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 per clear consenus and WP:SNOW. SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Police officers charged criminally in Canada[edit]

Police officers charged criminally in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a viable subject for a wikipedia article. Has serious issues with trying to push a point of view. List would in any case be unmaintainable given how low police have existed in canada and the size of the force ©Geni 23:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – This is not a notable topic. Per WP:BLPCRIME, charges alone are improper BLP content; "convicted" instead of "charged" is required in virtually all cases because police are not public figures or generally well known. The topic is most properly a category even if so renamed. JFHJr (㊟) 23:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as violating WP:BLP principles for content, and WP:NPOV for the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP - I am the original author of the article. The article includes the word "charged" for a reason. Many police officers in Canada have been getting away with law breaking with the Crown and Courts not applying the law correctly and playing with the evidence and bogus investigations. This list is certainly relevant. In addition, DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE WHEN IT IS UNDER AFD! The article is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy. Any police officer "charged" is public knowledge and whether the decision is "guilty" or "innocent" or whatever again the information is public information. See the citations showing the information in newspaper articles on the Internet freely available to anyone. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody has or is going to "delete the article" while under AfD. Contentious content about living persons must be removed until consensus is reached on its inclusion. This is not an AfD issue, but a content discussion raised at WP:BLPN and the article talk page. Let's discuss the notability of this topic here, please. JFHJr (㊟) 00:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP doesn't allow lists of non-notable living persons like this, especially when crimes are involved. This is essentially an advocacy page, complete with a linkfarm at the bottom. The Interior (Talk) 00:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article of this scope and title can never comply with WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPCRIME. Also agree that it is an advocacy page. Delete in it's entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article's creator has explicitly acknowledged above that the purpose of this article is to Right Great Wrongs by tarring all police officers who have been charged with a crime, whether convicted or acquitted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I dont see how this could ever be an encyclopedic topic. And I suggest a SNOW removal.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I second SNOW. JFHJr (㊟) 01:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I third it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• MergeI suggest that it should be moved or rewrote to List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If all Canadian Police aren't Royal Canadian Mounted Police then change the name of the list to. List of controversies involving the Canadian Police then have a section for each type of Police in Canada. It dont need its own article. Theworm777 (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not sure about BLP 1E/do no harm. Police officers are public officials, and not private citizens; they are additionally public officials with a very high visibility who work in situations where they are much more likely to need to use lethal force than other officials, and more likely to encounter situation with the possibility of bribery; consequently the public interest and notability of crimes involving them in their public activities. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I am aware of this discussion because i declined what I considered an absurd A7 speedy on the article, and one of the eds. subsequently asked me to protect it during this discussion so all the material would be visible; I have not done that, because of course all prior versions are visible in the article history DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not even a proper article—it is nothing but a collection of links, both internal and external. See WP:LINKFARM. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is not a proper article because people are edit warring on the page. It needs to be restored and locked by admin then a debate about the article can start.I have tried to fix the article so it can be debated though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines but people keep removing the info pointlessly. Theworm777 (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People keep 'removing the info' because it is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. The deletion of such violations isn't 'edit warring' it is required under such policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Under WP:BLPGROUP, BLP does not apply as police are "legal persons" there was no reason to revert and edit war over this. like they have done. Theworm777 (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter nonsense. A named individual is not a 'legal person', but a person. Please take your Wikilawyering elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes that is why the names were removed. That article is about police not the individuals. As it was changed to by me. I think it should be deleted or merged myself but people are not doing the things the right wikipedia way. Theworm777 (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links to article naming the individuals concerned weren't removed by you. They related to individuals, not to 'the police' in general. The article violates policy, and the 'Wikipedia way' with violations of BLP policy is to delete them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I really dont know I am not a Lawyer. But I think you are wrong and they can be used the way they were used. Under WP:BLPGROUP, BLP does not apply as police are "legal persons" is how I think about about it. Even individual police are "legal persons" I think and they could be named by law. Or WP:BLPGROUP would not allow it is what I am thinking. But I dont want to fight over this with you. We need to see what others and the admin think. We can agree to disagree. Theworm777 (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be a lawyer, you just have to read the article Legal personality. By your reasoning, lawyers and judges should exempt from BLP. There's no sane reason to exclude them on the basis of their profession. Legal personhood refers to corporations and other organizations that are "persons" in law only, but which have no sentience, brain, mind, soul, whatever of their own. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What I did was take the names out so it dont fail WP:BLP. It did not name, names. I did not revert it, like the others did without really looking at it and seeing the changes. If there was a problem with the refs after what I did he should have said so here until a consensus is reached and not revered it. I think it will be deleted but it needs to be done the right way. I just came to help when it was listed here Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Police_officers_charged_criminally_in_Canada Theworm777 (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does this have to be explained to you? It's still referring to those individuals. By your reasoning, if I refer to "an editor who argued BLPGROUP excludes cops" but never name your name, nothing I say can be construed as a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same as TenOfAllTrades Eomund (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete I'm apparently supposed to discuss the complete failure to get what a legal person is here instead of on Theworm777's talk page. Legal persons are not human beings but legal concepts. If Texas could execute someone (but has yet to do so), they're covered by BLP. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete If Theworm777 feels that these are so important, then he/she may subsequently include this alleged controversy, properly sourced, in the List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police article, the Police in Canada article, or create a List of controversies involving the Canadian Police article. - Jorgath (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete The topic is laughably untenable and the lone keep vote -- the author -- wants to keep this topic because they feel that perceived miscarriages of justice in the Canadian legal system justifies a Wikipedia article covering every Canadian cop charged with a crime. I'm not sure a well-reasoned rebuttal is necessary, in this case, but why not add to the blizzard. If there is some notable controversy in Canada regarding cops getting away with serious crimes because of a free pass from The Man, write that article. This isn't that article, this is an article that aims to list every freaking cop charged with a freaking "serious" crime, whether convicted or not, and whether the charge had any basis or not. No. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong snow delete - clearly fails WP:BLP. ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 29 February 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baron nashor[edit]

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

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

Non-notable video game character MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion (A7). Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:50, 29 February 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) 01:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 February 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 clear consensus is to delete. If a redirect is made, it should be made after deleting this advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LED Headliner[edit]

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

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

This article appears to be based on a non-notable product. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the users own response demonstrates the original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

I do not agree with Deletion, explanation-------------------------

Dear IRWolfie,

This Wikipedia Article about a new technology was presented the 7th dec. 2010 and there were many critics coming up, which I tried to respond by enclosing primary and seccondary literature, like patents which you can check. This article is not about a product at all, it is about a new technology. If you need some proof that this technology is existing, please be invited to come to RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FAIR, 23.-27.4.2012 in Hannover. I will get you the ticket and show it to you. If you need to see some 3D-curved, ready to bond in car, OEM Trim materials with headliner LED films, please be invited to come to SUN-TEC Swiss United Technologies in Switzerland. I will even ask OEMs to talk to you, if you need.

I do admit, that presenting this technology in early market stage on Wikipedia had following advantage: The technology was presented Just In Time, and any change of the know how could be integrated rapidly and this integration knowledge could be traced by date. Consequently, after more than 15 month of work on this Wikipedia Article, this new critic as <<Non-Notable product>> is good for big companies. The deletion of this article will kill the official technology knowledge that was presented since 7th december 2010 to Wikipedia.

My question is:

a) What is the definition of non-notable product for a technology page? b) Why was it not defined earlier? c) What do I have to add to prove it is notable?

Kind regards,DS

---

Copy of answer of IRWolfie on his own talking page----------

Patents are primary, an article requires significant coverage by independent secondary sources for notability. IRWolfie- 18:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Copy of next question from Dshavit to IRWolfie on his own talking page------------

I know. The technology was presented on 2 world conferences of glass technology in Finnland and the proceedings were mentioned as secondary literature. And it was printed in 2 other papers also listed in this article.

10.^ Download article: D. Shavit, Transparent Electronic Interlayers, Proceedings of GPD Conference, June 2009, pp. 177–180 11.^ Download article: D. Shavit; Developments of LEDs and SMD Electronics on transparent conductive polyesterfilms, Vacuum International 1/2007, Page 34-36 12.^ D. Shavit: Elektronische Komponenten in Glaslaminaten: Entwicklung, Stand und Ausblick, Glas, Architektur & Technik, 1/2007 13.^ D. Shavit: LED- and SMD embedded Polyester Interlayer Film for Lighting, Sensoric and functional Glass, Poster Session at GPD Glass Performance Days, June 2007, Page 28

Which of these conferences proceedings or articles do you define as non notable and why? Best regards, Dshavit

---

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

• Further Comment He has also created these related articles Ledglass Transparent_LED_embedded_glass Dichroic_LEDGlass LEDFilm which are all based on the same concept. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you'll leave me a note if/when you move those articles toward deletion. I've removed primary and COI material as much as possible, but these other articles are all of the same calibre. JFHJr (㊟) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are similar in style, is a group AfD an appropriate action? --Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's also created: Transparent heating film which again references himself exclusively. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - dog's breakfast of an article. Clear original research with only low- or no-value references. Suggest the author is guided towards Wikia where this sort of thing belongs. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: AFD nom was not completed, which I have now fixed. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry; I was wondering why the AfD was taking several weeks. I've started to use twinkle now so it shouldn't be an issue again. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No actual notability demonstrated by reliable sources providing in-depth coverage. These things exist, but they're not notable. JFHJr (㊟) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article is sub-standard. Needs to be rewritten in encyclopedic terms with better references. I can't see anything that makes it notable at this stage. NealeFamily (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:ESSAY, WP:OR. WP:ADVERT. Poorly written with respect to Wikipedias standards. Particularly poor article lead as it does not summarise the contents sufficiently well that a casual reader can gain an easy understanding of the topic. Is written more like a magazine article than an encyclopedic entry. Not appropriate content for Wikipedia in its current form and it's hard to blieve it could be easily salvageable. Suggest the primary author read Wikipedia's guidelines prior to making any more submissions, including a re-write of any topic relating to those mentioned above.

