< 8 July	10 July >

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The result was withdrawn - (non-admin closure). CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 08:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burn (American band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:N CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's not clear from the nomination statement what research was done in preparation for this AfD. First off, it does not fail WP:V. The subject does meet criteria of WP:MUSIC, such as #5 (multiple recordings released on Revelation Records), and #6, with multiple band members who are notable for other work. It may also meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1: some of the references are brief mentions, or are on some relatively obscure online magazines but they do appear to be professional. Bob Morgan of Scene Point Blank states, "Burn definitely had a huge influence on a number of bands and musicians within the modern hardcore and punk scene". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:37, 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 - policy based argument, majority of editors, etc. Wily D 08:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Run the World (song)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. I advise readers not to be fooled by the appearance of this article - the vast majority of it is WP:PUFFERY. We have the following:

A very long WP:NOTDIARY-esque paragraph detailing the production process of Love? (this song is mentioned in the last sentence only - ""Run the World" was recorded as a result from the new recording sessions")
The song's production credits twice (once in prose and later as a list, each sourced by the Love? album notes)
Three reviews of the song (all of which are sources which evaluate the song in the context of reviewing the album Love?[1][2][3])
A big, long quote about how JLo enjoyed working with the song's producers (which is taken from her own website)
A confusing few lines about whether someone's rap was or wasn't on the track (all sourced by blog sites of a questionable reliability [4][5][6][7])

In short, there seems to be nothing remotely notable about this song (either here or when doing a quick Google search) that isn't already outlined in Love?. It has not received any non-trivial coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources to pass WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. It wasn't released as a single, it didn't chart, it hasn't received any notable acclaim or awards. Nothing. SplashScreen (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — Tomica (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE? SplashScreen (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just removed some Wikipedia:Fancruft which had nothing to do with the song. Very small article, no charts or awards. A classic case of trying to make the article bigger by adding "Background info" which has nothing to do with the song what-so-ever in any way shape of form. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Fancruft was reverted and added back, without an explanatory edit summary of reason, by User: Status. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Comment. If this article should be deleted this, this (it even does not have a background and its a GA, how is that possible?), this maybe should be too? I know that these ones charted, but they are not different (even worse) than "Run the World". — Tomica (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomica, I'm sure that an editor of your experience is more than familiar with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. SplashScreen (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Difference is, the information in those three articles is only about those three articles, not useless info from 5 years ago. And they charted, so they meet notability, which you said yourself, so you've contradicted your own point. And don't play the "not well written" card, you seem to be forgetting yourself about a year ago. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But those were just some examples of articles which does not include to be GA's here, they are more like stubs. Nothing personal though, they are not the only articles who look like stub and are GA's. My thing is, "Run the World" has enough information for to stay as an article. And Calvin, I didn't say they are not well written, but do not contain enough information to be GA's... you seem to be forgetting yourself about a year ago. ... typically you. — Tomica (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the length of an article, Tomica, it's about how well written it. And you said they are worse than RTW, which is effectively saying not well written. I'm not stupid. Don't provoke me, it annoys me. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

""Run the World" has enough information for to stay as an article" - Tomica, I don't mean to sound like a broken record but I've had to ask you a few times in a few different AfDs. Please take a look at WP:ATA. It'll save us all some time. And perhaps we can save personal disputes for elsewhere :) SplashScreen (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can an article be a Good article per the Wikipedia policy when it does not have a Background information and only 3 sentences per section? — Tomica (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Tomica, I couldn't care less. Perhaps you should take that particular page to WP:GAR, just don't bog down this AfD with your problems with other users and/or pages. SplashScreen (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This says Background and composition, but there's no background. The production para is just that, production. No different to Red Lipstick etc. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still Background for the song and has a far better Composition from "Red Lipstick". — Tomica (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EXCUSE ME! As WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and this conversation has nothing to do with the article at hand, can we take this somewhere else before people start getting blocked? SplashScreen (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting blocked for what? Statυs (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing that has absolutely nothing to do with this AfD. SplashScreen (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of what disruptive editing is? Statυs (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm replying to one. SplashScreen (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, Status, Tomica nor me have been disruptive. It's a discussion, not disruption. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it has nothing to do with this AfD at all. If you want to argue over other articles, use the talk pages of those articles. Not this AfD. SplashScreen (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article seems to have enough sufficient information about the composition and theme of the song, critical reception and relevant background information. Songs don't have to chart to be notable. −SoapJar 03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having enough information is not a reason to keep an article per WP:ASZ or WP:VALINFO; the issue here is that all of this information is sourced from the wider context of Love? and shows no notability outside of that. By definition, individual charting (among other things) would show such notability. SplashScreen (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Till 03:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, having lots of coverage does not mean that a Wikipedia article is kept (WP:ASZ or WP:VALINFO). Unless there are sources that cover this song outside of the context of Love?, it will be deleted. SplashScreen (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since this AfD was opened, the article has been expanded with more WP:PUFFERY, including more coverage from non-notable blogs [8] and more critical responses [9], both of which are taken from appraisals of the album as a whole. Please also note the following comment made by article creator and keep !voter Status (talk · contribs) at a previous AfD - "YET ANOTHER pointless article. Seriously, when will this end? Sure, it is a well-written article, but it does not need the main criteria for song articles: charting and/or awards. It was performed live, and some critics talked about it (mostly as a part of the album review). That does not warrant for its own article. I really wish users would stop making articles just for the hell of it, and to have each song on an particular album have its own article like its an accomplishment or something". SplashScreen (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting comments from myself from almost a year ago? That reminds me of another user... Just can't put my finger on who... Funny enough, that discussion appears to be one of your first edits on Wikipedia. Very strange. It means a lot to me that you would remember. Statυs (talk)

Status, I reccomend that you either contribute constructively to this AfD or not at all. Baiting other users and applying smoke and mirrors techniques is not improving the discourse. SplashScreen (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the one replying to everyone's opinions as if you're gonna change their mind and bringing up stuff from almost a year ago. None of which have any place in the AFD nomination at hand. Statυs (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"keep !voter" I didn't even !vote on this. :') Statυs (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You only do things which suit your Status. If it doesn't suit you, you don't want to do it. You want those articles I did deleted, even though they charted, but you want yours to stay. It's called double standards. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I remember! It was you, of course! I already explained this to you. You seem to like bringing up the same old shit over and over again. You actually don't even know me, so that's quite of an odd statement. Statυs (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only ever said it once before. Sarcasm is not appreciated or needed. I don't know you, but I can get an idea of what you're like from your editing, comments and edit summaries. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough information about the song for a individual article. Songs don't have to chart to be notable like someone already said here. VítoR™ ^{Talk That Shit} 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "lots of information" does not mean "notable". SplashScreen (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Could be a good article, but right now it's just a lot of fluff and Wikipedia:Fancruft. May not meet the threshold of WP:NSONGS, although this too could change. 70.112.234.243 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one the first edits by this IP, and their first AFD edit. Statυs (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example (and out of curiosity) if songs like this didn't chart, would they be up for deletion? Because, if you remove the "Background" section of Run the World, the article still has enough notable info about the song. So i don't understand how it's "A classic case of trying to make the article bigger by adding "Background info".. can someone explain these points? thanks . −SoapJar 22:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Here at AfD, we base arguments on actualities and not possibilities. If you are !voting based on the content of different and unrelated articles, perhaps you should read the aforementioned guideline and change your views accordingly or ~~strike~~ your original comment. SplashScreen (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why to strike her comment? Isn't this discussion? A place where people express their opinion? — Tomica (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Love?, the album this song is from. Quoted sources in the article tend to be about the album rather than the song anyway. The Steve 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The second paragraph in "music and lyrics" is about the album? The third paragraph is about specific songs on the album, including "Run the World", that are about her estranged husband. Statυs (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sources. Synonymous with references, those little notes at the bottom. Anyway, the album is the main topic of most of the sources used for this song, which suggests a merge to me. Also, some of them don't even mention the song. The Steve 06:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Might as well reply to the "concerns". First of all, the background section is a relevant piece of information. "It should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with the artist's history and/or previously released albums. If it's necessary to put these items into context for the reader to further his understanding of later content in the article, a background section is suggested." Love? was pushed back due to leaks and she then left her label. "Run the World" was then recorded with her new album. There are six reviews of the song. Information on the song being about her husband Marc, whom she separated from 2 months after the release of the album. Confusing lines about the original version of the song? It is clearly stated that Rick Ross was to be featured, and was removed at the last minute. Vibe is an urban magazine, and Vulture is owned by the New York Times. Unreliable? Ha! A song doesn't have to chart to be notable. Statυs (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. Till I Go Home 05:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, AfD is about whether to keep and delete articles (not whether to keep or delete paragraphs) so your first few sentences are largely irrelevant. "There are six reviews of the song" - no, there are six reviews of the album. That the song is passingly mentioned in them not only shows that the song is not independently notable but also goes against your own rationale for keeping and deleting song articles. The information about the song being about her husband is taken from her own website (failing WP:IS) and we could sit and argue all day about whether Vulture is notable simply because its part of the same media conglomerate as New York (magazine) (the awful spelling, punctuation and grammar suggests that it isn't), but "Jennifer Lopez just cant stay away. With helping hands from The-Dream and Ricky Rozay, J.Lo takes another shot at running the charts" does not prove that the song has received notable coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources to pass WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. SplashScreen (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't need to be explicitly about the song to establish notability. ..."Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Till I Go Home 09:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, but it does not apply to this situation. All of the reliable sources briefly discuss the song in the context of it being an obscure, non-charting song on Love?. We have absolutely no reliable sources that focus on the subject alone or in any different context. Therefore, WP:COMMONSENSE decrees that the song does not have any notability outside that album. SplashScreen (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I cannot see anywhere in the article that establishes notability for the song. In view of the arguments going on am I missing something or is just because it is Lopez? Of course, we all know that notability is not inherited, so that can't be it! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion there is enough content to establish notability away from the album it features on. It has been covered in reliable sources and while they may not be entirely focused on the song - it still gained some coverage. I have weighed up the situation and feel there is enough. We know that a song doesn't have to chart to get a notable badge. Disregarding background information as fancruft does not sit right with me in this case - maybe the general reader would like to know about the background of the project it is from. After all a fan would already know the background, so why would it be only interesting to them. But that is a different story.Rain the 1 22:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Raintheone. Kind Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Raintheone and AdabowtheSecond. Exactly where in the article is notability estabished? I can see references, but not notability. I am still perplexed with the quality of the keep arguments here. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be the most high brow of articles - it may not hold the same standard notability of a Billboard number one has. But I'm satisfied that it passes GNG.Rain the 1 16:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made no comment regarding *quality,* I merely asked where in the article is notability established. You have failed to answer, saying it is your *opinion* that it passes GNG. I repeat my question, "Exactly where in the article is notability estabished?" Simple enough question and if you can't answer it then the article should be deleted for failing WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS etc --Richhoncho (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At first I was non-committal, although notability had never been established, there was a fair amount of information however puffed up, and articles do improve. The underlying problem then becomes nearly every non-notable, non-descript song by a notable artist becomes notable (hence my earlier question, which quite tellingly, nobody answered, “is this about Lopez, rather than the song?” I then looked further at the posts on this page, and asked a further question, “where is notability established in the article?” Only one response and that editor ignored the question altogether.

