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. Article was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak at 15:56 on 8 July 2012. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text From Dog[edit]

Text From Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

WP:Essay, I guess just look at it. The Determinator p t c 23:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article based on run-of-the-mill newspaper "interesting animal" feature story of the type often run on slow news days. Not notable and not encyclopedic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 8 July 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. See User:Sandstein/AfD closing for methodological explanations. This is a borderline case, as recognized by the previous AfD's closer. The issue is whether our notability criteria are met. A majority of opinions think that they are (8 keep to 4 delete and 2 merge opinions, according to the auto-count). Most "keep" opinions are relatively weak, in my opinion, because they address the sourcing situation only in the aggregate, which they consider sufficient for notability, and do not address the nominator's very detailed analysis of the quality and depth of the sources. On the basis of the strength of argument, therefore, I am inclined to close this discussion with a deletion. However, because the evaluation of sources is a matter of editorial judgment, I am reluctant to unilaterally dismiss the holistic approach pursued by the "keep" side outright. On the whole, therefore, I can't find in this discussion a sufficiently clear consensus to delete the article, and must apply the principle "when in doubt, don't delete".  Sandstein  06:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Universe Today[edit]

Universe Today (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The previous nomination for deletion of this article was on 11 August 2011 by RL0919 (talk · contribs), who wrote:

This article about a website provides no indication of coverage in independent sources that would provide notability. I was able to find news listings from the site and descriptions of it in non-independent material (e.g., in the book the site distributed), but only a few passing mentions otherwise. Survived AFD in 2006 with arguments based on its Alexa rankings and the fact that it was mentioned in blogs -- stuff that would not be considered good arguments under current AFD standards. RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

His words remain true eleven months later. Delete this article per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Despite two previous AfDs and over six years of existence (this article was created on 11 January 2006), this article does not cite any third-party reliable sources. A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return passing mentions. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires that topics receive nontrivial coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. No one in the previous AfDs has been able to provide even one such source. The article currently fails the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability. As to Wikipedia:Notability (web), I do not believe passing it would allow this article to remain. As S Marshall (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 12#Kate Oxley:

DRV has tended to find, of late, that the GNG trumps all SNGs. I like this: it feels right to me that there should be a simple test, and that inclusionists should not get to argue that meeting a SNG prevents deletion, and also that deletionists should not get to argue that failing a SNG leads to deletion. I'd like this simple and clear view to continue, which means I endorse the finding in this case. As I've said before, I think this means we can go around demoting the SNGs to essay status.

I agree with S Marshall's position on subject-specific notability guidelines' being trumped by the general notability guideline. Therefore, I support deleting this article for failing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Analysis of the sources in the article:

1. "Universetoday.com Site Info". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2011-08-04. – Alexa is not a reliable source because there is no editorial oversight over the page. Tantamount to a directory listing, the website does not establish notability because it is not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.
2. "Privacy Policy". Retrieved 2011-08-20. – Universe Today's privacy policy is not a third-party reliable source.
3. Ian O'Neil (23 March 2009). "Happy 10th Birthday Universe Today!". AstroEngine. Retrieved 2011-08-21. – the source source states:

   Wow! The Universe Today is ten years old!

   It’s one of those websites that I took for granted for many years, until Fraser Cain gave me the outstanding opportunity to write for it on December 21st, 2007.

   Because the author has been intimately involved with Universe Today, he cannot be considered an independent source.

4. "Contact Us". 2006-07-06. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – Universe Today's contact us page is not a third-party reliable source.
5. Fraser Cain, Pamela L. Gay, Thomas Foster; Phil Plait; Gay; Foster; Plait (2008). "It Takes an e-Village". ASP Conference Series. 369: 69. Bibcode:2008ASPC..389...69C. ISBN 978-1583816486.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) – the source states:

   In the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today combined BAUT Forums, thousands of people gather on a daily basis to talk and ask questions about astronomy.

   Google Book states that there is "1 page matching 'Universe Today' in this book". A passing mention does not meet the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Furthermore, as Universe Today's founder, the article's author Fraser Cain is not independent.

6. Lutz D. Schmadel (2009). "(158092) Frasercain". Dictionary of Minor Planet Names: Addendum to Fifth Edition: 2006 - 2008. Springer. ISBN 978-3642019647. – This Dictionary of Minor Planet Names states:

   Fraser Cain (1971- ) is an engineer, book and magazine author. He is also publisher of Universe Today, which reports news on astronomy and space science to millions of people every year.

   In this dictionary of minor planet names, Fraser Cain is mentioned because a planet is named after him. The mention of Universe Today is tangential. It is insufficient to pass the requirement of "significant coverage" at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

7. Ian O'Neill (27 October 2008). "Universe Today banned from Digg.com". AstroEngine. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – at first glance, this source appears to suffice. However, the author writes:

   Whilst in the grand scheme of things, getting banned from Digg doesn’t mean squat, after all the Universe Today team (including myself) will continue to deliver the highest quality material we can muster. It’s just a shame our writing won’t be accessing the audience of the web’s largest communities in the future. However, it’s a bigger shame the admin peeps at Digg can’t see what is going wrong with their democratic website.

   This source is neither reliable nor secondary. Its lack of neutrality makes it an unreliable source so it cannot be used to establish notability.

8. Emily Lakdawalla (11 August 2011). "The Role of Press Releases in Space News Coverage". The Planetary Society. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – the source states:

   Go ahead and check around at some space news sites -- Universe Today, SPACE.com, MSNBC's Space section, or blogs like Bad Astronomy -- for the period from June 5 to 11 to see what topics they covered. You'll see a lot of these press-released stories covered on most of those sites. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- press-released stories are pre-selected for being interesting to the public, so it makes sense that multiple news outlets should choose to write about them. And these sites aren't churnalist ones; the writers do independent reporting. In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories. I'm just pointing out that a large portion of stories that get covered are the ones that are selected for press-release treatment, and a lot of outlets cover the same stories.

   That Universe Today is tangentially cited as an example does not establish notability.

9. Pamela L. Gay; Fraser Cain; Phil Plait; Emily Lakdawalla; Jordan Raddick (2009). "Live Casting: Bringing Astronomy to the Masses in Real Time" (PDF). CAP Journal. 6: 26–29. Bibcode:2009CAPJ....6...26G. – this source is being used to verify "Several peer-reviewed papers have been written about the impact of Universe Today in space-related news." in the Wikipedia article. The source states:

   Fraser Cain is a publisher of Universe Today, a space and astronomy news website.

   In addition to this being an egregious misrepresentation, the source is not secondary and has said nothing about Universe Today's impact in space-related news.

10. Pamela L. Gay; R. Bemrose-Fetter; G. Bracey; Fraser Cain (2007). "Astronomy Cast: Evaluation of a podcast audience's content needs and listening habits". CAP Journal. 1: 24. Bibcode:2007CAPJ....1...24G. – see #9. This article shares a coauthor, Fraser Cain, with the above source.
11. P. Russo (2007). "Science communication distribution services in astronomy and planetary sciences outreach" (PDF). Proceedings from the IAU/National Observatory of Athens/ESA/ESO Conference, Athens, Greece, 8-11 October 2007: 232–236. Bibcode:2008ca07.conf..232R. – the source states:

    Podcasting refers to the production and online subscription-based distribution of media files on the internet (as audio or as video podcast, also known as vodcast).
    Example:
    • Hubblecast: http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/hubblecast.html • Hidden Universe: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/features/hiddenuniverse/index.shtml
    • Planetary Radio: http://planetary.org/radio/
    • Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/category/podcasts/

    This passing mention does not establish notability.

12. Ian O'Neill (28 October 2008). "The Universe Today is unbanned from Digg.com!". AstroEngine. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – the source's author is the same as source #7.
13. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b4221044336007.htm – Universe Today receives some coverage:
    "Fraser Cain realized on Mar. 2 that his 12-year-old astronomy website had lost 20 percent of its traffic in five days."
    "Like every Web business, Universe Today gets a sizable portion of its traffic via Google, which accounts for 65 percent of U.S. Web searches, according to Nielsen."
    Universe Today began appearing lower on results pages when Internet users googled astro-related topics. So Cain logged onto a Google forum to testify on behalf of his site's quality. "If there are some changes you'd like me to make, just tell me what I need to do," Cain wrote. Elsewhere in the forum, distraught business owners—financial advisers, lingerie salespeople—raged and pled for clemency. "I'm a smoldering cinder from last week's napalm strike," wrote one publisher.
    At Universe Today, Cain says he's not waiting for a response from Google. If astronomers can figure out black holes, his thinking goes, Webmasters can handle Google. "We're in the dark right now," says Cain. "But complaining about it doesn't do any good."
    I do not consider this to be "significant coverage" of Universe Today. Titled "Matt Cutts: The Greenspan of Google", the article is mainly about Matt Cutter and Google's search-engine optimization. Universe Today is used to frame a discussion of search engine optimization. It is, though, much better coverage than the previous 11 sources. Excluding the quotations from people affiliated with Universe Today, there are roughly five sentences about Universe Today in this 36-sentence article.
14. Aisling Spain (17 April 2011). "Embargo system is broken, says Universe Today, and leaves the game". Association of British Science Writers. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – the sole coverage of Universe Today is:

    The space and astronomy news site Universe Today has decided to simply ignore embargoed stories as of 31 March 2011. "Everybody knows embargoes are broken, but nobody's willing to take the first step and abandon the system," Fraser Cain, publisher of the Universe Today site, told ABSW.

    The remainder of the article discusses various other websites such as Embargo Watch and Faculty of 1000 (F1000).

In the previous AfD, a participant wrote that this page mentioned "an independent source that, in all likelyhood, covers the subject in detail". The page was behind a paywall so could not be viewed. I uploaded the article to https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/kdgcZh and invited other participants to make their own judgments about whether it established notability:

Unfortunately, it does not. That's a monthly column about web resources for physics and astronomy teachers. The resource focused on, in one paragraph, is the podcast Astronomycast, and the article merely mentions that Astronomy cast is hosted by Fraser Cain, who edits Universe Today. There is no detail about Universe Today...in fact, nothing of substance is said. This article cannot be used to establish notability.Astrocog (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Astrocog; this source does not sufficiently describe the subject in-depth to fulfill the general notability guidelines. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this, plus all the others, and the endorsements from other organizations like The Planetary Society, does fulfill the GNG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Implausibility of a merge to Fraser Cain:

Contributors in the past have urged a merge to Fraser Cain, the founder of Universe Today. This is untenable because Fraser Cain was deleted in September 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraser Cain for failing the notability guidelines.

Alleged factual errors:

Shortly after the previous AfD was closed as "no consensus", 98.164.98.44 (talk · contribs) noted that there were several factual errors in the article:

I discussed this at User talk:Cunard/Archive 8#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination), where I wrote:

Universe Today is not a borderline article, in my opinion. No reliable sources nontrivially cover the website. In May 2006, the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today wrote: "...this comes very close to a consensus to delete..." Over five years later, the article excessively relies on unreliable, non-neutral, and primary sources, and there are egregious misrepresentations of the sources. This bombardment of the article is unhealthy. Because there is little useful content in the sources, assertions are fabricated and falsely reinforced by the sources. ... I am not merely mechanically upholding the notability guideline. I believe that the verifiability policy and the no original research policy, both of which defend the integrity of this site, should be upheld. Cunard (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion with the previous AfD closer:

The previous AfD closer wrote:

What I would be very much in favour of, would be a general discussion to establish if a) significant use within Wikipedia as a reliable source can in any way be taken account of when considering notability (personally I think not formally, though it may be a factor to take into account); and b) clarity on "significant" coverage - if a source has only one sentence, but the sentence says "this is the most notable Foo in the world", is that significant?