The deletion of this article will kill the official technology knowledge that was presented since 7th december 2010 to Wikipedia It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be any industries official source for anything, indeed it runs opposite to Wikipedia's purpose to be the primary source of any information. If there are no other sources of this information anywhere the subject fails notability. --Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An advertisement is not encyclopedic. The article needs a substantial rewrite and as one other commented may be beyond redemption in its current form. Also the technology is not particularly notable unless you are the manufacturer. As Stepho suggests, a brief comment in another article about automotive interior lighting or headliners would surfice. NealeFamily (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- WP:ADVERT. The article itself says that the product was developed by a single group, the Stella Consortium. The amount of detail for the development and construction is clearly reflecting a single manufacturer - it is very specific and not at all generic. In short, it's an advert. It only deserves a small paragraph in the headliner article and in whichever article covers automotive interior lighting.  Stepho  talk  04:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Complete rewrite or delete - no good in its current state as per the comments made above. Warren (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - the closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledglass is about an article by the same contributor with the same basic problems as this article. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also this closely related [[1]] afd as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suggest a merger of LED-embedded glass, LED Film and LED Headliner. Biscuittin (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, you need to provide reasoning as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:10, 5 March 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. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Buckeye[edit]

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

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

A "well-known Ohio State Buckeyes fan and contortionist". Mostly full of fluff. She was a winner of a 1999 Florida gymnastics meet at Level 4 (that is the 9-10 year old age bracket). She was a high school diver and acrobat. Graduated from Ohio State. Has been a model. Nothing here is notable and no reliable refs to be found that says anything notable. Bgwhite (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Bgwhite (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I really wanted to say keep but I can't There is lots of coverage, but none of it is reliable or genuinely independent. She has certainly generated a LOT of buzz, but at this stage it hasn't bubbled up into mainstream coverage. Maybe someday, but for now, it is WP:TOOSOON. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Cloudz679 07:46, 11 March 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. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Fisher[edit]

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

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

Disputed prod. Not an article, just a CV. Scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly advertising. 74.207.78.189 (talk) 05:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Routine, non-notable bio of non-notable person. Doc talk 06:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - blatant advertising. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• additional reliable sources have been added. this person is the founder of a well known Israeli law firm. One of the partners in the law firm is a former Supreme Court judge. Please consider removing the deletion notice. thank you. Malevs (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is 79.182.145.96 (talk · contribs) you, or someone else with the firm? There are lots of well-known law firms all over the world, and Wikipedia is not the place to advertise them. Doc talk 06:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not work at the firm and have no connection other than knowing people in the firm. not many firms have former Supreme Court judges as partners in them so I believe this is a noticeable distinction. Malevs (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any idea how many law firms there are in my country alone, let alone yours? We do not advertize law firms here as a rule, as they are generally not notable. Except for the law firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe. Doc talk 07:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• there are currently 109 lawyers from Israel listed on Wikipedia and also 15 Israeli law firms. Some of which are not more noticeable than this individual's law firm - for example Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur. Malevs (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That last article you linked doesn't even have one source to back up anything on its page, and is ripe for deletion as well as blatant advertising. This isn't about any one country. Every company all over the world would probably just love to have their own WP page, but WP:WAX is not an argument to pursue as a reason for yours. Actual notability is what's important, and this is not a site to build your status as a company through Google hits. Doc talk 07:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I do believe that someone who owns a law firm together with a Supreme Court judge is something noticeable. There are not many, if at all, cases like this in Israel. Also, per your comment, please note that this is not my company and I gain no personal benefit from this being listed on WP. Malevs (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - blatant resume spam. ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite a little. I agree that being the senior partner in a firm this notable is notable. The accusations of spamming one's own firm appear unjustified. I decry the attitude expressed that we should generally not include law firms; together with the "counterexample" given in that comment, I consider that to look a little like prejudice against a profession. The argument that there are more notable law firms yet is not evidence that this one is not notable . I recognize the difficult of distinguishing notability in this field, but I consider the partnership with Eliyahu Winograd and the position at the ICC adequate criteria here. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @ DGG - I said we don't advertise law firms here, just like we don't advertise every other company in every other profession that exists simply because it exists/existed at one time. It has to be notable first, not later. Let's look at two very famous criminal defense lawyers in America, F. Lee Bailey and Alan Dershowitz. Both highly notable attorneys... but are their law firms notable enough for their own articles? Apparently not. Are any of the partners in those law firms notable enough to have their own page simply because they were a partner with those famous lawyers? Apparently not, again. As TJRC says below: notability is not inherited. If every law firm in the world had their own page - this would be a law firm wiki. Doc talk 05:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability. The arguments in favor of notability boil down to (1) Eliyahu Winograd is notable; (2) Eliyahu Winograd is a partner in Gideon Fisher & Co; therefore Gideon Fisher & Co is notable; (3) Gideon Fisher is a partner in Gideon Fisher & Co., therefore Gideon Fisher is notable. This is WP:NOTINHERITED². TJRC (talk) 22:05, 8 March 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. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by surface area[edit]

List of cities by surface area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list does not provide any useful information, and there is no way to modify it to be useful without original research.

Currently, this is a ranking of administrative areas that use the word "city" in their name. My objections are:

1. Administrative areas from various jurisdictions and at various levels in the administrative hierarchy are inherently not comparable.
2. The criterion that the name contains the word "city" is completely arbitrary, as many cities do not identify themselves as such, while many non-cities do. This results in the list being populated by large rural areas that most people would not consider cities.
3. The list also fails as a ranking of administrative areas, since those that do not happen to call themselves a "city" are excluded. Furthermore, if it were to serve this purpose, the name of the article should be changed.

Some old discussion suggested changing the criteria to better match what people consider cities, but concluded that it would not be possible to do so without creating substantial ambiguity and requiring original research. Thus, the list is forced to use self-identification as the inclusion criterion, which completely fails to capture the intent of the list. Imagine having a list of states in the United States that only contained 46 entries, because Kentucky, Massachussetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia self-identify as commonwealths rather than states.

Note that this is a different reason to the previous nomination for deletion, as the article has changed substantially since then (from a badly-sourced list of cities to a well-sourced list of non-cities). A couple of people on the discussion page have voiced concurring opinions. - Pirsq (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I understand how the present situation came about, but its absurdity demonstrates the difficulty of turning this into anything remotely encyclopedic. The article shows that different countries have different local administrative arrangements, that even English speaking countries use the term 'city' in radically different ways, and that there are in consequence some very large administrative units which are termed cities and yet not urban, have low population densities, and cover a large area. Which is quite interesting in its way but better covered elsewhere and has more to do with the vagaries of legislative arrangements than anything else. The only way it could have any sense as a comparative list is within a country where the same legal definition of a city applied uniformly. --AJHingston (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due problem of standardising definitions and OR. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There may be a way to create a category of cities by area (if it doesn't already exist) but this isn't the way to do it. Not related, but it would be a nightmare to verify, qualify, debate (do 'burbs count? Burroughs?, etc.), plus a lack of standardization, so the article never could be accurate. Also "surface area" is an odd way to call it, as 220'x220' = 1 acre, but if it is hilly, it will have more surface area, etc. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:39, 3 March 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 is no consensus to delete this article. The primary concern is not that there are no sources, but that the sources do not support notability due to various reasons including being primary (forumsprng), 1E (about his death), or trivial mentions. Reading this discussion, it appears to me that the keep argument is fairly stronger supported by numbers based on WP:GNG in saying that any substantial coverage by independent sources counts toward notability. To be frank, it's actually quite impossible to determine the real consensus of this discussion (which appears to lean keep) because of the badgering attitudes of two participants; one on either side. AFD is meant to be a discussion and badgering every opinion until you get your way is disruptive and unhelpful. It makes it impossible for a closing sysop to determine the general consensus rather than the insistent demand of one or two editors. No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND. v/r - TP 01:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Shavershian[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to on BodyBuilding.com, 4chan, Facebook, or another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