So I feel I have established that those saying keep have acknowledged that the song is non-notable. I also note that there is not one reasoned argument that says keep. I also think I have done more than my fair share to try and save the article on this page. Fairly indicative that the song most certainly fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

Note to all interested in this AfD (with apologies for being so rude): AfD discussion WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS says Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). --Richhoncho (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors arguing that this song is not notable fail to recognize that there are multiple reliable secondary references. Notability does not necessarily mean that a song has to chart, nor does it mean that it has to win many awards. The song plays a crucial part of the album, and there is enough information to warrant its own article. Just have a look at the songs on Rihanna's album Talk That Talk. All songs have articles, and I think basically all of them are at least 'good articles'. 114.76.30.48 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As repeatedly pointed out the references are related to the album the song comes from, which quite plainly means the album is notable, there are no references specifically for the song and notability is not inherited. Ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am quite happy to see this song kept IF somebody can establish the notability of the song. Nobody has yet. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh - look, the content isn't going to leave wikipedia. Could it be trimmed? Maybe. But apparently that's been done already. Song fails notability? Redirect to the album and add the contents of this article. But if every song has information and can be written about (while being well-sourced and encyclopedic, of course) the article may get extremely lengthy; this might lead to a content fork! Keep - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, about WP, rather than this specific song, keeping this song is contra to the following, and probably other guidelines, WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NSONG. Although I wouldn't argue the points you make above (and remember I am not specifically against this article staying), not sure it is a valid argument for a "keep." At least you have actually bothered to give a reason to keep over and above others who don't really bother to establish a reason. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:22, 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 keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willpower (will.i.am album)[edit]

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

Delete - no official release date, no tracklist and next to no production context. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:TOOSOON. SplashScreen (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate until a release date is... released. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's singles are well notable, and the way i've seen it for a long time is that album articles are more important than singles and songs. RazorEyeEdits (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does have a release date... September 24, 2012. Confirmed by Amazon, HMV and Play.com. Plus, i've heavily improved the page with cover, list of recorded tracks, release history, and improved background. IWannaABillionaire (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find no reason to delete this article. It does not fail TOOSOON since two singles has been released and (now) it has a release date. Maybe in the future if no further info is available this may well be deleted but not by now. —Hahc 21 00:59, 16 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay national beach handball team[edit]

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

There seems to be a lack of notability in this article. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A National sports team that competes at the top level in its sport seems pretty notable to me. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, a team which participates in top-level competitions in their sport is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable and currently playing at the 2012 Beach Handball World Championships. Kante4 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the sourcing. The fact that it doesn't have sources doesn't mean it couldn't have. Also, per Ymb and Kante4, this seems pretty notable. —Hahc 21 01:01, 16 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Oved[edit]

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

A New York City real estate attorney who gets his name in the newspaper as a quote source for various high-profile real estate cases, but no significant coverage of Oved himself can be found. This history of publications does not appear out of the ordinary. As presently written, the article is blatantly promotional. The single claim that might be notable, that of being named "Best New York Commercial Real Estate Attorney" by Mann Magazine, seems either untrue or insignificant, given that Mann is a Norwegian magazine aimed at young men, and it is not clear that young Norwegian men constitute a large part of the New York real estate market. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some subsequent searching indicates that the Mann Magazine reference in the article probably refers to a publication entitled MANN Report, a New York City local publication profiling "the names behind the deals" in New York City real estate. This makes the designation less unlikely, but not much more notable. (And still unverifiable, as the publication's website does not offer a search feature.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Verifiability does not require that the article be available online. A print publication should be available at some libraries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The claim about "best attorney" can be confirmed at http://www.ovedlaw.com/outside-the-o/MANN_Invitation_01.pdf This document was published by the MANN Foundation, but is hosted on the Oved law firm's server. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned above, the veracity of the claim of "best attorney", as awarded by a small, niche-market publication, does not really bolster Oved's notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Googling turned up nothing useful. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to clarify some of the issues referenced in the previously posted items. Firstly, the article clearly states that the award was given by the publication entitled MANN Report and not Mann Magazine. Secondly, the MANN Report is not a small, niche-market publication, as suggested by the poster “Wikidan 61.” To the contrary, the MANN Report has been a reputable and well-known publication in the real estate industry since 1998. The publication, in fact, has achieved such high levels of success that it has generated three additional real-estate magazines. A link has been provided to the MANN Report award to further affirm that Mr. Oved was in fact the recipient of this honor.

Furthermore, Mr. Oved has published numerous articles in the New York Law Journal, all of which have been annexed to his page for independent verification. Additionally, various links have been provided to Real Deal articles, all discussing the numerous high-profile real estate transactions that Mr. Oved has been an integral part of. These involvements were not an attempt to get his name in the paper, as suggested by Wikidan61, but rather serve as recognition of Mr. Oved’s continuing involvement in the real estate industry. Lastly, the claim that the page lacks independent secondary sources to establish reliability is groundless and unconvincing, given that links have been provided for any and all references cited on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahbern (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Sarahbern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not convinced you know what a reliable independent secondary source is. Please consult WP:RS for more. Articles by the subject and those influenced by subject don't count towards notability. Msnicki (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment Whereas the article states that Mr Oved's award came from the MANN Report, the version of the article that was nominated for deletion reported the award from Mann Magazine. I had already noted in a postscript to my nomination (see above) that the award mostly likely came from the MANN Report. The reputability of this publication cannot be easily assessed, as there does not appear to be much online commentary about the matter; but one must take into account that the majority of the publication's feature article content is written by the subjects of the features themselves (i.e. it serves more as an advertorial venue than anything else). The claim that Oved was named as "Best New York Commercial Real Estate Attorney" is actually incorrect: he was named as a "MANN of the Year" - one of 43 such honorees for 2009. As for the significance of this honor: this appears to be largely a fundraising event, and little information is available about the selection criteria by which the honorees are selected. As for Oved's contributions to New York Law Journal, these three submissions (hardly numerous by any standard), all appearing in NYLJ's "Outside Counsel" feature (which appears, by the editorial guidelines to be a forum for any lawyer to write an article on any topic they find interesting), do not appear to go beyond run of the mill legal work. Finally, the links to The Real Deal mention Oved as the attorney of record in a number of New York City real estate deals, but do not actually provide any significant coverage (and in some cases are as little as "Mr. Oved had no comment."). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI cannot help but presume from the nature and tone of his prior posts that Wikidan61 has a personal issue with the subject of this debate, Terrence Oved. At first, the comments seemed an innocent attempt to correct what was thought to be an error regarding Mr. Oved’s award from the MANN Report, but it is clear that it has devolved into a targeted, and seemingly personal, campaign aimed at disparaging Mr. Oved’s character. Rather than being unbiased and concerned with verifiability, Wikidan61 has taken every possible opportunity to insult and deride Mr. Oved and has diminished every verifiable honor and distinction mentioned on the page. These are not the actions of a disinterested third-party with the goal of ensuring that Wikipedia remains an unbiased site.

It is unclear why it should matter whether Wikidan61 personally believes the MANN Report, New York Law Journal or the Real Deal are particularly important or well-recognized publications. The fact remains that every item published on the page is independently verifiable with direct links to the original posts. To my knowledge, Wikidan61 has not been declared an authority as to which publications are worthy of receiving mention and recognition on Wikipedia. The only possible remaining solution is that Wikidan61, the alleged proponent of objectivism, possesses a vendetta against Mr. Oved and has chosen to react by taking calculated steps to diminish Mr. Oved’s distinction and recognition as an important figure in the New York City legal community. Wikidan61’s comments, therefore, should be given no credence, given that they are obviously the product of a malicious person intent on discrediting Mr. Oved’s reputation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahbern (talk • contribs)

— Sarahbern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sarahbern: [W]hy it should matter whether Wikidan61 personally believes the MANN Report, New York Law Journal or the Real Deal are particularly important or well-recognized publications is unclear to you only because you still have not read WP:RS as already requested. In the meantime, please spare us the legalistic bloviating, though it's hard to believe an actual attorney could confuse, as you do, objectivity (an approach to forming judgments) with objectivism (as in Ayn Rand).

Anyway, Sarahbern, your attention is called to this passage from WP:GAFD:

One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in"... Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.

And finally, Sarahbern, also of interest here may be the following, from WP:COI ("conflict of interest"):

COI editing is routinely exposed and can be reported adversely in the media. All edits are on the public record and remain so indefinitely...While Wikipedians generally avoid naming editors and their paymasters, other media routinely do. This has led at times to extreme media embarrassment for the company or organization, dismissal (firing) of those at fault, and at times even court actions or charges, if done in a work or professional context.

EEng (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If there any relationship between "SarahBern" and "Jbernhardt" (both of which were created only after this AfD began, and have made no edits other than to this discussion and the subject article), or between either of them and the subject of the article, it is appropriate for you to disclose that relationship here and now. See WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, WP:COI.