I wrote:

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26#Site good enough to be a source, but not notable enough to have an article in July 2008 was very clear that a website's being cited on Wikipedia does not confer notability. I draw your attention to Protonk (talk · contribs)'s comment:

This happens all the time. 90% of the academic journals out there don't need articles, there wouldn't be any independent sources to cover them, but we still use them as sources. The reliable source guidelines don't really operate on the same wavelength as the notability guidelines. The source doesn't have to be "important" per se, just has to exercise editorial control and represent information in a reasonable way. For a website example, Economic Principals. I'll defend it to the death as RS, but I can't imagine writing an article on it. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Protonk (talk · contribs)'s comment. The defense of an article based on how many times it's cited on Wikipedia is weak and not grounded in policy. It is rebutted in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. Regarding your second example, an RfC would likely conclude that it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If an article gave the subject the passing mention ("Foo won the prestigious X Web Award."), it would be presumed notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria #2:

The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

If a source said that "Foo want the Nobel Peace Prize" or "Foo received the Pulitzer Prize", and there was no significant coverage, the topic would still be considered notable because of the prestige of those prizes.

I can find no sources that give such prestige to Universe Today.

In other words, none of the sources say anything "significant" ... Myself, I see neither "significant coverage" nor anything along the lines of "Universe Today is the most notable website in the world". Cunard (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that quote comes close to saying that "this is the most notable Foo in the world". That a The Planetary Society writer tangentially mentioned it twice does not establish notability. Her statement contributes not to the notability of Universe Today, but to vouching for its reliability (Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26#Site good enough to be a source, but not notable enough to have an article).

Because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Wikipedia:Notability, and because the article fails the policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: The article has been the target of sockpuppetry in the past; see the deletion log for this AfD and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universe Daily/Archive and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Universe Daily. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum to addendum: The article has been the target of sockpuppetry from detractors of the website; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universe Daily/Archive#20 August 2011:

  Exobiologist is a new account that could easily described as a WP:SPA with a grudge on Universe Today; see his derogatory statement at AfD and his edit warring over speedy deletion tag removed by third-parties, something that appears to fit the MO of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Universe Daily. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

  Cunard (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have notified the previous AfD participants: RL0919 (talk · contribs) (diff), Rocksanddirt (talk · contribs) (diff), Iridia (talk · contribs) (diff), FuFoFuEd (talk · contribs) (diff), Headbomb (talk · contribs) (diff), Astrocog (talk · contribs) (diff), Spartaz (talk · contribs) (diff), Cerejota (talk · contribs) (diff), I Jethrobot (talk · contribs) (diff), Reyk (talk · contribs) (diff), and SilkTork (talk · contribs) (diff) of this deletion discussion. I have not notified 202.124.72.139 (talk · contribs), 202.124.72.217 (talk · contribs), and Runningbackwards36 (talk · contribs) because the IPs seem to be dynamic IPs and the user was blocked as a sockpuppet. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for me the lack of indepth coverage in reliable independent third party sources as required by WP:GNG and Wikipedia:NOT#INTERNET are the deciding factors. I came here by seeing a notification (as per Cunard immediately above) on another users' talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per the mind-bogglingly researched and reasoned explanation of the nominator, and the supplemental contributions of people like Protonk. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The comments about socks above may convey an incorrect impression. There is a long term abuser who is fascinated by various things, one being forums where astronomy is discussed. That person has abused the forums and Wikipedia (and is banned at the forums and here), but is in no way connected with the Universe Today website. There is no reason to mention the activities of the abuser here—they are totally irrelevant for an AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. While they previous presence of socks on an article bears no weight in an AfD decision, commenting on their previous presence can be helpful in helping editors who are trying to understand the tortious history of this article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but to just mention socks with no explanation may easily be interpreted as a suggestion that someone with a connection to the website has tried to puff up this article (that's the normal situation). In this case, it's quite different, and while links were given, a very large amount of reading would be required to work out that the socks have attacking the article (and promoting their own fake websites). Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is probably the longest nomination statement that I've ever seen on an Afd. While I applaud the nominator's desire to make a clear case, I really think he/she went overboard here. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "I rely on Universe Today ... to give me an independent look at big news stories" appears to be a firm assertion of notability, and meets all the requirements of WP:GNG - it is not a trivial mention (and nobody could reasonably say that such a firm and obvious statement of a website's importance to a staff writer of The Planetary Society is trivial) and is from an appropriate source. That we have such a source, however, does not mean the article is notable enough for a stand alone article, but the significance of that source should not be dismissed or downplayed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A multitude of interesting audio programs with important value for one's learning are now available on the Web. In the category to which the previous mentioned Science Friday program pertains, there are for instance The Naked Scientist Online (n.d.); Nature Podcast (n.d.); and Universe Today (n.d.)" from Finding Your Online Voice:Stories Told by Experienced Online Educators by J. Michael Spector. That is now two independent and reliable sources asserting the importance of the website. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of citations to Universe Today in Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy is worth noting. [1] And, while this is tangential and requires interpretation, I find this evidence in The Tungus Event, Or, The Great Siberian Meteorite by John Engledew, that Universe Today publishes new theories by notable figures such as Edward Drobyshevski which are then discussed elsewhere, to be significant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The website is frequently cited on Google News by a range of sources including Discovery.com and Scientific American. Most of the Google News hits are to Universe Today itself, though there are plenty of hits to other sites. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary notability criterion does not deal in assertions of notability. It deals in actual notability, which is in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. People's assertions of how they use Universe Today, numbers of times that Universe Today is cited as a source, and incidental "for instances", are irrelevant to the primary notability criterion. What matters is how much the sources describe, document, and analyse Universe Today in depth. It's not about whether someone says on xyr web log that xe relies upon Universe Today, or the hit counts that you can wring out of a Google News search. It's about whether people writing about this subject give enough depth of coverage to make an encyclopaedia article, and actually provide knowledge of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I understand the borderline nature of the evidence for notability, and the concerns that prompted this and previous AfDs, however, on reflection, I feel that the assertions of notability I have shown above are within the GNG criteria, which combined with the amount of citation to the website indicates its significance and notability within the space news community. The article needs a clean up, and I would commit to helping out if consensus is that the article is kept. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above for how you've conflated assertions of notability with actual notability. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A very thorough nomination, however SilkTork makes a persuasive arguement. Add in that Universe Today content is reprinted/syndicated in publications such as The Christian Science Monitor[2], and this interview with Fraser Cain in Search Engine Watch from last month. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those points address the fundamental issue of in depth sourcing that makes for an encyclopaedia article. SilkTork's "persuasive argument" was in part a source (source #8) that said that the web logger relied upon Universe Today. It's used in the article to source a statement saying that that person indeed relies (but not solely) upon the WWW site. If this is in-depth coverage, then: How come it supports exactly one sentence in the article after all these years? And what knowledge have you as a reader gained from reading an encyclopaedia article saying that one person relies upon this WWW site amongst others? Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Hmm, there's a certain irony in the fact that we're debating the notability of this site while at the same time we're using it as a reference on a multitude of other articles. As usual, I suspect there's something not quite optimal about WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's that Wikipedia articles relies on notability as the inclusion standard, while Wikipedia sourcing relies on reliability as an inclusion standard, and the two are very much different. (If they weren't we'd have tonnes of book articles on textbooks) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. (Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.) Shrug. RJH (talk)
• Keep- I agree with SilkTork. I normally don't like adding together a bunch of less-than-optimal sources and calling them, collectively, substantial enough for an article. But in this case I think it's the right way to go. There is no controversial, promotional, or dubious content in the article and the fact that so many other aricles use UniverseToday as a source makes it sensible to cover it here. Also strongly protest the deletion of a legitimate merge target just to facilitate deleting this one. Reyk _YO! 07:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has drawn my attention to the last part of your statement. He is concerned that it appears to infer a motive which is not supported by evidence. I don't think you intended to give that impression. From reading the prior discussion on Cunard's talkpage, and the deletion itself, what is clear is that Cunard felt that neither this nor Fraser Cain are notable topics - and the consensus of that AfD was that Fraser Cain was not notable. Cunard did ask me after I closed the previous AfD on this topic as No consensus, if he could nominate it again, and I advised him that I was not in favour of such a move, but that it wasn't against policy. I think it is clear from the detail of the nomination that Cunard had put a lot of thought and research into this AfD, and your link shows that he cleared with me that nominating again was within policy. I don't think there is an appropriate order in which articles can or should be nominated for deletion, and multiple nominations can be confusing in themselves.SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Stuartyeates and Orange Mike: Thank you for reading through my detailed nomination. Would you take a look at SilkTork's additional sources and determine whether they, in your view, are enough to establish notability? Thank you.

  Reply to Johnuniq: I have added an addendum to my comment above explaining that the sockpuppetry is from detractors of Universe Today. I did not elaborate upon the sockpuppetry because I believed the link to the AfD's deletion log unambiguously demonstrated the sockpuppets' desire to delete this article, not puff it up.

  Reply to Mark Arsten: A comprehensive AfD nomination was necessary to analyze the deficiencies in all the sources. I consider this to be a clear-cut case for deletion, but some users have perverse interpretations of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline that permit passing mentions to establish notability.

  Reply to SilkTork: "I rely on Universe Today ... to give me an independent look at big news stories" was source #8 in my analysis above. The source actually says "In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories." The tangentional coverage in which Universe Today is name dropped does not "mee[t] all the requirements of WP:GNG". Whereas in-depth secondary analysis of Universe Today would satisfy WP:GNG, a name drop with no analysis specifically about Universe Today does not.

  "A multitude of interesting audio programs with important value for one's learning are now available on the Web. In the category to which the previous mentioned Science Friday program pertains, there are for instance The Naked Scientist Online (n.d.); Nature Podcast (n.d.); and Universe Today (n.d.)" from Finding Your Online Voice:Stories Told by Experienced Online Educators by J. Michael Spector – Universe Today is name dropped with two other audio programs: The Naked Scientist Online and Nature Podcast. There is no secondary analysis about Universe Today's audio program or the website itself. The lack of nontrivial coverage about Universe Today renders the source useless in a Wikipedia article. It can be used to cite the fact that J. Michael Spector mentioned Universe Today (along with The Naked Scientist Online and Nature Podcast) as being among "[a] multitude of interesting audio programs". But it cannot be used to cite why it should be considered an interesting audio program. The inclusion of this information in the article is not particularly helpful to readers.

  The Tungus Event, Or, The Great Siberian Meteorite states: "Recently, E. Drobyshenski of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Universe Today website 27 March 2009) has proposed a new adjunct to the cometary theory holding that a piece departed from the main body of a comet busily grazing the Earth's atmosphere and began a comparatively slow descent." This is a passing mention. Universe Today is used merely as a citation. There is no secondary analysis about the article itself or the website.

  The number of citations in Universe Today in Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy and the frequent citations in Google News are irrelevant when considering Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. As Uncle G (talk · contribs) writes: "What matters is how much the sources describe, document, and analyse Universe Today in depth."

  Reply to Uncle G: Thank you for explaining the heart of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and why the sources that mention Universe Today fail to meet the guideline.

  Reply to Eclipsed: That Universe Today is reprinted/syndicated in the Christian Science Monitor does not satisfy the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. This interview with Fraser Cain is primarily a primary source because most of the content is derived from Fraser Cain himself.