Shavershian is only known for the actions of his brother, his death, and an alleged Internet following. This definitely falls under the umbra of WP:1E. The level of coverage he received was transitory. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ~ Among the above, Shavershian has published a book; appeared in a series (National Road Trip) ~ and has Independent reliable sources/coverage to corroborate notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can publish a book. That show apparently has never made it to air, YouTube or otherwise, and nothing else indicates that Shavershian is in any way notable on his own. The only reason this article appears to have been created was because of the press surrounding his death. In fact, more than half all of the reliable sources in the article regard his death, or passing mentions of him having died. "Zyzz" is not worthy of an article on Wikipedia, particularly one that is just basically an obituary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to many of the sources in the article ~ he's also an Internet personality. If we went by the twisted version of BLPE1 (one being used for this) half the notable BLPs here would be gone. Plus sources have been coming out since his the individual died in August. That says a lot. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So because he was on the Internet makes him special? He is only notable and ever mentioned in the press for having died suddenly. And the only "sources" that come since his death are random articles that you or someone else has found where they mention "This guy was a bodybuilder who suddenly died". He has had no lasting impact outside of BodyBuilding.com and the /fit/ board on 4chan.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe if you read the sources, you would know that many of his videos have gone viral. Also millions of people die all the time...where is their coverage? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The word "viral" appears nowhere in the article. "Internet" and "YouTube" only appear once, each, as well. The entire article pulls random facts from every mention of his death or questions posed to him on his formspring account. This does not convey notability at all. He is only notable for having died which is not enough for Wikipedia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • A suggestion would be to take a good long read of the sources. That's all -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is nothing concerning him that proves he is notable. He has never entered any bodybuilding competitions as far as I can tell, and therefore has won no awards. His "cult following" is limited to a very small group of individuals. Every single news article that is being used as a source on the page says he died, and uses his death in relation to anabolic steroid abuse in Australia. He published one 66 page fitness book that has received no reviews. He allegedly appears in one web series that has not yet started its run anywhere. He put his name on some fitness supplement line, which I don't think really says much of anything. Everything out there about this man just says "he is dead" and Wikipedia does not need to report on the death of some guy who made a splash for a month and a half in the Australian press.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll correct you, a "splash" for a more than half a year ~ and if you were to recreate WP:BLP and WP:N ~ as I said before we would have half the articles that are on Wikipedia... gone. "His "cult following" is limited to a very small group of individuals." ~ you can't attest to that, you are not a reliable source however, the source that mentioned his following, is. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yeah, it's mentioned in passing, just like he is except for every article about his death.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Keep telling yourself that. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The sources on this article aren't too good. I see Formspring posts by the subject of the page being used as sources for facts. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 03:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • MelbourneStar, we get it. He's a hometown boy and you want the article retained.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me? Ah he's actually from Sydney. I'm from a totally different city, please get your facts right. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. I thought the Rescue Squadron was eliminated.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Google News shows Blacktown Sun, two Daily Telegraph mentions, news.com.au... Haven't checked Newsbank yet, but if there is that on a Google News search, convinced there should be enough to pass WP:GNG when a more in depth search is done. --05:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Laura, I don't see anyting in that search. The issue shouldn't be whether or not he's ben mentioned in reliable sources, but whether or not he's received any coverage that shows he is notable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see four results. They were from the sources referenced. Maybe try again or try searching on those publications? --LauraHale (talk) 07:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and per WP:NOTNEWS: I'm not seeing any evidence that Mr Shavershian was notable, and the media coverage concerning him is gutter press type stuff of no lasting significance. The use of forum posts by the subject of the article to reference minor details about him (such as his UAI score) violates all sorts of policies, and borders on the creepy. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you suggest we re-write WP:ABOUTSELF? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough for major news sources to cover his death. [2] [3] [4] [5] Other things about him include [6] "The death of Zyzz, a 22-year-old amateur bodybuilder and showman from Carlingford with a cult online following, was only narrowly out-searched by the death of Apple founder Steve Jobs." And he did get coverage BEFORE his death. [7] All the news sources say he had quite a cult following which means he meets the second item of WP:NMODEL "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Dream Focus 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how a slow week in the Australian press and repeated mentions to the fact he was a bodybuilder who died means we should retain an article on this man.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand, how you can't "get it" that it wasn a lot more than just a week, and they're not "mentions" rather articles on the subject. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just look at the references already used in the article. The guy has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and the coverage is for more than just his death. Meets the general notability guideline with ease, and probably a bunch of SNGs to boot. Jenks24 (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the references in the article are posthumous mentions. It seems that he is only notable for having died and this alleged cult following, or being a bodybuilder linked to anabolic steroid abuse who died.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just glancing at the refs, here's one from before his death (in the Sydney Morning Herald): [8]. Jenks24 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that is the only one that is before his death, and even then he is barely the focus of the article. It's about steroid abuse in the bodybuilding world.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, and that's why the only two images in that news article are of Aziz Shavershian, rather than his brother? In fact, that was an issue to Shavershian, he went further in denying alligations made against him ~ which he wrote a letter to the editor denying alligations made against him. That article is just as much about Aziz as it is with his brother. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • So that means a quarter of it is dedicated to him, despite not being the central topic discussed at all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's for the reader to decide. You see it as a quarter, I see it as something else. Both of us are the readers. Mixed opinions. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pretty much per NickD. While there is plenty of news coverage, little of it suggests that the subject is suitable for coverage in an encyclopedia. Per WP:NOTNEWS being "famous for being famous" doesn't cut it, sorry. You need to do more than appear in the social pages now and again. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTABILITY states A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. WP:ENTERTAINER criteria has been met. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. As I said, all the news sources say he had quite a cult following. If reliable sources say that requirement has been met, than it has. Dream Focus 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is he really an "entertainer"? And if so, is being on YouTube and being mentioned by the local newspaper all one needs to be worthy of a Wikipedia article now?—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ENTERTAINER defines itself as relating to "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:" He was a model and a television personality(defined as a celebrity). So yes this counts. Dream Focus 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • He was never on TV as far as I can tell. And does his Facebook or YouTube page (I'm not sure what he has exactly) really make him a model?—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I updated the wording since television personality redirects to celebrity, which he was. And the news articles are reliable sources, so when they call him a model, then he is. Dream Focus 22:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • But he didn't do anything other than die and have a drug peddling brother. How does this convey notability?—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • He had a cult following. Doesn't matter what else the articles about him said, they mentioned he had a cult following, thus he passes that requirement. We have guidelines to prevent from having the exact same arguments in every AFD. Dream Focus 00:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ahh, #2 of WP:ENTERTAINER ? That is one of the more ill-defined and poorly-conceived lines of any of the sub-notability guides. I've rarely seen it invoked successfully, and if that is all this guy is falling back on then doubts about this article only increase. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sub? Its not a sub, as in under anything. It stands fine on its own in accordance to the rules. And consensus has long been established and sustained for that to be in that guideline. Insulting the rule doesn't make it any less valid here. Dream Focus 16:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oh, don't go getting your panties bunched up. Yes, "sub", as in a specialized/specific notability guideline for entertainers, apart from the general notability guidelines. As for "insulting", no; the proper terminology would be "dismissive of". These are guidelines after all, and just as the weak-assed "multiple nominations" line of WP:PORNBIO has been set aside numerous times, so can this. The fact that a lot of anonymous people on the internet like something or someone is not a compelling argument to support article retention. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Iconic figure, importance in bodybuilding clearly evidenced by numerous reliable sources including this episode Australia's leading national radio current affairs show Background Briefing centring on Zyzz [9]. His RIP site on Facebook has 160,000 followers, hardly an "alleged cult following". 27.32.251.238 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 27.32.251.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - The usual WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E for puffed-up popinjays that get a little media chatter for trivial things. The article read like one long, fawning youtube comment. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quoting the GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It does not matter what he is being covered for, but that he is being covered. See WP:1E- unless we are going to have an article titled "Death of Aziz Shavershian", the article about him should be created instead. As for the content concerns, remember that AFD is not cleanup. A412 (Talk • C) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, quoting from WP:PSTS, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Thus, responses he provides on his Formspring can be used as a primary source about him. The article is simply repeating what his replies were. A412 (Talk • C) 03:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main issue is, are the apparently numerous articles concerning his death significant coverage such that Shavershian deserves an encyclopedic article? It seems that this article is just one big obituary because Shavershian does not appear to have any impact. He is simply someone who existed and did things on the Internet. If I may make an analogy, the living Natalie Tran is another Sydney native who is also fairly popular on the Internet, but she has actually won awards for what she has done and has appeared on television, which Shavershian has not in either regard (he was an extra in one TV show and the web series he is apparently in has not seen release).—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your analogy with Natalie Tran would work - if she had similar circumstances - which she most definately does not. She is more than three years older than Shavershian. She has been in the spotlight for 3 years more than Shavershian. She makes vlogs ~ he did not. He was a bodybuilder ~ she is not. Only similarities I see, are the following: They lived in the same area. They are both internet personalities. They are both notable. ~ On a side note, the opening of this Ten News segment says it all. How many non-notable people (as you assert) have this done? not many at all. None. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I bring up the analogy because Tran has done things of note. Shavershian has done nothing but died. His death is all that has ever been reported about him, aside from the fact that his brother was arrested for possession of steroids shortly before he died and his existence used as an excuse by the Australian media to provide warnings for steroid abuse. There is a whole lot of nothing out there about him, and single lines in the Australian press (within the articles that describe the circumstances of his death) that say "he is famous on the Internet" are not enough to show that he is notable. I cannot tell why the Australian news picked up on his story at all, because there does not seem to be anything that says "Aziz Shavershian is a popular amateur bodybuilder with a following on Facebook (or whatever other sites there are)". Everything about him for some reason treats him in the past tense, and everything is just a repeat of other information, which shows there is nothing of note about him that shows he has had any sort of lasting impact except to serve as a segue to say that anabolic steroids are bad for five months in Sydney's news media.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem here, is, however, that he has been significantly covered by news media (not just routine news) over several months. Thus, he or his death in some way fulfill the WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because this coverage is significant, and covered by many sources over a period beyond the immediate time following his death. A412 (Talk • C) 06:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is it really significant coverage if every news piece regurgitates the same information, and then mentions something about steroid abuse, with the only new information being autopsy results?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Definately not the same information, if the article has more than 20 different reliable references, sourcing different content each time. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll go through the news articles in order. He died and someone made a comment on his Facebook. Opinion piece that says he died, vague mention of Internet following. He died, fans on social media. He exists, steroid abuse in Australia. He died, autopsy results. Passing mention in article about steroid abuse. Entry in a list of news events of 2011. Analogy in article on muscle dysmorphia. Arrest of Said Shavershian. Mention of his death alongside arrest of his brother. Autopsy results. ???? I don't think Now Public is even a reliable source. SimplyShredded is not a reliable source. ABC.net.au is a single paragraph. Passing mention. Passing mention. Passing mention. A link to a video.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, now we know that if anyone on Wikipedia needs someone to give a very-brief explanation of a notable article's reliable sources, you'll be first to know. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It is most definitely significant coverage, even if each piece regurgitates the same thing. A multitude of secondary sources have covered him. A412 (Talk • C) 15:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • But the fact the same stuff is mentioned each time by the same newspaper, does it really show he's notable? And half of the news articles come from the Sydney Morning Herald. Yes, it's the oldest newspaper in Australia, but it's just the local paper for his hometown. There is no reason to have an article on someone who only got mentioned because his brother was arrested and then the Sydney news media decided to unnecessarily keep his death in their pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The job of Wikipedia is not to critique the news. If he has been covered for that long, he is notable because of it. A412 (Talk • C) 06:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • But that's what WP:NOTNEWSPAPER was made to prevent. He's done nothing notable and the multitude of news articles don't prove anything about him. He is only the main topic of the reliable sources when they discuss the events of his death, and dying does not make one notable. The article is a glorified obituary because he has had no lasting impact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What did Jesus do in his lifetime? Had friends, not much else. Wikipedia does not choose its topics based on some criteria for personal merits, but on what reliable sources say on the topic. Thus this discussion on Shavershian's achievements is totally pointless. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow. Did you really just make that comparison? I don't even think I can even begin to make any sense of it. You have just compared a religious figure with some nobody who has been deified by a small niche of the amateur internet bodybuilding community. But if it's necessary, Jesus was recorded as having done things before his death. All we have for Aziz Shavershian is that his brother got caught with steroids and he himself died, in 20 different news articles no less. What has happened with Shavershian is exactly what happened with Corey Delaney 4 years ago. He's someone who was not notable at all, but was unnecessarily focused on in the Aussie news media.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are articles for numerous other "internet personalities" that didn't have nearly the size of following or cultural impact. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magibon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.77.246 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — 70.62.77.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• keep - had a large fanbase (over 145,000) and inspired many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.105.45 (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — 203.97.105.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• keep - because he made a change. — 122.60.1.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep As many reliable sources state, he does have a large fanbase, and did inspire many people. 80.109.200.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC). — 80.109.200.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment: Threads have been made on Bodybuilding.com (can't link to it because it's blocked by the spamlist apparently), 4chan (thread since deleted), and at least one Facebook memorial asking to derail this discussion, which is evident from the 4 IP !votes above.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mhmm I see. Well they are all SPAs ~ and I would not think much weight would be given to their !votes anyway. Requesting a semi-protection of the discussion seems appropriate at this stage, given that their is a good possibility of canvassing. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 14:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' One of the news sources linked to above indicates that the subject's death was comparable with that of Steve Jobs: "The death of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs was the fifth most searched for, the Australian body builder Aziz Shavershian, known as "Zyzz", the sixth". The nomination's reference to WP:1E is obviously illogical because there is no event here which is distinct from the subject. There's no cogent reason to delete here. Warden (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because everything about him is about the fact that he died. A single death due to a congenital heart defect should not make this man in any way notable, particularly when all coverage of him comes from his city's local paper, and some passing mentions in other Australian news media.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh so articles within the Daily Telegraph, The West Australian, Ninemsn - a broadcast on Network Ten news --is all just a bowel of goldfish, right? No, it's clearly notability outside of the country's largest city, and most prominent newspaper. IF there were few sources ~ a delete is appropriate IMO. That's far from the case. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So a lot of sources that say jack squat mean we have to have an article on this man? Wikipedia is not the place for obituaries of people who have had no impact on society other than creating a bunch of musclehead fanboys who "mire" him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Frankly, I see your argument as completely flawed. We do not decide whether to create articles based on merit, but rather than notability. If he is famous for "creating a bunch of musclehead fanboys" and this is covered extensively, but is a completely unimportant person otherwise, he is notable. A412 (Talk • C) 05:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not important what the sources say or why they said it. It only matters that this person received significant coverage in many sources repeatedly over a long period of time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So anyone who appears in the news more than once is notable?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryulong, please read WP:NOTABILITY Dream Focus 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know the guideline. I just fail to see how the subject of this article (if it can even be called an article) even remotely meets those criteria.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Somewhat random question. Since a good chunk of those references are formspring, I have to ask... is formspring really a valid source for anything? From what I understand, folks just ask questions there, and the users answer however they want; there's even less cause to be serious on that than on the average blog. — Isarra (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, since most of the other sources appear to be posthumous, would that not mean that if anything the notable thing would be the guy's death, not the guy? Perhaps this article should be merged into a new article on that. — Isarra (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the note of Formspring, the article is not based on the Formspring posts, and there is no issues authenticity wise with the sources used ~ therefore abiding by WP:ABOUTSELF. With respects to a merge, there is still content of the subject, although "little", prior to his death - and as had been said, the subjects death appeared to be a "normal" death that occurs all the time ~ and his death wouldn't detail his bodybuilding; persona; internet personality status ~ etc. That's just my take on it. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if his bodybuilding, persona, etc are important, why was there so little on them before he died? — Isarra (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why they published a lot of the content after death isn't the issue. Let's bar the fact for now that he has had a long period of coverage - there have been people in this world that have had their talents and their notability discovered after their death. I can tell you right now that some if not all of those people would have articles as well. But, that's not the case at all, since Shavershian was co-centre issue in an article published prior death. Something else to consider would be the status of an Internet Personality: how do they get discovered? People and press. That is what Shavershian has gotten,  and what he still may get, considering the fact sources have come out post-death too. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Six months isn't "a long period of coverage". Being a "co-centre issue" does not beget notability on Wikipedia. His brother got arrested, and The Sydney Morning Herald decided to mention him too in something about steroid abuse. This does not beget notability, either. Shavershian was a flash in the pan, unless you go to BodyBuilding.com or 4chan. The page on Wikipedia about him is in no way any sort of article. It is just an obituary. And Wikipedia is not a place for memorials.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • An obituary? because the article mentions that the subject died - it's automatically an orbituary? No. Just because there is a death section in the article - it's an orbituary, right? No. I'd love to see what you think of this. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article as it stands is not a biography. It's a vigorously sourced obituary. Michael Jackson, who actually did something other than die, is not a good analogy. "Zyzz" did nothing. He was a bodybuilder who did not win any contests. He was a model who did not represent any product, other than one that he started before he died. He was an extra on a TV show and allegedly appears in a web series that is in production hell. The fact that the Australian press decided to make a field day out of his untimely death for a month, brought it up again 2 months later, and then decided to show that for some reason he was googled a lot, should not be a reason why Wikipedia has an article on him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • If the subject had no notability or coverage, whatsover, you'd see me co-deleting. However, you don't see me suppoting a delete because the article has both. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't get why you think his coverage begets notablity.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Maybe it's time the Wikipedia community re-writes the WP:NOTABILITY policy - that way we all know that coverage for a long period of time (among other things) = notability.-- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So you acknowledge the fact that "Zyzz" does not currently meet our (current) guidelines for inclusion?—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • No, I'm clearly implying that you are misubnderstanding notability ~ I'm suggesting it is re-written, so everyone understands it, not few. Oh and what you say, is a suggestion - not even close to the facts. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Actually, I understand it quite well. I am just aware that this one dead guy does not meet the requirements, even if you believe otherwise.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Coverage and notability are inherently related. If he has coverage, it is obviously because he has notability. We do not define notability subjectively- we take coverage and interpret it as notability. Nowhere in a notability guideline is the opinion of an article's subjective notability according to an editor mentioned. You are using circular reasoning- because he is not notable, no amount of coverage will make him notable, and thus he is not notable. A412 (Talk • C) 06:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Coverage does not mean it is necessary to have the article. "Zyzz" is not notable because the coverage he received was transitory. The only time he was ever the central subject of an article is when the Sydney Morning Herald unnecessarily published content on the fact that he died. Anything else out there is a passing mention of him having died or being used as an illustration on steroid abuse. This does not make him notable for our guidelines on the matter.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • "The Sydney Morning Herald unnecessarily published content on the fact that he died."- This is a subjective opinion promoted by you. No editor is entitled to the ability to attribute a certain news story as unnecessary or necessary. Based on your logic, why do we have any Wikipedia articles? They all have coverage, however that does not been it is necessary to have an article on them. A412 (Talk • C) 06:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • The subjects of other Wikipedia articles have had an impact. Adding "u jelly" and "u mirin" to the Internet lexicon is not an impact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Again, subjective impact. Who are you to say that "adding "u jelly" and "u mirin" to the Internet lexicon" is not an impact? A412 (Talk • C) 06:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Well what objective impact has he had? Being the sixth most googled term by the nation of Australia? Having a drug abusing brother? Being used as a warning to the Australian bodybuilding scene to not use steroids even though he died of a heart defect?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Let's see, what has he done? He has been covered in independent sources over a period of multiple months, created an internet cult following, had videos go viral, et cetera. I'm starting to believe you really have no motive for deletion. "Because he is not strictly notable (in Ryulong's opinion), this article should be deleted." is approximately your stance. You have admitted that he fulfills notability (by admitting that he has had coverage), and quoting from the WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.", and thus fulfills the notability criterion for inclusion. Whether the article is written as an obituary or not, however, is a problem for cleanup. AFD is not cleanup. A412 (Talk • C) 15:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • He's had coverage but it is by no means "significant". The cult status on the Internet has already been pointed out as such a minimal, subjective, and useless sub-guideline of the WP:BIO criteria. If he had viral videos, why was nothing mentioned before his death? If he did things, why was that not brought up before his death? All the news media and Internet have been doing is deifying a nobody.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My take on it is that Formspring is as reliable as any other primary source published by the subject. If he wants to publish falsehoods, he can do that in a blog or book too. They can be used per WP:PSTS. A412 (Talk • C) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to that, primary sources should be avoided unless reliably published or treated as such. This seems to use it as generic source. — Isarra (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:PSTS or otherwise, per WP:ABOUTSELF those sources are reliable - Formspring only is an issue if it's used to corroborate controversial content; the authenticity of the post is clearly off, or if the article is based on those sources ~ and the article has none of the above Formspring issues. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Most Inspirational member on the world's biggest bodybuilding and supplementation site, (www.bodybuilding.com); as well as over 150,000 fans on Facebook. Zyzz was a professional bodybuilder and had his own supplement company, and even had recognition of this from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Frank Zane.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.206.17 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)— 24.36.206.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. - Clearly meets wikipedia notiability. This is a clear case of people hating internet superstarts trying to push there own agenda like the Corey incident which made world news coverage but was removed by a admin. Clearly meets notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the articles on that individual are all deleted and remain deleted per WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS. Shavershian is no different from him, except Shavershian is dead.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As AFD is not a vote, I would like to implore the closing administrator to take a look at the nature of the reliable sources being used to support notability. This article discusses an individual who has only been discussed in regards to his untimely death. The only news piece used in the article that discusses him prior to his death is only marginally about him. In fact, a bulk of the articles discuss him in some sort of entry on steroid abuse. This article, which I've recently removed from the page, was being used as a source to say that Shavershian is linked to skyrocketing steroid abuse in Australia, which the news article itself does not even claim.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Before deciding the result of this AFD, I suggest carefully reading the notability guideline, particularly the general notability guideline. While editors have tried to argue that having an internet following and "no objective impact" are criteria for deletion, this was not attributed to any policy or guideline. Note that many of the policies and guidelines cited by deletionists in this debate are not even completely relevant or correct to apply here, shown by MelbourneStar and myself.A412 (Talk • C) 05:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: administrators read over the arguments that are presented throughout the Afd, so it is not necessary to leave them a special note summarizing the discussion at the bottom of the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Particularly when one is made to mock another editor. This is still a discussion, and my note was another coment in that discussion that could not be prefixed by a "keep" or "delete" !vote indicator. I will refactor that in this edit.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, changing the formatting of my note as well. Note that I am not attempting to mock you, Ryulong, just attempting to show both sides of this discussion. A412 (Talk • C) 05:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I was afraid newcomers to the debate would think they're supposed to all add notes at the bottom too. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ~ I'll remind Ryulong, yet again, that the use of Formspring and other questionable sources such as Facebook and Twitter (latter aren't included in article) is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF. Therefore I'll be reinstating relevant content with Formspring as a source. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only removed it because it led to a vandal continuously adding in the subject's joking mention he was seeking illicit drugs. His move from Russia and his height may be relevant on Wikipedia, but we do not need to post his grades.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies about the grades ~ realised what was added in that case. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Oh come on, I've seen a pilot episode of a TV show with him as a star. In fact, it's mentioned in the article. -iopq (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being in a pilot episode does not make him notable, particularly if the show has never made it to broadcast/release.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But those sources provided, most definately do make him notable. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Zyzz is/was the inspiration for many people to start on the path to a healthier lifestyle. He may have used steroids to get there but considering his starting position as a 50 kilo world of warcraft addict his dedication to weightlifting is remarkable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.172.96 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — 132.181.172.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep -- well-sourced article. I find the blatant deletionism tiring. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not deletionism. This is a repeat of the Corey Delaney debacle from 2008. He was a nobody whose story got picked up by major news outlets, despite not being notable at all. He's not like Antoine Dodson whose made a career out of his 15 minutes of fame. Shavershian did nothing and only has a small legion of fanboys trying to keep his 1 month appearance in the news alive.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting: Where do you get "small legion of fanboys" from "cult following"? And, last time I checked, it's been more than half a year, not a single "month". Also, on fans, 170,000~ on Facebook + the title of "most inspirational" on the world's largest oline bodybuilding community, Bodybuilding.com, does not equal up to a "small following", sorry there. To save us all the time and energy, let me guess your concerns: is it something along the lines of Facebook and Bodybuilding.com are not-notable? 170,000 people isn't many? the source I provided is unreliable? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not every Internet personality is notable. This is particularly true for those who are only known to the general public for having a drug abusing brother and an untimely death. And the provided sources may be reliable, but they do not mean anything. There were just as many sources covering whatever the fuck Corey Delaney did in 2008, but we don't have an article on him for just the same reasons there should not be one on "Zyzz".—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Leave Corey analogy out of this... he belongs in 2008. It's 3 years from then, times have changed, and they have totally different circumstances. Upon what you have stated, Shavershian has a following; months of coverage; appeared in a series; published a book; has a protein line. Oh, and is notable. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mean this in the best possible way, but will you two please knock it off and just let other people comment? Granted, I understand that this is supposed to be a discussion, but responding to everything you disagree with is getting a little ridiculous, especially when you've already made your points. — Isarra (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know Isarra, but Melbournestar, anyone can publish a book or make their own protein line, and the "series" you keep referring to has never seen the light of day. If it's a reality show, not everyone who appears on one of those things gets a page on Wikipedia, either. There's nothing special about "Zyzz" other than the undue attention the Australian media gave him in August, and again in December.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand what you mean Isarra, however Ryulong opened this door, when nominating the article for deletion. Nominating via AfD requires there being a discussion, and I'm sure Ryulong understands that - and since there has been a nomination, he wants a discussion - he will get one. Ryulong you are highlighting the fact that he has got coverage - yet you are also contradicting your statements where you say it's a one month thing. The book; series; protein line - accompanied - with months of coverage and reliable sources and a "cult following" as noted by sources - make him notable. Ryulong, if you'd like to discuss further, my talk page is free. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The coverage he received does not make him notable. He's a nobody who got mentioned on a slow news day when his brother was arrested, and that turned into a media circus when he died a month later. Having however many facebook friends, writing a self-published book that's never been reviewed, being on a web series that has never been broadcast and is probably not notable itself, and a protein powder line doesn't confer notability.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A slow news day? come on, let's not critique Australian news - if you are not familiar with it. I can tell you right now, everyday, isn't a slow day with news. It is News. And what you state above about Shavershian, does not confer to your opinion, of notability - that's all. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The only reason he was mentioned was because of the arrest of "Chestbrah". He made no impact in any global media before then. The fact that he then shows up over and over again in regards to his death and his corpse's return to Australia does not make him notable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • "over and over again"' = coverage. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • And the same thing happened with Delaney in 2008. He's not notable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Again, Delaney and Shavershian are two different people - two different situations - two different articles - two different, everything. Like comparing cats and dogs. Now, I'm not willing to discuss any further, as my comments are pretty clear, and don't contradict eachother all the time. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Frustrated keep due to WP:BLUDGEON by nominator. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 11 March 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. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Five Points Halloween Festival[edit]