EEng (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ms Bern would do well to remember to assume good faith. I have no personal issues at stake in this discussion. My only interest is assuring that Wikipedia's guidelines are followed. My intentions at this discussion have nothing to do with Mr. Oved or his reputation. I only intend to initiate and continue a discussion as to whether Mr. Oved has met the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. Whether he has or has not has no bearing on his reputation. And I will agree with Ms Bern on one point -- I am not an authority as to which publications are worthy of "receiving mention and recognition on Wikipedia". This issue has no bearing on the present discussion. The point of this discussion is to allow other editors the opportunity to review the subject article and decide whether they think it merits inclusion. Clearly, I believe it doesn't. Clearly, Ms Bern believes it does. I think it would serve the rest of the community well if she and I kept quiet and let other voices be heard. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:09, 9 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) 22:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. His publications in the New York Law journal are good, but don't pass the bar of WP:ACADEMIC. Being quoted in a newspaper indicates that he's good at self-promotion, but doesn't indicate notability. The award, although from a reputable publication, isn't of sufficient renown to imply notability in the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant promotion, by an employee of the subject, of the most vulgar and self-serving kind. Why do people insist on embarassing themselves (and their employers) this way? EEng (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."[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. A merge or move can be discussed at the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1906 (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

From the talk page:

"All of the sources are old, IMDB page doesn't look to have been updated for a long time. Still no actors attached to the film. This was just rumor five years ago, seems like the project is dead for now. Vote to delete it until there is verifiable word that this is happening. (Sorry if I'm doing this all wrong, I haven't wikipediad in a while.)" 76.126.93.56 (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — 76.126.93.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no requirement that Wikipedia editors update sources for articles already determined as sourced enough. See WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, and WP:DEADLINE. If more recent sources are wished, they are available. What is required to determine any topic's notability, is the availability of sources... and not that they actually be in an article on that topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge page - The last time Brad Bird has mentioned this movie was a few months ago. An interview in March mentioned that he seems confident in it, but it doesn't mention what the studios think. Again, no further information. Either delete the article or merge it with an existing page (Bird's page seems more likely). Freshh (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - merge discussion should take place first Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This AfD discussion was missing the template and was not transcluded in a daily log. I have refactored it to include the templates and trancluded it in today's log. Please consider the incomplete listing when considering the appropriate time to close. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week~~ Keep per continued coverage, perhaps specially due to its setbacks, which has allowed this one to be one of those very few allowed exceptions to WP:NFF in that the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines and through its meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:CRYSTAL's All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced and in its otherwise surpassing the instructions per WP:GNG's If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. We CAN speak about this topic somewhere, and WP:NTEMP instructs that we do not require something that had enough coverage in the past to somehow remain in the news or have continued and ongoing coverage. As for IMDb page on this project not being updated... so what? We're not IMDb. We do not demand nor expect ongoing and continued editing of any article, once notability has been determined. And a point well worth consideration, is that even if not yet greenlit, Brad Bird's wish to make a film about the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 continues to receive coverage: "Brad Bird gives update on his 1906 San Francisco Earthquake Film Project", Geek Tyrant, December 2011 "Brad Bird's Latest '1906' Project Update and Why It's Taking So Long", First Showing, December 2011 "Brad Bird Says The Script For '1906' Is Still In Progress ", MTV, December 2011 to support the years of ongoing topic coverage.[10][11] We learn that while the project is by no means dead, his wish to make the film has been held off due to his now directing 1952 for Disney.[12][13][14] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move and change emphasis. As this is an adaptation of a "best-selling" novel, why is there no article for the novel? We could solve this problem by rewriting the article to focus on the novel with a section on the film adaptation, and moving it to 1906 (novel), leaving behind a redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting propositions... either rewrite the film article and then move it to 1906 (novel), or create an article on the novel which would include information of the proposed screen adaptation, and then do a redirect. But which has the greater sourcable notobility... the novel, or the peristant-over-years coverage and reports of Bird's plans to make the film? Personally, I feel the persistant and ongoing coverage of Bird's plans push at being an exception to WP:NFF, but as the book exists and the film does not (yet)... tell ya what... I'll see if I can cobble something together and get back to this dicsussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 5 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) 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended time period. Whether or not it's ever finished is irrelevant. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not think that the information would therefore be better presented on a page about the novel, as a failed or ongoing attempt to film the novel, as per my suggestion above? This would satisfy WP:NFF and may stop the repeated nominations for deletion that the page is getting. As Michael mentions above, the novel exists, the film does not (yet). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The planned film has far more in-depth and persistant coverage than does the novel. This is because the screenplay for the film came first... written and researched from 1996 through 1998. When the concept was pitched to studios in July 1998, Warner won the bidding war. They then had Dalessandro write three different drafts of his screenplay. After 1998, Dalessandro used his screenplay research to create the novel he later published in 2004. Even if it were never be made, the planned fim would be notable per its persistant and extensive coverage. This is why guidelines are not policy and reasonable exceptions are allowed if doing so improves the project and increases (not limits) a reader's understanding of a topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 1906 (novel). Novel is notable, with some coverage here:[15][16][17][18][19][20] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In reseaching souces for these two related topics, I had found those book reviews. But the screenplay and film plans preceeded the 2004 novel by several years and have far more persistant and enduring coverage. And while the novel is notable, if we place sources for each on a scale and weigh them against each other, the planned film is far more so. Heck... the novel is but a blip in the ongoing and persistant coverage and history behind the creation of the film. We would be wise to not ignore policy in this well-covered topic: Articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur. So we ask ourselves this question: Does the topic of this planned film already satisfy the primary notability criteria? Guideline indicates any topic may be determined as being "worthy of notice" by its meeting general notability through it having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case, the notable topic is the background behind the planning of a film, and not a film itself. Policy specifcally allows that it "is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." And RARE exceptions to guideline WP:NFF are allowed to be considered IF the coverage of the topic of a film-being-planned is itself enduring and persistent in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with violations of WP:NOTNEWS), and either there is too much verifiable information in an article (whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur"), to be reasonably placed anywhere else, or a suitable target for a shorter article does not yet exist. And IF a redirect target were to be created, we must then consider if a merge would then overburden the target or give too much weight to the topic being redirected, to the detriment of the target itself. Point here being, the depth of coverage of the planned film 1906 far exceeds that of its subsequent novel. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Enough sources to meet the GNG. Any opinion I have on a merge to 1906 (novel) can wait until there is such an article. The Steve 01:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did the work over the last few days,[21] and the article 1906 (novel) is now in mainspace. I think I did a pretty decent job and am now thinking over a suitable DYK. This done, I still feel that the film's production processes have more than enough coverage to merit being a stand-alone and growing article article at 1906 (film)... far more coverage than does the novel. In my own researches in writing the novel's article showed productions's greatest hurdle (past the projected budget and Brad Bird being assigned interim projects by Pixar), was the re-writing and trimming of James Dalessandro's original screenplay to make it into a project better suited to a feature length film, and as of February 22, 2012 a script was completed (after years of work). Further, as just last month, Brad Bird is still atached as director and Pixar has no plans to cancel the film. With Pixar's blessing for Bird to "branch out into live action", it looks like this one will get continued coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work Michael, as ever! Although I still think that if the information is presented well on the 1906 (novel) page (which it is!), then we have no need for the 1906 (film) page, until it meets WP:NFF. It still may be that the film is never made, and in this event, I personally do not think the coverage so far is sufficient to warrant a standalone article, so we should redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you. I am proud of the contribution, and it needed doing. But I wish to underscore several points in my opting for a keep: In researching the topic, I found the film's screenplay resulted from Dalessandro's research into another topic AND preceded the novel by six years. The screenplay was optioned in 1998 and a director assigned and film discussion in multiple reliable sources continued through the novel's release in 2004. The novel did receive reviews after its release, yes, and that is why I wrote the article on the novel. But what is perhaps more cogent here, is that both before and after the novel's release, media coverage of the planned film continued. Post-2004 coverage of the novel has become simple mentions in continued coverage of film plans, but the novel being relegated to mentions is fine, as we do not expect coverage about a novel released 8 years ago to continue, and yet can still acknowledge that novel as notable. But at the same time, we look at the intent of WP:N and instructions at WP:GNG and understand that 14 years of continued coverage about the planned film, based on the screenplay which inspired the novel (even if the film is never made), make those continued plans a topic worthy of note. Had there been only a brief smattering of coverage back in the late 90s, I would probably be the first to concur that merely brief coverage would not qualify the topic for a stand-alone article. However, continued coverage in reliable sources for 14 years changes the issue. Exceptions to WP:NFF are few and far between, but precedent allows them if doing so improves the project and if articles on such topics are themselves encyclopedic, written in a neutral fashion, and properly sourced. IF the project were to be cancelled, we could revist the topic of the planned film and speak toward a redirect at the time... perhaps to the production companies, perhaps to the assigned director, or even perhaps to the novel or the novel's author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 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 keep. Discussion about merger can take place on talk — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pocketing[edit]

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

The article has been tagged for sources, notability and OR since 2008 with no improvements forthcoming. I found at least one valid source, but I still don't see how the article can possibly be expanded beyond a dicdef and/or how-to guide even with them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another source with an encyclopedic treatment is the Encyclopedia of Body Adornment. Worst case is that we'd merge with some more general article such as body piercing as it is not our editing policy to resort to deletion first. Warden (talk) 11:58, 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, BusterD (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to body piercing or similar; not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or WP:TNT delete --BDD (talk) 16:02, 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} 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Meirovich[edit]

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

I'm afraid I can't see how the subject meets our notability criteria WP:MUSICBIO. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:32, 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, BusterD (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Pburka (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facebook, Youtube and LinkedIn are not reliable sources. Likely fails WP:N --Artene50 (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable artist from Canada. No information from reliable sources showing how he could be notable for inclusion. Doesn't meet GNG. —Hahc 21 01:03, 16 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 to Redeemer University College. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redeemer University College faculty[edit]

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

This is not a viable list under WP:LISTPEOPLE. WP:GNG certainly is not met by coverage of the topic currently, as presented in third-party reliable sources. The topic is not substantially different from Redeemer University College, and no members appear to be actually notable. Also, this list is outdated and virtually entirely unsupported. JFHJr (㊟) 21:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like it would only be useful for those attending the university and they would use their university's website anyways. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No referencing has been provided and very few of the faculty members appear to be noteworthy. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Redeemer University College article after purging non-notable entries. If "very few" faculty are noteworthy, that's still > zero, and these should be listed in the school's parent article, to be split off only if size dictates. There may also be some basis for listing in that school's article those faculty who are (verifiably) significant to the school's history (if any) even though they might not merit their own articles (though that could also just be integrated into the history section). If the end result is that the only faculty worth mentioning from this list are already named in Redeemer University College, then just redirect to Redeemer University College#Research & Faculty. postdlf (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could we purge the red and non-links from this page and make it the beginning of a List of Redeemer University College people? Maybe it's a bit young for notable alumni, but eventually we're likely to have one. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back - not a notable list; defined as including NN academics; can be re-created later but is not yet ready per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge back to university page.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Given the improbability of this title being typed into a search or directly into the address, what would a redirect/merge be good for, practically speaking? The history is also about as valuable as the title... JFHJr (㊟) 21:10, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lisik[edit]

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

There's nothing notable going on here. Most of the text is wholly unsupported; assuming it's true, the awards are not significant at all, and neither are this journalist's blogging activities (per WP:WRITER) or music (WP:MUSICBIO). Reliable, third party coverage would be required to show the significance of the awards and other activities; I'm having trouble finding any other than short shrift in extremely local publications; this falls far short of a subject that passes WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. This article was previously de-PRODed by the subject himself. JFHJr (㊟) 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:17, 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, Davewild (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One very short local street press review is not enough coverage. I found nothing better. (however I did see one listing where he was billed above a bounce house and they are very notable.) duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 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 merge to Gallaudet University. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Kappa Zeta[edit]