  Reply to RJH and 70.49.127.65: 70.49.127.65, your explanation about the divergence between Wikipedia's notability and reliability standards is an excellent explanation about why some sources are reliable but not notable, while others are notable but not reliable.

  Reply to Reyk: Fraser Cain was not a "legitimate merge target" because the topic failed Wikipedia:Notability. As Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraser Cain:

  We definitely need more sources to keep this article, though the one from JPL does fine at confirming the statement about 158092 Frasercain. If that's the only valid source, though... yikes. I find it hard to believe that this subject isn't notable, but if there aren't sources, then that's that.

  Because discussion of a merge of Universe Today to Fraser Cain would be a distraction from discussing the merits of Universe Today, I nominated the Fraser Cain Wikipedia article for deletion because it, too, failed Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you mislabel a "distraction" I call a possible alternative. If a magazine and its editor are not potential subjects for a merge, I don't know what is. An article doesn't need to meet the GNG to be merged into another, and I have no idea where you got that notion. Demanding that two parts of a potentially notable subject be treated separately and deleting them one at a time is not much different to dividing an already notable subject into enough pieces and deleting them one at a time. I think it's clear from the discussion I linked to that you have your heart set on getting rid of Universe Today and to do that you need to eliminate all the other options. I do not like that attitude. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "An article doesn't need to meet the GNG to be merged into another, and I have no idea where you got that notion." I have never stated that an article must meet the GNG to be merged into another. I categorically disavow this opinion and have never subscribed to it.

      This strawman argument is unpersuasive because I have stated that neither Fraser Cain nor Universe Today passes Wikipedia:Notability. Merging one non-notable topic into another is undesirable.

      If you believe Fraser Cain was wrongfully deleted, you are free to submit a review at DRV. The statement that "you have your heart set on getting rid of Universe Today and to do that you need to eliminate all the other options" reeks of ungrounded bad faith.

      Attacking the nominator rather than focusing on the article and the sources at hand usually happens only when one's position is weak. It is a red-herring tactic that I hope will not distract AfD participants. Cunard (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've taken a look at new sources, as requested. I see nothing to change my mind. "Relied upon", "authoratative" and "frequently republished" are not relavent to WP:GNG, only in-depeth coverage by independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the sources as a group represent significant coverage in my opinion. As discussed above, the nominator's violation of WP:GAME by sequencing their actions to maximize the perceived probability of deletion merits note, as well. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has drawn my attention to the last part of your comment. I have commented on the discussion referred to above. I feel you may have been emboldened by the above comment to make a more direct personal statement than you would normally. Commenting directly on people rather than the issue under discussion can create an unpleasant environment. An assumption of the nominator's motives is generally not welcome and helpful in an AfD - we are here to discuss the sourcing and notability of an article topic, not engage in personal slights. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would say "merge" if I knew of a suitable destination. Over the course of the previous AFD, editors found enough to nudge it to the margins of notability, but not enough to make a particularly useful standalone article. Probably the best solution would be for this and several similar articles to be merged into a List of astronomy websites article. That way each site could get the single paragraph it deserves, instead of attempts to pad out article length with references to minor mentions. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the excellent suggestion. I have created List of astronomy websites. The guideline at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of companies and organizations states:

  A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.

  Because the guideline permits the inclusion of subjects that fail the notability requirements, I have merged the entire Universe Today article into the list with the exception of the "What's Up" section. I merged the entire article even though some of it is fluff and trivia that should be deleted. Rather than delete the trivia myself, I ask a proponent of retention to do so. SilkTork, I expect you to keep your promise above to clean up the section. ("The article needs a clean up, and I would commit to helping out if consensus is that the article is kept.")

  Some examples:

  "Several peer-reviewed papers have mentioned Universe Today as being a space-related news website.[9][10][11]" – this sentence was included with a bombardment of sources to inflate notability.

  "In 2008 the site was briefly banned for about a day from Digg.com, and then unbanned.[19][24]" – trivia included to inflate notability. This has little encyclopedic value to the readers.

  "In March 2011, Businessweek reported that the site had lost 20 percent of its traffic in five days after a change in the page ranking algorithm of Google." – this is tangentially related to the website.

  At Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect, the closing administrator wrote:

There is broad agreement that merge and redirect arguments are valid for AfD and should if possible be settled in closure, rather than deferred to the article's talk page for more conversation after.

I nominated the article for deletion when I noticed that none of the sources provided nontrivial coverage of the subject. The bombardment of sources to inflate notability resulted in inclusion of non-encyclopedic trivia and misrepresentations (see this correction by SilkTork of a misrepresentation introduced a year earlier). I maintain that the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline per my analysis of the sources above and ask that this AfD decide whether there is consensus to enforce a merge/redirect to List of astronomy websites#Universe Today. Cunard (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was unaware of this discussion and just AFDd the new list. I've withdrawn that nomination to let this discussion play out, but in its current form, I feel that this list violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and with somewhat arbitrary inclusion criteria it doesn't seem like much of an improvement. --W. D. Graham 16:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the list by relying on Lists of websites and failed to take into consideration whether it violated WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is meant to complement Category:Astronomy websites by including both notable astronomy websites and non-notable astronomy websites that have received tangential coverage in reliable sources. I think this is a good compromise position for this AfD: It dissuades users from bombarding the article with poor sources, trivia, and fluff to create a façade of notability. Instead, at List of astronomy websites, the non-encyclopedic information can be removed in favor of retaining only a short encyclopedic summary of the website. Please do not withdraw that nomination. List articles are not my area of expertise, so perhaps an AfD can attract experienced users to refine the inclusion criteria of List of astronomy websites so that it does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, if, at the end of seven days, the list cannot be improved to satisfy the WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies, then it can be deleted and the discussion at this AfD can focus solely on whether Universe Today can be kept or deleted.

  I request that this AfD be relisted by the reviewing administrator after seven days have elapsed, so that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites can come to a conclusion before a decision is made here. Cunard (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unambiguously notable, keep. Sources clearly establish notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deletion arguments are nothing but copy-pasta from the 3rd nomination, I'll copy-paste my replies from the 3rd nomination

You know, not every source is present to established notability, many are there because of WP:V. In particular, WP:PRIMARY, explicitly states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Saying "Ha! You used the site itself to source basic claims made about it, like who's in charge, and who's the editor proves it's non-notable! We should have a peer-reviewed third party source to establish that Nancy Atkinson is in fact the senior editor at Universe Today" is utterly ridiculous. Likewise sources that like Bibcode:2008ASPC..389...69C are dismissed with the baCK of the hand because you can only see one sentence from a Google excerpt is just nonsense. The full article's available and covers UT, BA, (more specifically the BAUT foms) very extensively, as part of conferences held by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. If you bothered to read it, you'd see it's far from promotional material, it's a rather terse analysis of the behaviour of BAUT forum users, as what it means for online astronomy communities in general.

But you know, you're absolutely right, being the biggest astronomy news site out there means = not notable enough for Wikipedia. That makes sense.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing more than passing mentions. It sometimes happens that an important, or influential thing among a small group of people is just not something that is often talked about in third party coverage. The simple solution is to write about it if you are in a position to write about it in a way that would satisfy our notability guidelines. And don't sell out to something that's going to be paywalled, either. Gigs (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the people citing the use of O'Neill seem to forget that Discovery News is a published source with an editorial board, not just a zine. The opinions of O'Neill may be in praise of the resource, but the facts are verifiable. While this does not assert notability, it does show that the rationale of the nominator is flawed, and that notable sources may exist. It also appears that all the participants in this debate are non-astronomers and may not have closely looked for sources. Deleting now would be premature. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 02:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I addressed the O'Neill sources in source #3 and source #7 as being insufficient to establish notability because he works for Universe Today. I have closely searched for sources and have been unable to find significant coverage about Universe Today. This comment doesn't indicate why Universe Today should be retained as a separate article. Cunard (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you fail to realize that O'Neill has to go through an editorial board to get his information onto Discovery News. The fact that he happens to be a part of the team is immaterial if his writing has gone through a published source. Even if you disregard this completely, remember that the IAU has recognized Universe Today by naming a minor planet after it. That's no small achievement and clearly asserts that the planet is notable. Your comment is like asserting that Michio Kaku is not notable because he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, and then the Wall Street Journal happened to cover him later (this really happened).

It's evident that you're not an astronomer, Cunard. Your argument has clearly been shown to be a strawman, and the consensus among people who are astronomy regulars on this encyclopedia is that the article should be kept. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 16:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• I draw people's attention to List of astronomy websites (AfD discussion), which came out of this discussion and should be considered under the same umbrella here. Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep I find Cunard's analysis flawed in many particulars. I am somewhat astonished to see this back here yet again - the article is cited to peer-reviewed sources, there's a minor planet named because this site has made a notable astronomy outreach contribution - the IAU doesn't hand out names like popcorn, the individuals involved have to have made notable contributions of some kind. As per Headbomb, I stand by my Keep from the third nomination. Iridia (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IAU offers naming rights to the dicoverer(s), I believe. Looking at the reference given, one of the descriptions on the same page is "is the grandchild of the discoverer". This is not a notable achievement. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: I am used to them coming to my attention in a professional context, when x professional astronomer or y significant amateur are recognised for their contributions, which has been the customary usage of the right to name. If one works in the field, getting a minor planet is normally a compliment/recognition by colleagues. Dunno what's with grandkids etc, there seems to have been a bit of it in that naming batch. Iridia (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example: "Astronomers often use the names as an acknowledgement of someone’s contributions to science or culture."

• Keep Above is the claim that this interview with Fraser Cain can be ignored as a primary source, but the key point from that interview is valid: the Universe Today website "is currently one of the most popular astronomy blogs on the net" (the opinion of the interviewer—and much more than puffery as the interviewer is clearly impressed). Such a conclusion is grounds for establishing notability, particularly when combined with the refs in the article. Each item is only a weak indication of notability, but this is not a bureaucracy with a precise formula for determining notability—the spirit of WP:GNG is satisfied by the links given that the article is not a promotion or puff piece, and that the subject is of encyclopedic value. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looking only at "Universe Today" and Cain only turned up three reliable sources: October 2, 2006-professor-featured-in-astronomy-podcast/article_d8b28afa-571e-586e-b3f5-13cd013b2616.html, one from Springfield State Journal-Register (November 21, 2006), June 5, 2012, only support the text, "Fraser Cain, founder of the space website Universe Today." However, when I searched for UniverseToday.com, I got more articles, going back to September 8, 1999. Others found include: February 25, 2004, October 21, 2004, September 24, 2005, January 27, 2006, March 10, 2008, February 23, 2009, March 2, 2010, October 19, 2010, October 7, 2011, January 19, 2012, and June 9, 2012. However, even if you took all the info about Universe Today from these reliable sources and the ones cited in the above discussion and in the article, they would not add up to enough content to support a stand alone article under WP:GNG. In addition, there is no significant coverage in any reference. As for the keep arguments about Universe Today being important, even if true, there's not enough info from reliable sources to put in an article on Universe Today. An essentially blank article on Universe Today won't do anyone any good. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bank House[edit]

Bank House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A one line stub. There seems to be nothing online, apart from the very occasional real estate listing, to show the building has any notability. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article lacks reliable sources showing any notability, even if the single source in the article were sufficient, it doesn't describe anything notable about the building, only that it exists; article fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 18:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- There are a limited number of tall buildings in central Birmingham. I do not regard this as a particularly notable one. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liviu Bird[edit]

