same reasons forwarded here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The statement he made three league appearances for Crewe Alexandra is false, per Soccerbase. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juristicweb (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, as evidenced above, and he has received significant coverage. As such, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:34, 28 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) 03:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Pickford (footballer)[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This player has not received significant coverage - failing WP:GNG - and has never appeared in a fully-professional league, meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY as not played in FPL, youth internationals don't count. Seasider91 (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Having a squad number with a Premier League club doesn't confer notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the usual caveats that it's too soon as he has yet played a senior game in a fully professional league. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. -- KTC (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juristicweb (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Journey as a Combat Medic[edit]

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

Non notable self published book. The review in Kirkus is not from Kirkus Reviews, but from "Kirkus Indie," their program for self published books, which consist of "reviews" paid for by the author. Based on what they say, they'll review anything, if they get their money. As their web page [28] says, "Simply request a review by clicking the link above. You'll give us as much information possible about your book, choose whether you want standard service (7-9 weeks) or express service (4-6 weeks) and pay for your review (standard service $425, express service $575). When you submit your order, you'll get a response from the Kirkus Indie team confirming receipt of your request."

Kirkus has previously served as one of the leading review media for public library book selection. Obviously, no professional librarian would trust reviews written in the above manner, so it is not surprising that no library at all has ever purchased a copy of the book, as can be seen from WorldCat [29]

I do not know how a previously reputable selective review service got themselves into this disreputable trade, which is part of their "Kirkus Author Services", that offers "book editing, reviews and marketing services for unpublished and self-published authors from one of the most prestigious brands in publishing". Prestigious once, but I fear not likely to remain so. As far as I am concerned, this severely compromises the reputation of their long-standing true review publication, Kirkus Reviews. I am not sure that I still accept it as a RS for notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 23:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I wish it could be otherwise, but when I was editing this I had a really hard time searching for sources. What I did find was fairly slim and I ended up having to pull some of the local news interviews from the author's website that were luckily on the actual news websites.Here a run down on what I added:

[30] The book and author are very briefly mentioned here, with the focus then shifting entirely to encouraging shell shocked soldiers to seek emotional support and mental help.
[31] This is sort of debatable. The project appears to be somewhat notable and this page does list him as a focus in the project. However the only thing that bothers me is that the book gets only a brief blurb and we don't see how the book was actually utilized. I'm willing to allow this as potential notability, though. But again- we don't know what impact, if any this really had on the project as a whole, which is why it's probably more of a trivial thing than a major thing.
[32], [33] These are interviews done by local news stations, which sort of cover the author as much, if not more so than the book.

My biggest worry is that most of these all came from a very, very short period of time back when the book was initially released back in 2011. There hasn't been any coverage since then and the coverage was fairly light. While there are some sources, there's no depth of coverage here other than a very brief spate of coverage over a 1-2 month period from the author's local news stations, which is why I'm not really surprised that it's getting nominated. If someone can show that the book has gotten any further reviews or news coverage I'd be willing to change my vote, but I just don't see where this really and truthfully passes WP:NBOOK without a doubt. It's pretty close to passing, but it's just not there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By this I mean that there are no real reviews for the book (I'll have to watch out for the KI stuff from here on out) and the coverage so far is predominantly local human interest spots that don't really focus on the book as much as they do on the author and his experiences. If not for the fact that they're all from the same point in time, I'd give more weight to those. With the lack of reviews I don't think the book passes and without the book as the focus, I'm afraid that this would just be a "one event" sort of thing. Again, if someone can find other things that show a depth of coverage and more reviews, I'd be willing to change my vote.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about the book, and a spate of local attention is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I reviewed and promoted the article, so I am going to stay neutral. I am a new reviewer, but this is the first I've had come up as a candidate for deletion. Everyone here makes valid points. By comparison, I had seen much weaker articles; it's not a substantial entry, but I did not find it to be trivial either. While there has not been significant national coverage, there have been several major network morning show interviews about the author, his experiences and the book. Search the book, watch the interviews and judge for yourselves... I will support either decision. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 15:03, 18 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. There seems to be a consensus against the deletion of this material. I do not believe that the community has come to a consensus as to whether this deserves its own article or should be merged into another. Therefore: no consensus between Keep and Merge with the suggestion that a merge discussion be opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy[edit]

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

News article masquerading as encyclopaedic. This is a content fork (WP:FORK) of Todd Akin, padded with quotes.

Although the matter has impact on the 2012 elections & Akin's career the reportage is fairly routine for election season. Per WP:EVENT we lack examples of enduring coverage - if the matter continues to make the news in the future then it may pass notability requirements, but it simply cannot now.

The standalone nature of this article is undue and the matter can happily be handled at Todd Akin, rendering this article useless (except as a dumping ground for more scandal).

Finally; per WP:EVENT we lack a diversity of sources; it is basically coverage of what he said, then various supporters or detractors commenting on it.

I'd support either a transwiki move to WikiNews (an appropriate venue for this content) or redirection/merge to Todd Akin. Errant ^(chat!) 11:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS This should be an entry in his bio. It should, however, not become the sole focus of the bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back- it has great information and citations that can't be replaced, but the article is based on one event. In many such situations in the past, we merged such controversies back into the main article. Now, if he drops out of the race, a re-split may be needed. We'll burn that bridge when we cross it. Bearian (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- +1. M.S.K. (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Better to isolate current events away from the main article for many reasons. Merge back a year from now if still a concern. Rorybowman (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I vote, please name some. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:N. It has hundreds of reliable sources over multiple days. A simply google news search shows the number of reliable sources. If it had only been the comments from Akin, I would agree. But the calls for him to get out and other aspect make the vote a keep. It is a a multi day national news story. Plus the article is important to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 Casprings (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how it passes WP:N, particularly WP:EVENT. I highlighted specific problems (though only the main ones) which you might like to address. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a multi day story with hundreds of reliable sources. His actions, his apology, the calls by fellow republicans for him to step down, and the pulling of funding from the race are all national news stories. Clearly this meets WP:N and has enough WP:RS to do so.