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

Non-notable club with only 1 chapter nationwide. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG standards of notability. Insufficient third party sources to establish notability. Being oldest sorority at a university is not inherently notable. GrapedApe (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:44, 25 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, →TSU ^tp* 10:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gallaudet University, the entire sentence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:56, 2 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, Davewild (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Colapeninsula. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:49, 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 merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparition (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Apparition (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

No element proving notability. All sources are primary and from the official D&D publishers, failing WP:GNG which requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject or its creator. Google Books and Scholar didn't give any result besides the game books themselves. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the "Tome of Horrors" is an independent source. Failing that, a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is a reasonable alternative. BOZ (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what we can read in the Tome of Horrors introduction:
"Between the covers of this tome are Third Edition conversions of all your favorite monsters from First Edition that the offcial books left behind [...] You won’t ﬁnd any of the monsters in Tome of Horrors in any other official Wizards of the Coast product! We worked directly with Wizards of the Coast to make sure that no monster in this book (well, only a handful) would be included in a later Wizards of the Coast product. So, you can rest assured that the contents of this book will not be superceded by any later “official” book {...] Since many of the monsters in this book were conversions of creatures from earlier editions, it was important to us to attempt to credit the original author. We did our best to be as thorough as possible. Yet because many of the creatures have their true origin in Original Dungeons & Dragons or from sources such as Strategic Review magazine or TSR U.K., we were forced to limit our research to a monster’s first appearance in an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons product"
Thus, Tome of Horrors isn't independent at all, the writers just copy/pasted 1st edition monsters and adapted them to 3rd edition rules (so for all intents and purposes, this is a TSR book), and secured a deal with WotC to make their book an official supplement to the 3rd edition. This is purely primary, not secondary (as it contains no discussion of "the notability, significance or "out of universe" context" of Apparition, per the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [22]), and affiliated. Cannot be used for notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll exaplain what actually happened, so that no one gets confused. Necromancer Games wrote a proposal, including a list of a few hundred creatures they wanted to use, and send it to Wizards of the Coast. Wizards told them which monsters they still had plans to use, and told Necromancer they could use the rest (although, in a few cases, Wizards did later wind up re-using a few that they OK'ed to be in the Tome of Horrors). It is demonstrably false that "the writers just copy/pasted 1st edition monsters" into the Tome of Horrors, as can be easily verified by anyone who has that book and any of the original sources. Likewise, I can see no evidence that the statements that "for all intents and purposes, this is a TSR book" and that Necromancer "secured a deal with WotC to make their book an official supplement to the 3rd edition" have any validity whatsoever. BOZ (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) So you do confirm the validity of my statement that the book was released under a deal with WotC that the creatures appearing in ToH won't appear in any WotC book, making it an official supplement to creatures not in WotC's books. Otherwise, why bother contacting WotC instead of just making a new game including these monsters under the d20 system ? And why the fear of being "superceded" by another WotC book and thus working with them to ensure it won't happen ? ToH is clearly seen as a D&D supplement, as indicated by the note that "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®", and the fact that its content was conditioned by WotC's commercial intentions makes it an affiliated work, not independent. If, by its author's own admission, the book is useless without an official D&D product, then I see no validity in the claim that it would be "independent".
2) I note that you didn't answer to my remarks about the book being a primary source devoid of any "out of context" comment/analytive claims, thus you agree that it doesn't prove any notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tome of Horrors isn't an independent source, as I established beyond doubt earlier, care to comment about that ? Where is the "significant coverage" from "multiple sources" ? Otherwise, your comment is a violation of WP:AFDFORMAT and may be ignored.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure the closing admin will be able to make up his or her own mind what to ignore or not. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You "established beyond doubt"? Nice that you are confident, but let's not pretend that independence of the source is not at least a gray area. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"...Seems pretty clear, no ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:BOZ as above. And Folken de Fanel is politely reminded of WP:CIVIL.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I think BOZ is fundamentally correct that Tome of Horrors is more than just a copy/paste job. That said, it is only a single reference (insufficient for WP:GNG). More to point, this creature is a trivial one in the context of the game and it seems to be a more specific instance of a ghost. I don't believe enough reliable sources exist out there to distinguish it to merit the existence of its own article. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. The Steve 01:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ due to a lack of significant coverage in third party sources to WP:Verify notability. Would also support deletion, but merge seems to be more in the spirit of compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:29, 16 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa data[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Provided references show nothing more than mention in passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 19 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page should NOT be marked for deletion as it is not unambiguously promotional. It contains relevant, current information about the founding date, founder and products of an established company with over 10,000 customers and significant editorial content from multiple independent sources. The company provide a free lookup service for ZIP Codes, addresses, street names, house numbers and maps. 05:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.3.166 (talk)
Comment The page is not nominated for deletion as being unambiguously promotional. If that were the problem, it would have been tagged for speedy deletion. It is nominated for being about a company that shows no signs of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added information/links from independent secondary sources. Remwnzqg 04:38, 27 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) 03:03, 2 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, Davewild (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I was able to find were press releases. No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, move to Melissa Data for proper capitalization. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In June, 2012 Melissa Data was included in the Software Development Times 100 -- as one of the top 13 companies in the Database & Data Tools category. SD Times is a reliable independent source which is an expert in the relevant industry. Melissa Data website is a frequently visited site for their free lookups and Alexa shows them in the top 5,000 visited websites in the United States. AaronViz 01:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — Aaronviz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - "Up and ccoming" is not an criteria for inclusion. In fact, it is often evidence that it is premature for a Wikipedia article about the subject. Significant coverage in reliable sources is what is needed to establish that the subject should be included in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to AFD particpants: AaronViz altered his comment after my reply to remove the assertion of "up and coming", and add an assertion that SD Time is a reliable source in this edit. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've looked into SD Times and can find no significant coverage about Melissa Data. Being named in their Top 100 list does not represent significant coverage as they are simply part of a list with no futher coverage. Searching for any other coverage about Melissa Data on SD Times shows only 2 press releases [23], [24]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article references are either self-produced or nothing more than list appearances. No references can be found that meet WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:18, 16 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. Consensus that GNG is met, plus some arguments with less support (but no direct opposition) that he may also meet some POLITICIAN j⚛e decker ^talk 05:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lewis (mayor)[edit]

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

Subject does not, from the article in its present state, appear to be a notable historical figure. David_FLXD (Talk) 20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I will concede that I cannot find too much about this subject ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]/[31], [32], [33], [34]), however, I think there is a presumption of notability given that the subject was mayor of the capital city of British Columbia. The common name makes it difficult to tell if various hits are him or not. Location (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The above noted sources indicate that in addition to being a mayor, he was also an architect of signifigance in the development of Victoria. This Historic Places link identified above indicates this. Building the West can only be seen in a snippet view, but it shows that there is coverage about him and his work. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by the links provided by user:Location. Valenciano (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN - as a co-founder of a city government, and as a mayor of acity that would eventually get to be much bigger. He may even be notable just for his architectural work. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Iran and Turan in Qajar dynasty[edit]

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

No claim of notability, and way too specific an article (one map out of an entire atlas) Constantine ✍ 20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is very minimal in context. This map doesn't make a refererence to the Qajar dynasty. Its real claim to notability is the reference to the Persian Gulf body of water. --Artene50 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep This map is a very important case which give us many geographic information.al (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to cartographer Adolf Stieler (or another target). Doesn't appear to be much to say about this map (outside of the Persian Gulf naming dispute about which obviously books can be written). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we "merge" this? It is in essence a description of an image. Having the image in the relevant article alone should suffice. And as a redirect, it is worthless as no one would ever likely search for or link this title. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 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 redirect to Rhasaan Orange. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Laranja[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional BJJ character. The page makes two cited claims: "Renato is credited (among other things)^{[clarification needed]} for achieving his black belt at 12 years of age and being a 27-time Mundial champion", and that he is "best known for his Days of our Lives fame". I don't see how either makes him notable. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, three of the four (and perhaps the fourth as well) cited sources are unremarkable bloggers talking about MMA and BJJ. I'm all for a merge with Rhasaan Orange, but this is just ridiculous. Mythpage88 (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at a minimum, the title should redirect to Rhasaan Orange. The article on Orange mentions that Laranja is a character he portrays, the portrayal is sourced, and redirects are cheap. I have no comment on whether the article content should be deleted (or merged) at this time, but if the AfD concludes with deleting, then it should be turned back into a redirect. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Honestly, I've never watched a Renato vid myself and stick to doing non-fictional BJJ, but I personally know that this character is well-known enough in the grappling community to warrant at least a stubby article. A quick G search just scratches the surface of that notoriety. We have a whole category for fictional Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners after all. Though, I will say, if it serves Mr. Orange's ends to not have the Laranja article, to keep a greater measure of anonymity for playing the character, then I would support it just being a redirect, but only if. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure there is a whole category but looking deeper of the four two are properly redirected leaving just Renato and one other. I support a merge with redirect to Rhasaan Orange. That would give a little bit more substance to the Rhasaan Orange article which I think is also borderline.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whatever the outcome, I just find it amusing that the Renato article has generated almost twice as much traffic as Rhasaan's own article this month, and garnered substantially more traffic last month as well. http://stats.grok.se/ Apparently readers care preponderantly more about Renato then the actor playing him (?) Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will repost this from the talk page, sorry if this is the wrong place, I am new to wiki: This should be deleted, it is an insult to professor Renato. I attended to one of his seminars and his jiu-jitsu is amazing. Your first external link in the article is a forum? a forum? seriously? A forum link with youtube videos that show some hollywood actor is no proof. Rather than having this wrong article we should just delete it. There are lots of credible mma news sites that covered Mr. Laranja and even interviewed him. This article is wrong and it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines so delete it. I know that you are an Aikido practitioner, but only because you train in a different martial art, you shouldn't badmouth and spread lies about BJJ practitioners. I don't want to fight about this at all, I can see your bad intentions so just delete it.Inverted omoplata (talk) 8:13 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) — Inverted omoplata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Nobody Ent 10:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge/redirect The suggestion above to merge this article with the article on Orange seems to be a good idea. Both are very small. I'd support turning this article into a redirect, and then merging the content into a single article. — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Bad sources, non-notable and poor writing. Not worth having on Wikipedia. Author should consider rewriting from scratch and re-submitting. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rhasaan Orange. Both articles are short enough, and well-connected enough, that it doesn't make much sense to keep them separate. I'm not sure if 'Renato Laranja' is really notable by our standards, but a mention in the Rhasaan Orange would probably be acceptable. Robofish (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, first I'd like to offer my apologies for everyone here who believes the article content to be patently terrible. I was the individual who added the content to what was originally the simple redirect you'd all like it to return to. This misadventure began when I came to the apparently erroneous conclusion that Renato was roughly as notable as any of the hundreds, if not thousands of Wikipedia's other fictional martial artists existing predominately in print, movies, video games and similar media, garnering them all an individual article exclusively for the character. At any rate, consensus has obviously spoken. I'd just suggesting keeping a good eye on the Orange article after the Renato merge as I would anticipate frequent creative edits from Renato fans. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't call it patently terrible and the notability of all those other fictional martial artists (and a lot of non-fictional ones) is also in question. It was a fair thing to do but the original Redirect was probably the best option.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:14, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Vickers[edit]