Liviu Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A footballer who plays for a team in the Premier Development League, a non-professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He does write blogs for bleacherreport. He just wrote his first blog for the New York Times and has done a few for Equalizer soccer blog. He just graduated from Seattle Pacific University with a degree in journalism. There are no independent, reliable references about him. He is just starting out in his profession. Case of WP:TOOSOON. Prod was contested because, "Added more information, and deleted proposed deletion notice - Bird plays for a fully professional club, and is notable for being a player/journalist." Bgwhite (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - certainly not notable as a soccer player, and doesn't look notable as a journalist. GiantSnowman 11:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as a footballer, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Doesn't look notable as journalist either. Fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 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 deletion as a hoax. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Factory Day[edit]

Unity Factory Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The article has been around since 2003. Since 2007 I've been watching this day come and forth in the "Day of the Year" article, decided to check the holiday in the web and there's no such thing as Unity Factory Day. If this is a Yemeni day, it would have an Arabic name of it. Plus the first edit history of the article clearly shows that the article is a fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochelimit (talk • contribs) 20:23, July 7, 2012‎

• Note This nomination was originally added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unity Factory Day, a previously closed AfD, I copied it here, added the unsigned template, and tweaked the AfD template to display the past discussions. The substance of the nominating statement is unaltered. Monty₈₄₅ 20:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as someone's joke. The edit that created the article says it all. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:40, 10 July 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 strong agreement on what should happen with this article, and there is certainly no consensus that it should be outright deleted. I think the best way forward would be to either start a merge discussion on the talk page of the article, or perhaps an RfC to settle the issue for all of the individual episode articles. -Scottywong| spout _ 18:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lame Duck Congress[edit]

The Lame Duck Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article is not the subject of any significant amount of discussion, is not one of the ones attached to an Emmy, and is not notable. The content has already been merged with the season article. (Disputed PROD). Sven Manguard Wha? 20:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between "And It's Surely to Their Credit" and "The Portland Trip." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 22:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to season list: my reasoning is outlined here: User:MZMcBride/Edit summaries#westwing. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the prevailing sentiment on WP, I think these episodes should be kept. The experts at episode article creation could probably make an encyclopedic article out of just about any West Wing episode. (see the closing comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drought Conditions (2nd nomination))--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least part of the closing comments in that AfD are seriously flawed, specifically "while merging may well be a viable long-term solution, if it is to be done, it shouldn't be done one episode at a time." There is no practical way to merge all of the episode articles at the same time. Some have ridiculously long summaries that far exceed what is reasonably expected and specified. WP:TVPLOT says, "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words". However, it also says that for season articles, "a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines)". The instructions for ((Episode list)) say "A short 100–300 word summary of the episode." When you have articles like 17 People (570 words), 365 Days (657 words) and 2162 Votes (a massive 1,125 words), there's a fair bit of pruning to do. The only way to merge the episode articles is one at a time. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to season list and let this be the precedent for the other Westwing episode articles. From sporadic browsing, it seems the vast majority of Westwing ep articles suffer the same inadequacies as this one (WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:TRIVIA). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per past precedent and WP:OUTCOMES - there appears to be a weak consensus to keep all articles of episodes of popular/hit TV shows. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect (with a preference for delete). I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of the articles, which is why I was so frustrated to see articles that I had merged back to the season articles and then redirected or prodded, later restored. The only interest seems to be in keeping articles that fail to meet our guidelines and there is no point in doing this when the article is redundant to the season list. There was a reason for some of the articles when the season articles didn't exist and the content couldn't be incorporated into List of The West Wing episodes, but I created the missing season articles (seasons 1-5) and reworked the two that already existed (seasons 6 & 7). Nobody had even bothered creating seasons 1-5 so there's little chance they'd bother with the episode articles. I agree with sgeureka that this should set a precedent for all The West Wing episode articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for the closer - This discussion closure should take into account the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Bartlet Be Bartlet‎. They were nominated at the same time by the same nominator. - jc37 17:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per User:TonyTheTiger, and others above. - jc37 17:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Every episode has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.... Mcewan (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to season list. The article (or this discussion) does not contain references to the sort of substantial third-party coverage needed to pass WP:GNG.  Sandstein  05:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD is not a substitute for cleanup. I cannot say "keep" or "delete" yet because of this article's poor condition. Unfortunately, keep and delete votes come in the way, so I cannot say "speedy" either. For someone who is a fan of the show, balance is required for a stand alone article.

  Redirect to The West Wing (season 2), which would be the best choice. Even if one episode wins awards, still it needs balance for a stand-alone. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If we're going to start deleting episodes of every major TV series that has articles for each episodes, then that discussion should be had elsewhere. Merging is clearly not tenable, for if you merge 20+ articles to a single list, then you're going be getting warning about pages being too long, unless you are actually deleting content. Nfitz (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid your assertion is incorrect. The longest season article for The West Wing is season 4, which has 23 episodes. 23 episodes at the maximum 300 words per episode summary gives you about 43kB of prose including non-episode summary prose. WP:SIZERULE specifies 40kB as the "Length alone does not justify division" boundary. 50kB is the "May need to be divided" point. Since most episode summaries are less than 300kB, the pages are unlikely to cause any grief and there are plenty of season articles that are longer than this. For example, despite having 68 episodes and some excessively long episode summaries, there have never been any size warnings at List of The Penguins of Madagascar episodes (season 2), which is more than twice the length that these articles would ever be. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a couple of mistakes in this assumption that you'd only have 300 words per episode. This page alone has over 350 words of content that would need moving, and some individual episodes are much larger. More using one of these article proposed for AFD as a gauge, there's about 366 words taking in 2,185 characters - or 2.13 kB. 23 more articles like that give you 49 kB - assuming you keep them all below 300 words; it's not hard to imagine that it would be easy to be exceeding the 50 kB criteria. I hope most episode summaries are less than 300kB? Which ones are bigger? And really - your going to compare an series of 23 episodes of drama, each 42 minutes long, to a series of 68 10-minute cartoons? That's over 100 kB long???? Doesn't that kind of prove my point? If 680 minutes of material produces pages that are too long, surely 966 minutes of material will be even worse. I think you need to respect the science, Kowalski! Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there are no mistakes, at least not at my end. Merging isn't simply a case of copying and pasting. As I've explained above,[3] the instructions for ((Episode list)), which is used in the season articles, say the the episode summary should be 100–300 words. Part of the merge process (at least when carried out correctly) is to trim the episode summary so that it is 300 words or less. Some of the episode summaries are already less than that. Episode length is irrelevant to the comparison I provided above, which relates to page size, not the length of the episodes. However, if you want to relate it to episode length, despite being only 10 minutes each, the episode summaries average out at 165 words each, or 16.5 words per minute. Translate that to 42 minutes and the summary would be 693 words, more than twice what the instructions say. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There have been many mistakes on your end. For example, you said above that the Penguins of Madagascar page was fine ... yet at over 100 kB, it far exceeds the maximum recommended page size. And don't forget that accident with Jiggles. Nfitz (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, what I said in response to your mistaken claim that "if you merge 20+ articles to a single list, then you're going be getting warning about pages being too long", which I see now was apparently was based on your misconception that merging meant copying and pasting everything which it doesn't, was "despite having 68 episodes and some excessively long episode summaries, there have never been any size warnings". Nowhere did I say it was fine. In fact I was the person who tagged that article with ((plot)) immediately after splitting it from the main list.[4] Your second mistake in your post is claiming the page "far exceeds the maximum recommended page size". Yes, the page is 112,039 bytes right now, but that is the file size. WP:SIZERULE does not refer to file size, it refers to readable prose, (this is actually stated at WP:SIZERULE - you must have missed the note) which does not inluded "footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", bibliography, etc.); diagrams and images; tables and lists; Wikilinks and external URLs; and formatting and mark-up."[5] For this reason List of The Penguins of Madagascar episodes (season 2) only really has 191 bytes of readable prose, although if you include table content it's up around 67kB, which is not far above the 60kB "Probably should be divided" size. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The episode summary is duplicated at The West Wing (season 2), and the article contains no information supporting notability. Due to the title being a generic political phrase that could be used to refer to an actual congress, a delete is preferable to a redirect.G. C. Hood (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:TVSHOW and Help:Merging. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing in WP:PLOT or WP:TVSHOW that pertains to this. Can you expand your thoughts? Nfitz (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no real-world treatment, other than the unsourced WP:OR in the "Timeline" section (fiction doesn't necessarily follow the same timeline as the real world - That '70s Show and Desperate Housewives are two good examples of this.). WP:PLOT says "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." There is no discussion of reception and no demonstration that this episode is notable. The article is essentially a plot-only description and therefore is what Wikipedia is not. I can't seak for WP:TVSHOW but there are plenty of others that this episode does not stand up to: WP:N, WP:V and WP:TVEP just to mention a few. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:TVSHOW "However, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone"-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• merge - while there may be claims that sources exist, none have been produced during this discussion, nor in the 6 six months that it has been tagged as lacking sources, nor in the 6 years the article has been in existence. When the sources are produced then the stand alone article can be recreated. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 17 July 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 strong agreement on what should happen with this article, and there is certainly no consensus that it should be outright deleted. I think the best way forward would be to either start a merge discussion on the talk page of the article, or perhaps an RfC to settle the issue for all of the individual episode articles. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 18:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let Bartlet Be Bartlet[edit]

Page was redirected to The West Wing (season 1)#Episodes on July 16. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let Bartlet Be Bartlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article is not the subject of any significant amount of discussion, is not one of the ones attached to an Emmy, and is not notable. The content has already been merged with the season article. (Disputed PROD). Sven Manguard Wha? 20:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between "Six Meetings Before Lunch" and "Mandatory Minimums." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 22:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to season list: my reasoning is outlined here: User:MZMcBride/Edit summaries#westwing. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the prevailing sentiment on WP, I think these episodes should be kept. The experts at episode article creation could probably make an encyclopedic article out of just about any West Wing episode. (see the closing comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drought Conditions (2nd nomination))--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least part of the closing comments in that AfD are seriously flawed, specifically "while merging may well be a viable long-term solution, if it is to be done, it shouldn't be done one episode at a time." There is no practical way to merge all of the episode articles at the same time. Some have ridiculously long summaries that far exceed what is reasonably expected and specified. WP:TVPLOT says, "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words". However, it also says that for season articles, "a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines)". The instructions for ((Episode list)) say "A short 100–300 word summary of the episode." When you have articles like 17 People (570 words), 365 Days (657 words) and 2162 Votes (a massive 1,125 words), there's a fair bit of pruning to do. The only way to merge the episode articles is one at a time. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to season list and let this be the precedent for the other Westwing episode articles. The majority violates WP:NOT#PLOT, and the one-sentence real-world information is too embarrasing WP:TRIVIA to count for notability. From sporadic browsing, it seems the vast majority of Westwing ep articles suffer the same inadequacies. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How does that line go? Oh yes: "AfD is not cleanup". Not to mention, "There is no deadline". If you want more real world info, then add it? Else, wait, and through the wiki-way, the pages will slowly be developed per the normal wiki process. - jc37 17:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  One day we'll all fly around in personal skycars. Just because you say something, doesn't mean it's true. How long has Paul Moller been developing the skycar. The edit histories of The West Wing episode articles fail to support your claim. There comes a point where it becomes clear that nobody is going to make the effort. You have to be realistic. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect (with a preference for delete). I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of the articles, which is why I was so frustrated to see articles that I had merged back to the season articles and then redirected or prodded, later restored. The only interest seems to be in keeping articles that fail to meet our guidelines and there is no point in doing this when the article is redundant to the season list. There was a reason for some of the articles when the season articles didn't exist and the content couldn't be incorporated into List of The West Wing episodes, but I created the missing season articles (seasons 1-5) and reworked the two that already existed (seasons 6 & 7). Nobody had even bothered creating seasons 1-5 so there's little chance they'd bother with the episode articles. I agree with sgeureka that this should set a precedent for all The West Wing episode articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to have been a consensus to keep all the episodes of poplar TV shows as separate articles. Based on that precedent, I would keep. If consensus has changed, I would like to be informed so. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you demonstrate this consensus? Why would we have a consensus to keep bad articles? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per User:TonyTheTiger, and others above. - jc37 17:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for the closer - This discussion closure should take into account the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lame Duck Congress. They were nominated at the same time by the same nominator. - jc37 17:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Improving the article is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. This is easy to do because the topic is covered in detail in sources such as The West Wing: The American Presidency As Television Drama, Considering Aaron Sorkin, The Prime-time Presidency and Hollywood's White House: The American Presidency in Film and History. Deletion would be quite inappropriate and disruptive. Warden (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the article can be improved but nobody has shown any interest in improving it. It doesn't matter how easy it is to improve it, if nobody is willing to do it then it may as well be impossible. As it stands now, it's just a plot summary that's redundant to the season article, so redirection is definitely an alternative. I don't see how deletion would be disruptive. Wikipedia won't lose anything by deleting this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion would cause us to lose the edit history, which is required for attribution, and the episode title which is a distinctive search phrase, referenced in numerous sources. Warden (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That still doesn't explain how it would be disruptive. i.e. how would it disrupt Wikipedia? I've already said that redirection is an alternative that would keep the edit history. WP:NOTPLOT says this article shouldn't exist but it doesn't say we can't redirect it. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This and the other similar discussions are obviously disruptive in that they create numerous pages of idle and unproductive discussion, contrary to WP:NOTFORUM. Deletion of any of the article contents or history would be disruptive in that it would make these details unavailable to readers and editors, contrary to WP:PRESERVE and would contravene our licensing legalities, contrary to WP:GFDL. Warden (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion of the article contents would not be disruptive at all, as the only content worth keeping was the plot summary, which is already in the season article. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Every episode has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.... Let's not delete just because of WP:NOEFFORT. Mcewan (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every episode has received significant coverage in reliable sources" - Do you have a source for that, because the article certainly doesn't. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well a quick search on this episode turned up quite a lot of coverage:

• Guardian, UK
• Spectator magazine, UK
• Telegraph, UK
• Philadelphia Enquirer
• Television: the critical view, OUP, 2007

I don't like fancruft any more than anyone else but that is not what this is. Mcewan (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be adding these to the article? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are not relevant for notability, as far as I can tell after a quick look. They are not about this episode, but about the relevance of the entire series - and the phrase "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet" - to real-life politics.  Sandstein  20:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that phrase has enough notoriety that it has entered the vocabulary of political debate to the extent that it is used by 3 of the UK's leading newspapers in different contexts (and there are US examples too - "Let Obama be Obama" for instance), then I would argue that it is notable. The phrase only exists because of the episode that is the subject of this article, so does that not mean that the episode itself is notable? I suppose we could have an article on the phrase that links to the merged and redirected content in the episode list, but the encyclopedic outcome would be for the influence of this episode on political discourse around the world to be seriously discussed - and that would be better achieved in a dedicated article. And I know that the article has been neglected and does not at present contain this sort of content. And I'm not going to write it myself - this is not my area at all. But there is no deadline, we're told. Mcewan (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the phrase might make the phrase notable, but it doesn't make the episode in which it appears notable. There's irony here in the fact that the phrase isn't even discussed in the article. Instead there's a trivial note about how Martin Sheen had never heard of the director. If the phrase has been used a lot, and notability can be established, there might be justification to turn this article into an article just about the phrase, similar to Beam me up, Scotty, but the episode itself doesn't appear notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to season list. The article (or this discussion) does not contain references to the sort of substantial third-party coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. The one footnote does not appear to relate to this episode at all.  Sandstein  05:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The West Wing (season 1) - Until balance is made for this episode, this is the best way. AFD is not a substitute for cleanups. --George Ho (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we're going to start deleting episodes of every major TV series that has articles for each episodes, then that discussion should be had elsewhere. Merging is clearly not tenable, for if you merge 20+ articles to a single list, then you're going be getting warning about pages being too long, unless you are actually deleting content. Nfitz (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid your assertion is incorrect. The longest season article for The West Wing is season 4, which has 23 episodes. 23 episodes at the maximum 300 words per episode summary gives you about 43kB of prose including non-episode summary prose. WP:SIZERULE specifies 40kB as the "Length alone does not justify division" boundary. 50kB is the "May need to be divided" point. Since most episode summaries are less than 300kB, the pages are unlikely to cause any grief and there are plenty of season articles that are longer than this. For example, despite having 68 episodes and some excessively long episode summaries, there have never been any size warnings at List of The Penguins of Madagascar episodes (season 2), which is more than twice the length that these articles would ever be. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a couple of mistakes in this assumption that you'd only have 300 words per episode. This page alone has over 350 words of content that would need moving, and some individual episodes are much larger. More using this article as a gauge, there's about 366 words taking in 2,185 characters - or 2.13 kB. 23 more articles like that give you 49 kB - assuming you keep them all below 300 words; it's not hard to imagine that it would be easy to be exceeding the 50 kB criteria. I hope most episode summaries are less than 300kB? Which ones are bigger? And really - your going to compare an series of 23 episodes of drama, each 42 minutes long, to a series of 68 10-minute cartoons? That's over 100 kB long???? Doesn't that kind of prove my point? If 680 minutes of material produces pages that are too long, surely 966 minutes of material will be even worse. I think your cutting it a bit too close, Kowalski! Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there are no mistakes, at least not at my end. Merging isn't simply a case of copying and pasting. As I've explained above,[6] the instructions for ((Episode list)), which is used in the season articles, say the the episode summary should be 100–300 words. Part of the merge process (at least when carried out correctly) is to trim the episode summary so that it is 300 words or less. Some of the episode summaries are already less than that. Episode length is irrelevant to the comparison I provided above, which relates to page size, not the length of the episodes. However, if you want to relate it to episode length, despite being only 10 minutes each, the episode summaries average out at 165 words each, or 16.5 words per minute. Translate that to 42 minutes and the summary would be 693 words, more than twice what the instructions say. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page was redirected to The West Wing (season 1)#Episodes on July 16. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as required by WP:MAD. At a minimum, Let Bartlet Be Bartlet should redirect to The West Wing (season 1) and deletion is out of the question. CallawayRox (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAD doesn't require speedy keep. It says that closing admins may interpret "merge and delete" votes as "merge". WP:SK indicates that speedy keep doesn't apply here. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this at Articles For Deletion if deletion is prohibited? AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion isn't prohibited. WP:MAD is intended to supplement WP:DP, but it's not a policy or guideline. It's only an essay. If deletion was actually prohibited WP:AFD wouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Sources are light at best, but given the cited uses of the phrase in the media, we should probably have an article. Plus I see no point in merging--it just removes material (as we summarize) and makes it harder to read (I find most episode lists very difficult to parse as the brief summaries just aren't enough). Hobit (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only source in the article is used to support a fairly trivial comment about how Martin Sheen had never heard of the director, which is the only non-plot information in the article. "Light" is giving the reference a lot more credit than is due. Concerns about brief summaries in episode lists really don't apply here. The plot summary in the article, which makes up 81% of the article's prose (which is why it violates WP:PLOT), is only 246 words. A merge would result in that summary being directly copied into the season article, so nothing at all would be lost. The phrase "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet" isn't even discussed in the article and it's not used in the real world, it's just paraphrased, as in "Let Osama be Osama". --AussieLegend (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • At 246 words the plot summary is much longer than most I've seen. That said, the article now has a solid claim to addressing the issues you raise (thanks to Uzma Gamal). Does his her (Uzma is traditionally a female name I see) changes address your concerns? They move me from a weak (and nearly IAR) keep to a solid keep. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's very courageous of you to say "yeah, that's fine" 10 minutes after the article was edited. I'm actually looking more deeply before making a decision. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Nothing significant about the episode, no indication of real-world notability, a slim mention in tvguide.com regarding the episode director is all. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect (merge of material into The West Wing (season 1)#Episodes was performed already. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Expanded.[7] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: According to WP:TVSHOW, National TV shows are generally "kept". It is, perhaps just my anectdotal memory that we have kept individual articles in the past. I will get you some links of past AfDs. 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, here are some examples of crap that we have kept: an upcoming season of a TV show from countries with 20 million residents, list of characters from a situation comedy, a second-rate gay journalist who had his 15 minutes, etc. (Since number of West Wing articles have been nominated all at once, it has been difficult to keep up with the debates.) Contrast: a list of voice actors of a children's show and the personal life of Jennifer Lopez. Now, I do not like any of these shows; I am just taking the stand that we have, in the past, kept lots of crappy TV show articles. It's not what I want, but it has been consensus here at AfD. If the sand has shifted from underneath me, I want to know now. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of articles on individual Simpsons shows: Nov. 2004, Oct. 2005, another early one, then one was deleted but was re-created later and a whole bunch were kept en mass). See also these Heroes episodes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am Become Death. WP:EPISODE is an official guideline, but most articles on individual episodes are kept anyway. Like I said, just tell me that Elvis has left the stadium, and I will be happy. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Big Brother Australia 2012 - I don't see the relevance of Australia's population. The show has been the subject of considerable coverage in the media, particularly because it suffered declining ratings and was canned four years ago and is now being shown on another network. I lost interest in the program when they evicted a suitcase in the first episode and the owner a few days later but I would have voted keep for the same reasons as the closer noted.
• List of My Name Is Earl minor characters - has been moved to List of My Name Is Earl characters It's fairly common to have character articles for characters in sitcoms.
• Pete Williams (journalist) - I don't really have anything to say about this one, but the one thing that it has in common with the other two articles is that they are not episode articles like this one so they don't demonstrate "a consensus to keep all the episodes of poplar[sic] TV shows as separate articles". The same can be said for some of your other examples. Bart's Dog Gets an F actually has GA status. It may have been different back in 2005, but you really can't use 5 to 7-year-old AfDs as examples of current consensus. Wikipedia was a different place then and we let more stuff slip through. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feud between Karl Rove and Rick Perry[edit]

Feud between Karl Rove and Rick Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

There are a number of reasons why this is an article we can do without.

Firstly, it's largely based on speculation. Neither of the people involved in this alleged 'feud' have admitted that it exists: it's been inferred from their behaviour and leaks from behind the scenes. That seems like a poor basis for an article about two living people.

Secondly, I think it has notability issues. While there are reliable sources covering this 'feud', they're only from a short period in 2010-11 (when Rick Perry looked like a plausible candidate); this isn't a topic that's received sustained media attention over a long period of time. In fact, many of the sources given don't relate directly to the subject of the article, since they discuss the relationship between Perry and George W. Bush rather than Perry and Rove.