Little Five Points Halloween Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the article is not notable. There are Hallowe'en parades in small towns in many countries. Article created by banned user and previously tagged with ((unreliable sources)). — O'Dea (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To be honest, I hate deleting articles like this simply because they are cultural events, and to me that is what makes Wikipedia so unique, useful and entertaining. The problem is, all I can find is references from the Atlanta Journal (pay), which are reliable, but they are just listings of events, not significant coverage. It is a smallish event, 35,000 people, so I guess no major paper has taken the time to cover it. Normally, I would rather live with less than stellar sources and let it grow (it isn't like it is advertising, or a resume bio) but if the user is banned, that is enough to speedy delete. Maybe someone can talk USA Today or another major rag to cover it and someone can recreate it. This held in Atlanta (4.7 million people), so I wouldn't call it the typical small town event, but if the local media won't cover it better than they have, then it isn't notable as an event for our purposes. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They may be of local interest, but they just don't fit into a general encyclopedia. Regional or local wikis are the way to go for this sort of material. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 8 March 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) 23:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Kone[edit]

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

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

BLPPROD that is now (barely, poorly) referenced. This player has never appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable. Jared Preston (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the PDL not being fully pro, this article fails WP:NSPORT, and in the absence of significant coverage fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but recommend GS restores the reference in the meantime. I have to say this is one of the worst articles I've ever seen. Cloudz679 23:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oop, my bad, removed it accidentally while also removing the BLPPROD tag - sorry! GiantSnowman 08:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  -- WikHead (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:38, 5 March 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. Bmusician 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian letter writing guides[edit]

Victorian letter writing guides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article purports to be about Victorian Letter Writing Guides however it functions almost entirely as both a how-to guide (in violation of the WP:NOT policy) and a description of a particular historical style of letter writing already covered in the Love Letter page. No letter writing guides are mentioned by name in the body of the article and it therefore functions as a description of common writing practices, not an encyclopedic entry on "letter writing guides". At the very least this article should be re-written as a historical article on Victorian Letter Writing Etiquette or Merged as such into Love Letter. The main content and perspective of this article is disposable though as 1. it is not about its eponymous subject, 2. its named subject is not particularly notable (a general Google search of "victorian letter writing guides" brings up only 8500 hits, many of them mirrors of the wiki text) and 3. the spirit of the article is already articulated in the previously mentioned Love Letter page. Pakiderm (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Disagree that article is written like a guide. It exclusively uses past tense to refer to advice having been given by the guides which are the subject of the article. Furthermore, even if it were written like a guide, the article should be rewritten rather than deleted, as there are plenty of sources for the subject matter. Pirsq (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless a suitable merger target can be found. I agree that the subject was very notable and plenty of sources exist. But it does require a great deal of work. Most obviously, most correspondence was not in the form of love letters or matters of the heart. Style and form were of great importance in all correspondence, whether in the conduct of business affairs, ordinary social intercourse, or anything else, and hence the market for guides and other instruction. A decision needs to be made whether this article should be about the guides themselves, or the etiquette of letter writing as demonstrated in these guides. And then there are questions as to whether these varied with place and time (the Victorian period was a long one) and so forth. --AJHingston (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing a variety of possibilities such as rewriting or merger and so, per WP:BEFORE, a deletion discussion is premature. See Posting It: The Victorian Revolution in Letter Writing for an example of a source which contains detailed content about letter writing manuals. Warden (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per included references and presumed common name for this type of article. Topic appears to meet WP:GNG. Suggestion to merge to Love Letter not valid, as those have been and always will be written - whereas this article is of a historical nature. Nom now blocked due to username, although name could obviously be a good-faith coincidence. -- Trevj (talk) 13:59, 6 March 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 appears unequivocal. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Morgan Romero[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Seth Morgan Romero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Filmmaker/self-published author of questionable notability. Google news search on "Seth Morgan Romero" shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of simple directory mentions (due to minor roles in legitimate productions) and social media links - no significant coverage of the subject found in independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are reliable pictures of Seth Morgan Romero - the first being of him having dinner, third to the bottom of him with Jeff Bridges. This page should NOT be up for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvinworks (talk • contribs) — Malvinworks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Photographs are not an indication of notability - especially when that photo comes from the subject's Google+ account, which is not a reliable source. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand where your personal vendetta against this individual comes from. This particular individual is now signed with WME agency, is directing a feature film (which is being released early 2013) and has done a lot to help individual filmmakers. The least he deserves is this page on Wikipedia. I've seen individual pages with less credibility. Could you please explain why this page NEEDS to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvinworks (talk • contribs) — Malvinworks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is no personal vendetta - just a standard AfD based on an apparent lack of notability shown in the article. Of the five references you've currently provided in the article, three are from unreliable sources: Romero's personal Facebook and Tumblr pages, and his IMDB profile. Of the Amazon refs, one links to an out-of-print self-published pamphlet (not much of a case for notability there), and the other I added a failed verification tag to, as it has no mention of Romero. No one "deserves" a Wikipedia page - as to other pages, I'd suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If this person truly is as notable as you believe, surely you can provide links to significant coverage from independent reliable sources that back that up? MikeWazowski (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook link is not Seth Morgan Romero's own Facebook (he does not have a Facebook or has it listed under another name). The Facebook Link is of 'The Other Night', the official fan page for the film. If you want an independent source that credits Seth Morgan (one that's not IMDB), I have a link from an independent film blog 'CGI Films', which talks about Seth Morgan's upcoming project reliable, independent source. --User:OmniWorldMan (talk)— OmniWorldMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Out Of Print book is no "pamphlet". Only 150 copies were produced and they're very rare. I don't understand why you've being rude. I just want help to making this article thrive, but you're not helping, you're just attempting to delete it. I'm asking for help, which you're not giving me. --Malvinworks (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malvinworks, I'm trying to correct the page "Seth Morgan Romero", so that it will not be flagged for deletion.-- OmniWorldMan (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)— OmniWorldMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