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

Former Fortune magazine reporter, now runs a research firm that doesn't appear to be notable. Simply lacks distinction or major awards, and I can find no articles whatever about this person, so this entry would appear to violate WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the New York Times source, there's very little on her. It may be safer to delete. --Artene50 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost no coverage. --204.210.154.79 (talk) 23:24, 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2008#District 5. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barb Davis White[edit]

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

Delete because it fails WP:Politician, he ran unsuccessfully against Keith Ellison, the only hits on GNews are the ones referring to the elections. The Determinator p t c 11:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2008#District 5 per usual practice for unsuccessful political candidates. The only coverage I could find was about the election; she appears to have no other notability. Turns out she also ran in 2010, but lost in the primary, so the 2008 election seems the appropriate target. I updated the article and added references, but in a lost cause; she simply does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 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, BusterD (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per MelanieN -- a standard procedure under WP:POLITICIAN. Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MelanieN. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per policy on unelected candidates.--Dmol (talk) 20:24, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish haiku[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Article appears to cover two unrelated topics: a book of Jewish jokes written in 17-syllable form, and Torah scripture expressed in English in 17-syllable format, as exemplified in a blog. Neither the jokes nor the blog content are actually haiku since (A) they omit haiku's essential content - kigo and kire, and (B) haiku in English generally eschew the 17-syllable form. The subject has not received any extensive coverage in third-party RS. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's real haiku or not isn't really relevant for the article's keepability. (Certainly when I was in school in the U.S. the only requirement for haiku that we were taught was the 5/7/5 structure; we weren't taught anything about kigo and kire, and we weren't allowed to deviate from the 17-syllable form.) But if it's true that "Jewish haiku" is represented only by two works that don't have any connection to each other -- if there's no independent coverage of the genre -- then the topic probably isn't notable and the article should be deleted. Angr (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. The following sentence is irrelevant to the question of the subject's notability: "Neither the jokes nor the blog content are actually haiku since (A) they omit haiku's essential content - kigo and kire, and (B) haiku in English generally eschew the 17-syllable form." --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:31, 7 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, -Scottywong | confess _ 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haiku have become a trope of English parody literature and there surely is no possible innate notability in two random examples thereof. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could merge some to David M. Bader although I'm not sure if he's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meeting WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be the first person here to proposes that we KEEP this article - it could have some value. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:AFD "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." and "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can ... search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines..." --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the haiku.
I laughed so much it hurt me.
Are they notable?
Bearian (talk) 21:02, 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 Keep - Merging remains an editorial possibility, and perhaps likely given the discussion here. Wily D 08:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of toys in the Demonic Toys films[edit]

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

Zero sources. Zero out-of-universe notability. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know about. Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment – The series of Demonic Toys films are notable (Demonic Toys, Dollman vs. Demonic Toys, Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys, Demonic Toys 2), and this is a very reasonable content fork of these four articles. The rationale to retain this article is based upon WP:PRESERVE, a subsection of Wikipedia's Editing policy. Outright deletion is unnecessary, and simply reduces the overall available information to the public about the films. This article would benefit from the addition of inline citations for verification using reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000... a reasonable spinout-article that avoid idle repetitions about characters-features in all the articles related to this franchise.Cavarrone (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Also, the following articles, all of which are currently up for deletion, could be merged into List of toys in the Demonic Toys films, to consolidate all of the verifiable information in one place:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see two problems with the above "keep" !votes: 1/ Neither the articles on the individual characters, nor the list article, nor the articles on the Demonic Toys movies have a single reliable source (Demonic Toys 2 is the only article with references - to trailers and blogs). Hence, there is no verifiable information that can be merged. 2/ While fictional characters like Darth Vader have obvious out-of-universe notability, there is no evidence at all that any of the Demonic Toys characters have any out-of-universe notability. I don't see any reason why we need separate articles on them, or even a single list article on them, as brief plot synopses are sufficient for the individual films. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the series of articles about these films is unsourced or poorly sourced, we are required to judge notability not on the basis of the sources currently named in an article but only on the basis of the existence of these sources, and these films are indeed notable (ie see [35] and [36]). No-one here is claiming an out-of-universe notability for these characters, we are substaining a legitimate spinout of contents that otherwise would be merged multiple times into the film articles with obvious reps, as the main characters are basically the same for all the franchise-series. If separate articles for all these characters are inappropriate, a list of the characters that recur in a series of five notable films is IMHO an appropriate editorial convenience for WP. It could me maybe merged into a future parent article about the whole franchise, ie. Demonic Toys (film series).Cavarrone (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contesting the notability of the individual movies at all. However, I do contest the existence of any sources about the characters. I don't really think that "He makes a loud scream and his weapon of choice is his machete" is valuable encyclopedic knowledge. Creating an article about the series (if there exist sources about the series) could perhaps be a way to get to a more substantial article that at least looks a little bit encyclopedic. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List articles for notable series exist to list the characters within. Been like that forever, and its fine. Helps you understand why the series was successful. Dream Focus 22:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you would base this list on which reliable sources? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should seem that such a list article would be based upon the same citations which source the film articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which at this point is exactly zero references... There's probably something out there about the movies, but I doubt that would contain enough info to source a list on these characters. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak / Temporary Keep: the individual articles are likely to be merged here, and it would be fair to give them time to be improved under the new format. Perhaps there's a chance that someone will verify the notability of these characters in aggregate, as seen in WP:LISTN. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the individual articles into here. I agree that individual articles are probably not justifiable, but having a combination article like this is a reasonable solution, widely adopted in similar cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Please note that there are no sources about these characters. At this point, even the articles about the movies themselves are unsourced, although sources for those probably do exist. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. This appears to be a non-notable list of non-notable characters in what may even be a series of non-notable works. (Has anyone come up with some citations in these movies to help them meet WP:MOVIE?) This list has not shown the notability of these fictional toys/characters as a group. Notability needs to be established for the group through WP:GNG, perhaps by exploring any awards or discussions of the special effects utilized in the movies these characters come from. Without additional information, this list just appears to be a complete exposition of all possible details and a summary-only descriptions of works. We need more than a recap of what these characters did in the movie to justify a stand-alone list.--Joshuaism (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joshuaism. Also, as pointed out, neither this list, nor any of the main articles for the individual movies, have any reliable sources. There needs to be something in order to justify these characters being notable enough to have their own split page separate from the film's articles, and there just isn't anything. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or merge to Demonic Toys. A list of characters with short descriptions is perfectly okay (and encouraged) per WP:WAF, the question here is whether this list is allowed as a WP:SPINOUT. I think it is because of the size of the franchise, even if notability of the chracters as a group remains questionable. However, I also wouldn't mind if the character list is merged back into the main franchise article. It largely depends on if the other characters' articles are merged here ( => keep the list standalone as a spinout for size), or get deleted ( => merge the list into main article for shortness). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Demonic Toys – Struck my initial keep !vote above. The Demonic Toys article isn't prohibitively long, and merging the information there would expand and provide better context in the Demonic Toys article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demonic Toys per NA1000's re-vote. Always interested in building a consensus. Merging is the best way to preserve the content and hold it to a lower set of article guidelines. No prejudice against re-splitting once sufficient sources are found to meet WP:LISTN. (note: crossed out my !keep vote above.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge looks good here, basically for the reasons given by the above two comments. Doesn't seem to have generated enough coverage to be worthy of a separate article at this stage, but given that Demonic Toys is a fairly short article with no content on characters at all summarising the information there would provide a net improvement on the status quo. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:03, 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 speedy delete per G3. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Valupis College Prep[edit]

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

This is a hoax, but a sufficiently subtle one that I felt it didn't qualify for speedy deletion. A PROD tag was removed by the article's SPA creator. A close reading will reveal the hallmarks of adolescent humour that characterize such creations -- there are, of course, no reliable sources because the organization doesn't exist. If this were to WP:SNOWBALL I would not be sorry; there's been considerable back and forth with slanderous jokes being added and removed and I rather wish I'd just nominated it for speedy deletion when I first saw it. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a ((hoax)). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made up one day at school QU ^TalkQu 15:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative project management[edit]

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

Notability unclear at best. Hello71 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - definitely agree with the nominator that the notability of this topic under this title is murky. But this topic, under one name or another, has certainly been a hot subject of research over recent years in the construction industry (the area I know best). Personally I can't see any authoritative sources on this topic online. Maybe someone will add references in the next 7 days, if not I will change my 'vote' to delete. Sionk (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see plenty of Google books and Google scholar hits, which suggests the topic is notable enough. I have to say that at first glance the article reads well, yet on deeper inspection turns out to be uninformative. I can't even figure out whether its topic is the collaborative management of projects, or the management of collaborative projects. --Lambiam 21:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the reason of notability I now added some more links which partially are available only in German. This is the reason why in the first version I left them. To answer the "Title"-Comment: The collaboration happens in the management of the project i.e. the methodology of the project management is ment to be collaborative. (Pls. apologize my bad English). --Actano Ute (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being modest, or did you copy the article from somewhere? The article is written in very complex, long-winded but correct English, definitely not by someone with any deficiency in English. Sionk (talk) 16:17, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable; see here, for example. Warden (talk) 07:11, 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, SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreation. The topic may be notable, but the content reads like an OR essay and is unsourced. Sandstein 06:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Send for cleanup, article obviously needs to be rewritten and use in-line citations if it gets to stay. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Toon[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable TV channel; the sources provided do not establish notability, and I cannot find any further sources which would. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep important Persian kid channel.al (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reliable sources which can demonstrate that it is important and notable? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "important and notable" mean? It says it is the first Persian channel for kids, it broadcasts at Hot Bird satellite and thus can be watched by hundreds of million people in Europe and Middle East, it showed almost all well-known cartoon movies of the last decade (Ice Age, Shrek, Madagascar, Despicable Me,...). But it is definitely not "important and notable" for e.g. Australian people who don't know Persian. --188.109.89.238 (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is as notable as you say it is (and I don't deny that it might be), there should be reliable sources to back that up. If you can provide sources - reviews, articles, mentions in books, etc - which are not directly linked to the subject (an link to the channels own website wouldn't count, for example), then that would establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:42, 18 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 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, BusterD (talk) 03:59, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I've added two sources, but they're both before-the-fact, and look like they're written based off a press release reposted on sources that might have trouble meeting WP:RS. As a result, I can't argue in good faith that this meets WP:GNG. On the other hand, the basic info is no doubt verifiable, I don't have a strong feeling one way or another here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:02, 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 merge to AkzoNobel. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expancel[edit]