Ultimately, I think this article falls below the standard we should expect when writing about living people, and it's not a topic that really justifies an article anyway. Robofish (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 20:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 20:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A non-notable, WP:TABLOID political feud. SplashScreen (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Ephemeral political feud. Merge a few lines to the Rick Perry bio, if one feels this of importance to his story. It's not to Rove's story, clearly. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: obviously a product of RECENTISM with no lasting encyclopedic value. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while there also has been gossip about these two men, neither issue is notable without excellent sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this basically passes the WP:GNG, but the superior policy is still WP:NOT. That policy states that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not a tabloid, and not a series of case studies or diaries. I believe there might be room to cover this dispute at the Karl Rove or Rick Perry articles, but with due weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. & others. Runs afoul of WP:TABLOID, WP:NOTNEWS & WP:RECENTISM.--JayJasper (talk) 04:19, 12 July 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.  Sandstein  05:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Établissement public à caractère administratif[edit]

Établissement public à caractère administratif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Primarily a directory of WP articles WP:NOT Nouniquenames (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Created by AfC (submission reviewed by Mdann52). Created just 2 days ago, so very young and everybody can help to improve. Contains explanations very useful of what is an Établissement public à caractère administratif in France. Already some links with other articles. Complementary with other articles such as Établissements publics à caractère industriel et commercial, ... Helps to improve English Wikipedia. I don't really understand this nomination for deletion to be honest. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP has a point. Even if he doesn't improve it at all, improvements are far more likely in the main space than hidden away in WP:AFC somewhere. Anyway, this article doesn't seem to violate WP:NOTDIR at all, as the links are included to direct readers to other related articles, not just to bulk out the article, therefore, I also say keep. Mdann52 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's nothing wrong with this article and I think the nomination is based on a misunderstanding of "Wikipedia is not a directory". To quote the policy: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." This is a textbook example. Établissement public à caractère administratif is quite clearly a notable subject since it is an important part of the structure of French public administration and since the article provides a long list of notable entities that have this status. It is natural for the article to have this structure: an introduction explaining the concept followed by a list (exhaustive if it's reasonable in size). That's the structure of Independent agencies of the United States government and Crown corporations of Canada. Pichpich (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So, the US, Canada, and France are allowed.  No others?  :- ) Don 07:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above.  --Lambiam 20:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pichpich. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unquestionably notable, and fundamental to the the organisation of French civil society in the way that, say, Quango is in the UK. There is no policy in Wikipedia that prohibits an article from containing a list of such bodies. --AJHingston (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Something tells me such an article in the English Wikipedia would, in fact, have an English-language title (and be understandable without knowing French). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouniquenames (talk • contribs) 2012-07-08 03:04:21
• Delete - A lot of things are notable, that does not mean they automatically get a page on the English Wiki.  I don't know what "The Institut national supérieur de formation et de recherche pour l'éducation des jeunes handicapés et les enseignements adaptés" means, and if I did, I would probably be smart enough to use the French Wiki.  I don't come here to find who oversees the "National Taiwan Arts Education Center".  I don't have to, the website is in English and Chinese.  If the "The Institut national supérieur de formation et de recherche pour l'éducation des jeunes handicapés et les enseignements adaptés" is in French and English, then Keep.  Otherwise the "National Taiwan Arts Education Center" has more right to an article in the English Wiki.  We can't list every organization in every country in every language, just because someone whats to fill the English Wiki with their own personal project.  :- ) Don 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have completely the wrong idea about the division between the Wikipedias in various languages, and a wholly wrong idea that something has "right" because it has an English name instead of a non-English one. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles.  Article titles are written using the English language, with the exception of commonly used foreign words.  How is my idea about division in error?  Please, use recherche in an English sentence.

      Because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?  That is justification to keep adding Other Stuff?  This a slippery slope going straight to a morass of a post any old crap you want. If I had the time, I would start converting ,中文維基百科, the Chinese wiki using Mandarin titles. I don't see the difference.   :- ) Don 20:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Your argument is sheer nonsense and distraction. The English Wikipedia is not constrained to only English subjects, and its naming conventions nowhere say that it is. Deletion policy definitely does not, and we don't delete things just because they are in France and have French names. You really need to re-read policy, because you have no grasp of it. Uncle G (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on the English Wiki, 帶我去遠方.  :- ) Don 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Per AJHingston. 90.84.144.39 (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not seeing anything in WP:NOT that would apply here, and while it might help to put more prose into the article as opposed to appearing to be primarily a list, I don't see this as a reason to delete the article. - SudoGhost 18:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and let it snow. Clearly notable, only delete !vote has a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does anyone have a complete understanding of how the Wikipedia works? You only need to read the rules, and the rules say titles shall be in English except for commonly used foreign words. It does not have an exception for foreign entity names. period.  :- ) Don 19:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading that policy in more than one way. The point is that we use the title which would be commonly used in English sources but that sometimes happens to be written in a foreign language. This is absolutely fine and in fact you'll find many instances of this in all languages and in multiple contexts: Spanish (Universidad del Nuevo Mundo), Portuguese (Museu da Lourinhã), French (Belle de Jour (novel)), Italian (L'Avventura), Polish (Muzeum Etnograficzne im. Seweryna Udzieli w Krakowie) and so on. But what is most absurd about your position is the idea that a title in a foreign language should be grounds for deletion. We have a process in place for changing titles. A deletion debate should be solely centered on the content of the article. Pichpich (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get the point. I'm wrong. Change my vote to Keep, make it unanimous and close this issue. I'm just not sure why they have a French Wiki any longer. Based on the discussion here I have approved this which looks ludicrous in the English Wiki:  :- ) Don 00:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, a cursory check for sources turns up an OECD book that covers the public sector in France that documents both EPAs and EPICs together as EPNs. Whether EPAs and EPICs are better dealt with separately or merged isn't really a matter for AFD, though, as it's wholly enactable entirely with the edit tool. Uncle G (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's an inherently notable part of French national administration. Yes it includes lists but they are not the article's sole raison d'être. Mcewan (talk) 16:00, 12 July 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) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn Hall[edit]

Fawn Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The article surrounds a person who does not appear to meet the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. There is not a good deal of significant, reliable references. This article should be moved, merged, and redirected to the Iran–Contra affair or an article about the investigation. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hall was a significant player in one of the largest political scandals in American history. Sources really aren't that hard to come by. AfD isn't the place to suggest that articles be merged or redirected. A historical footnote to be certain, but she's definitely notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. faithless (^speak) 19:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She was big news in 1987. Agree with above by Faithless. Vincent (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A significant figure in a major political scandal 25 years ago, extensively covered in reliable sources of that era. Notability is not temporary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kings School Old Boys[edit]

The Kings School Old Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable amateur football (soccer) club. The NSW Churches Football Association Premier League does not meet the requirements of a notable league. The references are dead links and it is unclear that they were ever relevant to the page in question. They appear to be copied from S.S.C. Napoli (refs 38 & 39) and altered to look relevant. Fails WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only pro league down under is the Hyundai A league which this team doesn't compete in. This obviously fails WP:NFOOTYSeasider91 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable local, amateur team. GiantSnowman 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - amateur team, no indication of notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 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 convert to redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stitchpunks[edit]

Stitchpunks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article appears to only refer to the characters of 9 (2009 film). I don't think it is necessary to have a whole article about a fictional class of robot that only appears in one fictional universe. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 17:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This looks to be a copyvio from [8].Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 9 (2009 film) or delete. If this doesn't get deleted via a copyvio, this should be a redirect to the movie article if it needs to be here at all. This group of characters doesn't have any notability outside the movie, so there's no reason why we should have an article even if the section was re-written to be non-copyvio.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: The person adding this article to Wikipedia also seems to be keen on adding other copyvios from the 9 Wiki to various pages. It might be worth your while to protect the pages, as they keep reverting from various different IPs.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Eeep- a look at the talk page for the IP shows that they've been a problem editor. You might want to just block the IP altogether, if possible.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 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. Dab can be created WP:BOLDly if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Road[edit]

Mountain Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A television series that fails WP:V. I can find no trace of it outside Wikipedia. Deleted by PROD and recreated. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Does not establish notability and is entirely unreferenced. I cannot find it anywhere outside of Wikipedia either, and it is nothing more than a plot. Rotorcowboy ^talk
  _contribs 03:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Either I am blind, or it isn't even mentioned on IMDB. A supposed TV series can't have any less notability than this. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and dab to the following: Mountain pass, Trail, The Mountain Road, Mountain Road, Virginia. There other plausible candidates but these ones are the most obvious--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse, the Life, the Blood[edit]

The Curse, the Life, the Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Google searched and no significant independent coverage by notable websites/publications LF (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 16:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow ^Talk 15:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horse racing country NSW[edit]

Horse racing country NSW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Contested prod. This is just a schedule of upcoming events, none of which are asserted to be individually notable. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a event guide. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 10 July 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 withdrawn; therefore: keep Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Padar, Mauganj, Madhya Pradesh[edit]

Padar, Mauganj, Madhya Pradesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Possibilly fails WP:GNG, and is also only supported by very few sources Mdann52 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Editor consensus is to keep settlements as long as they are verified. This village is easily verifiable from a Google search. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verified village, which by consensus makes this place notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Inherently notable- Please close this Afd soon. Anbu121 (talk me) 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination - I misunderstood the guideline Mdann52 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Tweet Award[edit]

Golden Tweet Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not a notable award. Coverage is lacking in reliable sources (it's mostly non-name bloggers reposting each other). Better that this be added to the article on SC instead of being a standalone. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete This award is not currently notable, it only gains any notoriety from its recipient Steven Colbert. Not enough sources to put together a notable article. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet censorship in Hong Kong[edit]

Internet censorship in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I believe this article is not a notable one. There is no internet censorship to speak of, and cannot be demonstrated. The article instead attempts to synthesise a link between certain events, laws allegations actions to buid a case that doesn't exit. It's a practical violation of WP:FRINGE Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Internet regulation in Hong Kong is a reasonable topic for an article, although the article could have better sourcing. The proposer is misguided to say as a reason for deletion "There is no internet censorship to speak of, and cannot be demonstrated": the article accurately sets out the law, stating that censorship is limited, but some forms of internet media are still banned, and giving historical information, all of which is or can be substantiated. Although the title may not seem strictly applicable, there are similar articles, e.g. Internet censorship in the United Kingdom, which describe regulation in other jurisdictions that do not have overt PRC-style censorship. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, this sentence "There is no internet censorship to speak of" is very strange. Did the nominator mean to say, "political internet censorship"? Because the article indicates that the Hong Kong government censors "obscene" materials like internet pornography. Shrigley (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hong Kong is part of China, but administrative rules, including rules related to censorship, are different between Hong Kong and the rest of China. That needs to be talked about somewhere and this article is a good place to do it. If the article has shortcomings, we should work to improve it rather than deleting it. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:56, 28 June 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, Wifione ^Message 14:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment I just don't see how this article can be expanded after all related law and incidents are placed in the article. The article can be easily turned into a timeline of events. The article in its current state is poorly referenced, as most references points to the Laws Information System and five references point to the human rights report from the US Dept of State. --Wylve (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Strong Keep Per W163. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The proposer is misguided as to what is notable. If there is sufficient notability to a topic, then there exist reliable sources. If it is not notable, there are no reliable sources. Although the article can be improved, the topic is notable.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the subject is important. While Hong Kong and the rest of China have different rules on the Internet, this topic is inherently notable if one is looking for the differences in the laws between Hong Kong and China. In China, you couldn't access flickr, youtube or likely wikipedia due to the 'Great Firewall of China' unlike Hong Kong. Isn't that important? --Artene50 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant discussion in secondary sources, the nomination of this page for deletion ... is particularly ironic, yes? — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of DC versus Marvel card sets[edit]

List of DC versus Marvel card sets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