As I noted; this is election season, the comment is controversial. The level of coverage is not especially compelling. The matter you describe certainly appears to be easily covered in his biography - but I think you lack a diversity of sources and lasting coverage beyond the usual news cycle (which is what WP:EVENT requires). We aren't even beyond the usual news cycle, so you simply cannot meet this requirement. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AVOIDSPLIT also comes to mind. Just because there are multiple reliable sources does not in of itself justify splitting content from the main article. Wait until there is a WP:SIZE issue, or until the event is definitive in its own sense (which cannot be established during the shark-feeding-frenzy-news-cycle) that it becomes the first thought associated with the man's name. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. This is basically a shining example of political scandal of the week/day/hour. It deserves to be Akin's article, and any article on this year's 2012 Missouri Senate race, but no more....William 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political scandals that meet WP:N get an article. See Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy Casprings (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this looks to be a bigger deal than the Limbaugh-Fluke controversy. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The ink isn't even dry on this newspaper story yet. If he resigns this item belongs back in the article, if he pulls off a miraculous victory, this item still belongs back in the article.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 12:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_Roanoke_Obama_campaign_speech you stated "We must keep in mind the campaign responded to the controversy". This applies here as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? I don't see which of the four bullet points of NOTNEWSPAPER could possibly apply here. This is not original journalism, nor "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities ", nor a who's who, nor a diary. Khazar2 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Editors quoting "WPNOTNEWS" might re-read WP:RAPID. Todd Akin went from little-known outside his state to international news overnight, generating more coverage in two days than he's likely had in his career to date. I can only assume the editors who argue this will have no significant follow-up coverage after today are joking--people still write about George Allen's macaca incident in 2000, and this is that turned up to eleven. To give a tiny example of the sort of detailed coverage this is receiving, check out this supplementary piece in the UK newspaper The Guardian explaining the origins of rape-pregnancy myths.[34] Attempting to summarize all this coverage (and the coming further coverage) in Todd Akin's article is impractical and would create a serious imbalance, making this WP:SPINOFF the best option. Wikipedia shouldn't have to wait four years to cover this in a substantive way. Khazar2 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in perspective, btw, to any editors who feel this is getting undue attention: Todd Akin's previous life, including ten years in Congress, generates 1,270 results in Google News Archives. Todd Akin gets 88,100 hits in current Google News. While these numbers obviously don't indicate quality of sources, it gives at least a rough idea of the notability of this incident compared to his biography to date. Using raw numbers, Akin's article would need to become 97% about this controversy to give it its due weight, and that's assuming not another word is written about it. For that reason, a spinoff seems like an obviously better solution. Khazar2 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you might want to actually read WP:RAPID - "it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate". It says nothing about whether an article should be deleted once it is nominated. Rank-one map (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have read it, thanks. "It is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge" seems to me an equally sound recommendation for both the initial nominator and for those rushing to vote delete in the first 12 hours. Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what justifies the split of this topic from the primary subject, Todd Akin? His article is tiny, C-class, and full of point form. It should be expanded, instead of a new article on a facet of an individual's life. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its rarely possible to determine the level of importance of an event like this while it is still churning. Whether this is a new "Read my lips: no new taxes" kind of moment, or something less, we won't know for awhile. So whatever the outcome of this AfD, revisiting in 6 months may be good idea.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not how Wikipedia works. We do not wait to retroactively justify the notability of an article. Delete it and re-create it in six months if someone finds it worthwhile. Rank-one map (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, this issue is currently progressing though the 24-hour news cycle. However, as far as we know right now, it's just a news story. We are an encyclopedia, not a chronicle of what was momentarily controversial in late August 2012. This likely merits some sort of mention in the Todd Akin article, always keeping WP:UNDUE in mind. szyslak (t) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (minor correction by szyslak (t) 12:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep (for now). Impressive coverage of current affair. Nothing present requiring deletion. When it becomes old, in a week or so, merge and redirect back to the main article as per any content fork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I understanding your opinion correctly that you believe it is, or should be, standard practice to create a new article about a current event for as long as it remains relevant, even if that's only a week, and then to merge it back into another article? If that's a misunderstanding, could you please clarify? Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is, though not that it should be. I believe that it is a hopeless fight, to eliminate US NEWS cycle politics-related forks from new article coverage. I also believe that it is net-negative to fight via AfD, because it drives away new contributors. I think that Wikipedians should take a long term view. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe you are saying that you want to change Wikipedia policies - which is certainly an admirable venture. But until you achieve that, how about we stick with current policies - all of which point to deletion? Rank-one map (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage currently in the Todd Akin article seems sufficient at this time. If the incident does achieve longstanding significance outside of the career of this particular politician, then by all means a stand-alone article might be justified in the future. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:N. I agree that hundreds of reliable sources over multiple days makes this verifiable. A google news search, the number of reliable sources and the video replays show that this article is being accurately portrayed. Does this embarrass Republicans? It does. But the calls for him to get out of the race by other Republicans and other aspects make the vote a keep. It is a multi-day national news story and it is important to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 Casprings (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagabondthor (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Another topic that received hundreds of reliable sources over multiple days is Kanye West rumored to be joining judges on American Idol. Strangely, it has no article of its own. The sheer number of news articles covering a topic has never been regarded as a sufficient source of notability, even if misinformed users continue to churn out the same bland rationale. Rank-one map (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back for the same reason we don't have a Wide stance article versus a redirect. Wikipedia is not the news, and there's no compelling reason for this subject to have it's own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Wide stance redirects to Larry Craig scandal?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you are correct. However, that was an arrest, which is a much bigger deal than a quote. It's possible it could become something bigger, but a standalone article is still premature at this point. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Undue emphasis 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Todd Akin. This article is still short enough that it can satisfactorily be included in the main article; and I don't think the controversy is so notable that we must have a separate article for it (although it might yet become so, e.g. in the event that it leads to Akin's resignation). Robofish (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back for now per Milowent -- difficult to say anything until the tide of interest has crested. a13ean (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back At this time, the impact of his statement seems limited in scope, especially since he has immediately retracted his comment. I feel we can contain this in Todd Akin page. However, if the repercussions span further in the coming weeks, e.g., new law drafted and proposed or march on the Capitol or bid to overturning of Roe v. Wade, then we might be able to justify keeping the article. The title "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy" would be fine. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back Article's dripping in WP:Recentism, just happened, and fails the WP:Event rule John D. Rockerduck (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak merge back There are a lot of details but right now I think we can reasonably include them in the primary Akin article. This is only a weak call for merging because I suspect strongly that there will be more than enough in a few days to easily justify a separate article. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to keep. Sonicyouth86's sources and continuing coverage indicate that this is large enough to have its own article. This is enough of a series of ongoing matter that it doesn't count as one event. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides overwhelmingly passing WP:GNG of WP:NOTABILITY, this is already having unprecedented repercussions in the Republican party garnering an outcry for resignations that hasn't been seen since Nixon. It would be willful ignorance to believe this controversy will magically be forgotten quickly. Far too much sourced topic-specific content to me merged to the biography article. WP:EVENT does not and has never "banned" articles about one event (this is an ongoing series of events actually). WP:EVENT is simply a guideline on how to deal with articles that are in fact about one event. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This has received considerable international coverage with some sources referring to it as "rapegate" and arguing that the ramifications for the GOP will be far-reaching: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. Apart from the political hoopla, several sources have considered Akins's comments from a scholarly perspective, suggesting that they exemplify Rape myths which is an academic concept in its own right. I believe this has lasting power: Keep and revisit in six months. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Election 2012 fooliganism. A few sentences under his biography and/or a piece on the Missouri Senate race would be appropriate, this is essentially a news summary of a current event clearly created with POV intent. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure I have this straight: in the face of days of coverage in international media, in which tens of thousands of reliable sources have now explored the case from angles ranging from the historical to the political to the academic to the scientific, you're proposing a 2-3 sentence limit on our coverage. And on top of that, you're accusing the article's supporters of bad-faith POV editing? You've got chutzpah, I'll give you that. Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since somebody else seems to have intervened with the strikethrough, I'm gonna answer. 1. My argument is based on the policy of WP:NOTNEWS — Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or a summary of news stories, but an encyclopedia. 2. I nowhere use the word "limit." I only indicate an approximately proportionate magnitude for this incident in a personal biography, pending further developments. 3. Here's the last paragraph in the original version of this piece: "Some speculate that this controvosy could effect the 2012 Presidential election and the chances of a Republican take of the of US Senate.[12] Some point out that the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, as worked closely with Rep. Akin while he has been in the house. For example, the Sanctity of Life Act was cosponsored by Ryan and Akin and would grant personhood to any fertilized human egg.[13]" — No apology from me here... Carrite (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This really belongs as a subsection of a proper article about medical myths about rape rather than one about this particular mythologizer, but to non-US readers it is a useful example of the importance and prevalence of such myths, and their role in determining US policy. Hopefully a proper article on the substantive issue will be forthcoming shortly. VEBott (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, review later, with possible Merge & Redirect if in a month (or after the beginning of the new year) to see if the event passes effect. There is more than enough coverage for the subject to pass WP:GNG, that being said when editing this article we need to be careful to ensure it maintains neutral presentation of the subject. However, that being said, this is an WP:EVENT that has received very heavy recent coverage (since the event occurred less than 72 hours ago) but I can not determine whether this subject will be independently notable in the long run, and thus Merger or Deletion discussions can begin at some later point in time if it is then determined that the subject of this article passes WP:EFFECT or WP:N#TEMP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article Todd Akin, and the history of the subject of this AfD, I find that there was already content (1305 20AUG12) on the Todd Akins article regarding the subject covered in this article we are considering when this article was created (1744 20AUG12). Therefore this article clearly falls under WP:CONTENTFORK (even though I do maintain that the subject is clearly notable in and of itself), so Merge & Redirect would make a good option. If the content regarding the subject of this article grows in the section of the Todd Akin articles to the point where the article gets to big per WP:LENGTH, this article can always be recreated as a sub-articleand a summary of the new article can be left in the Todd Akin's article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason for a stand-alone article, we are not the news Hekerui (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, classic WP:CRYSTAL. It is possible this drama will develop into a game changing ruckus and then snowball into a politics and culture/paradigm changing event. It's possible it will eventually meet our criteria for WP:EVENT (gaffs by public figures in elections happen often, it's routine). But at the moment it's just a slip by a politician who said something unbelievably stupid, and is being badly burned for it in the media and may lose his career, and perhaps some ripples to his party or pro-life/pro-choice issues, or science/religion debate - or perhaps not. But right now all those are speculative, we don't have any evidence this will be less transient, more enduring, or have broader impact in its own right, compared to any other career-killing gaff. If the game changes then in a year or so, we can recreate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back for now Per Milowent. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the senate race's page Wainstead (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- +1. Palmwiz (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I say Keep if he stays in the race, merge if he drops out. Could be the reason the race changes and as such is more notable. But if he drops out then he kills most of the reason for keeping. 216.81.94.71 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into another article. In another few months it's likely that everyone will have forgotten about this quote. It seems unnecessary to have a separate article about every flash in the pan story that's in the news. Zeromus1 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. It's clearly notable but the incident is part of the election race and as such it should be part of the election article. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with merging back into the article. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back for the time being, per Milowent. If coverage eventually extends beyond WP:RECENTISM or WP:1E status, the article can be re-created.--JayJasper (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back. An independent article is completely unnecessary. This is a case of WP:CRYSTAL at best, WP:POVFORK at worst. Divisive political articles are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. And frankly, so are the individuals who create them. As FT2 noted above, if this turns out to have a long term WP:EFFECT, then we can recreate it later... but even then I think it will be violating WP:UNDUE. Trusilver 19:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to have an article for what this loser said. Merge to his article. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delay Per WP:RAPID 65.200.157.66 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - haven't read the above arguments, but merging seems the logical thing to do. It's been a slow news week, so this story dominated the cycle for 2 days. The narrative will continue, but really it's not a very notable event, controversial flubs / statements from politicians happen all the time. Danski14^(talk) 19:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Since he is staying in the race, this is very relevant and useful information. I wish there were more Wikipedia entries for current news events. I always look to Wikipedia for objective and relevant information. This issue is also related to political advertising by conservative groups against many democratic candidates. It is not just a slip of the lip but seems to represent a current in conservative thinking that tries to express itself in both legislation and political propaganda. More analysis and sources of how this kind of apology relating to the legitimization of aggressive and violent behavior would be enlightening and is a subject in itself apart from this particular incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacey9020 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article currently contains more notable, sourced content that it would be appropriate to put into the biography article. It could be even longer based on what has already been published. Even if we assume that nothing further will be written (unlikely). Many of these "reactions" are notable enough to be included in an event article, but would be out of place in a biography. Savidan 20:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, a number of independent sources are offering a picture of this article's subject as a discrete event, rather independently of Todd Akin's larger history suitable for an encyclopedic biography. Mr Wave (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information available may be rapidly changing and news now, but as an event it is drawing sufficient coverage and commentary that it will likely continue to be a matter that is studied after this election. Even if he drops out this article covers a substantial event in the election campaign. The topic of this article stands to have lingering informative value, and it is time's job to demonstrate otherwise. Mr Wave (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addenum As the impact of the covered event has continnued to unfold polling in Missouri is showing that the event may be effect both the senate election in Missouri and the United States Presidential election in Missouri. It doesn't seem that the content of this article could cleanly be merged into a single other article given its notability. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 04:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. A minor event affecting one corner of the world. No one has died, no has resigned, no one has been arrested... if this had occurred in Brazil or Nigeria it would never in a million years have been given its own entry. "Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." The rest of the world, if at all interested, is looking on this as relatively routine in the grander scheme of things. This type of thing happens everywhere all of the time. Politicians say nasty things, people get upset. Everywhere. All the time. Doesn't make them all notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.241 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the world is interested. This topic has has incredible amount of coverage all over the world. These are just some examples, Germany [51][52], France [53][54], Japan [55][56], China [57], Russia [58], Israel [59] and India [60]. --Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A politician killing their career is a standard news subject and you'll find plenty of newspaper coverage, but this isn't wikinews and the topic has no lasting notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright. This is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia.—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I also have weighed in on the "delete" side, I have to say, that's not really much of a reason. American politics topics are not inherently non-notable. Could you expand on your reasoning? Kansan (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an excellent reason. I live thousands of miles away, which gives me an objectivity about this. Wikipedians would never tolerate an article about a single gaffe made by a Chinese politician who's nowhere near party leadership level. We would delete it virtually instantly. What's affecting this debate is the fact that so many Wikipedians are Americans with no perspective on how unimportant their state-level politics really are, combined with the tendency of US elections to spill over into all forms of media and endure for about a trillion years per campaign. This happens because US politics involves splurging vast, enormous amounts of money on publicity. But all this amounts to is routine electoral coverage of a whole lot of (largely simulated) outrage from one party who're trying to make electoral capital and a whole lot of damage limitation from the other.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem remarkably confident in saying that the fact that you live thousands of miles away gives you an objectivity. I too live thousands of miles away (indeed, perhaps further away than you do), but all I would say is that perhaps this gives me objectivity, or that I hope it gives me objectivity. Still, I can objectively point out that here in Japan, Asahi Shinbun writes up this matter here, that Mainichi Shinbun writes it up here, that the local AFP writes it up here, and that the local Wall Street Journal writes it up here. ¶ Contrary to your suggestion that non-Americans (or people outside the US, or non-Americans outside the US) have the perspective to see how unimportant state-level US politics really is, I suggest that at least some of these people see clearly how political positions and postures become mainstream in the US and thereafter influence the world. For this reason, they're likely to be interested. True, there may also be a certain degree of spectator sport: "Those nutty US politicians do say the durnedest things!" But we needn't speculate why "serious" Japanese (and other) news sources talk about this; the salient fact is that they do talk about it. ¶ You claim that Wikipedians would never tolerate an article about a single gaffe made by a Chinese politician who's nowhere near party leadership level. If a Chinese politician, no matter how minor, came to world attention for a gaffe -- whether uttering bizarre pseudoscientific nonsense, instructing security forces to kill strikers, or doing something else risible or horrifying -- and there were reliable sources for this, and an article about it met Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines, I'd happily !vote "keep" in an AfD on the article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Serious political journalists are covering it here, too. That doesn't mean they take it seriously and it certainly doesn't make it an appropriate subject for an encyclopaedia article. What it means is that this is the silly season and political journalists here don't have anything of substance or import to talk about. It's essentially routine election coverage of a routine election gaffe. The flushing sound you hear is the sound of Todd Akin's political career going down the toilet, but there's no reason why Wikipedia should contribute to his pain or draw any further attention to what's largely a manufactured talking point.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm well aware of what's going on in the British press. You amaze me with the assertion that British political journalists lack anything of substance or import to talk about. Yes, Dave and Nick may be on vacation, but top two stories in the Guardian were, a few seconds ago: "Higher state borrowing prompts growth push" and "Greek PM pleads for more time". There do seem to be other things to talk about. And how unworthy of attention is this? This "routine election gaffe", as you call it, is rightly or wrongly presented by the Guardian as related to its story "Republican party endorses abortion ban without exceptions ahead of convention": now, you are free to call this ban silly, but I suspect that most US political figures would say it's a serious matter. An article in Wikipedia about a major brouhaha caused by extraordinary public utterances by somebody who's chosen to run for public office can and should calmly relate the facts of the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, Hoary, but I'm afraid that to me, it's quite plain that this event does not merit an encyclopaedia article. It's an entirely run of the mill gaffe of no lasting significance whatsoever. I accept that you disagree with this point in good faith, but as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I live outside of America as well (in Australia, if that matters) and I consider events in American politics notable because they set the tone for other countries, especially Western ones. My own country's leaders, and many others, take their cues from American politics, giving events like the Akin comment a far wider reach than just Missouri.Euchrid (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Events which are only amplified because there is an election in the US aren't actually notable; after the election noone will care any more. All of this type of article need to go or be merged somewhere. That includes You didn't build that and any other articles built around perceived gaffs. They just aren't encyclopaedic and demonstrate a US-centric viewpoint. Incidents like these from other nations wouldn't get the time of day as a separate article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notnews, undue, and WP:NODEADLINE. If this is notable, it can be incorporated into the main article in due time. It was given undue weight there in my opinioin, and this is far and away beyond that. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Todd Akin and pare down to comply with WP:UNDUE. The relevant section in the bio should include a link to Pregnancy from rape. VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is becoming a national discussion about policy, and dominating news already for 4 days now. The discussion is not slowing or going away, and it affects one of the two majority party platforms and the presumptive vice presidential candidate for the upcoming US election. Once it dies down I would be fine with this being merged with Akin if that's all it is. 67.188.202.139 (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; it can be merged back in and redirectified later as perspective has its say. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The #akin hash tag has been trending for five days straight on Twitter: [61] This is a very significant news story. Just consider how many votes we see here. Can't imagine how anyone can suggest it isn't notable. Richard Myers (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Todd Akin, and copy some of the historical perspective into Pregnancy from rape and War on Women. Akin isnt saying something new here, and Akin isnt important in the grand scheme of things; the difference is that comments like his are part of the War on Women. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG for now. Highly notable and has not only been a local or even national story but an global one which in basic doesnt only effect America.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Received considerable international coverage and has become the trigger for considerable public controversy. Taragüí @ 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Todd Akin. We don't need a fork every time a politician says something stupid. Just cover it in his main article and see if anyone still cares about his gaffe on Nov. 7. Kilopi (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Todd Akin - no justification for this single facet of a notable individual's life getting an article its own when the parent article is lacking comprehensiveness (WP:AVOIDSPLIT). Wikipedia should aim for the quality of articles, not the quantity. Several celebrity meltdown's over the past few years have garnered significant attention. The content is in the article on the actor rather than its own. Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson are two who come to mind. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Todd Akin. The level of necessary depth can easily be covered in the Todd Akin article without overwhelming it. If the volume of text from this event is overwhelming the Todd Akin article, the solution, per WP:UNDUE, is to pare it back until it is short enough, not to split it out and let it get more bloated. --Jayron32 03:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Todd Akin (or keep). Given that the content is mostly "reactions," it can probably be trimmed and kept in Akin's own article, which would then be linked from War on Women, Pregnancy from rape, etc. with no harm done. The incident has clearly had impact beyond Akin's own career, as seen from the fact that it killed Romney's lead in the presidential race in that state, but we could just link Akin's article from the campaign article. No problem with a keep, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because obviously it's notable ad nauseum. Just make sure it's NPOV. I'm sure people will be referring to it, often inaccurately, for years so might as well have a good encyclopedic account. CarolMooreDC 13:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to pick on you Carol but; "obviously notable" is such a poor argument. Can you demonstrate or explain how it meets WP:EVENT? That is the key to this discussion. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously notable, but that's not the only criteria. Overtime it's significance will become clearer. Don't see any reason for hasty deletion, per various others who have opined similarly. CarolMooreDC 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-arbitrary break[edit]