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

We are not a dictionary of businesses. The article does not suggest that the company is notable - as far as I can see it, it fails WP:CORP. On a relevant note, The creator works in that company, disclosed at User talk:InkieMS#My background. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that this is not a dictionary of businesses. I understand that the original article was not verifiable. There has been some changes to that, partly by myself. My hope is that it will be possible to improve the article enough for it to bring relevant knowledge to the readers. InkieMS (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the article does not seem to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirement. Feel free to expand and improve the article so that it does. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if we could be shown some sources that are not reprints or close paraphrases of press releases. I accept that the Dagbladet source doesn't match that description, but it is only a news report of an incident that would have been very important to the workers involved, but doesn't amount to significant coverage of Expancel. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 19 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with AkzoNobel, the clearly-notable parent company. Roodog2k (talk) 16:29, 25 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) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has obviously recieved some press and reliable sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which press? You've voted 3 keep votes in 3 minutes all with vague reasoning. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. gnews hits merely confirm existence rather than being indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with AkzoNobel the parent company. A small division of a notable company. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 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} 02:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motek Productions[edit]

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

Promotional article for an agency of questionable notability. The article provides a lot of references, but very few of them actually mention the agency itself, except for references from primary sources. A Google news search on "Motek Productions" shows zero results. A standard search shows a plethora of primary sources and social media sites run by the company, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete- not notable--Shrike (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry but myspace, youtube, flickr and LinkedIn are not WP:RS that establish this company's notability. --Artene50 (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one article listed in the references devoted to the actual company. It's from Ynet and in Hebrew (Google translation). There also appears to be separate WP article on Motek's non-profit spin-off, Motek Cultural Initiative. That likewise has one article to devoted to it from the The Jewish Tribune [37]. However, we don't need two separate articles devoted to this company. It may be possible to merge them into one article, if the consensus is that the YNET and Jewish Tribune articles are enough to pass WP:GNG. The remaining sources in both articles are trivial mentions, mainly who to contact for tickets. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is about an Impresario, not a music organization. Is it a notable one? Two articles definitely not warranted, though I'm not sure if even one is either yet, maybe in a few years. The vast majority of sources are merely articles the concerts and not about Motek. I'd appreciate to see 'otherstuff' of similar impressarios/organizations that might change my mind in the other direction. --Shuki (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too am smelling an advertisement. --Bachrach44 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Hue Sat Lum 17:57, 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 delete. See User:Sandstein/AfD closing for methodological comments. The "keep" opinions are notably weak, ignoring the serious sourcing arguments raised by the "delete" opinions and instead focusing on the subject's perceived merits, which are irrelevant for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sandstein 06:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEO Panel[edit]

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

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

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

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

Despite the author's repeated protestations, I don't think that this is notable. There are many, many links, mainly back to the software website or to redistributors. It's biggest claim to fame seems to be "1st runner up Most Promising Open Source Project" which didn't even get it much coverage. There are two apparently comphrensive reviews [38] and [39]. The first appears to consist largely of text cut and pasted from the software projects website, leaving a single review / walk through upon which this software's notability rests. I just don't think it's enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not good enough to just find a couple of reviews somewhere on the whole wide web. Notability requirements for an article start at multiple reliable sources giving non trivial coverage, and the reviews aren't coming from notable, WP:RS-compliant sites. No indication this software has become notable in the field or in general. That lack leaves the article as pure advertising, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is here for. If it ever becomes notable the article can be recreated. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To begin with there are no "free softwares" for Search Engine Optimization (SEO) available in the market today. Every tool tries to make you download a beta/test version for free then buy a host of services of "full package" later. Seo Panel is the first, open source tool that lets you run your SEO for as many sites as you want, unrestricted. Then SEO Panel is Open Source, thus we can customize it to suit our specific needs and reuse the code available to re-create a refined version of Seo Panel for our needs. In this scenario Seo Panel will become a benchmark for future Open Source projects for Search Engine Optimization professionals. I understand your worry about not seeing enough reviews for the software. But this software was built by a single developer over a period of 2 years and so possibly didn't have enough "marketing resources". That apart I will make sure I provide as many third party reviews as possible within a day or two. Thanks all for the kind consideration. by William Emmanual | Send me a Message 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The greatest notability of seo panel is 1st runner up as most promising open source project in one of the famous open source award of world(Packt Open source Award). The award based on a combination of public voting and input by a panel of judges consisting of open source luminaries. Seo Panel is released in 27 languages, thats why reviews are spread over different languages. I have just added new references to seo panel page and removed unwanted references. For your information I am adding some references here and hope this will help every one.

Optimize your site for search engines with Seo Panel

How to Install SEO Panel in your Local Machine / Web Host

SEO PANEL: OPENSOURCE SEO TOOL ZUR RANKING ANALYSE

Бесплатная seo-панель

Open Source SEO Panel

Darmowe monitorowanie pozycji w Google, instalacja Seo Panel

SEO Panel – um programa livre e de otimização de sites

SEOPANEL - VOTRE PORTAIL WEB DÉDIÉ AU RÉFÉRENCEMENT NATUREL

Free SEO: software all-in-one o singoli strumenti?

SEOに力を入れるなら使おう「Seo Panel」

Seo Panel : une solution open source pour le référencement

Narzędzia SEO

by Sendtogeo | Send me a Message 21:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Sendtogeo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Some Reviews:

TechRepublic is an online trade publication and social community for IT professionals, with advice on best practices and tools for the day-to-day needs of IT decision-makers. Check out their review of Seo Panel

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/doityourself-it-guy/diy-optimize-your-site-for-search-engines-with-seo-panel/535

SeoSoftware.net is an authority on SEO softwares and you can see their reviews here:

http://www.seosoftware.net/open-source-seo-software/ by William Emmanual | Send me a Message 14:56, 25 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently have about 16 references, they are coming from notable secondary sources. Also secondary sources are from different languages. Please verify it here => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEO_Panel#References Also one privileged editor removed the "citations from reliable sources" issue from article. I think it is enough to keep the article and support wikipedia. Sendtogeo (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Sendtogeo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: all of the listed sources are blogs with no editorial oversight. Though MakeUseOf and TechRepublic are somehow reputable blogs, neither of their articles cover the software in question in sufficient detail, so no sources are provided to demonstrate notability of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It probably will be a while before this project reaches the critical mass of other well funded closed source projects. It costs money to build awareness before good editorials get written. It seems pointless to remove this article in the short term only to bring it back once it reaches the right level of public awareness. While it's good to keep business spamming out of wikipedia, I feel the project is more of a public resource. It fits a small market much like Piwik.

by aamche 21:46, 9 July 2012 (GMT) — aamche (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- This is covered by WP:LOSE. Please also see WP:NEXTBIGTHING. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to work with seopanel, I added this important tool to my sites, and hope to be helpfull for my traffic also — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaid2012 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Mihaid2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Unfortunately, this does not help establish notability. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the program. The most helpful part is that Geo Vargese is very responsive to fixing any proglems.

The program works smoothly, he is adding upgrades all the time and they are useful.

I think you would be remiss if you delete this work — ‎Locators (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:LOSE --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:09, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ervin (basketball)[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 108.235.111.49, whose rationale (as posted at the article's talk page) is posted below. On the merits, I have no opinion. Note that this sat as a redlinked AFD for most of three days - I'm posting it on July 9th, so use that as the start date for closing and whatnot. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion: Irrelevant and Not Notable. --108.235.111.49 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This player has won a top award in a professional league and is currently playing in a professional league allbeit in the Ukraine Seasider91 (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have had a respectable career, even though he never made it to the NBA. He was indeed the MVP of the Australian league: [40]. Zagalejo^^^ 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASKETBALL #1. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject clearly meets WP:NBASKETBALL. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IP has no idea what entails notability. Australia's NBL is a half step below the NBA in terms of respect and media coverage. This subject could have played one game in the league and passed WP:NBASKETBALL, let alone become the most valuable player of it. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jrcla's comment immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NBL is a pretty important league, and MVP is a pretty important honor. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per all of the above this subject very clearly meets WP notability standards. Rikster2 (talk) 13:11, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MTB Himachal[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article (by a paid editor) for a non-notable bike race, as indicated by the lack of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable biking event, often called 'the India's toughest cycle rally' in reliable sources, see [41]. The article has potential. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That link brings up nothing at all for me--can you link to some individual articles, maybe? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lamba, Sunny (2009-10-11). "Mountain biking: Only the strongest will survive". The Economic Times. Times India. Hercules MTB Himachal, billed as the world's third toughest mountain biking event […]
    Uncle G (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15 pages of Google searching didn't deliver that article, but I found one other one along the way--very odd. Article updated with two references, nomination withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 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 Redirect to The Times of India. (non-admin closure) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Times News Network[edit]

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

This article is that of an unnotable news agency. There are no sources available to write an encyclopedic article on the subject. Google news gives 27000+ results on the subject, but all of them from the network itself. Secret of success (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Times of India. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Times of India. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Times of India. Lacks content as well as concrete third party reference -Anbu121 (talk me) 15:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge contents to The Times of India. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-referential. Redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There's nothing in the proposed article, so merge is not applicable. - Vivvt^Talk 16:27, 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} 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Penn[edit]

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

Does not meet basic WP:N requirements, known only for fairly low-key MTV tv series, no notable awards, no significant news coverage as an individual. — raeky t 03:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:38, 2 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) 14:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 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 Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bakrie Pipe Industries[edit]

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

Not notable, unreferenced, repeatedly recreated after speedy deletions. GregJackP Boomer! 13:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Should be speedy deleted A7. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 19:25, 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 Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George bernard shaw islam[edit]

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

Massively POVFORK attempting to reinterpret Shaw to favour Islam. WP:SOAP and WP:OR apply. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per nominator and WP:NOTESSAY. Only sources are blogs and the article title doesn't even use proper capitalization. I don't see any content that is even merge-worthy. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per nom and Sleddog116. Really should have been PRODed (why isn't there a speedy criterion for this stuff?) ChromaNebula (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete – An essay that is based upon synthesis and original research. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per all of the above. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:01, 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 merge to MiMA (building). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