MikeWazowski, I've corrected some sources and cleaned up a bit. This article should not be a problem anymore. Actually, you cited one of the references, stating it wasn't correct. In given reference #5, it does state the chart number, release date and that the album did, in fact, receive a 4 1/2 star voting average. This page shouldn't be anymore of an issue. I think you could take the deletion notice down when you please. --OmniWorldMan (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)— OmniWorldMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your cleanup consisted of posting a copyvio from another website. So no, I believe I will let the AfD run its proper course. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always have to fix things. Don't worry User:MikeWazowski, I'll clean the page up and rid it of the issues previous users have gotten it into.--MaxMagnum1991 (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)— MaxMagnum1991 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to let OmniWorldMan know, facebook is generally not usable as a source. What this means is that at the very absolute most it is usable as a primary source if you can guarantee that it is by Romero and even then you can only use it when the material it's referencing is backed up by multiple independent and reliable sources. In other words, you should have so many independent and reliable sources that using any sort of primary source is unnecessary. Also, primary sources never show notability. It could be a picture of Romero eating dinner with President Obama and Queen Elizabeth, but it still wouldn't show notability because primary sources cannot be used as reliable sources showing notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I understand your argument, but Romero's page is still enough for a Wiki page. The Google Trends for his book have upped to nearing 400 in volume index after his book went Out of Print (though that information was omitted from the Wikipedia Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxMagnum1991 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — MaxMagnum1991 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The only thing you should be careful about is that Google Trends probably falls under the guidelines for WP:GOOGLEHITS in that it doesn't matter how many hits you get back in a Google search- Google results do not show notability. Specific links that are considered independent and reliable sources does, and that's ultimately what an AfD comes down to. I also want to note that when I searched under Romero's name and the book's name at Google Trends, I did not get any results back at all. You might be able to find enough sources to show that his self-published book is notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he himself has notability outside of the book. Writing a book, working behind a camera, and doing a few roles does not automatically give notability. Rather than saying "he/she/it has google hits under this search or another", you need to be finding reliable sources that pass WP:RS and show notability. A large amount of google hits only means that searching for reliable sources might be easier, not that they're guaranteed to have enough notability to pass the very strict guidelines here on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Comment. I also want to stress that it's possible, but unlikely for Romero's self-published book to have enough sources to show notability. (ArtWay was founded by Romero and his book on Amazon is published through CreateSpace, usually a dead giveaway that books are self-published.) I am going to try my hardest to look for sources, but please be aware that publishing, filming, and acting is not an automatic notability guarantee. I also have to ask, are either you or OmniWorldMan related in any fashion to Romero? I ask because if so, you should read over WP:COI. There's nothing against the rules about editing and creating an article about yourself, someone you work for, or someone you know, but you should be careful because it's so easy to overestimate someone's notability because you're personally invested in this person and might see notability where there isn't any.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Comment: I have found information that suggests that Malvinworks is either Romero or directly represents him by way of a link that redirected to an IMDB post where the new screen name is "sethmorganworks" and the profile is Romero's. [10] [11] I want to stress again that if you are a friend, relative, agent, employee, Romero himself, or have a personal stake in Romero's success, PLEASE make sure to be honest about it. Again, you can edit an article about Romero but you should be up front about your relationship with him because it might be a conflict of interest. I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but you've got to understand that it doesn't exactly look good when you have many accounts suddenly sign up only to edit or defend this article. Please look over WP:COI.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete. I've looked pretty hard, going under a number of different variations on Romero's name. There's just no reliable sources out there and none of the sources on the article are considered to be reliable sources that show notability. I want to stress that I'm not doing this because I suspect that the contributors to the article are Romero and his friends or because I have any sort of vendetta against anyone. I don't actually enjoy voting "delete" on articles and would much rather have things kept on Wikipedia than deleted. It's just that in order to be kept articles MUST have reliable sources that pass WP:RS and there must be enough of them to show that Romero passes WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO, which he doesn't, despite his accomplishments. While I wish him well and hope that he does get this notability in the future (thus getting to laugh on E! about how his wiki entry was deleted back in 2012), he doesn't have it now and saying that he might achieve notability with his next film is just WP:CRYSTAL and we can't keep articles because someone might become notable one day.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Comment: I'm not malvinworks, but a source close and reliable to him. I'm an assistant at Constance Productions. We're working on maintaining Wiki articles not only on Seth Morgan, but other sources pertaining the company. We've had many notable pages created.--OmniWorldMan (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's now been confirmed that Malvinworks, OmniWorldMan, and MaxMagnum1991 are being run by the same person. I'm not really surprised, but it's nice to have confirmation. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:: Also, there's nothing for us to "gain" for the creation of the Seth Morgan Romero. We're simply creating the page as a collective of information. I'm not sure whether or not Mr.Romero cares for these "pages" like the one here in Wiki or IMDb, because his real connections are in the industry, where it matters, but when a person searches his name, his book, his album or any of his films, the simple Wikipedia page would tell a person so much about it. I don't see anything wrong with that.--OmniWorldMan (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Due to your involved nature with the company and Romero, I highly highly HIGHLY suggest that you look into getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to help you with creating articles. One of the things about adding pages for your company and the people you represent is that it can be seen as being an advertisement or promotional attempt. Even if this wasn't the intent, this is how it is interpreted 99.9% of the time, especially when you have people and items that do not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is a source of information, but the information has to pass the notability guidelines. It's discouraged for someone to edit an article that they're closely related to, but when it comes down to a representative for a company editing articles it is even more highly discouraged. I'm trying to stress this because most of the time a person editing something they're closely related to is viewed in a highly negative light, which is why it's so discouraged. You could have the best intentions in the world and do the most neutral and unbiased edits in the world, but it is always going to be viewed in a potentially negative light. I'm not trying to completely discourage you from adding to articles or requesting that articles be created, just warning you that it would probably be better if you went through one of the experienced users at the movie wikiproject. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Also, please do not remove the COI tag from the article. It doesn't mean anything automatically bad, just that one or many of the major editors to the article are personally involved with the subject.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. After cutting through all the COI and marketing nonsense, the subject just isn't notable for Wikipedia purposes. ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I spent some time this morning trying as hard as I could to find any reliable sources for this article whatsoever, and there really were none that would establish notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Without reliable sources to establish notability, there is no reason to not delete this article. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's no need for the article. While the information is correct, there are not enough relevant sources.--Sethmorganworks (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The guy is nothing more than a non-notable blogger with a pretension to filmmaking, who has come here under various socks for the purposes of WP:AUTO and WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 04:37, 2 March 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan J. Baldelli[edit]

Bryan J. Baldelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the references lead anywhere, and a web search finds nothing but the WP article and derivatives of it. Smells like a hoax Chris the speller ^yack 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a hoax No such player in the databases, and the page claims this individual played in MLB. We'd know him if he did. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You might - I wouldn't. I do know that someone's advertising a book by this title for $101.72 or CDN$ 74.38 if you get it from Amazon Canada. And it consists of Wikipedia pages... I think I'm in the wrong business. This started off as a comment. I've now been through nine pages of ghits, and found nothing except mirrors or rehashes. It looks like we've got a Lieutenant Kije here. This article has been up for FOUR YEARS almost to the day, and been edited by all sorts of people. My congratulations to the person who spotted this. Peridon (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spotted it, and I should have marked it for speedy deletion, but was astonished how long it survived and how many editors had "improved" it, so I thought I would tread lightly. It was only in trying to categorize by what state he was born in that it started to smell fishy. It was an interesting case. Chris the speller ^yack 01:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under CSD A7. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlyn Khater[edit]

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

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

autobiography with only the subjects website as a reference nothing on Google news, no evidence of awards and no evidence of notability Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entirely non notable and I will try to speedy it under A7. Safiel (talk) 05:01, 29 February 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. after several relistings, there does not appear to be consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Huynh[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, none found via Google Web or Google News using various versions of his name, including Wong Cheung-fat. The article was prodded, but of the sources added with the removal of the prod template only one was a reliable secondary source, and that one only mentioned Huynh in passing. Huon (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. A notable celebrity for his participation in the pageant, his affairs, and as an artiste for TVB. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]

• Keep will need improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyBilout (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC) — HeyBilout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The main criteria to consider here must be notability, and if he is indeed notable, this must be backed up by reliable sources. Nothing has been added to make this article worthy of a place here. The only possible reliable source, The Standard, mentions Huynh's name in passing as somebody having an affair - not significant coverage. Cloudz679 07:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the main concern here will be translation of available sourses to show his winning a notable award and having significant roles in multiple notable productions,[12] as notability is not dependent upon sources be in an article, but upon them being available. That "nothing has been added" to the article yet is not quite the major concern. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:02, 27 February 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, Deryck C. 22:04, 14 February 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, Bmusician 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. Notable artiste. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and probably a sock(blocked for block evasion)[reply]

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

• Keep Meets WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.[13] Non-English sources are quite fine when English sources are not available. We do not expect nor demand everything notable to be sourcable only in English... and indeed, such is to be expected for someone determinable as notable outside the West. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for further discussion of Schmidt's newly presented argument.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment The Google Search results presented by MichaelQSchmidt are worthless. One is a press release, another three (of twelve) aren't about this Francois Huynh at all, and the majority of the Vietnamese sources (not all of which are independent) is yellow press coverage along the lines of "Huynh goes shopping with his girlfriend" or "Huynh photographed with mysterious girl". If we were to rewrite this article per WP:WEIGHT, it would be something along the lines of "Francois Huynh is a man who had an older girlfriend named Karen. After he broke up with her, he was photographed with another woman." His "multiple significant roles" have not been the subject of any coverage, as far as I can tell. Winning Mr. Hong Kong 2007 might make Huynh notable, but I doubt that's a notable competition in the first place. It's the Hong Kong section of Mister World which was deleted for a lack of notability. Huon (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That paparazzi follow him around and gossip about him must certainly be annoying for him... but one must wonder why they have chosen to do so. Just as with the article on his brother that the nominator failed to get deleted, and like it or not, of note to the millions in Hong Kong is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. I'll do what I can to translate some sources later today, as even the articles about he and his girlfriend out shopping, offer required verifibility of other aspects of the article. And as for the Mister World article being weakly deleted after a meager discussion by 4 editors... and it was NOT unanimous... that article may well be back once the topic gets more attention from Wikipedia editors interested in CHinese topics, as it DOES have sourcability and arguable notability. And yes, Mr. Hong Kong itself needs work, but we do well to not judge something viewed by literally millions of Chinese as automatically non-notable, and perhaps spennd more thime searching for sources and encouraging that hardcopy sources be brought forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please explain why the international Mister World pageant (whose article got deleted) should be a "Chinese topic"? Regarding Huynh, I believe his affair was of interest because his girlfriend's former friend is an extremely wealthy businessman who tried to reclaim gifts worth millions of $HK when she left him for Huynh - but notability is not inherited. Even if Huynh were shown to be notable, per WP:WEIGHT we should cover "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", and unless you want to claim that WP:WEIGHT (like WP:BURDEN?) does not hold for Chinese topics, his love affairs should get a much more prominent coverage in the article than his acting career which isn't supported by any references whatsoever. Basically we would have to rewrite the article entirely. Huon (talk) 21:09, 28 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research[edit]

Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Kinkreet (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. No independent sources at all. As usual, some of the participants in the project have produced some publications. That may help make them notable, but not this project. Any useful knowledge generated through the project can easily be included in the articles on these subjects. Just another article about just another European Union-funded research project (why don't we ever see articles on NIH- or NSF-funded projects?) suffering from the same problems that these articles have in general (see my notes on this subject). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another Euro-project projecting to provide flexible, scalable, integrated something. This particular project aims to deal with the Repository "Landscape" so it might better be termed, not D.R.I.V.E.R. but rather D.R.I.V.E.L. EEng (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability, and without that all I am seeing here is the scoping document for a project. Wikipedia is not a project documentation repository (or "respository" as their site's front page has it); as others have noted, it only appears to be the EU - doling out the largesse to its client institutions - that seems to need this free hosting "solution". It hardly seems worth doing a redirect: maybe just a couple of sentences in Sixth_Framework_Programme#Framework_Programme_6 along with all the other projects that have come and gone with minimal impact? AllyD (talk) 20:53, 29 February 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) 23:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Kutschke[edit]

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

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

Article is about a footballer who has yet to make a professional first team appearance, thus failing the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines. Jared Preston (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jared Preston (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he has not played above the Regionallia, or received significant coverage. The article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This player plays for RB Leipzig, which does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL as a fully professional team. Further, according to this, he has never played for such a team. Also, no evidence of WP:GNG. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 01:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:32, 3 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Resources, Ltd.[edit]

Liberty Resources, Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

submitted via AFC, and declined, created anyway. Fails notability, no gnews hits. Prodded, declined by creator. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per nom. & WP:ORG. Appears to have little, if any, coverage in reliable secondary sources.--JayJasper (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only sources that are readily available are first party, thus it fails WP:RS. Rorshacma (talk) 19:27, 6 March 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. None of the arguments for deletion are compelling, especially in light of our policies and guidelines on lists. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of news presenters[edit]

List of news presenters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is inaccurate, incomplete and not very useful to users. Much of the information is included within individual broadcasters or countries pages. To try and list every person who currently does or ever has read the news in one place is just not possible. There are many thousands of people across the world who fall into the category of this page, and very few are included. It is impossible to make this article accurate, therefore I feel it should be deleted, with relevant information included on individual country/broadcaster pages. Uvghifds (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - worthless and unmaintainable information. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unmaintainably broad. 74.207.78.189 (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reading an AfD further down in the day's log I am reminded that other very broad lists exist in acceptable states, and the page is not actually in any kind of disrepair, the majority of links are blue. I believe lists are by default assumed to be lists of only those entries which satisfy notability guidelines to warrant their own articles. 74.207.78.189 (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination's claims of impossibility are irrelevant because it is our policy that our articles may be less than perfect. Warden (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate list; a list of anything at all compiled on the basis of their notability as shown by Wikipedia articles is obvious possible, as possible as the articles themselves. That there are other notable people who ought to be included is to be solved in the usual way, by making articles about them. Obviously such lists will always be incomplete, for there will always be new people in a profession whose notability has not yet been recognized with Wikipedia articles, but that's true for almost anything. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 6 March 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 un arguable spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GenerationYnot![edit]

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

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

nominated for speedy by multiple editors, blatant spam and advertizing. looks to be a sock/meatpuppet army deleting maintenance tags Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, speedy delete per G11. I will note that the catchphrase itself does seem to be getting some use (according to The Sunday Telegraph (Australia) they're "A generation of young women who blithely out-drink and out-smoke men, who routinely sunbake without protection and some engage in unsafe sex."[14]), but not with a consistent notable meaning as far as I can see.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam, retagged. Hairhorn (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I super duper care, because this page is so blatant, but technically, once a CSD is removed, we are not supposed to renominate. (I also failed at this on this article, but it was before I noticed the mini war going on) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's clearly the creator that removed the tag, so I don't feel like I've broken any rules replacing it. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 28 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GSAR[edit]

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

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

Doesn't appear to be a widely used term. Not mentioned by reliable sources. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete never heard of it before, seems to be a protologism. Gigs (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Leaning Delete – Found this in Acronymfinder.com: What does GSAR stand for?, but not much else. Topic appears to likely fail WP:GNG for notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very obscure acronym, no indication of notability. I have been doing text editing for many years, and I have never heard of it either. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 05:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I would not consider AcronymFinder.com to be a reliable source. Anyone can contribute an acronym and it is not authoritative. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 05:41, 29 February 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) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intentia[edit]

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

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

Lack of notability and historical significance as should be established in inline citations to reliable sources covering the subject in depth (per WP:NCORP). Survived previous AfD in 2005 because it was "publicly listed company", though still has no references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not voting, as the administrator who denied A7, but I do want to say that this was formerly a public company in Sweden and is now an affiliate of another notable company. By the way, nominating an article for A7 after it has survived AfD once before is inappropriate. -- Y not? 17:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both being a public company and an affiliate of another company is not relevant to notability as directly stated in WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting that up for A7 was ridiculously wrong, the article has been around for many years, a regular prod is always better in such a case unless you are the world's foremost expert on the subject.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a Wired news story about a complaint filed, plenty of coverage about the merger, in addition to the normal sort of coverage that you'd expect from a large multinational company. Was the company so bad we need to erase it from history? Gigs (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that the Wired story You are talking about (yes, the one with hatnote "Reader's advisory: Wired News has been unable to confirm some sources for a number of stories written by this author. If you have any information about sources cited in this article, please send an e-mail to sourceinfo[AT]wired.com") seems to fail WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reject the validity of all subject-specific notability guidelines and only use the general notability guideline. The Wired story was also covered by GrepLaw, ITWorld, Annenberg Online Journalism Review, and many other sources. Gigs (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. What other guidelines you reject? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ladies, let go of each other's hair please. Czarkoff, you don't need to answer every comment left here. Just let this AfD run its course. -- Y not? 23:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whether or not a Wired story is a reliable source or not, it's still going to be a short-lived software business that provided applications such as customer relationship management, supply chain management and asset management. The business that bought it out has already been deleted as non-notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawson Software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only thing that seems even remotely notable here is the claimed 2004 revenue, but that's unsourced and the rest is extremely vague, which I can only assume is deliberate. The fact that the software company that bought them out was itself deleted as non-notable is rather telling in this case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found this[15], this [16], this [17], this [18], this [19], this better one [20], and this better one [21], and then I got tired because I figure that was enough but I am confident there are more, they are just not in the article. It took some digging to find these, and many are weeeeak, granted, but a couple are not and even the weak ones are valid sources. The term is very difficult to filter (it means "The intent" in Romanian, and something else in other languages), so you aren't going to find results in the first few pages of a google search, but I think it passes the bar. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the sources mentioned above. The concept of deleting articles because they contain buzzwords would be laughable, if it were not clearly meant seriously: that's what editing is for--and in some cases, the terms are industry standard and just as valid as specialized terms in any sport or science. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG on the available sources. Diego (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, demonstrated to meet the GNG. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:04, 9 March 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 by RHaworth as A7. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mangatrai jewellers[edit]

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

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

Claims of notability cannot be verified, either from the single reference provided or from any web search. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete. nominated. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Borderline spam. No indication of any particular notability. Peridon (talk) 17:09, 28 February 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 Bristol City F.C.. Rlendog (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce around the ground[edit]

Bounce around the ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopaedic, only search results seem to be connected with this page. Mainly original research. References don't seem to support a stand-alone article. Google books results show 3 results, one not connected with this "phenomenon", one based on Wikipedia itself and one which may or may not establish notability. Cloudz679 14:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bristol City F.C.. There are good sources, but the topic does not really seem important enough to stand alone. BigJim707 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - and give it the briefest possible mention. GiantSnowman 17:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge agree with above Edinburgh Wanderer 17:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Per BigJim707. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BigJim707. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:52, 29 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willowburn FC[edit]

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

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

Non-professional football club of unclear notability. League they play for does not have its own article. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 13:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. - Jorgath (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for your concern; not sure how this club is any different to Kangaroo Point Rovers, Newmarket, Beenleigh, Brisbane Force, Ipswich City, Ipswich Knights, Mitchelton FC, Pine Rivers United, Rocklea United, Slacks Creek, Toowoomba Raiders, Western Spirit etc, which are all similar style clubs and have their own pages. Is the key issue here that Football Toowoomba does not have its own page, and if so, should we set this up first? - Yonobarn (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also there are plenty of news links eg http://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/story/2011/05/10/wolves-howling/ http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/09/11/willowburn-high-premiership-decider-south-hawks/ http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2011/02/11/martin-to-start-magpie-turnaround-toowoomba/ http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/05/29/soccer-sides-hunt-win-in-cup-clash/ http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/04/21/rovers-secure-victory-soccer-fixtures-usq/ http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/03/31/warwick-hits-back-from-deficit/ - Yonobarn (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi, Yonobarn, and welcome. To clarify, the problem here is that Wikipedia has certain policies concerning what subjects are "notable" enough to warrant their own article, which is called the General Notability Guideline or WP:GNG for short. Over the history of Wikipedia, some subject areas have been given more specific guidelines for notability, including various sports. The one for association football (the sport also known as soccer) is found at WP:NFOOTBALL. The critical point for it is that, in general, only teams in fully professional leagues are notable enough for inclusion, unless they have some other sort of notability (being the first team in that sport in the country might do it, for an example). We other editors can't evaluate easily whether Willowburn FC is in a fully professional league without knowing anything about the league, so information on Football Toowoomba might help. If it's an amateur or semi-professional league, however, we might still need to delete the team page. If you have a lot of reliable-source references, though, the league page might be able to stand on its own, and include a section on the teams with a short blurb paragraph about each one. Still, we need more information. - Jorgath (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The critical point for it is that, in general, only teams in fully professional leagues are notable enough for inclusion" - that's simply not true. Players have to have played in a fully professional league to merit an article, but there is no such requirement for teams, in fact WP:NFOOTBALL, which you mention, only refers to players, managers and referees and makes no mention of teams...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict):My bad, you're right, and I'm sorry. Am very tired. All right, then, WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't apply. Does anything more specific than WP:GNG? Maybe WP:ORG? - Jorgath (talk) 08:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Run-of-the-mill sports reports don't count. GiantSnowman 08:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable team. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no evidence of meeting any notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 20:24, 8 March 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 Siege of Homs. Although there are not many comments here, it seems there would be agreement on this compromise close, which I too think reasonable DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homs 27 February 2012 killings[edit]