First AFD was closed as no consensus with an option to speedy nominate because of lack of commentary. My original delete reasoning still stands which is Fails WP:GNG, couldn't find no reliable sources, prod removed as a potential merge candidate but i see nothing that is mergeable. Delete Secret ^account 07:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to somewhere appropriate, and then remove. I don't see any good place to merge, and agree it's not suitable for Wikipedia in its current form. Still, there's effort invested in this which is probably worth preserving somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 23 June 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, Davewild (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. Unsourced contextless list of some kind of presumably comics-related cruft (what, exactly, is meant by "card" in this context?), failing WP:V let alone WP:N.  Sandstein  06:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe Jclemens is right, but I can't think of anywhere for this to go. Ishdarian 07:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianne Nicole[edit]

Brianne Nicole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Article has zero third-party reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Even if it had third-party sources, the individual fails WP:NACTOR as well. SudoGhost 00:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Her principal credits are listed in IMDB as uncredited: "Student", "Teenager", "Party guest". There are no reliable sources provided and I found nothing useful. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her career resume on her website gives more jobs she has had, besides her roles listed on IMDB. She has done print modeling, singing, stage performances and music videos. Tinton5 (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless any of these satisfy the criteria of WP:ENT or WP:MUSICBIO, they don't show notability. - SudoGhost 22:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR at present. Perhaps in future. --Artene50 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Artene50. -- Norden1990 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ould Abdel Aziz[edit]

Ahmed Ould Abdel Aziz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBigXray 13:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above.(Note: I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

Hammad Gadallah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jihad Ahmed Mujstafa Diyab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mustaq Ali Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [9][10] [11] [12] was Delete DBigXray 13:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. All of these articles fail WP:BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Also there is nothing WP:N about them. →TSU ^tp* 15:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn without opposition The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Ortiz (disambiguation)[edit]

Ramon Ortiz (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Only two articles for Ramon Ortiz exist; a third one was deleted. One of the Ortiz's is a primary topic, so a hatnote is all that is necessary. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've restored the wrongly deleted third entry (use Control F (find function) at article and you'll see him a couple of times, so meeting MOS:DABMENTION). This is a dab with three entries and a valid see also. Boleyn (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramón Ortiz (note the verifiable spelling) appears to be notable in his own right, moreover, as a documented historical figure whose biography is in history books. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 7. Snotbot  t • c »  11:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Uncle G Theopolisme _TALK 15:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, I can't believe I missed the references to Ortiz on the Basilica page. Nomination withdrawn, and thanks for looking at the page more carefully than I did. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 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 some content to the main Lady Gaga article. There is clearly not consensus to keep the article in its current form. Beyond that, the number of opinions expressed are approximately evenly split between merge and delete. Although bolded deletes outnumber bolded merges, some of those "deletes" also suggest merging. Strength of argument is also roughly balanced. To execute consensus, I'm redirecting the article and leaving it up to the editorial process to determine how much of this article should be merged, and how it should be integrated into the Lady Gaga article (or the Twitter article for that matter).Chaser (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga on Twitter[edit]

Lady Gaga on Twitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is not an article about @ladygag it is an article about Lady Gaga on Twitter and as such it should be condensed and merged into the appropriate article. Articles on the use of a social medium by a public figure are simply not notable, some extraordinary "accounts" are however not in this case nor was it in the case of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. The problem is that this topic does not meet the notability requirements for a separate article and is not of any educational value or sources about the account itself, just the celebrity attached to it. The sources are for Lady Gaga not for her account and are therefore SYNTHESIS, henceforth we must delete this entry and merge a small amount of useful information to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians or Lady Gaga possibly Lady Gaga#public_image if not we will have to accept an unending series of Lady Gaga on Facebook, on Instagram, on Pinterist, on Google +, Lady Gaga's shoes, Lady Gaga's outfits and other useless TRIVIA that could be potentially be forked and sourced in an unlimited and indiscriminate manner but with undue weight. Lastly the relevant policy in this case what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY), which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Lastly this article is about Lady Gaga not @ladygaga and notability is not inherited. LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Renaming the article to @ladygaga is trivial to do if that's really an issue and her twitter account is clearly notable, as is her use of it and how it has influence her career. Sources that discuss it as such include this (pgs 114-116) and this (description of the account). However, what would be much better especially with Lady Gaga is to make the article be about all social media she's involved in, because she really is a virtuoso of using it (Sources: [13], [14]). So, unlike Barack Obama who is primarily focused on Twitter, Gaga uses Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube equally and is also in the process of setting up her own social network. Finally, all of your arguments have already been refuted in the Barack Obama on Twitter AfD, including why using INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIARY are inappropriate arguments and how nothing in NOT applies here. Also, how this isn't SYNTHESIS and I wonder if you even understand what that means. This subject is notable and should have a standalone article, because there is way too much information to be covered in the Gaga main article without a due weight issue. Silverseren^C 09:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' It's not trivial, the title gives away that this is a notability is not inherited issue and must be deleted. "her twitter account is clearly notable, as is her use of it and how it has influence her career.", her Her HER, see lady gaga is a her and her is notable but i'm afraid this account is a what and this account is not notable independent of gaga and should be deleted. There is only trivia here, musings of passing preferences for salad over cheeseburgers, and a pr tweet stating love of korea. Nothing educational there, and nothing unrelated to gaga. I am sure she uses email and snail mail too but we don't need to catalogue that, it is undue weight. Who care's if she is setting up a social network? Prove it! And not relevant to some twitter account. That is neither here nor there. No arguments have been refuted as that debate is still ongoing. The content in this article is Diary like and trivia, that is part of what wikipedia is not, and we are not an indiscriminate dump of passing notions someone types in their phone or their press agent does. The synthesis is that because gaga is notable and she has a twitter account, and there are sources about gaga and twitter that they can be cross referenced into making @ladygaga notable, when all the sources are about Lady Gaga not @ladygaga, see some twitter accounts are notable by themseleves such as Shit My Dad Says but a gaga account on her account is superfluous because she is already notable enough for an article and does not need a splintering here. Also her twitter account has not been cited as having anything significant associated with it nor noteworthy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete Actually, there is no relevant or useful encyclopedic value to maintaining a record of Lady Gaga trivia and nostalgia informatics, to include twitter use, that are better served on a fanzine website. The information noted is synthesized, not of particular value, and has no major/definitive social impacts of a memorable scale such as the use of social media in Eygpt to force social change, or the use of social media in Occupy Wall Street to mass organize the vandalization of cities, persons, and ideologies. Nothing Lady Gaga tweets carries social relevance beyond her fan base, and again that is served best by fanzine websites. Letting this piece of ancillary material stand only weakens the usefulness and validity of the entire community. Ren99 (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's the same with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter; the article simply has no encyclopedic value. WP:WHIM stresses that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Some of the content such as the fact that she's the most followed on Twitter can be put in the Lady Gaga article but a whole article about it is unnecessary as per WP:WWIN. Till 10:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to userspace - Unlike low-profile Twitter accounts, like horse eBooks, Gaga is a high-profile celebrity. An article of a subtopic, like this, is overly bloated without significant impact. Well-explained in Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, but even a book about her use of Twitter can be well-explained in one article more than this article itself. If userspace, a creator must request it. --George Ho (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This content does not belong on an encyclopedia. Furthermore, there is no convincing justification for including this over an account of any person's Twitter presence, even that she's the most followed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete - The details of how Lady Gaga has a fanbase following her on Twitter is an interesting concept and deserves note in the Wikipedia article about her.... but a whole article devoted to one form of communication about a celebrity? Is there anything comparable about webpages or blogs getting similar kind of coverage, even if the blog or website is itself notable? More to the point, there isn't really that much information and I don't see the article growing all that much, where all of this content could easily fit onto the Lady Gaga page and be much more in context with the rest of that particular article. In fact, as far as the main article authors are concerned, this content is so insignificant and of so little note (thus questioning the notability of the article) there isn't even a paragraph talking about the Twitter fans on that page with a hatnote referencing this particular article. I'd call that pretty condemnatory by itself. Particularly because there is no independent notability about the Twitter account separate from Lady Gaga herself, I fail to see what is gained by keeping this article as something independent. I just doubt that those maintaining the Lady Gaga page would use much of the content of this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lady Gaga on Twitter is not notable by itself, merge the information that stands out into Lady Gaga. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete - I can't possibly see how this topic could be independently notable. If anything is worth saving, merge it into Lady Gaga with no redirect.  -- WikHead (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a collection of things that happened related to Gaga on twitter, but outside of the individual events there no significant coverage / encyclopedic analysis of the twit-o-sphere that cannot be/already is covered appropriately in the main Gaga article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the notability of both Lady Gaga and the notability of Twitter, the two of them together isn't a recipe for a stand alone article.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a subsection of her own article. Gaga - notable. Twitter - notable. Give them an article apiece, why not. But this just adds some bizarre undue weight to her use of what is a commonplace thing, such as a telephone, toilet or cappuccino machine. Content-wise it is far too reliant on whatever she has twat (or twote, never sure what the correct past tense is). pablo 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have heard twitted, twatted, twoted, but I believe tweeted is the "correct" form.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire We are trying to build a serious encyclopaedia. This fails WP:NOT. If there is anything worth saving, put it in the article about the artist. Arcandam (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anything worth saving should go in the main Lady Gaga article. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and merge anything worthwile to Lady Gaga. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into its own section in Lady Gaga. TRLIJC19 (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I was really surprised such an article has been existing for months. It is far from being encyclopedic. Who reads this article except her fans? Are we going to make an article on every celebrity's twitter account because they use it a lot? Seriously?! --Sofffie7 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Considering the arguments "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" and "WP:NOT" are wrong, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter, and that the people that argue "delete", their main reasoning is "I don't like it" (Arcandam), or they want to delete it but also to be merged (see the nonsense with Inks.LWC, Jojhutton, TheRedPenOfDoom, etc.), the article can be merged and redirected to that section, we don't need a deletion here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? I do not remember writing "I don't like it" here. Are you sure that that is my reasoning for my vote? If so, why did I write a different reason next to my vote? Arcandam (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• there have been multiple sources that have analyzed Obama's use of twitting, at least in the political sphere, as a new communication method that he has been able to utilize successfully. I am not aware that Gaga's twitting has been analyzed in the same manner, and if it has, those sources have not been incorporated into the article. Hence "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" and "WP:NOT". -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How are they wrong? WP:NOT says that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" which fits perfectly here. And don't conclude that people not liking the article is their reasons for favoring deletion. Till 02:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No one said; "I don't like it." You have misread. We have said [sic]; "It is not relevant, it is not material to the function of humanity, and no one really cares outside the fan-page environment." I would suggest that you pause for a moment and consider what impact Barack Obama on Twitter or even Queen Elizabeth on Twitter has in the way of significance before mentioning something as unimportant as Ashton Kutcher on Twitter or Lady Gaga on Twitter in the same breath; the former make major decisions of International importance and carry the weight of nations, while the latter make personal commentary on relationship woes and what cut makes the best meat dress. Again, nothing "Lady" Gaga says has significant impact outside the fanzine zone and has no need for encyclopedic inclusion in Wiki.Ren99 (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Ren99 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone defend themselves against WP:IDONTLIKEIT the same way? Have you read the examples there? PROTIP: none of them say 'I don't like it'. If you and Arcandam hadn't actually read it recently, fine, I can see how you'd make that mistake, but otherwise it's just being disingenuous... Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made a claim, other people disagreed but you haven't given any proof. Now you are saying we are being disingenuous. PROTIP: On this planet we dislike people who accuse us of being disingenuous. Arcandam (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaha, what a strange custom. Fair enough, I have no doubt you won't allow me to infer any similarities to the examples listed on IDONTLIKEIT so (although I didn't make the claim this time around), I will suggest that WP:UNENCYC is a more appropriate representation of your arguements. Now, are you going to tell me how you didn't 'directly' apply the specific adjective 'unencyclopedic' to the content of the article, or how you used a grand total of three words and not just two to cite WP:NOT, and therefore claim this is a completely unfounded and inaccurate characterization of the argument you made here? Speaking of which, I ought vote, since I've taken up all this space. I'll add it below.Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly I mean cmon, it's not like we are talking about Madonna on Twitter which would could and should be defended psychotically as she is obviously more important than Lady Gaga, Barack Obama, The Pope, War, Terrorism, Hunger, AIDS, or clubbed baby seals combined.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ok Madonna is more important than Lady Gaga, because she is in this business since the eighties while Lady Gaga only made her breakthrough in 2008 but saying Madonna is more important than the President of the United States, War, Terrorism, Hunger and AIDS, well that's a bit much! Anyways, this is off the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.57.182 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga, he is not really extant, Madonna is more important than the cure for HIV Cancer or /\/!kkaz!LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and dispute what content in this article is trivial (ie perceived competition with Bieber - not encyclopedic) and what is actually important to her career (I tried to find something to put here, but alas, I failed). This doesn't justify a separated article in any regard, and I think its a shining example of WP:AVOIDSPLIT. If Lady Gaga is too large an article, then I suggest creating a page on her media appearances/interviews on TV, film, radio AND social media in general, and not the narrow scope of Twitter. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Unlike some of the other articles, I don't see anything yet in the article that represents a distinctly 'Lady Gaga + Twitter' phenomenon. That is to say, a) most of these things could and would be true in a world where Twitter didn't exist and b) anyone looking for any of this information wouldn't really need to see it in the context of the other information in the article. Ironically, I think IINFO might actually apply to this one, insofar as nothing is gained from having the information all together that wasn't there when it was separate. But my reading of that policy may be odd. Facts like being the most followed and possibly a mention of the competition can go into a bit on Lady Gaga's main article. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - To the nominator, please don't use WP:SYNTH as a reason for deletion, especially since you misquoted and misunderstood the policy, which is about original research, and not at all about source topics. Please note that this article easily meets the GNG, our primary indicator of notability, with mentions in the Canberra Times, the Chicago Tribune, and MSNBC. (Yes, they are on topic, yes they are significant mentions) However, I am sensitive to the claims that this breakout of the Lady Gaga article is about a minor part of Lady Gaga's impact (A minor work of new media, if you will) and wikipedia would be better served with a much shortened section in the main article. There is, however, no reason at all to remove the extensive history of this article by deleting it.  The Steve  00:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few of us seem to be missing the point that Lady Gaga's twitter-tweeting falls directly under the idea of WP:NOT. Simply put, the material associated with her "use" of twitter is amenable to fanzine publication, but has no encyclopedic value whatsoever overtime. In fact, I see a fair degree of WP:NPOV from what appears to be members of her fanbase arguing here that "everything Gaga" is instrinsically important, when in fact, it is not. If you wish to debate from a non-biased point of view, you will have to establish what true value her tweets provide the world in the form of enduring, valuable, and recordable encyclopedic content other than a nod of your hat to her "assets." Ren99 (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Lady Gaga. Much like the old Justin Bieber on Twitter, I think that there's relevant information here that would be useful to have on Lady Gaga's main page. To be honest, I can see where some people calling for this to be deleted are coming from because of some content in here that feels like padding and unnecessary (e.g. her tweet about how she loves Korea). But, articles talking about how she is the most popular celebrity on Twitter and how the marketing reach of Lady Gaga is an example of what brands can achieve. All this said, most of this content should probably be deleted in a merge, and unlike Bieber's section on his page, it should probably be put under the "Public Image" section. Nomader (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Same rationale I will post here as in Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter, which was inarguably a better article. Delete article, but merge the non-trivial bits (by which I mean the majority of the article) into Lady Gaga. WP:WHIM seems to apply here, a lot of the article is random facts about individual tweets. From what I've seen of the sources, a large number of them refer to Lady Gaga as the principal subject, and her twitter account only as a side-issue. See WP:WEB - web content does not necessarily have inherited notability. In addition, if we were to adopt the level of notability for social media that this has, we should note that there are enough sources tangentially covering various topics, with articles being needed for hundreds of public figures on many different kinds of platform. This seems to go against the spirit (if not also the exact letter in every case) of several policies, including WP:NOT for a start, WP:NOTDIARY, and, again,WP:IINFO.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, because I actually don't know, is there a difference between 'Delete, but merge a couple things' and just 'Merge' or 'merge and redirect'? I understand that delete also makes page history inaccessible, for example, and the redirect is a question of whether the name of the article becomes free/empty, right? Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:MAD for merge versus "merge and delete". In this particular case, if the decision is delete, it wouldn't make any real difference whether a redirect is left behind or not, since Lady Gaga on Twitter is not going to be an article title for any other distinct concept, unlike Mars, which can mean a planet, a god, a company that produces chocolate bars, etc.--Chaser (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#Pre-1900.  Sandstein  06:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rehoboth, Massachusetts tornado and Cambridge, Massachusetts tornado[edit]