440 West 42nd Street[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability or recent stories about this building. Searching the address on any search engine only comes up with blog entries, travel reviews, or unofficial news articles from 2010 or earlier, when the building was under construction (this is probably why the contents of the article is outdated). No one seems to know who or what is occupying this building today and some sources, though not very reliable, say that is an extension of the MiMA (building). There is evidence that this address once housed a theater, but they are so old (from the 1970s and 1980s, implying that something else occupied the address before this building) that is almost impossible to determine if this theater was popular enough to merit an article for this address The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - While there needs to be updated information, this building has received some very in-depth coverage.[42][43][44] and even recieved coverage in India. [45]--Oakshade (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Changed to Merge per Jim.henderson's comments below. --Oakshade (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me the question is whether this is the same building as MiMA (building). I suspect it was renamed during a hiatus in the project, in which case the answer would be Merge. As it happens I am sitting at my keyboard half a mile from there and can adjust my route to Brooklyn later today to pass down that part of W42St for a bit of Original Reconnassance. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay there seems to be only one building occupying the south side of 42nd Street between Dyre and 10th Avenues.
  - The entrance just west of the Dyre Avenue corner is labelled as 450 and as MiMa Tower 1.
  - West of there, approximately mid block, an entrance is labelled as 440, contrary to the practice that house numbers increment westward west of 5th Avenue, and also as MiMa Tower 1. Whether there's a 2, I don't know.
  - On 10th Avenue the YOtel entrance has an avenue house number, and on the north side of the western part of the 41st Street the parking garage has an odd number; I'll dig those numbers out of my photos later.
- So, yes, if there ever was a plan to build a separate 440 W42, it doesn't seem to have happened. Either it merged or it got renamed, and I figure merging is the right way to handle the articles. Wish we could find a ref for this rather than rely on visual scouting. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to 440 West 42nd Street (Manhattan.

Hasty job; no retouching. Original sequence was from Dyre Avenue westward along 42 and around the block on 9th and eastward on 43 but the upload process scrambled it. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jim Henderson. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knapp Street[edit]

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

This is the second time an article for this street has been created. The first version was deleted two years ago because of an expired PROD that deemed this street unnotable. It was recreated about a year ago and contrary to what it currently says, Knapp Street is not a major thoroughfare (central reservations do not necessarily determine that). Driving through it on Google Maps shows that it is a relatively short, mostly residential (particularly north of Voorhies Avenue) street. No public transportation service goes there full time and having a sewage plant, exit on a highway, or hotel (especially one that is not world famous like The Plaza or Waldorf-Astoria) does not prove its significance to the city. Furthermore, the single book source in the article only mentions the street once with no major events happening there and searching the street on Google Books only comes up with travel guides, neighborhood reports, encyclopedias, and other meaningless works that do not make this street notable for Wikipedia. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about short, insignificant residential streets in Staten Island with irrelevant sources that are about real estate the "landmarks" (which are actually just local businesses and points of interests) on the streets, not the streets themselves. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Avenue and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin_Avenue for more.

The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 13:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. They all fail WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public streets in the U.S. always pass WP:GNG. Public money was paid for them, studies get done such as how much traffic goes various ways through intersections. Cartographers are secondary independent sources. People want to know where they are so that they can drive on them. The post office makes use of street addresses. Enough pot holes, and politicians can lose their jobs. Unscintillating (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned before, streets at the state-primary level and above are 'automatically notable'. Those at the secondary state/county level and down most often do not. Cartographical sources are routine coverage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage is the kind of coverage that Obama gets. As per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." The previous post has a Wikilink to WP:ROUTINE, which is an anchor in WP:Notability (events). WP:Notability (events) is referenced at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:ROUTINE states, "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." In summary, routine coverage for topics like the one being discussed is evidence under our guidelines and policy that a topic passes WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And appearance in a road atlas, even every road atlas ever published, does not establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all—public streets don't "always pass WP:GNG". Some of these should have some level of disambiguation applied if they continue to exist. Why is this Knapp Street primary over the one in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which is the equivalent to 2 Mile Road in that county's mile road system? Unscintillating's comments on how these streets supposedly pass GNG aren't exactly the case. Each article must make an individual claim to notability. Concerning the nominated Knapp Street, footnote 1 only establishes notability for the sewage plant. Footnote 2 only establishes notability for the hotel, not the street. Foonote 3, as mentioned in the article, is a "brief mention", which doesn't establish notability. Notability isn't inherited by the street only which these features are located. Based on past precedent, as outlined in WP:ROADOUTCOMES, city streets have contested notability; they simply need to demonstrate that the street itself is notable. These articles do not. Saying they are "residential yet important" or "residential yet primary" or even just "primary" without some official source to back that status is a bit of a POV. (In my home state, county roads and city streets are legally classified as either primary/local or major/minor respectively.) Claiming primary status without a source to back that (and no, the wider yellow line on Google Maps won't cut it) is an enhancement, and there aren't sources to back any claims of notability in these articles. Imzadi 1979 → 05:37, 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 (G3) as a blatant hoax. --MuZemike 22:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Loud: Around the Time[edit]

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

No evidence this film exists, absolutely no coverage BOVINEBOY2008 13:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was unable to find anything online that, a) was not created in past few days, b) could not have been created by just one random person or c) had any smidgen of coverage anywhere. Theopolisme _TALK 13:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This movie, and not well known but what really has imdb, should not be excluded. we hope to make the imdb.--Keys Love (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fake relation with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dari Feitosa and pt:Especial:Contribuições/Natalia_Cannes. GRS73 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keys Love is sock, check pt:Categoria:!Fantoches de Dari Feitosa. GRS73 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:HOAX. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Not a single reliable reference: the article's link to IMDb doesn't find it, the link to Box Office Mojo is a deadlink; it is supposed to release in November, but the IMDb entries for Chris Rock and Danny Glover, the supposed director and producer, do not mention it. Pull the other one. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; appears to be a hoax at worst, and non-notable at best. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 22:50, 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 merge to Disney XD#International channels. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (India)[edit]

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

not clear how this subject is notable and cannot be sufficiently covered in the parent article. Lacks any references to reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Disney_XD#International_channels, and make Disney XD (India) a redirect to that page, much like the others (for example Disney XD (UK & Ireland)) are doing. Theopolisme _TALK 13:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Theopolisme. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:08, 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. WP:NOTESSAY (also WP:SNOW) j⚛e decker ^talk 19:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asher's Energy-Mass Relation[edit]

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

Appears to be original search, which isn't allowed here Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced personal musings. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete A fifteen year-old's incoherent misunderstanding of Mass–energy equivalence. Unsourced, utterly nonsensical and badly written to boot. We don't publish original research. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unveriable original research. — sparklism ^hey! 12:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, unsourced patent nonsense. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. I think I fried a few neurons trying to understand that. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Additional comment - Author of page is same name the theory is named after. WP:COI. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would the closing admin also please delete the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Asher's Energy-Mass Relation? While it's all fun and games watching him call anyone who disagrees with him a "dog" for deleting his page or refuting his theory, it doesn't belong on the WP:PHYSICS entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, not even a fringe theory, just some thoughts. Quailifies as patent nonsense.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete What is this I don't even...? (Also WP:NOTESSAY per above) Sleddog116 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - From User talk:Syed Ali Asher Kazmi, "As reviewing administrator, I have declined the speedy deletion nomination, because the article is about a theory, not a person". I disagree with this administrator, but now we know why. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete Wikipedia is not a blog, a webhost, or a publisher of essays and/or original thought (see WP:NOT). ChromaNebula (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete – Zero coverage in reliable sources (based upon cursory source searching). Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:37, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Female think tank directors[edit]

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

A list of think tank directors who are women. We don't have lists on think tank directors who are men or martians! Besides, this list doesn't establish either the notability of the think tanks or the women who run them. With one exception, all are unreferenced. All we have are links to some websites, twitter and facebook - which is my understanding we don't use on here. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is WP:SYNTH.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Eh, I am a female think-tank founder/director, why isn't my name in it - on that basis delete. A list of think-tank with names of directors can be notable but a list of female directors with the names of think-tanks and facebook/twitter/web page references is absolutely not. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 19:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of random information. Now, an article on women discrimination in leadership positions in non-governmental organizations would be encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women think tanks directors are not usual, and making a list of them can help to help the debate on their presence in think tanks. About female groups, we currently see very often categories of LGBT people in Wikipedia, without a "straight" category. We can also make lists of men, but in this case we are also talking about a minority inside a field. We are starting the list, so any additional information like more women in the group is welcome!--Adrianlmcl (talk) 18:28, 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 merge to Saxon Museum of Industry . Can be nominated again if that article is not created reasonably soon. Sandstein 06:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chemnitz Tar Mummy[edit]

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

I tried to independently verify that this object exists, but I found nothing in English-language reference sources. Can anyone please verify whether this article is a hoax? And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've found where it's mentioned on the website for the museum (who incidentally also appears to be the one who added the article in the first place), but I can't find anything to show that it's notable or genuine. [46]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this appears to be a genuine description of a museum exhibit (pictured in the article) along the lines of Otzi the snowman or the shrunken heads in the Pitt-Rivers museum. I think there's no doubt about its existence, nor that the museum is correct that the circumstance is highly curious; but unfortunately for English WP there is no evidence that anyone outside the museum ('cept for us, 'course) has ever written about it. We'll have to delete it unless some more evidence appears - I can't find any. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have we considered seeing if there are any German-language sources that we could use? Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep via merger into Saxon Museum of Industry (which I will create if the rate at which my list of things to do increases ever slows). The article has an external link to a Freie Presse article from 2003 (1), which looks genuine but predates the newspaper's online archive. I have yet to find other coverage of the mummified gasworks worker, but the museum itself is notable as demonstrated by the following selection of press coverage: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and is on the European Route of Industrial Heritage (11, and already listed in our article, as "Chemnitz Industrial Museum"). Frankly I'm hoping the article creator starts the article on the museum once they have registered a new username and got unblocked - they are blocked for editing under the museum's name, so presumably they know a lot about it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep via merger - per Yngvadottir. Sounds a very worthwhile project, which I'd be happy to support when I'm back at my desk. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anybody working on this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yarone Zober[edit]