Homs 27 February 2012 killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper Bihco (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reasonning. If it happens in Norway, it is worthy of a long page, but if it happens in Syria, this is different story?--Warbattle (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Should be merged into a more general discussion of the recent assault on Homs, e.g. 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. We can't have a separate page for every day people die in Syria, since events are ongoing and deaths are frequent, and sadly this killing doesn't seem to be particularly exceptional. This isn't about racism or anti-Arab bias, it's simply a question of grouping closely-related events that can best be explained as part of a single article; there isn't a page on Auschwitz 27 February 1942 killings either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: I agree with Colapeninsula -- the general conflict within Syrian and between Syria and its neighbors is surely notable, but each individual incident is not. That's the way a newspaper is written, not an encyclopedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if the page stayed as a standalone, with more expanded content. But if the page is to be merged with another one, it should not be with the general page about the full conflict in Syria. This page has already so many categories, finding a more specific page would be better and more accurate. --Warbattle (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this particular day in some way unique or special regarding the events in syria or homs? If not, it should be merged I could see a page for events just in homs rather than the overall syria article, if there are other events which have recieved coverage that could be used to expand it, however, if this is the only event in homs that has recieved individual coverage, then it would need to go into a more broad article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this page which is probably a better candidate for a merge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Homs . This is a general page about the events in Homs. The killings are notable because I believe that it is the first time that so many civilians have been killed in directed gunfire instead of being hit during a fight between the army and the rebellion. --Warbattle (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, to Siege of Homs per Warbattle. I agree that the day in question is not independently notable (how is it different from the day before and the day after?), but I support Warbattle's rationale that the overall conflict page is long enough to need spinoffs. The Siege of Homs page is a good compromise. - Jorgath (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 29 February 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. I'm not sure why this wasn't snow closed earlier DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastard Shagged my wife[edit]

The Bastard Shagged my wife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Note:Moved to The Bastard Shagged My Wife.

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

The Follies Of Luvland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable book, no refs, no reviews from RS, fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, created by same COI account. PRODs removed (to no-one's surprise) by page author, sans explanation. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing here worth saving! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

The Follies Of Luvland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

with identical rationale.

• Delete. Fails notability criteria. There are references to it online, of course, but they fall under "trivial" according to the first criterion in WP:NBOOK. Someone should have a gentle talk with the creator of this slew of articles about books by this author. -Anagogist (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the articles and the author of the books are the same person. Don't think a gentle talk's going to help here... Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing here worth saving! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Couldn't find coverage in independent sources; no evidence that it satisfies WP:NBOOK. NTox · talk 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a bad title, but no sign of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the remaining entry in this discussion. After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable book, self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable article, there aren't any appropriate third-party sources to support this aside from an Amazon link. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and snow close. This is a pretty blatant self-promotion. I also want to mention that the content on this page is also on User:Molalatladi. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete and snow close as non-notable book. Please note, though, that this AfD has veered away from deletion reasons. Also the second nominated item has been speedied(!?). Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete - Non-notable article, self-promotion. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  ((Db-a7)) states Note that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are specifically not allowed under the A7 criterion. (my underlining) -- Trevj (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, no-one here has advocated a speedy deletion. What's your point? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you mean Jimfbleak's deletion of Follies.... Since it was hosted as web content, I'm thinking A7 was an appropriate rationale. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 6 March 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. Bmusician 15:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeware[edit]

List of freeware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unmaintainable list duplicating the functionality of category:freeware. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notice all the blue links? It meets all requirements for a list article. The rule is you don't destroy a list because a category exist, no reason why both can't exist. And believing the list is "unmaintainable" is not a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that being a duplicate of category is not a valid deletion rationale on its own, the scope of this list is by far too broad (see WP:SALAT) to be at least marginally useful and making maintainability a fairly valid concern: this list omits more entries then it contains and quite a few are red links. It can't be kept up to date without the enormous work which nobody conducted since the previous AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incomplete isn't a reason to delete it either. Most links are blue, with very few red ones. Anything not listed you can add yourself if you want them there. And its scope is not broad. It only list freeware which has its own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 14:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that for quite a long time nobody did it and there is no indication that anyone would. I would consider my work on maintaining such a broad list a waste of time, just as you do. This list will always be outdated and incomplete enough to be regarded as useless at least, though the word "misleading" is a way more appropriate here, as the reader would generally consider it to be a complete list of freeware-related articles on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Duplication, as already stated above by both Dream Focus and Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (the nominator), is not a reason for deletion per WP:CLN. Although the list certainly needs work and hasn't been receiving attention, I don't see how the list is unmaintainable. One issue in particular which will affect the number of visitors and therefore potential maintainers is the almost complete lack of incoming links. According to the toolbox there is a single incoming link from List of free and open source software packages and a redirect which is not linked from anywhere else. Like virtually all lists and articles it needs improvement, the best way to kick start that is to just get on with it and link to the list in question as much as possible. I'd volunteer for that but I already have a handful of lists under my wing which need updating. Someoneanother 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - could add templates/notes/whatever that it's incomplete and should only include applications with a WP page. But it's possibly of use to someone, and could be maintained. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So the doubt in the maintainability of this article prevails. So, the person who is going to update it to link all of the freeware articles on Wikipedia, daily check for new freeware items added and removed and etc for at least a year, please, step out. Or at least link the user page of the person who is going to do it. This article need daily attention, so unless such person exists, it is unmaintainable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that list of requirements is grounded in the reality of WP as a work in progress maintained by volunteers. Once a list is up and running it doesn't require constant updating and isn't likely to receive it, that doesn't mean that upkeep is impossible or that the list is without function. The vast majority of open-ended lists like this will never be complete and will never be up-to-date. Someoneanother 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not you believe it is maintainable is not relevant. That isn't a valid reason to delete something. Many non-list articles have outdated information in them. Dream Focus 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I see a huge difference between outdated articles and wildly incomplete list with no hope for completion. And the breadth of selection criterion is a perfectly valid deletion rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the borg thing go? This is a list. This is a valid list. This list will never be complete, but do help to complete this list. Something like that. I initiated this list, and although I do not feel as the most significant contributor to the list, I do feel somewhat compelled to point out how valid the topic is. I think it is just a list, essential to cataloguing of certain notable subjects, including some of my own, unaffiliatory, favorites and I'd like that sort, the really handy and successful ones, available to people as they have been to me with their stories and if not here, where we list everything about everything, where? In mind is defrag software for instance, process explorer etc., and if the freeware on this list has since become obsolete by open source wares, I'd like to know that fact too as evolutionary history, rather than just delete as though never important, but it's not just the usefulness of the software that is important here. Commercial interests prove themselves unreliable in so many instances, if not now then at some time, and comparable open source is often more attractive, but certain topics remain of solid importance for the pure relevant historical information of it and freeware is the forerunner of open source if nothing else. My gain in accessing this list is personal only, but I can't think off the top of my head that this list is a particularly bad idea, and could never for the life of me understand how nobody had created it before, or how it wasn't filled up by a hundred freeware boffins long before now. This is the stuff of the dream no matter how embroilled in the nightmare. I for one find the games lists, freeware and open source, indispensible for some entertainment. I will become violently defensive if anyone beats up the freeware games list. Anyway, Before open source there was freeware. If we do not stand on the shoulders of giants, we are probably stuck in the mud. What exactly is wrong with it? Do you not find the subject of interest? Do you find it to be choked by non essentials? There's no way a list of freeware is irrelevant in and of itself. I don't know about favouring a category. Apparently that is an unnacceptable argument according to the previous deletion discussion? It wasn't pursued. ~ R.T.G 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid list, as the others have said. It is policy that duplication between a list and category isacceptable; I think recent practice is that it is strongly encouraged in most cases. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 6 March 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) 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Searchbar[edit]

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

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

Previously deleted article, was previously speedy deleted, and still lacks indication of notability. See article's talk page for other editors' concerns. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Smacks of promotion Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - poorly referenced spam/promotional article. After ignoring the download sites and incidental mentions (1 sentence), it is left with only 1 reliable source at best. Dialectric (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not finding significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Here's an article from Smartcomputing.com which includes the search bar in the article: 10 Terrific Toolbars, but not finding other substantive coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 29 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Tipping[edit]

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

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

Vanity page, or so it appears. Subject is not notable. Gregmc12 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria. Only claim to fame seems to be getting nominated for a Gemini Award for editing, but that doesn't establish notability (see WP:FILMMAKER etc). Having worked on shows that have been nominated in other categories is definitely not evidence of anything. By comparison, all recent nominees for the Academy Award for Best Film Editing have articles but a lot of those are very thin and poorly sourced, e.g. Andrew Weisblum, and I wouldn't be upset seeing some of them deleted either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Colapeninsula. Additionally, looking at the references provided in the article, most of them are not about the person himself. Most are about shows that he's worked on, with his name only being mentioned in the credits. That's really not enough to establish any sort of independent notability. Rorshacma (talk) 19:43, 6 March 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 DGG as G11. (WP:NAC). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narongrit Waraporn[edit]

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

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

Subject does not appear to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. Paul_012 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a (rather poor) CV and shows nothing to suggest notability. Emeraude (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any notability elements for PROF in article. Also, google scholar shows citations of 5, 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, which is too low. In addition, no newspaper or magazine mention from a google search... Tradedia (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - complete spam - WP:Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Seeming as I've already deleted it once, I'll leave it to another admin to check over. SmartSE (talk) 16:18, 28 February 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.