Keep per WP:RAPID and we can revisit this later to determine whether notability has been established. While it is too early to determine duration of coverage or lasting effects, the guideline WP:EVENT supports inclusion on other levels. WP:EVENT says events are "very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." Articles in USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, The Hindu, The Australian, Time, Chicago Sun-Times as well as those listed above by Sonicyouth86 demonstrate both breadth (WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE) and depth (WP:INDEPTH) in coverage and also that this is not a routine news event. On the contrary, this is shaping up to be a pivotal moment in the 2012 US elections. Akin's career likely hinges on how this unfolds and the repercussions may have an impact on the Presidential election and the balance of the Senate. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge relevant content back to Akin's article; though WP:RAPID does suggest giving some time to see if there are any lasting impacts, realistically, political gaffe statements rarely have a lasting impact beyond that politician's career and any races s/he may be involved in. What's telling is that coverage seems to frequently compare this to the rape joke made during the 1990 Texas Governor's race, which is prominently covered in that man's article but justifiably is not a stand-alone article. Kansan (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:RAPID. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The event is over comments that raised concern. The event will not be thought about again a year from now most likely. I find it hard to believe this event will have lasting notability enough for a separate article. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 22:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, possibly merge into main article later on. Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is leading the National news tonight, 9 Republican Senators and Mitt Romney have called him to drop out, and he has been told not to come to the convention. I think this goes to WP:N.Casprings (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry... what was your point? I see an excellent reason to include this in the subject's article, I see no reason whatsoever to have an article for this incident. Phyllis Diller also died yesterday, but I don't see any Death of Phyllis Diller article. Why? Because we don't make fork articles when the relevant information can be placed within the parent article. Trusilver 23:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything that comparison demonstrates why we should have a separate article. One of these two subjects has tremendous number of sources and is having an international political impact, documented in sources in a variety of subjects. We have more than enough material for a full article. Which of these subjects is the one in question? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a rather interesting article in Popular Science on the issue going into some detail on the subject. One could consider this as providing an example of the significant contextual coverage that addresses the WP:NOTNEWS objection.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per NOTNEWS. If the reaction to the remarks is still being talked about in the media months from now, then the article can be recreated. I notice that in the last 24-hours, the size of the article has not greatly increased, which appears to indicate that it is not a deep controversy. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. This can be adequately covered in the parent article. aprock (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant amount of material. This was also the second most "googled" item on Sunday. Squad51 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Todd Akin#Rape and Pregnancy Controversy barring this sticking around for a long time. Being googled the most on one day isn't necessarily a measure of significance p b p 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the article is kept, it should be renamed to something less ungainly. And Oakshade was wrong to move the page in the middle of an AfD p b p 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dear Sirs, this article has substantial references, and isn't going anywhere.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's "not going away" because the comments are two days old and the media is drooling over it. In a week the media and everyone else will have likely moved on. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sir, with all due respect, that is speculative. Indeed this story has legs.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Todd Akin - No evidence of sustained notability. Maybe unmerge in a month or so if we are still talking about it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important enough for its own namespace. Moncrief (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been on the news all day long and will have plenty of reliable sources by Wedensday morning. I don't follow the harm of having this extra article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, per WP:NOTNEWS, and above editors. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed all over the place; people will come to Wikipedia for a less immediate, more considered view of the rumpus. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS, and per "can't we find anything in the world more relevant to an encyclopaedia than endless sub-sub-subarticles on US politicians". AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The fact that Romney, Obama, McConnell, and Pelosi all commented on it shows that it's notable, at least for now. Revisit the issue after the election; may not be worth keeping at that point. William Jockusch (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McConnell? Who's she? Which begs the question: if I fell over and got raped in town, rang a few newspapers, cried on the radio and asked four people with political ambitions to speak out about poor road surfaces and rising crime rates would that get a wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.241 (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch McConnell is the minority leader in the U.S. Senate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the article or Delete it if the article already covers everything important. There is no reason to have a separate article for this, nor should it be this long. This is getting way too close to BLP violation territory, not to mention totally unimportant and WP:NOTNEWS. Silver seren^C 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "controversy" was entirely manufactured by a politically opposed press. Public figures and celebrities have been uttering stupid things for time immemorial, and a few weeks later they are usually non-events. Members of the Democratic Party have said inappropriate things in public over the last two decades, but have typically gotten a pass from a sympathetic press. Mr. Akin's statement was stupid, but it's only worth a mention in Wikipedia if it results in him stepping down, thus ending his Congressional career. The article should go; the information may be merged later into the Todd Akin article, as is done with "controversies", real or imagined, in most other Wikipedia articles. — Quicksilver^{T @} 04:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then use the lede as the contents of a section in Akin's article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No basis for this page to exist, other than as a vehicle to escape UNDUE weight concerns and BLP attack page concerns at Akin's main page. In other words, it's a POV-fork. Belchfire-TALK 05:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and consider a merge at a later time, when the issue is no longer in the news, it has been edited for conciseness, and we have a complete picture of how large and complex the article is relative to its parent. Dedicated articles provide a great focal point for a rapidly changing subtopic. It's much easier to watch, edit, and discuss in its current location, and merging is much easier and less disruptive after it's stable. Dcoetzee 06:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Akin article. Although the comment belies an impressive level of stupidity - even for a member of Congress - that isn't enough to merit its own article. Coverage within the Akin article is sufficient. --JaGa^talk 07:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I want to double down on the merge; I didn't know about the Pregnancy from rape article then. The content in this article is good but it should be split across the Todd Akin, Pregnancy from rape, United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012, and War on Women articles. We should place this content within proper context instead of isolating it within the scope of a single gaffe. --JaGa^talk 22:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While this is quite news article-like, it does have significance. This significance may or may not be far-reaching, but there is no doubt in saying that stupidity on such a grand scale comes but once every few decades. Acts of stupidity do not deserve get their own articles, but people committing such acts are considered idiots, and idiots deserve content on their articles that deem them as such, which means this content is worth keeping, albeit in an abridged form, on Todd Akin's main article. --` (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete/merge per NOTNEWS, and what is relevant can be added to the already logn enough section on his page.Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Most of the Background section should be moved into a separate article on rape myths. Consider merging or deleting the rest after the election, when we'll better know its significance. —AnotherOnymous (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 with some trimming (or possibly Rape_culture#United_States). Legitimate rape (currently a redirect to this article) should be redirected somewhere else, possibly Rape culture. Having this inflammatory content on a non-BLP page make BLP balance issues much easier to deal with. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, clearly notable event of national significance. —Nightstallion 11:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:N, as others have said above me. —stay (sic)! 11:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reflexive deletionism here is annoying. This is one of the highest-profile developments of the Senate race so far, and especially given Akin's refusal to drop out it's likely to be a continued topic of discussion for weeks to come. Binarybits (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge -- clearly demonstrates notability, but perhaps would be better placed within the Akin article. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment There's now at least one article in the mainstream news specifically discussing how this issue has become an international one. [62]. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This has received a lot of coverage in the UK, ie more so than the average US election gaffe/spat, and will no doubt be the one main thing he is remembered for in future - but it is still basically an election-driven news event and one incident in one politician's career. No reason apparent currently for it to have a whole standalone article. If this is the standard WP works to, we could spin every politician's article out into 101 sub-pages, focused laser-like on every single utterance or passing controversy they've ever been involved in. The point of encyclopedic biography is to pull all those together into a coherent and balanced whole. As WP:NOTNEWS says - "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion ... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". N-HH talk/edits 13:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article has matured and is quite relevant.Regards, theTigerKing 13:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No new reasons; they've all been rather hashed and re-hased above. I would support a merge in the future with Akin's article, but since the term 'Legitimate Rape' is now a legitimate search term (pardon the pun) for the time being, and since there appears to be much information and debate regarding the uterus' ability to abort, it stands to reasons it is a separate issue (for now).--Revanche (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing more than an attack ad with no basis in Wikipedia notability. The notable parts can easily be covered in the primary article, while getting rid of most of the synthesis and bias.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What synthesis do you see in the article? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking information published 40 years ago and using it as a way to refute the subject is synthesis. If you need "rebuttal" arguments, use actual sources that do so, do not use previous sources to refute. That's WP:SYNTH because the article is using two or more sources to come to a conclusion not presented in either. --JOJ ^Hutton 15:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So the primary claimed example of synthesis is the citation and discussion of the Mecklenburg article? First, that's a paragraph that could be easily removed without changing the rest of the article at all. So that would be an argument for editing, not deletion. Second and more important, it isn't synthesis. There are other sources, cited in the article, taling about this in the specific context of Mecklenburg. For example, this is cited in the article. So there's no synth there. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that given this background - and the fact that this is far from a unique case - is a good argument for a Rape and pregnancy controversy article - which is much more duely weighted. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree -- the allegorical use of scientific fable to support political and ideological causes, and connections to the "war on women" are of greater encyclopaedic interest than the biographical or electoral aspects.
        
        Strongly disagree with that idea. The only controversy is because he said something so misinformed and ignorant. There is no controversy about whether rape causes pregnancy, and creating an article with that title would be the same as creating the now-thankfully-deleted nonsense Homosexuality and pedophilia - pandering to a manufactured view which can only serve to confuse the reader, not inform. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's nonsense; your falling afoul of recent-ism bias. As is quite nicely highlighted by this article; people have been making controversial statements about pregnancy through rape for some time. Right back to historical times. I was aware of it prior to this incident. It certainly doesn't lend weight to the theory - but it exists! In fact I am slight offended by your implication that I believe this theory has merit by virtue of me suggesting an article about it... --Errant ^(chat!) 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree that my rationale has anything to do with recent events, and I deeply apologize if my words in any way seemed to you to touch on your beliefs in any way. That was not my meaning at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sure, we could have that article. But having such an article is to some extent an issue that's independent of this controversy. And of course none of this addresses the apparently weak SYNTH claim. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, Merge later -- Although I agree with many that the controversy does not merit its own article, the fact remains--it does exists. Some trimming up should be done once this controversy has subsided, and it should be merged with the page on Todd Akin, with a side note in the US Senate Elections Missouri, 2012 page. Donatrip (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but discuss this again in a few months and possibly merge it with some other article. Gary (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, Merge later -- Google News keeps serving up links to the page -- it provides a comprehensive review for someone interested in the topic. If, after the election, it is deemed to have had a major effect on the elections, it should be kept, otherwise merged into the Todd Akin article. --Jeffrey Henning (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just a transient news story. Many years from now people will want to be able to read the article.