Rehoboth, Massachusetts tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Cambridge, Massachusetts tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These pages have little content and appear to be on non-notable subjects, but do not seem to fit any of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also rather confusing that tornadoes that are supposed to have occurred in 1671 and 1680 are sourced to weather reports from January 2009. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both to List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#Pre-1900. Articles establishing notability could possibly be produced but at present neither has any content beyond that in the list article. These topics could be spun out again should material be made available. Thincat (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - appear to be WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wondered about that. However, I am trying to stop the speedies because Tornado records notes the events with with plausible references (I am checking). Anyway a discussion is needed. Thincat (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not a hoax; these events happened (they are listed in "Significant Tornadoes 1680–1991" by Tom Grazulis) but they are not notable for their own articles. Maybe if I ever get around to making List of Massachusetts tornadoes, but certainly not as their own articles. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am finding references elsewhere.[15][16] Thincat (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but these likely should still be WP:BLOWNUP, hence still delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Category 6 Atlantic hurricanes[edit]

List of Category 6 Atlantic hurricanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I had originally thought this could redirect to List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, but upon second thought, I think it should just be deleted. I think it's unplausable that people are actually going to type out "List of Category 6 Atlantic Hurricanes" in the URL, and any other links to this page on other pages were introduced by the author. I see no need for a redirect. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:OR, agree it's an implausible redirect. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 13:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is completely false. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, entirely WP:OR based on a hypothetical addition to the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale proposed by the media (a wonderful source of useless nonsense). Albeit created in good intention, this article has no place on Wikipedia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cyclonebiskit. -- 202.124.72.222 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR, no sourcing. --Golbez (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete Obviously nobody wants it. I was just trying to expand the coverage of the subject. Whatever.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 12:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no subject to cover here. "Category 6" does not exist, except in disaster films. There is no defense for it, so don't put the blame on us for not wanting it. --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, I'm tagging it for speedy deletion under G7. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rangel[edit]

Richard Rangel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A music manager, whose article has not the slightest indication what-so-ever of any rationale for inclusion on Wikipedia. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only links to outside sources to be found on the page are: 1) A link to TV Guide containing only a single shred of content related to the subject. 2) A link to a website owned by the subject. 3) A link to a website stating solely:

Richard Morava was a guitarist and vocalist for an 87-89 band and went by the stage name Ritchie Rockit.

From 1987 to 1988 he did club bookings at Central Florida's premiere Rock Club Mardi Gras. From 1987 to 2001 he did photography for various publications. He also did artist management and development. He married Kristin Denise Sanders in 2007.

He owns two websites, moravamanagement.com and moravamedia.com.

Therefore the page displays a complete disregard for Wikipedia's policies. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 07:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not rise to notability either for music or television and the articles references prove that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as lacking significant coverage from reliable sources - the cites either have only a passing mention or are not reliable. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in Science[edit]

This Week in Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is a college radio / podcast talk show. My concern is that it does not establish sufficient notability per WP:WEB. Only one reference listed is a deadlink of a 2003 news story, and due to the statement it is not clear if the link was to determine notability of this podcast or KDVS, the college station which the show is simulcast on. WP:GHITS does not shed much light as the podcast title is a general term. Bringing to AfD as a contested PROD. Breno ^talk 04:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strong notability, and cited by other blogs. Per usual with OP's deletes of articles of skepticism, we'll just source content.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep starting to see a trend with the same editor tagging a lot of the science/skeptic pages. What else is on the hit list this week? Sgerbic (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well-known and oft-cited. I have no facts or opinion on the nominator's motive. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - popular podcast, linked to by hundreds of sites. This Week In Science is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article.Dustinlull (talk) 04:40, 13 July 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). Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DR Motor Company[edit]

DR Motor Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

DR1 (car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DR2 (car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DR5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

fails Wikipedia:Notability Fleetham (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - car manufacturers are almost always notable, and this one has numerous third-party coverage, particularly in Italian: [17]. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it's a manufacturer--it simply imports and rebadges Chery cars. Also, it fails every criteria in notability. Fleetham (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, it does appear to be notable, indicating you did not follow WP:BEFORE. Also, as your nomination counts as a !vote, you should strike your delete !vote here as you are only allowed to !vote once. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Manufacturer or remanufacturer, this company appears to meet the applicable notability standards. Italian-language sources found immediately through Google News: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Appears to be a WP:BEFORE failure on the nominator's part. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per sources above provided. Cavarrone (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Some examples include:

• (in Italian) DR non molla Termini Imerese e smentisce di aver attaccato Corrado Passera
• (in Italian) T.Imerese,Dr Motor smentisce uscita - Economia - Tgcom24
• (in Italian) AGI.it - DR to meet with Chery July 11 in Termini Imerese
• (in Italian) Termini Imerese, l'11 luglio DR Motor incontra Chery

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 11 July 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. JFHJr (㊟) 06:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seth David Chernoff (U.S. author)[edit]

Seth David Chernoff (U.S. author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:AUTHOR Albacore (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Gladys[edit]

Jules Gladys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

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

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

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

This subject is not notable as a filmmaker per WP:CREATIVE or WP:NACTOR if read to include other film-related persons than actors. The subject also fails higher standards of WP:GNG (significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources) — no factors are present. See also the edit history and this and this and finally this for good indicators that it's just WP:TOOSOON to call the subject and her works notable. JFHJr (㊟) 02:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I edited it based on the information I had when I attended a workshop in London Film School. However should this be part of wiki is a question that I ask you. - (ATLASVishnu)

• Comment — That's interesting; if you have published materials from the workshop that could be cited to, and most importantly verified, they might be used to demonstrate some sort of notability. This could be either for the current article or to support a future article when the subject is more clearly notable. JFHJr (㊟) 19:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although the person may meet notability standards in even the near future, she does not meet them yet. Write the article when she does. Collect (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Collect -- ATLASVishnu

• Are you !voting delete? JFHJr (㊟) 01:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes.. thanks. ATLASVishnu —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the person who brought this to the notice of the BLP notice board I was hoping that their research skills might find enough to justify the article but it doesn't look like that can be done at this time. Should her career progress to the point that she meets our guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY we can certainly restore the article and improve on it. MarnetteD | Talk 02:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel Hippolyte[edit]

Rommel Hippolyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No references, poorly written and disorganized. Kumioko (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced, notability not established, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. WWGB (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete It actually should've been BLP-PRODed. It's an unsourced BLP, and it fails WP: NFOOTBALL. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Article also fails WP:GNG, and there is no sources at all. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG It looks like the creator is associated with this subject. --Artene50 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 08:56, 9 July 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.