Bob (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, wait til the dust settles. It may eventually be merged back into his article, or the election article, but currently unfortunately poor Mr. Akin's most notable accomplishment is this, and covering it correctly might strain the balance of his article. Nothing good he has ever done is nearly so noteworthy; ergo it is bigger than he is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Can we have a count now and arrive at a consensus?~~

- ~~Delete -~~

Regards, theTigerKing 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- This AfD has been up for less than two days. AfDs generally run much longer. It is especially important to do so on issues that are controversial and where the consensus is not clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- There should not be any such tally boxes, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to an AfD discussion. This is not a vote. Edison (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Notnews, While this has recieved significant coverage, every political gaffe by every politician during an election cycle is covered. This will drop out of the news cycle and be forgotten as soon as this election is over (sooner if he quits or something). It is certainly important to his own BIO and should be included, and possibly can get a BRIEF mention in the overall election articles (especially if this does have a more lasting impact), but it is not deserving of its own article at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This entry helps our readers, which should be the only criteria. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major news media worldwide continue to provide significant coverage, and judge this to be an important aspect of the 2012 US Senate races, as do leaders of the Republican party. It should be covered in summary style in the articles about Akin and his 2012 Senate run, but a breakout article is justified by the complexity of the matter. It goes beyond a simple gaffe or "Macaca (term)" incident which scuttled someone's earlier Senate run. The article about the "macaca" incident was kept in an AFD nearly unanimously, so citing it goes beyond "other stuff exists." Consideration should be given to creating a related new article about Rape, pregnancy and abortion controversy in the Republican campaigns in 2012, since Dr John C. Willke, the apparent source of the claim, was a prominent surrogate speaker for Romney in his previous campaign, and has endorsed Akin's remarks and the Republican platform reportedly passed this week seeks a prohibition of abortion in the case of rape or incest. Edison (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In 10 years time noone is likely to care about Todd Akins comments; this event has no inherent notability. This isn't wikinews. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per [WP:NOTNEWS] & WP:POVFORK, No need for an article. This can be covered sufficiently in Akin's article. Truthsort (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The issue continues to develop and has had major consequences for the Republican Party, not just on a state level, but also on a national level. It's not your usual run-of-the-mill gaffe. There has been international media coverage and the story continues to develop. It can be merged at a later date if necessary, but keep for now per WP:RAPID. Aurora30 (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete everything of any encyclopedic value is covered in the lead and that (and more) has already been easily incorporated into the main TA article. The rest of the page is just hot air blowing around. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 because the controversy only exists in the context of the election. If there were no elections, there would have been far less coverage of it. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that without a Missouri election there would have been much less coverage, but that's not a good argument to merge it there. First, just because some other subject was a major contributor to why something is notable doesn't mean that it has to be merged into that article. Lee Harvey Oswald is only notable as a consequence of who he shot, but that doesn't mean we should merge his article into an article about Kennedy or the assassination. What matters most is how much we have in the way of sources and coverage to write an article. Second, a major aspect of this situation is concern that it will impact the general perception in this election cycle as a whole and thus have a wider impact than just the Missouri election itself. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now in light of WP:RAPID. This article and event are a moving target if I've ever seen one. AgnosticAphid talk 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the long run, everything notable can be covered in the article about Akin or the 2012 elections. However, I do understand and would accept postponing deletion until the media flea circus dies down. I vehemently disagree with some points above, 10 years from now this will be as forgotten as Howard Dean's at one time famous gaffe in the 2004 election that cost him his frontrunner status. Dave (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Point of interest, while we don't have an article on the Dean Scream, that's not the result of a consensus discussion and I rather think the continued coverage (incl. scholarly) could support an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, clearly a Dean Scream article could be created. It gets referenced fairly frequently years after the fact, including in journal articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- That something will only be remembered strongly by some people is not an argument for deletion. Who remembers for example the prime ministers of Britain in the 19th century aside from the much more notable ones like Spencer Perceval? To use a slightly different example, almost no one aside from a professional mathematician has even heard of the Jordan-Schur theorem and even then, many mathematicians have not. But that's not an argument for deletion. The fact that something is a specialized topic or won't be remembered by many in a few years is not a good argument for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and merge - there is a lot of good material here, though not notable enough for its own article. Much of it is worth keeping, albeit in a more concise form. Once there's a bit of stability and distance I think that the core of this article should be merged back into Todd Akin. Euchrid (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a huge news story, to the point where it is beginning to overshadow other issues in the Senate race, and threatens to bleed over into the presidential race via Paul Ryan's opinions on the same issues. This controversy has ramifications well beyond Akin's own career and opinions, into becoming a major issue in the larger U.S. culture wars. (Update: It's all over the global media, too, well beyond the Anglosphere: [63] (fr), [64] (es), [65] (de), [66] (tr)) -- The Anome (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Rubicon has been crossed - this is a major issue in campaigns at every level - Presidential, Senate, and House. It has affected King's re-election in Iowa. It has become such a huge scandal, that to delete the article would be to erase history in the making. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge back -- for now, at least. There's a reason we are an encyclopedia, and not a news source in our own. There's no harm in evaluating this a little down the line, we rarely need articles here and now as they happen with scandals like this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Admins should note that a significant proportion of the "Keep" comments come from inexperienced users who seemingly have no knowledge of basic Wikipedia policies concerning notability or WP:NOTNEWS. As for those saying "keep and wait a few months", the way we've been doing things is always no article unless notability is proven, not "make an article and see if it would be retroactively justified." (Finally, for those citing WP:RAPID, please read it carefully and note that this is 1. a (disputed) guideline, not a policy, and 2. directed towards nominators of AfDs to avoid drawn out deletion disputes, and has no relevance for whether an article should actually be deleted.) Rank-one map (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of engaging in what sort of amounts to a tu quoque response, I note that your account was made in March of this year. Second, the idea that it sometimes makes sense to wait until the dust settles is an argument that has been taken seriously in many AfD discussions for some time and is a reasonable argument whether or not the people can point to a specific written policy supporting it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how this argument has been phrased and received in recent AfD discussions. I do know however it is highly inconsistent with standard Wikipedia policies. Take a look for example of WP:N#TEMP. It is here implied that articles deemed non-notable at the time will be deleted, and you can re-assess that decision later. Keeping an article and hoping that it becomes notable is completely contrary to this principle.

As for the new account comment - As you might note, some of my edits are made on sensitive professional topics, hence I created a new account and abandoned my old one to avoid possibly tracing back to my identity (this is allowed under #2 of WP:Multiple Accounts). Rank-one map (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The central argument being made isn't that the subject is not notable but should be kept temporarily (I see only a single user making that argument from a quick glance through). I agree that such an argument would be counter to policy and good sense. The argument is that for an ongoing subject it often makes sense to wait and let an article develop before fully deciding on whether it is notable. Of course this is only marginally relevant for some individuals here, such as myself, who think that this is notable full stop. As for your account's recent nature, I wasn't aware that Dynkin diagrams were a sensitive topic. Joking aside, are economics really sensitive? But even aside from that, there's really no reason to think differently about other people. Essentially once people have accounts that have been around and contributed on other subjects, the difference between a 2 months, six months or a year shouldn't be that important. If there was a heavy influx of completely new accounts there might be a valid point here, but I'm not seeing that. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My comment on inexperience was nonsensical. However I insist that a large number of comments here are contradictory to basic Wikipedia principles such as WP:NOTNEWS. That does not of course diminish the strength of other arguments made in favor of keeping. Rank-one map (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Perspective - It appears that this has been made a focus of attack for !vote-stacking and WP:CANVASSING by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Just thought that any admin looking this over ought to be aware of that. Organized POV pushing is not fair or proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite your evidence, my IP friend. (Other users should note that this IP's only other contribution on Wikipedia is trolling on another political topic and getting [banned.) Rank-one map (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I too would like to see evidence. Note also that people who care about politics are likely to be interested in this sort of thing. That doesn't mean they are votestacking when many people show up. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will be happy to provide it once I can figure out how to get the history of an embedded object. At the time of my writing it was the top alert of the "Alerts" section at [67]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that we have a minority of deletion comments, most of which are based purely on policy grounds - and a majority of keep/merge comments, a significant proportion of which contain rather partisan comments on politics (an embarrassment to the Republican party, etc.) - and yet somebody is here accusing dissenters of being conservative votestackers and POV-pushers - is a good sign of just how ludicrously ideological Wikipedia has become. (And in case I get condemned by another ideological hack, I am a Democrat and I fully despise Todd Akin's comments. But I don't come on Wikipedia to push my views.) Rank-one map (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't use the comments by an an anon as good evidence that Wikipedia ideology is in focus here. And it may help to keep in mind that people can legitimately disagree over how to interpret policy on Wikipedia just as they can legitimately disagree about politics. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see the political comments in the keep/merge opinions as not pushing partisan ideology so much as arguing for notability. —AnotherOnymous (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, Wikiprojects have a standard way they alert people of interest to related subjects that are going on. That's not evidence of canvassing by most notions of the term. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep. I don't care what happens to this, but let's not have yet another article on some issue like this. We're not the news. People can cite RAPID all they want, but I don't see why this should be separate from the guy's article. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Just merge it with the Todd Akin article and add to it there. Should be simple enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.106.251.214 (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with maybe eventual Merge back. The "one word" or "sentence" "misspeak" does seem clearly to link somehow to the more substantial platform policy initiative by the Republican Party and certainly has found wide resonance on the two party, and other (independents, international), sides of the campaign. As part of the large and long-running abortion debate, also, it seems significant. Deletion would seem a major loss to Wikipedia. And having it for now separate from but linked, of course, to the principal's article has come to seem right to me, also. Sorry, I'm no good at citing Wiki policy to support my opinions here. I have made one contribution to the article, for what that's worth. Swliv (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit, wait, and merge - Everything needs to be condensed and eventually put on his page. I think the article would benefit from a bit of cooldown time before writing such a lengthy section on the political impact; it could do anything from drastically affect the presidential election to fall off the radar in weeks time. While I'm personally repulsed by his statement, this only happened a couple of days ago and the article would be better covered if we gave it some distance for a time. Drivec (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is being talked about overseas, see this CNN article, especially its potential impact on the U.S. presidential race. Akin's making this bigger than Akin-Kiwipat (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stupid comments make international news all the time, that alone doesn't warrant an article. Let's see what people think in, say, 3 months. By then the political backlash will have worn off and we can look at this more neutrally. Delete rationale comes from nom: "Finally; per WP:EVENT we lack a diversity of sources; it is basically coverage of what he said, then various supporters or detractors commenting on it." Mythpage88 (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis thing is an amazing entry.Keith Henson (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. This story has received and continues to receive massive coverage from mainstream news-media, both in the U.S. and internationally, and it is not going to away anywhere any time soon. The story has had a significant effect on the dynamics of the U.S. presidential elections, not to mention the U.S. Senate elections in Missouri. There is more than enough material here for a separate article and that amount is only going to increase given that the story is still developing. People who are complaining that the story is "overhyped" by media are basically using the WP:DONTLIKEIT argument. In determining notability, we are supposed to follow coverage by mainstream reliable sources, and not substitute our judgement regarding what they decide to cover. Nsk92 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course there are a lot of sources on this debate, but we still have to exercise some discretion and judgment about how to include and incorporate such sourced material and whether a particular topic needs its own standalone page; or whether it is simply something that needs noting in the entries about Akin and/or the election in question. No we can't discount media interest in a story, but equally we don't have to slavishly follow it either and simply assume that everything that has a burst of media coverage, especially as part of an electoral cycle, however extensive, needs its own entry in an encyclopedia, as opposed to a news round-up service. N-HH talk/edits 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the article can always be merged back into another article later. For the moment, it's a global media phenomenon that has political ramifications that go far beyond Akin himself, which has now run for four days without showing any sign of abating, and curently dominates all discourse on Americian politics. To keep it in the Akin article would be to pretend that none of this is happening. -- The Anome (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is not temporary" - if you are saying that it might not meet notability requirements in a few months, you are really saying that it does not meet them now. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The War of 1812 was very notable in 1832 compared to how notable it is currently. Just a thought. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me; Happy War of 1812 Bicentennial, everyone! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my long-standing view that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge later per Khazar2 and esp. WP:RAPID. --Seduisant (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well sourced article with a person known for more rhan one event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews, summarizing what is appropriate in Akin's article and the election articles, and then delete (unlikely search term so no need for redirect). Seriously, Wikinews has mentioned only twice in this entire discussion; this type of news story is exactly what Wikinews is suited for and what Wikipedia itself is not (per WP:NOT#NEWS). The statement will have political ramifications on his career and other elections, for certain, but the level of detail that this article goes into coverage is not suitable for a tertiary work. But transwiki to Wikinews, link to the article there, and now you actually are using the Foundation projects correctly. Heck, seeing that Pregnancy from rape is linked but also presently undergoing an AFD, some of this content here can go to that article (as part of notable debates about pregnancy from rape, but should have appropriate NPOV balances) as to make that article better, since that article is not an event but actually a rather important social subject. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very notable event, and a very well-sourced sourced article. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The controversy has clearly become large enough to warrant its own page. Tiller54 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I really, really, really wish more people would closely read WP:10YT, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. This is yet another of those articles that we probably shouldn't create until a few months after the event. Instead, I recommend (in this and in all future such cases) initially mentioning it in a relevant article, before spinning it off into its own article should it meet the criteria to do so. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And that is what sets articles like this up to turn out exactly like the 324,682 "Occupy Whogivesacrapville" articles that were soooooo important to make this time last year. Once the immediate fervor dies down, what you essentially have is an article that is forever after doomed to get three or four hits a day because it's unnecessary compared to the parent article. This is the very essence of WP:10YT. Is an article which is nothing more than an obvious attempt to expand on a political gaffe going to be notable and relevant? Of course not. Trusilver 03:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a headline news aggregator and because this news will not matter in a few months it should not have its own page. Harpsichord246 (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a serious issue which has a large impact on the 2012 elections and national politics; it warrants its own page. Grammarxxx (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we think it has had a significant impact; we don't know if this issue will fade away next week, or if it will linger for months, or if everyone will forget about it on Monday, etc, etc. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and recentism is a dangerous trend in this AFD. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a gaffe story. Akin's statement is a common anti-abortion talking point. The significance of the comment is not that it may cost Akin the Senate race or even that it may have broader implications for the 2012 presidential election. It's significant (and is receiving international coverage) because Akin, knowingly or otherwise, has deployed pseudoscience in an effort to support restricting women's reproductive rights. Sue Gardner (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what you do want to keep is "Pregnancy from rape" then (also up for deletion), where this general talking point can be discussed, rather then linking it to this one person. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pregnancy from rape is the far better approach to treat this topic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or an online news source. Secondly, this is clearly undue weight. This is a minor controversy over a gaffe made by a candidate. If a similar story was in India, Pakistan, Brazil, China, Indonesia or even the United Kingdom, their is no way anyone would justify a wikipedia article. Read WP:WORLDVIEW. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Todd Akin — Yes, this scandal has received significant coverage, but has it developed into something with lasting significance? That has yet to be established; see WP:EFFECT. As such, this article exists for the purpose of heightening the implications of his comments (which were extraordinarily misguided even by the most vanilla interpretation of them, although I do think he misspoke), thus giving undue weight against an individual. I do not consider that to be consistent with WP:BLP, which in principle protects even the most despicable of people from defamation or negative bias (not necessarily suggesting that Akin himself is despicable, but rather to illustrate my point). Make no mistake about it, I was disgusted by what he said, but until and unless this controversy snowballs into something with longterm ramifications, I see no reason why it needs anything beyond a subsection at Akin's main article, where I think it could be given sufficient coverage. Kurtis (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant international coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have renamed the article to "Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy" because I believe the original title was not sufficiently clear on the subject of the article. Do not think the word "controversy" is necessary in the title because the controversy is the only thing that would make the comments notable and this is mentioned in the first sentence of the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a correct move for two reasons. 1. It's far more than just "comments" and this has errupted into a nationwide controversy with contetious debate and discussion about the implications of this controversy. 2. The affectation of a year, with very few exceptions, is used when there are two or multiple topics of the same name. The title you added iplies theres a "Todd Akins 2011 comments on rape-induced pregnancy" article somewhere. Of course, there isnt.--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those reasons are not valid. Surely he has commented before on the matter of rape-induced pregnancies, even if there isn't an article about it, the year focuses it on these prominent comments. As to it being about more than his "comments", that is not wrong, but it is not a valid objection to the rename. The controversy and its implications all center around the comments. Naming the article after what precipitated the controversy is no different from discussing the impact of other comments or events.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge back to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. This is why we have articles on individual Senate races -- to present the relevant info. If this does have impact on other races, that can easily be explained in reference to the Missouri article. I don't understand what purpose a separate article serves, except to dodge (rather than addressing) the issue of WP:WEIGHT. -Pete (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Part 1: Thought it might be interesting to check out how big this story is in various news organizations right now. (Disclaimer: I'm not counting "Most popular in the last week" boxes, because the story broke earlier this week...)

BBC News: Not mentioned on section page, referenced in a throwaway line in 1 article, Akin not mentioned by name.
NY Times Mentioned further down page in two blog articles, only directly reported on in one. Neither article made the print edition.
Washington Post Headlining section page, but mostly references to how Democrats are exploiting the gaffe. Precedent has established that attack ads are notable enough for an encyclopaedic article only in a few, very rare cases. (Think "Swift Boat")
CNN Politics Two small mentions on section page.
Google News for "Todd Akin" Note how many of those entries have (Blog) written after them)

But most damning, perhaps, is this Insights for Search that I just ran. Note how sharp of a spike that coverage is. Also take into account that, through our collective systemic bias, we're probably giving this article more weight than its worth. Looking at the search volume by country, note that everyone -- aside from the US, Canada, and the UK -- just doesn't really care. To avoid an edit conflict, (I suspect I've already failed), I'll add some other insight searches momentarily. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's take just the first one of your cites I picked (genuinely) at random, the NYT page you linked: on that page, at the moment, I have the following links to stories: "A Candidate’s Stumble on a Distressing Crime", "The Caucus: Even if Akin Wanted to Quit Race, It Would Be Difficult", "Egan: Crackpot Caucus", "Op-Ed: The Medieval Roots of Akin’s Theories". That's four stories on the topic, all linked from the same index page. Hardly a lack of interest. -- 80.168.172.12 (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at those, sure. 1)Article, RS, focuses not on Akin but on the history of "Pregnancy and Rape"; an argument for keeping that article, not this one. 2)Blog, focuses on the logistics of dropping out of the race; in essence, an article about his political career, not his comments. Would more appropriately be cited in the main Todd Akin article. 3)Blog (opinion piece, ergo less of an RS), using Akin's remarks as a premise to "discuss" the Republican party's views on Science, and 4)Op-Ed, discussing topic of pregnancy and rape -- argues for keeping that article. In summary, Akin's comments and that scandal merited passing mentions at best in all four of those articles. Just because the name shows up, doesn't mean the story is about Todd Akin's comments. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Part 2: As promised, some more comparative Google Insights searches are below:

Draw your own conclusions. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know google trends was how wiki. The event had "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)". Therefore it meets Wikipedia:Notability (events). Simple as that. Casprings (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.:::*Bonus Comment: [68] Google Trends result for "Todd Akin". Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Google Trends analysis certainly shows a sharply rising, then falling, peak for Google search volume, which iswhat you presumably want us to draw a conclusion from. But I find it much more significant that the "News reference volume" line below is rising, and continuing to rise. These are the very things Wikipedia should care about for judging the importance of the topic of an articles: rising interest on the part of reliable sources, not fickle Internet buzz. -- 80.168.172.12(talk) 19:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that includes blogs, too. Hardly reliable sources. Even if it doesn't, this is the US news media we're talking about, and this is silly season. Of course they're still talking about it; it's a slow news week, and the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep this story going. It's a smart political tactic, but not a good model for an encyclopedia. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~And base your conclusions on WP:GHITS.~~ -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed the point. I'm not searching for the number of Google Hits, those searches show how many people are searching the term. In other words, it's a relative index of search volume, and a highly useful tool to show public interest; just like Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books. So, don't base your conclusions on WP:GHITS, base them on Wikipedia:Search engine test#Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? All news stories peak rapidly, then decline in hits, even as public interest grows and broadens. In fact, the decline from the peak of hits, even as the number of stories increases, is the very essence of something ceasing to be news, and becoming part of the permanent record. Look at this, for example: [69]. Does that mean the Norwegian shootings are a non-issue, too? -- 80.168.172.12 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that's comparing Apples to Oranges. Specifically, Mass-murdering apples to Election-year-political-gaffe oranges. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this goes well beyond a "gaffe". Women don't like rape. And they vote. -- 80.168.172.12 (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...do I really need to respond to that? "X don't like Y. And they vote." is the very definition of what makes a political gaffe. No one (well, no good person) "likes" rape, so I don't see why you need to talk down to us like that. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If subject of this article is still getting that type of coverage a year from now, THEN it will most certainly have established its notability. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:UNDUE issues previously cited. It certainly happened, and can be documented by reliable sources, but it belongs more as a subsection in his, or his campaign's, article. And, by chance this is kept, it definitely needs a name change. Left as is, it sounds like an article about Todd Akin raping someone. Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into the Akin's article, per NOTNEWS and UNDUE. Lots of things happen in the world and are covered by newspapers, but that doesn't mean that every single one should have a separate entry in an encyclopedia. The issue in question would be sufficiently covered by paragraph in the main article. I really think that creating all these forks for controversial incidents (thinking back to the recent Chick-fil-A incident) should be discouraged, otherwise we just have the same deletion discussions over and over again. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...Akin makes one idiotic comment and that somehow warrants an article? What about the constant moronic comments made by Joe Biden...how about an article about each one of those...that might add another 10,000 articles to the pedia.--MONGO 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I agree, there is no reason to take each comment in an election season that seriously. The matter is already dying away at this time. If the comment really has an impact in retrospect on the election an article may be written. However, it would be appropriate to merge this into Akin's Wiki page, accounting for the fact that his political career appears to have fallen apart due to the comments. Harpsichord246 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated comment I just noticed, while the incident is mentioned in the main Michael Dukakis article, we don't have an independent article for one of the most famous political gaffes ever. (Propose one be created at Michael Dukakis Tank Photograph.) Anyone want to help start one? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* That should be an article. Clear impact on the election and long term cultural impact. Casprings (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear impact on the national Republican Party (they're weighing in and trying to get Akin out of the race) and on the national race for control of the Senate. Polls show it is not simply "dying away", and it would be helpful to keep this separate from Akin's main article. Merge back as a second choice. The Moose is loose! 10:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated comment I think the consensus is delete. Welshboyau11 (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge back into Todd Akin. Todd Akin is not the main article to this subtopic. Except for what he said about legitimate rape, everything else in the article is contributed by others in reliable sources, not by Todd Akin, and then those contributions largely fall on where the contributor resides on the political spectrum. The "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy" subarticle is not an account of Todd Akin's life but instead is an account of other's lives and actions they took. Admin Der yck C.'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You didn't build that (Obama's out of content words) provides good discussion points for the present AfD:
"Most of the arguments for deletion denounce [the Obama "You didn't build that"] article as a POV fork without addressing the issue that the topic is actually a subtopic fork."[70]
Both Legitimate rape and You didn't build that are the same subtopic and to determine whether each qualifies as a Wikipedia:Summary style article, it would help to identify the main article. I don't know enough about the political spin area to figure out which Wikipedia article is the main article (someone who knows about this stuff please suggest), but it probably is one of Character assassination, Dirty tricks, Discrediting tactic, False accusations, Negative campaigning, Psychological manipulation, Red-baiting, Shame campaign, Smear campaign, Swift boating, Whispering campaign, or Yellow journalism. With the main article identified, we then can have a good discussion as to whether the legitimate rape subtopic is a major subtopic of the main article per the requirements of Wikipedia:Summary style. In other words, in the context of Wikipedia's article on negative political campaign techniques, is the legitimate rape topic so independently notable from that main topic that it is a major subtopic fork of that main topic and deserves fuller treatment in a separate article of its own? Just about every country in the world does these slip of the tongue negative spin campaign and this one does not yet stand out from those that have been covered in the news in the past 100 years. The legitimate rape topic/information may qualify to be part of a List of slip-of-the-tongue negative spin campaigns, but is not so independently notable that it deserves a stand alone article. The article should be delete/moved back into Todd Akin so that the content is limited to biographical information about his life, not the lives of others and what they choose to say. Article name - The article name "Todd Akin rape" is offensive and violates BLP. He didn't rape any one, he didn't get anyone pregnant through rape, so seeing "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy" is wholly offensive. If I got to this article sooner in the AfD, I would have moved it to Legitimate rape to address the immediate BLP issue. The "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy" name of the article is really offensive and should not even be a redirect. If another agrees with me, the we should move the above nominated article now, even before this AfD ends. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article title isn't controversial or offensive. He made comments about rape and pregnancy. Any cursory reading with minimal reading comprehension can see that's what it is. BLP doesn't require us to presume that readers are absolute idiots. And even if one thinks there's a BLP problem with the title it is easy to change that to something like "Todd Akin comments about rape and pregnancy controversy" so this isn't a relevant argument for the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Let's not balloon the main article for this major 'gaff', but this side article is missing much of the defending responses and a great many additional stories to come from this one. If foreign press care enough about this to run stories as noted with Japan and Britain, than I believe THIS controversy is notable. The reason I believe it needs its own page, it for objectivity to Todd Akin; because this event will destroy the balance of the main article so that this controversy dominates the page. All the major counters are differences of ROUTINE, but nothing about this is routine, its blown up and has been sustained for a week. Might I suggest relevance to Trayvon Martin versus Heaven Sutton, the difference being a few weeks of sustained media versus a flurry? Too bad Todd Akin's got 500 times the google hits, even the controversy has far more attention than other major stories. Can't turn on the radio without hearing it, day after day, or blow by blow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Somewhat reluctantly, since I don't think Wikipedia is selective enough regarding this type of article. But, until that can be fixed, the more important goal of neutrality obliges us to make the problem worse. I'd never heard of "You didn't build that" prior to this discussion, for example. Our standard may be low, but we must apply it evenly. Formerip (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Pregnancy from rape if that article is kept in ongoing RfD, otherwise keep this article. Either way, this article should also be summarized in the articles on the candidate and on his current election, if that is not the case already. Neutron (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break #2[edit]

KeeP Really large story and seems to be getting even bigger. Belvbelv (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; thanks everyone for their !votes. I'd say that no one arguing keep has demonstrated enduring significance in a diverse range of sources that warrant this fork as required by WP:EVENT. The article as it stands is mostly stuffed with "reaction" (always a warning sign) and lengthy quotes. So clearly is in need of merging. I am worried that a lot of people !vioting keep (Sue Gardner is a particularly worrying example!) are working of their own opinions and POV that this should exist... I am pleased to see an article about the whole topic exists - which includes a number of examples of a similar situation to this. I think we have a very strong argument for merging to there. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't really voted, but per WP:INDEPTH "coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines" and that is definitely satisfied. I do not think redirecting to "pregnancy from rape" is appropriate given that this is as much an issue of the Missouri Senate election as it is an issue of his comments on rape-induced pregnancy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that as a discrete event, this article's subject seems be notable across the scope of too many other articles to be merged in a satisfying way. Anyone who is searching for information on this event post merge would have to assemble the information by running around the patchwork of information left by carving up this article. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what you mean by "diverse sources", Errant. You keep bringing up that phrase, but the section on diversity of sources in WP:EVENT simply says "Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source" and "Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." We're obviously past the point where this is a single Associated Press article appearing in multiple papers; indeed, we're several thousand times past that point. Could you elaborate on your definition of "diverse" here, and where you're drawing it from in WP:EVENT? That might make your question easier to answer. Khazar2 (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed !vote, see above). The article now has the content, the sources, etc to convince me it's notable. suggest better links to rape culture. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stayed away from making a vote for a while, but I think at this point the sources clearly point to this as more than your usual gaffe.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The number of "gaffes" is snowballing and it doesn't make sense to keep material about multiple congressional/senatorial/presidential races in various regions in a single biographical article. (Tom Smith (Pennsylvania) is the latest.) The scope of the issue, in order to avoid overwhelming Akin's biography, necessitates this content fork. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Khazar2 makes a convincing case. Google news proves he had few mentions of him in the news media for all those years in office, and then suddenly he has quite a large number because of this. It did result in the media talking about the rape making pregnancy impossible myth. Dream Focus 03:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated Comment: I wanted to harness the huge number of views that this AFD is getting to point out that the current article on Political gaffe is frankly terrible. Can we please work to improve this turkey? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like this isn't going away. If in six months time, it fades back away into obscurity, re-nominate. I don't see the urgency in deleting things like this. (Also, with my English Wikinews admin hat on, to those who say "transwiki to Wikinews", please actually read up on how Wikinews works before basically using us as your dumping ground.) —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 28 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. If clear evidence of his meeting WP:NFOOTBALL emerges this can be restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Markelis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted and also Deleted at AfD in July 2012 as the subject had not competed in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 10:46, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 11:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, therefore this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails N:FOOTY. Once he plays in the A-League the article can be recreated. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as of October 5, 2012 Theo Markelis will have played his first professional game.
~~Keep~~ - there is no point of recreating a page where it is inevitable that he will play a fully professional game as he has signed a contract on July 2nd for 2 years.
- Comment - An individual can only vote once. In addition why did you re-create the article again after it was deleted the first time? Just wait until he plays a pro game for Victory.Simione001 (talk) 10:53, 27 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rufino (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP on the grounds that he had played fully pro football in Spain. This is false. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY, 3rd division of spain not a FPL. Seasider91 (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:14, 27 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Agustín Viale Ochoa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the sources suggested the article passed WP:GNG, but they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in spains top 2 divisions, copa del rey doesn't count. Seasider91 (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:27, 26 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Haro Iniesta[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the sources suggested the article passed WP:GNG, but they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as nominator Seasider91 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Cavarrone (talk) 18:19, 26 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) 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Singh Rajput[edit]

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

A non-notable politician. He may or may not be general secretary of the state-level political party, but his electoral success appears to be as near as dammit zero (684 votes in 1991, per this, left him in 14th place with 0.15% of the vote). Although his state office might meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians if verified, I find it unlikely given the paucity of sources that refer to him in any form using Google. Sitush (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Secret of success (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Note: It even seems to be an Unrecognized political party. --Bharathiya (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:34, 22 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) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rump brigade[edit]

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

Can't find sources for this term. Seems to be just an unusual word for militia Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing noteworthy here. Intothat darkness 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources that cover the subject, as it is presently written, in an indepth manor. There are two uses of the phrase, one regarding events during the Iraq War, and another during the American Civil War, but neither are related to what this article is about.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Militia movement (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've heard this term used before, and in non-militia contexts, but I don't believe there's anything article-worthy here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 28 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. Everything about this is screaming "hoax". Use of doctored images, fake sources, sockpuppets, etc. to support an article.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Kumar Dwivedi[edit]

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

Insufficient reliable secondary sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article based on sources from Facebook and LinkedIn, which is a big 'no no' for BLPs. When searching for News sources, I'm finding a whole bunch of nothing. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable person (per WP:BIO). I agree with MST, a Google search found me nothing I would use as a reliable source excluding the company's website - which I note doesn't have it's own article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the image file seems to be a morphed image of Steve Jobs which has been uploaded to Commons. Sesamevoila (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nominated the image at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deepak Kumar Dwivedi.jpg
Delete. The article needs independent, reliable sources. I have mentioned this at User talk:Maira ich but so far no response. Yaris678 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others--fails WP:BIO for lack of independent sources. Maybe even hoax per the image concern? The article seems to have attracted a ton of WP:SPAs, probably sock/meatpuppets in on the joke (or friends of the non-notable subject)? DMacks (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to: Speedy delete as total bullshit. Ref #2 is bogus: it does not mention the subject or the article or the event/organization that is mentioned adjacent to the ref-tag in the article, nor are there any items on that page that have the date the cite lists. The organization mentioned, IICCRD, itself has a dubious (to be generous) article (I just started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IICCRD), maybe a small WP:walled garden. The content itself is substantially cut&pasted with name-changes from Shawn Fanning. DMacks (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, there is a lack of reliable sources, but I suspect that this is actually more of a hoax or an effort at ambitious self-promotion than just an insufficiently notable biography. As already noted, the image is a photomanipulated picture of Steve Jobs. Additionally, the Freaquer company website is sort of the internet version of a Potemkin Village -- it appears shiny and professional, but there is literally no content. "About Us" reveals only content-free corporate-speak boilerplate. Most of the other links do not function at all; indeed, except for "About Us" all the links in the footer are simply to the main page. What look to be hosted advertisements do not contain links. The FAQ is empty. Related companies fare little better. Brandhunk (as spelled at the Freaquer site, and probably the same as the "Branhunk" in the article) also has a sleek website ... until you realize there's no content, half the text is lorem ipsum, and the entire thing is hosted on Wordpress! Bottom line: nothing presented here is as it appears to be, and I strongly suspect that none of it is real. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:A7. May even be a hoax, or at best an autobio. One of the contributors has already been blocked, and I suggest running a SPI with CU for them and all the other SPA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:A7.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Having all unreliable sources is quite problematic, especially with BLPs. Electric Catfish 18:54, 22 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) 03:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U-N-I-T-E-D[edit]

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

Not notable, and including the lyrics is a probable (but fixable) copyright violation as well. Also nominated is the similar United Road (Take Me Home). Other members of Category:Manchester United F.C. songs are not nominated since those are clearly notable (charting singles and so on), but these two don't have that distinction. Fram (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable chants. I doubt very much that the "lyrics" are copyrighted though - who would/could claim copyright on a football chant.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right, but I thought that things published anonymously still are copyrighted anyway. Of course, no one can actually make any claims for it, so there is no risk in reusing it, but technically it still would be copyrighted material. Only my uninformed opinion though, other people will have more exact knowledge of this. It's tangential anyway for this discussion, I probably shouldn't have brought it up (but it is interesting!). Fram (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified original research. Fails WP:N. — sparklism ^hey! 07:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst there is probably evidence of this being sung, I'm not sure what would qualify it as notable, so it should be deleted. Diluted Dante (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also the redirect United road (Take me home) aswell and the two mentioned deletion. – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:34, 27 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) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JERVIS[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. Non-notable application just released this month. I was unable to find any reviews or coverage of the app in reliable sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a blend of WP:TOOSOON and WP:MADEUP issues; I failed to find anything that won't qualify as primary source. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party references provided, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:12, 24 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maslow window[edit]

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

Non-notable and unencyclopaedic essay based mostly on self-published sources. The second paragraph is almost entirely WP:CRYSTAL. W. D. Graham 07:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think I've heard of this, but I can't find reliable references in mainstream sources. The current article is not great, with a lot of hypothesis about permanent moon bases and a lack of basic information, e.g. who Maslow was. I'm willing to change my mind given better references, but faced with the poor current state of this article and the apparent lack of mainstream coverage, deletion without prejudice seems the best option. It might be possible to redirect this, because there are other somewhat similar cyclical theories like Kondratiev wave and Grand supercycle, but I'm not sure of the best target. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find on this by way of sources is authored by the inventor of the concept, Bruce M. Cordell. The quality of the article is such that even if the topic was notable (for which I can't find any evidence), the best would nevertheless be to discard this and start over. --Lambiam 22:45, 22 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 consensus below is that the sourcing is insufficient to establish notability under the GNG and he fails to meet an alternate notability criterion. Not that any of that should be considered a slight against him. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Stickel[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria for persons. Yes he won medals, but so did thousands of other airmen, many of whom did not return home. I also think Wikipedia:Memorial applies here as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the the notability criteria for persons. Yes, he won medals and we have thousands of articles about people who won medals. There is therefore no reason to delete this one. Warden (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is a generic link (with no information on him), the next one is a press release on him being missing (but a lot of servicemembers were reported missing), the third link is a school hall of fame link (but being in a high school hall of fame does not establish notability), the fourth link is an Ancestry.com link, the fifth link is a site that is essentially a missing persons report, the sixth link is an independent history of the squadron, and the last one is a monthly report. Other than this, I don't see anything in terms of news sources that establishes any sort of notability here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "We have thousands of articles about people who won medals". Indeed we do, but unless those medals included the highest national decoration for gallantry (the Medal of Honor in the case of an American) or multiple lower gallantry decorations then there needs to be some other reason why an individual is notable for them to have an article. Stickel won no gallantry medals. He was awarded standard campaign medals, a medal for being wounded and a medal generally awarded for flying multiple combat missions. These are not enough to qualify him for an article. He was just an ordinary airman among many, many thousands of others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, cant see anything unusual in the article that makes him stand out from thousands of other serviceman with a similar history. Might be OK for a family history website but doesnt have a place here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EricSerge (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the the notability criteria for persons.

According to the basic Wikipedia Notability for people a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In this case, Stickel was the subject of a news article upon his death, induction into his High School Hall of Fame over 60 years after his death, listed in monthly mission reports (USAAC), and listed in the ABMC database. All are reliable and independent of each other and independent of the subject.

He was inducted into his high school Hall of Fame over sixty years after his death. The nomination and selection were by non relatives which counters the Wikipedia:Memorial argument . Apparently, he was noteworthy to someone. It his combination of being killed in action; a State Champion; a National Champion; and inducted into his Hall of Fame that makes him noteworthy. Furthermore, he won an unsuaually high number of medals. He not only won an Air Medal, he won the Air Medal ten separate times. When someone is awarded an Air Medal any subsequently awarded Air Medal is called an Oak Leaf Cluster. He was given nine Oak Leaf Clusters after his initial Air Medal.

The first link verifies Stickel being awarded the medals claimed, killed in action and supports several other claims in the article. However, the link did not direct the user to this information. The website is http://www.abmc.gov/search/wwii.php and requires that the user enter the last name in a search field to access the information. A direct link is not possible. Some of the information provided at http://www.abmc.gov/search/wwii.php is incomplete and the article corrects these inaccuracies with uncited information from the Department of Defense. User: JimBob2u

Delete. This is a well worked on article, however the subject fails WP:SOLDIER, and some of the references sources do not meet reliable source standards. The ancestry.com source (presently #4), yuku.com source is a forum and thus is a self published source, harrydole.com is a self-published vanity webpage, military records such as that hosted by fold3.com are primary sources but do not cover the subject in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. The only source that may hold up is from the local paper, however it is an obit, and thus the subject of this article would fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and since it is not a major paper the subject of this article may also fall under WP:LOCALFAME. My opinion of the notability of the subject of the article, does not mean that I do not respect the Staff Sergeants service, however Wikipedia may not be the best place for this content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:SOLDIER. LibStar (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notable than any other airman. The Air Medal, his only decoration, although won ten times, appears to have effectively been given out for flying lots of combat missions, not for any special achievement or gallantry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although this is quite a good article in my opinion, unfortunately it doesn't meet the notablity requirement for "significant coverage" in reliable sources under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:26, 26 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 nomination withdrawn. No outstanding arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Duncan (war protester)[edit]

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

~~Seems to be "notable" for one leaflet of unknown circulation or impact~~ Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination In view of the great improvement to the article, I'm happy to withdraw my AfD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going to work on this piece to see if it can be fully sourced out. Military editor of Ramparts magazine is probably a big enough notability hook. I'll withdraw my Keep here if I'm unable to generate a couple more sources. For now the magic 8-ball says, "Signs Point to Yes." Carrite (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan and Ramparts seem to be the object of significant coverage in Angus MacKenzie's book Secrets: The CIA's War at Home. (University of California Press, 1999). Carrite (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This link would seem to count towards notability [PROJECT DELTA, a dedicated page of biography on a site dedicated to Project Delta history. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is academic coverage of Duncan's testimony to the 1967 Russell Commission now showing as a footnote to the piece. Duncan also was the author of an anti-war book published by Random House in 1967, still checking out how large a publication or how influential that was. This is looking like a pretty clear GNG keep at this point. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Duncan's extensive testimony before the November 1967 Russell Commission, where he was one of the first three American soldiers to speak out about the American military in Vietnam. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's substantial coverage of Duncan and his testimony in the book America in Vietnam, by Guenter Lewy, published by Oxford University Press. (pg. 313). Carrite (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Fonda on JaneFonda.com talking about having hired Duncan to run a Washington, DC office as part of her effort to ensure enforcement of soldiers' rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Not sure this goes to notability, but it does indicate that this was a public figure for more than one thing... Carrite (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News report from the Buffalo News mentioning Duncan as a key witness in the documentary Sir! No Sir! (Highbeam). Carrite (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the search term to "Don Duncan" generates this GOOGLE BOOKS HIT for Michael Uhl's memoir, Vietnam Awakening, published by the academic publisher McFarland. Carrite (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 1967 AP WIRE SERVICE PHOTO of Duncan, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE'S ANOTHER AP PHOTO published in 1967 at the time Duncan gave testimony at the Howard B. Levy trial. Further indication that this is a person who received substantial coverage in the mainstream press back in 1967. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added the fact that Duncan was a participant in the Winter Soldier Investigation. Mike Kolvenbach (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Carrite, although his full name is Donald Duncan, in most publications he is identified as Don Duncan. Could you please edit the title of the article to Don duncan then?

Mike Kolvenbach (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These comments belong on the talk page of the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. New editor who has been in touch. No worries. Carrite (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, after the close, the title should probably be moved to Donald W. Duncan. I now have "Don Duncan" as a redirect, but I expect there actually needs to be a Donald Duncan name disambiguation page created. Carrite (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Woah, settle down there, Carrite! But your clean-up of the page is nonetheless remarkable. I'm supporting keeping the article because of Duncan's military decorations and coverage of his journalism. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Carrite, great job. Mike Kolvenbach (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Alpine Milkman[edit]

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

This aircraft is insufficiently notable to merit an independent article. I cannot see any way that it would pass the notability guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The information seems well-documented and so, per our editing policy, it should not be discarded when it might be incorporated in some broader article such as 69th Bomb Squadron. Warden (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see where it is notable. One website is a memorial to the squadron, while another is monthly mission reports. The thing is, if we keep and make an article for every plane in the squadron (because in reality, this is just an average plane), we would end up making an article for the planes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, time and time again you use the "editing policy" argument. that does not trump notability guidelines. i'm not sure why you persist with this weak argument because I've never it sway it anyone. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that WP:PRESERVE refers to the removal of content through editing, and is not part of the notability or, more importantly, deletion policies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly run-of-the-mill bomber that performed its missions in a routine fashion. Zero notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and no different to the other 9,000 B-25s and thousands of other combat aircraft that did a similar job. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill bomber. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The aircraft is noteworthy because of the number of mission flown and the number of photos in existence (six) some with unrelated crews posing in front of the aircraft. The Alpine Milkman flew over 187 missions and possibly more. The Memphis Belle (aircraft) is noteworthy for flying 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBob2u (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC) — JimBob2u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Memphis Belle was the first bomber to complete 25 missions, at a time when that was a Big Deal Indeed, and became a movie star - of two movies. It's also still extant - unlike this bomber where we don't even know its serial number. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 69th Bomb Squadron. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or even WP:MILUNIT for that matter. A redirect to the unit page, without merging any of the content into it is a good alternative to outright deletion, although I can understands arguments for outright deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for reasons listed by others. Intothat darkness 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly non notable aircraft as others have described; US-military-cruft-creep. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:05, 24 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 speedied G11 by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bsmpss[edit]

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

Insufficient reliable secondary sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 06:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close Nominator has nominated non existant article unless there is something wrong with the AFD and it should link somewhere else. Seasider91 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 A7 as unambiguous promotion by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 10:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Communist Party[edit]

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

I failed to find any sources supporting the notability of this organization. There was brief quote from an unnamed source within the party on Glenn Beck's show, but nothing further in news or book sources. Notability is not inherited from the Communist Party USA. Otherwise, the only source cited is the party's own website. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of lists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Why the hell does this page even exist. No one's ever going to search for 'list of lists of lists' and it's not linked anywhere. This page serves as nothing but a monument to Asperger's Syndrome, rather than a useful addition to Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this page seems vaguely useful. But if anyone ever makes a list of lists of lists of lists, then that might be deleted. JIP | Talk 06:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that a list of lists of lists of lists would only contain one item, so it should probably be a redirect instead. Jk. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:LISTPURP and unanimous keep !votes at previous AfDs. This is a perfectly valid navigational aid. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wont insult anyone's intelligence by explaining it. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 06:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure people WILL search for it, though it might sound awkward. But if you think bout it, it makes sense. Lists of lists of lists. It has a useful purpose in guiding editors and researchers to lists of lists. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But at the same time, I wonder if it would be good to move the article to "List of lists" (1, to make it sound less tongue twisting. 2, because it is obvious that it is a list, so list of lists of lists is rather redundant. Lists of lists makes more sense.) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean by tongue twisting. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to be mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT but, on the usage point, note that this list has been accessed about 23000 times in the last 30 days. That's fairly high traffic - more than Lister, say. Warden (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This page, which is a useful part of our list navigation system, has been proposed for deletion twice before, and that proposal has been roundly rejected twice before. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a deletion rationale supported by policy, and the offhand comment by the nominator about Asperger's Syndrome is unnecessary and potentially inflammatory. In any case, nothing has changed since the first AFD in April, nor since the 2nd AFD 65 days ago. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of lists. Less awkward, and soemthing people will actually search for. Right now it redirects to Portal:Contents/Lists.--Coin945 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the same thing, though. Sumerian King List is a list. It is included in List of lists of ancient kings which is a list of lists. That list is included in List of lists of lists, which is the top level of that navigational pyramid. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's more of a Meta-listing of lists. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that's a problem; compare tiered Categories. Now, a List of unlisted lists would clearly be a problem ... —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:PURPLIST: A useful list article for navigating Wikipedia. Also keep per prior consensus at the previous two AfD discussions:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow close, please. No reason why this should clog up our processes for seven days.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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) 03:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kugnus[edit]

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

Neologism, possibly promotional. I'm finding the slogan "from better to the best" at Kungus.com, which appears to be a company that specializes in tutoring and such. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 10:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As Mr. Vernon says, the article appears to be promotional of Kugnus.com. The only third-party source I could find mentioning Kugnus is a court case involving a former employee. Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:01, 27 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 Patriots' Path Council. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 20:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winnebago_Scout_Reservation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Winnebago Scout Reservation

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

Really not sure how a boyscout campground can be considered notable. I'm also not sure if I trust the Boy Scouts website as being the source. SarahStierch (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is built on historic land in New Jersey, a very historic state. If you give me some time I will do my best to find more reference sources. Heymister14 (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)heymister14[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to parent article Patriots' Path Council. Local council properties have no legal separation from the council and are rarely notable on their own. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Patriots' Path Council. This would consolidate all of the information in one place. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "merge" you mean move to Patriot's Path Council, I'm okay with that. As long as there is a section for WSR. Heymister14 (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)heymister14[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. WP:SNOW in the forecast. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monday (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable low budget film. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The film was featured at the Berlin Film Festival and won a significant award there. It's even been reviewed in the New York Times and Variety, amongst many other publications. I have added a few of these to the article. Before proposing the AfD, it would have been best if the nominator tried to find these sources him or herself. Michitaro (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep. I am unable to find this topic non-notable as it easily met WP:GNG and WP:NF before being brought to AFD.[71] We do not delete notable topics if issues are addressable. Notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their use or not within an article. Kudos to User:Michitaro for his WP:BEFORE underscoring notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/Snow Keep - Passes WP:GNG per [72], [73], [74], and other sources are available. This nomination appears to possibly be based upon opinion, rather than sources. Please follow section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. Please also read WP:NRVE in entirety. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, the very same people accusing me of being careless have edited the article without even checking where the wikilinks go, linking an article about a second ww fighter pilot to the cast of a film from 2000. Please, TRY TO BE MORE CAREFUL guys!!!. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While it often results in such when BEFORE is not followed, but AFD is not intended to force others to address surmaountable issues.WP:NOTCLEANUP. Perhaps out of consideration toward sources found and offered and per WP:NRVE, you are invited to withdraw your nomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 23 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 as a hoax — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trisemilith[edit]

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

neologism Makecat _Talk 02:04, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 02:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as there are no ghits on this word, it meets WP:HOAX. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 all, except Ghenadie Ochincă which is kept. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Alachev[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Moldovan National Division isn't listed at WP:FPL. Since notability requires verifiable evidence, playing in that league cannot be used as grounds for notability without reliable sources confirming it as fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ochincă. Sourced information already in the article (and confirmed at romaniansoccer.ro) verifies his appearance for Gloria Buzau in the Romanian top flight, which is listed at WP:FPL as fully professional. I'm aware it's only a single appearance, but it's enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (except Ochincă) - none of these articles pass the general notability guideline~~, and the Ochincă article has been around for years with just one superficial source even if he's made a single appearance in a fully-pro league.~~ That's not enough to pass NFOOTBALL without more evidence of potential GNG-compliance. However, thanks to Struway2's efforts, the Ochincă article has expanded enough to lead me to believe it could pass the GNG in the future - well done. Jogurney (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – also about Ochincă, barely passing WP:NFOOTY is no free pass unless WP:GNG is met or proven that can be met. – Kosm1 fent 14:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've expanded Ghenadie Ochincă a bit, but unfortunately my ignorance of the Romanian language means I've had to omit possibly productive sources where the results of Google translate weren't absolutely clear. Perhaps those who doubt its potential to meet GNG might consider revisiting? I'd agree it probably doesn't meet it yet. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ghenadie Ochincă - As nominator. Given that the article meets WP:NSPORT, I think Sturway's expantions are more than sufficient. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 16 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Ochinca as he's the only one to pass WP:NFOOTY and can be expanded to pass WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ochincă, Delete the rest per the nominator and Struway2. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ochincă, Delete the rest - Ochincă has detailed references and is not similarly situated as the other nominated articles, which lack references in the article. Ochincă should have its own, separate AfD if there is a need. As for the other articles, I didn't find any English references on Maxim Alachev or Serghei Juric. I didn't find any English references for Joel Kiki or Joel Nyobu. While there may be reliable sources in non-English publications, I would need to see some first before concluding they meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:23, 29 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) 02:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E/OS[edit]

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

No references since 2007; no independent sources appear to exist. Keφr (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 14:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability. In fact, this pretty ordinary Linux distribution is described the way that it's not obvious that it is a Linux distribution at all; just one step away from WP:CSD#A1. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:40, 16 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG —Ruud 18:42, 23 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) 02:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dream High Season 2[edit]

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

A non-notable topic that doesn't pass WP:GNG. TBran dl ey 00:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable series, coverage of its auditions, its new cast announcement, announcement of several cast actors including Park Jin-young [75], Ailee [76], Park Ji-yeon [77], Kim Jung-tae [78], Kahi [79], Yoo So-young [80], the show's cast finalization [81], the show's script reading... and that's all before the show started airing. There's plenty more. — ξ ^xplicit 01:57, 9 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) 04:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above provided sources. Appears to pass GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 on notability, default to delete given plausible deletion request from subject. (NC default to D is a discretion allowed by BLP policy.) Der yck C. 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Prvacki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined speedy. Rationale was "subject requests deletion". As that's not a valid rationale, am bringing the article here for discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like a well-sourced article this time.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a convention that, where a not-massively-notable living person requests deletion of an article about them, we can comply as a courtesy. Ana Prvacki isn't so notable as to require an article; and she's not so un-notable as to make deletion mandatory. This is in the discretionary zone. In my opinion it's a good use of discretion to remove a marginally-notable BLP at the subject's request.—S Marshall T/C 11:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with S Marshall, and my personal discretion says that at least vanity articles like this should be removed. The sourcing could also be seen as so poor as not to grant notability. complainer (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I am sympathetic when someone has an article written about them and they'd prefer not to be profiled on Wikipedia, this is actually a slightly different situation. Prvacki herself apparently wrote the article and we clearly warn all would-be editors that writing an article on yourself is an issue, particularly because once it's out there it is no longer "their" article. In short, she published this info and now wants to control the information. This is something she should have considered before writing the initial article. As other editors have since edited the article there is a clear indication that this article may have been written by someone else at some point. The artist has a significant exhibition record. This brings up the second issue: at times there is a certain inevitability to these things. An artist puts herself out there by displaying the work in public. The higher your profile the more public you are. At a certain point you cannot control the public image if you are a public figure. All we can do at that point is maintain BLP standards. The artist made a series of choices by becoming a public figure and writing an article on herself. Now she's attempting to control that public image by requesting a deletion. The problem is, there seems to be no clear rationale for deletion, at least that I'm aware of. Is there a BLP concern here? Has she contacted anyone by email with sensitive information? We cannot delete an article because the subject requests it unless there are serious concerns per WP:BLP. I see none so far. As for actual notability, based on her exhibition record she may be notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I'd have to search for sources to see if there's enough independent and solid references available to establish and verify the claims made before I !vote on this, so at this time I'm neutral. However, I don't see how we can delete this based on the subject's request. freshacconci talktalk 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the author herself is notably silent about the subject, my impression is that this is just an attempt at conceptual art. I suggest we disregard it. complainer (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep Although a lot of the cited sources aren't independent, there's still at least 3 independent sources cited, including Artforum. In addition, her piece Greeting Committee got a fair bit of coverage[82][83][84] and there's also an online interview[85], and work featured in The Independent (UK)[86], to indicate she's a well-known artist. Since she's still making art and getting press coverage, it seems odd to delete this on grounds of privacy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once and IF sthere is additional evidence of notability an article about her can be created at that time. She does not appear to have the notability to keep the article about her on wikipedia at this time.--Juristicweb (talk) 02:02, 26 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 Banihal as duplicate. Further reorganisation of the relevant articles and creation of redirects is beyond the remit of this AfD closure. Der yck C. 22:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banahal[edit]

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

The article may not be notable, is not neutral, and is not referenced. AutomaticStrikeout 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: On the one hand, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt on notability to geographical features (I consider them inherently notable). On the other hand, this article needs so much rework that it amounts to a rewrite. And also, I suspect a little bit that most of the article has been copied verbatim from tourist information... -- BenTels (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We also have Banihal Pass; I assume this is a spelling variation, and sources say the valley lies adjacent to the pass[87] so possibly we could merge if it's not notable/keepable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates given appear to be quite a long way away.Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unsourced. With doubts about it's identity (see above) it's unlikely to accrue any refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references. I did find where it is from the Punjab Region of Pakistan but all of the other sources that I find simply talk about the weather in the region. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Banahal Valley - as a geographic feature WP:V is the relevant standard, and it appears to be verifiable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 02:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ and rename to ~~Banahal Valley~~ Banihal Pass, per The Bushranger's analysis and Stuartyeates' below suggestion. Cavarrone (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops... Banihal Pass has already an article. So... maybe a redirect? --Cavarrone (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this and this suggests that Banihāl / Banihāl Pass may be the correct spelling of this place. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, despite Banahal has some book sources ([88]), there is surely more coverage for Banihal Pass ([89]). Cavarrone (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename and merge to Banihāl Pass, with redirects from Banihāl, Banihal, Banihal Pass, Banihal Valley, Banihāl Pass, Banihāl Valley, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:54, 22 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, WP:NPASR. Der yck C. 22:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Delta Alpha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: no evidence of coverage in third party sources; very local fraternity, with fewer than 5 chapters; not recognized by any national umbrella organization GrapedApe (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

63.160.65.14 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC) - Evidence of third party source coverage will be provided; this is already flagged on the page needing citations. There are 9 chapters, and national umbrella org (formerly NALFO members but withdrew) is not needed to verify existence or notability. This is a biased criteria. For instance, Gamma Zeta Alpha has no references or citations, and very few, local chapters but is not marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.160.65.14 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, that other frat is recognized by National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations and has 20 chapters, which seems to make it sufficiently notable, but yes, it needs references, and it's been tagged as such since October 2009. I couldn't find any, and I doubt that they can be found.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 01:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, a listing on the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations page notes that Sigma Delta Alpha exists and was once a member organization. Therefore, there is official national recognition of Sigma Delta Alpha, by NALFO but the membership is not current. As of the former edit, GZA only listed 9 chapters. The criteria on which this page was nominated for deletion was 'fewer than 5 chapters', which is incorrect, and 'not recognized by any national umbrella organization', which is also incorrect - Sigma Delta Alpha is recognized by, but not a member of NALFO. -- Robohh (talk)
Additional Notability with Source (This was one of only two Latino fraternities founded in the United States during the so-called fragmentation period from 1990-2000, and the third to ever be founded in California.[1]) -- Robohh (talk)
Edits have been made to correct major violations, the original reasoning is incorrect for deletion, and at least two sources added, with others forthcoming (many edits are being made to improve the page), and the page stands as a valuable source of information for interested parties in the Western United States. I vote KEEP as at least notable enough to exist within the context of the other greek organizations listed on Wikipedia. -- Robohh (talk)
- One-off mentions in a pair of books doesn't satisfy the "Significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG: "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Those sources establish that the fraternity exists, for WP:V purposes, but not that it's notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the reason they are mentioned is notable, not the mention itself, that is only a verification of the reason. Certainly within the context of Wikipedia's existing coverage of Fraternities and Sororities in the United States, it is fair to say this article is not below-standard any longer. Robohh (talk) 20:45, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a no-consensus close Robohh (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already made your points 5 times, an admin will close this in due time.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your input, I do believe each of my contributions was an informative or reasonable response to either arguments made or updates made to the page. I would like the see the matter closed. Thank you. Robohh (talk) 15:15, 22 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 Natalia Tena. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov Jukebox[edit]

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

The musical group which noted actress Natalia Tena is a member of. The page is alternating between a redirect to Tena's article and various versions of atrociously written articles (this last one isn't too bad, though). We need to discuss, however, whether the band is notable enough (per WP:BAND) to make improving the article worth the while. The present version makes no clear claim of notability, and a Google News Archives search comes up empty for me (although I suspect that this is some error on my end). Sandstein 12:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that including any and every band into Wikipedia smacks of insanity - I thought that merely redirecting to Natalia Tena's page didn't seem right though. I am a Wikipedia newbie however, and no doubt should read any number of style and content guides, without question. Molotov Jukebox have some news presence, particularly related to live music festivals and googling 'molotov jukebox st pancras' shows one particular strand of their performances. I am interested in how this discussion progresses. • Cairoken

Hi, your article is a good first attempt for a new editor, but in order to develop it further we need material in reliable sources (see WP:RS) that covers the band in some depth (see WP:GNG). Notably, self-published material like the band's website or blogs are not appropriate sources; we need third-party coverage (see WP:SPS). If you find sources that could be appropriate, typically articles published in reputed news media or specialised publications with editorial oversight, please mention them here. If not, we can still cover the band in the context of Tena's article, to the extent the sources allow. Sandstein 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a few non-English Google News results ([90], [91]), though I'm not familiar with the publications/sites. The band are playing quite a few festivals this summer (e.g. this (which also suggests civerage in the Evening Standard) and this (headlining)) so I suspect more coverage is out there. If it is decided that a standalone article isn't justified, then a section in the Natalia Tena article would perhaps be more appropriate than a simple redirect. --Michig (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michig for those references! I've added some citations to the proposed entry and I think it stands up to more rigorous scrutiny now. This has been very educational! Fingers crossed this is in the right direction. Cairoken (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Improvement seems mandatory though. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (message) @ 20:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Island province[edit]

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

The article is just a list of places fitting a particular term. It seems a rather unnotable list of areas, that would be massive and unwieldy if fully filled. As an article, it seems like more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopaedia one. CMD (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 15:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand following the line of island country and list of island countries. 218.250.143.183 (talk) 21:43, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Contains elements of a valid list article per WP:LISTPURP, and the overall topic has received coverage in reliable sources to varying degrees. Examples: [92], [93], [94]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The overall topic was not mentioned at all in those sources. They're each simply about a province that happens to be made up of islands. It's not a notable juncture, anymore than mainland provinces would be. CMD (talk) 15:33, 23 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) 02:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Aghili[edit]

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

Non-notable designer, with no obvious indepth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Nothing obvious in google. See also recent AfD about related website Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarahaghili.com. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG big time, I find zero notability, appears weak on refs. --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 23:04, 22 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Attraction to transgender people. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gynemimetophilia[edit]

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

POV fork of Attraction to transgender people. Duplicates material there. Same editor created a duplicate copy/paste fork at Gynandromorphophilia (also considered for deletion). Fork is created by a single-purpose account who is an activist minority in the mental health field known for attempting to create and promote an ever-growing list of "paraphilias." See work by Karen Franklin, Vernon Rosario and others for details on this controversy. Recommend merge and redirect to reinstate redirect. Jokestress (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Correct medical term for "attraction to M2F cross-dressers" — who are not transgender, rather impersonators. Thus not a fork. Carrite (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your vote is based on a misunderstanding. Crossdresser is a transgender identity. See Transgender#Transvestite_or_Cross-Dresser. Jokestress (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gynemimetophilia is not about the cross-dressers, it is about those attracted to cross-dressers. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. Gynemimetophilia is a term for those attracted to cross-dressers. Cross-dressers fall under the umbrella term transgender (your mistake I was pointing out). Therefore gynemimetophilia is a term for those attracted to transgender people. We don't need separate articles for attraction to male cross-dressers, attraction to female cross-dressers, attraction to drag queens, attraction to drag kings, attraction to genderqueer people, attraction to "shemales", men with a sexual interest in trans women, etc. They are all synonyms or related terms and can be covered in attraction to transgender people. Jokestress (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jokestress' comment is in error. What counts is what the RS's say, and the RS's for gynemimetophilia say (rightly or wrongly) that the term refers sexual interest in cross-dressers.— James Cantor (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the reliable source is shown to be incorrect, and we know this, then we don't present factually incorrect information as true. A lack of reliable sources speaks to the notability of this term.

Delete and redirect as above Sorry I'm not persuaded that this is any more than another word being created/used when none is needed. Blanchard is known to have, shall we say, less than mainstream ideas about gender and sexuality issues and this seems like a way of bolstering their read on a subject in the world's biggest encyclopedia. Insomesia (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Insomnia's anti-Blanchard POV is both irrelevant and mistaken. This term has nothing to do with Blanchard...Indeed, Blanchard coined a different term (gynandromorphophilia) to clarify what he saw as short-comings of this term (which was coined by John Money).— James Cantor (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not anti-Blanchard, anti-WP:PROMOTIONAL. Insomesia (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So, who is it exactly that is getting promoted? (And if it's not clear who's getting promoted, it's hard to argue that anyone is getting promoted...) And if it's not anti-Blanchard, why'd you bring him up and decry him? — James Cantor (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's only a few sentences to choose from, I'll allow others to decide for themselves if Blanchard is served by this or not. Insomesia (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nowhere does an article in Wikipedia attribute the term "gynemimetophilia" to Blanchard. Attraction to transgender people#Academic research attributes "gynemimetophilia" to John Money, gynemimetophilia attributes "gynandromorphophila" to Ray Blanchard (in a presumably off-topic reference) while not attributing the origins of "gynemimetophilia" at all. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The present second sentence states "Sexologist Ray Blanchard proposed the term gynandromorphophilia (love of male/female form) to refer to the sexual preference of men for women who have a penis, or other mixtures of male and female characteristics." Insomesia (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to attraction to transgender people - There is not enought source material from which to maintain a WP:GNG stand alone article and attraction to transgender people seems sufficient to cover the topic. The one article I found, Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association September 22, 2009, lists gynemimetophilia as a paraphilia along with a bunch of other sexual disorders and describes it as "Gynemimetophilia: Male to female transsexual," so attraction to transgender people would seem a good target for the redirect. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:04, 29 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 Uzbekistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oybek Jamoldinivich Jabbarov[edit]

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

On a living (now released) prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO, WP:BLPPRIMARY. DBigXray 21:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Uzbekistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Subject is not independently notable outside of their detention; no sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show, IMHO, that subject is independently notable per WP:ANYBIO or WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:08, 18 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Uzbekistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay - while not individually notable, he is worth including as part of the group. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 27 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 found of notability under WP:GNG or other SNGs j⚛e decker ^talk 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BACEngine[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence to suggest that this was formally announced and Google News shows no evidence of news coverage. I have searched with "BACEngine", "BACEngine 2005" and "BACEngine application" and produced zero relevant results. Additionally, it appears that the company (Bohica Associates Corporation) who manufactures this product has no existing Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: utter spam. I found no evidence that any such thing existed at all. Meanwhile the article is another blend of company and product nonsense coupled with exaggerations, specifically crafted to imply significance of the company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the article might have had relevance if the product had taken off, it appears to have died. The company's own website (http://www.bohicaassociates.com/) also appears to be no longer active.RayGates (talk) 23:38, 27 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) 03:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger School[edit]

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

This organization is not a school per se, but a company offering education for profit in several locations across the country. I feel it should be considered as a business and not subject to the typical exemption for a school. Does not meet WP:GNG as a news search only turned up one match and that was a description of scheduling differences between Challenger and the local public school. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Additionally, the article is highly promotional. If this had been a business selling Foo, we would have axed it ages ago! Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources present or found by my search and, as noted by the nominator, this is a private company, not a school. Ubelowme _U ^Me 01:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have found multiple passing mentions of the school(s), but none that pass WP:ROUTINE. Insufficient reliable sources found that indicate the the subject of this article has received significant coverage as required by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:55, 25 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 notability argued via WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 01:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Zobel (musician)[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of established notability in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO OR WP:GNG. Unable to find citations to verify content or support the claim that the artist album charted. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 00:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Lack of coverage, he hasn't distinguished himself enough to clear hurtle of notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a couple blurbs like this which promote concert appearances, but I'm unable to find significant coverage; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 16:39, 25 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.