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

Possibally fails WP:GNG Mdann52 (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak Keep: The article was created with the note Seems like a valid entry given the situation with Pittsburgh Mayor Bob O'Connor in 2006. He was once a deputy mayor and is now chief of staff of Pittsburgh mayor. There are a few sources online of his presence which may be sufficient to make him notable. Though I am still not convinced of his notability (how many deputy mayors are there, do they all deserve an article, does every politician at some position deserve an article), I will vote a weak keep. The article has been here for too long and can be kept with modifications and references. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 18:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The impression I get is that this is a WP:BLP1E, and the one event was someone else's illness. No problem with recreating if he someday does become notable on his own. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not meet any of the criteria under WP:Politician. His most prominent accomplishment is that he's the chief of staff of a mayor. Every metropolitan city mayor has a chief of staff and if that alone qualifies one for notability, then all of them should have their own Wikipedia article. Also, he is a political appointee, not an elected official. User:Samar alluded to Zober previously being Deputy Mayor, but it was simply a temporary appointment by the previous mayor, Bob O'Connor, while he was on his deathbed, and Zober was only in the position for 26 days. So I think User:DoriSmith is right on the money regarding WP:BLP1E. Zober's appointment to Deputy Mayor is appropriately included here in the O'Connor article. Finally, the fact that an article has existed for a long time, as User:Samar alluded to, should never be a consideration in determining a subject's notability. Many articles slip through the cracks for a long time. The only issue should be: Does the subject meet the notability guidelines or not? --76.189.98.15 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC) 21:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC) 21:38, 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} 23:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Ulster Loyalist Campaign 1998 - present[edit]

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

Major WP:SYN and WP:POVFORK issues. For starters, there's not a single reliable source that I can find that even says there is a single, unified dissident loyalist campaign. Even if one or two were scraped together, it would still be a minority fringe view that such a campaign even exists. What we actually have instead are a small number of dissident organisations which aren't even that active in the first place, and any information about their activity (little that there is) belongs on the articles about individual organisations. Thus we wouldn't be losing information, we'd just be including it in the proper place to do so. The article states the campaign is ongoing, say what? Where was the dissident loyalist response to the 2009 Massereene Barracks shooting? Simiarly where was the dissident loyalist response to the Continuity IRA shooting dead a PSNI officer two days later? There was no response! Instead we get the article padded out with things like the murder of Kevin McDaid, and I can't find any sources mentioning "dissident loyalists" having anything to do with that. Simply because members of the UDA (who aren't dissident loyalists) may have been involved in his killing by a mob doesn't make his killing part of a so-called dissident campaign. Street violence between the two communities in Northern Ireland still continues on a sporadic basis, dissident or mainstream has nothing to do with it most of the time. Similarly there's the UVF's killing of Bobby Moffet, which was basically an internal UVF matter and is absolutely nothing to do with a so-called dissident campaign, unless the term actually means "anything loyalists have done since 1998". You might be thinking all this is actually a content dispute and to a certain extent you're right, but I'm trying to demonstrate that once you strip out all the stuff that's not part of the so-called campaign you're left with a single pipe-bomb incident to cover the entire campaign over a six year period. That is of course unless you believe that this actually sources "In 2007, a new loyalist paramilitary known as the Real UFF was founded by former UFF members in County Aintrim, and has been committing terrorist attacks there and across Northern Ireland ever since". The sources used in the article usually don't even mention dissident loyalists, if they do they don't claim there is a single dissident loyalist campaign. All information in this article can easily be covered in more appropriate articles (which it is already to the best of my knowledge), nothing will be lost by the deletion of this original research laden POV fork. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well-written, for an opinion essay. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least 20 grammar, spelling, or spacing errors. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:58, 16 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umhlanga Lagoon[edit]

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

Non-notable location. Dolphin (t) 06:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Dolphin (t) 06:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many book sources. In addition of cited sources we have On route in South Africa by B. P. J. Erasmus, Reader's digest illustrated guide to the game parks and nature reserves of Southern Africa by Alan Duggan and Anthony Hocking, Discovering Southern Africa by Thomas Victor Bulpin, Hilary Rennie and Solveig Stibbe, South Africa's Top Sites by Philip Harrison, Traveller's guide to South Africa by Peter Joyce, Guide to Southern African Game & Nature Reserves by Chris & Tilde Stuart, Südafrika by Bernhard Abend and Achim Bourmer, Holiday-maker's guide to South Africa by Tim O'Hagan and more... I see it also mentioned in General History of Africa and The Cambridge History of Africa. Keep or, considering the actual article's size, Merge and Redirect to Umhlanga, KwaZulu-Natal. Cavarrone (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the nom has given zero rationale as to why this nature preserve is non-notable, I would say even speedy keep. The coverage is adequate for passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic appears to meet WP:GNG per the sources in the article and those presented above by User:Cavarrone. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources. Surely a pre-historic African site should at least make on English Wiki.Tamsier (talk) 07:34, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Check[edit]

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

Deprodded with suggestion to incubate with second episode forthcoming. However, that doesn't change the fact that I'm not finding much of anything source-wise that isn't a.) a Wikipedia mirror or b.) someone's blog. I can't even prove that a second episode will exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well as a complete lack of sources, and a general failure to assert any sort of notability in the article whatsoever, most episodes are listed as dates in the future, so I'd fail it per WP:CRYSTAL because of that too. In fact, regardless of whether this article gets deleted, I would suggest that far more people typing "sound check" into the search box are actually looking for Soundcheck. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Ritchie. But why do we have a detailed list of 13 episodes if there's only evidence of one episode? Did somebody just make it up? bobrayner (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding evidence to support compliance with WP:GNG. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:43, 16 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. Move discussion can take place on talk — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wellchester[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wellworths (GB)

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

Was nommed back in '09 amidst a flurry of press regarding the collapse of Woolworths Group and how this one shop was singularly notable for opening directly after the closure of a Woolworths branch in this small town. Moving on three years and the store remains only notable for that single event, still only one store in a small town and still basically non-notable in it's own right. Stores which copy the trading style of previous stores has happened before they did it and will happen again so it's not like their story is unique, it's just a good human interest story at best and has no place here. In short, still failing WP:N within its own right three years on and no real sourcing of their continued success through WP:BEFORE after the '09 opening. tutterMouse (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale in the first AFD. The notability is entirely coatracked from the previous tenant of the store, and all sources deal only with one event — the name change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're kidding, right? There's a dozen references in the article, and it was the subject of a BBC documentary. That's practically the definition of notability right there. But, if you want, it meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP, to put it in Wikipedia terms. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you? The whole story surrounding this store is like I said, a small town human interest story blown way out of proportion by a one-shot event that went national by association with the collapse of a high street store with a long legacy. Everything about it is inherited from that high street chain including the sourcing and without that or the nostalgia of loss, it wouldn't be notable at all or even have that small window of coverage. tutterMouse (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the sources (and indeed content) in the article at present back up the assertion that it's either a) non-notable in its own right or b) notable only for a single event. There are multiple examples of national and even international coverage (according to this anyway) about the store itself, the definition of notability according to WP:CORP, and not all of the coverage relates to the initial opening - sources also talk about its popularity after opening [47] and its enforced change of name [48] [49]. And just a few hours after the nomination was posted there was this development in the story, which changes things again. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing how this is a deletion candidate given the depth and breadth of coverage available. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sourcing but it isn't much good as it only shows it's of local interest after the whole nostalgia trip has worn off and the press and the general public has moved on elsewhere. An enforced change of name doesn't mean anything, it's little better than name rights squatting nor does how it's closing mean much either even if a large industry magazine paid it minor attention. tutterMouse (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the name-change sources is from the BBC, which demonstrates at least somewhat more than just local interest, but the main reason I mentioned these was to challenge the one-event argument since we can find sources which cover other aspects of the store's history. International coverage for one event followed by two years of sustained local and occasional national coverage for other reasons is more than enough to meet WP:CORP as I'm reading it, especially since WP:ONEEVENT as currently written applies only to biographies... Alzarian16 (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The store generated a lot of coverage in the press at the time and is still being mentioned. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, key words there being "at the time" as it was little more than a human interest story blown hugely out of proportion by an eager press covering the little guy stepping into the big guy's shoes in the wake of the death of a store the public didn't know they had until it left. Barely anything but "hey, remember when this happened?" followups which are usually related in whole to the company it tried to clone. The section on the copycat attempt of another failed store is laughable and shouldn't even bear mentioning in the article, much less used as a reason to keep. If WP:ONEEVENT applied equally to things like this instead of merely BLPs, it'd fall foul of it immediately. It isn't so it's probably lucky. tutterMouse (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Examples include: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not determined by the personal opinion of editors such as the nominator because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. There are plenty of good sources and the notability which derives from such sources not expire. Warden (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Notability might not be determined by personal opinion but this article's fate is determined by it. I have no idea where you think deletion is equivalent to censorship but it certainly doesn't apply here. Sourcing might not expire but this article is WP:RECENT writ large as it relates to a month or two during early 2009 in the UK for one single store in a small that is due to close three years on from the creation out of the ashes of a much bigger and long-standing company. Don't WP:INHERIT and WP:RECENT mean anything in this? tutterMouse (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do all of you not realize that literally every source is from the same very narrow window of time? Does that not suggest a WP:ONEEVENT to you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. One event is a reason to keep, in this case. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. The Steve 01:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move The article is primarily (entirely) about a single event, not about the store in continuation. The article's title should reflect that. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:04, 16 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. Heck of a long read, and with SPAs involved a little bit difficult to draw a completely unbiased consensus. However, the keep !voters have made a solid point that these parshas are an intrinsic part in Jewish tradition, one which, as a simple matter of fact of what they are, will involve retelling liturgical background, such as the story of Noah here. This article should be improved with critical commentary, a point well-raised by delete !voters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noach (parsha)[edit]

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

Article appears to be a POVFORK of Noah, Noah's Ark, Genesis creation narrative and Flood myth. It has no references cited to support the text (though it does have external links listed inline, going to bible verses, throughout, and it does have extensive "further reading"). The article is also written in an explicitly in-universe POV, describing the book of genesis in wikipedia's voice as though uncontested history. I have read through the article, and am not sure there is any content which can be salvaged to be merged with the other articles. I don't expect this to be controversial, but it seems to me that other editors should also review the article to see if I've missed anything, so XfD seemed more appropriate than a prod. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appear to be a lot of these kinds of articles. A lot of work was obviously put into these, but they seem to be poorly sourced, duplicate content, and in violation of our neutrality policies in terms of their style; in other words, they all appear to be POVFORKS. Here are a few. Pinchas (parsha), Balak (parsha), Chukat, Korach (parsha), Shlach. There's at least 43. They were all created by User:Dauster in 2006 (I've already notified him of this discussion). I'm not really sure what to do here. I don't want to XfD all 43+ of them. I suppose we may have to go through one by one after this discussion closes, and see what to do in each case. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree here, they're all clearly unsourced POV articles that do not present alternative views, do not have sources to backup their anaysis/meaning sections, and read pretty much like religious study guides and not an encyclopedic article, Weekly_Torah_portion#Table_of_weekly_readings all of those are problems, not just this one, possibly amend the AFD to include them all? Not sure they need deleted though, but DEFINITELY gutted and properly sourced and brought to look more like encyclopedia articles. We don't need a verse-by-verse interpretation and explanation of the entire Torah which it appears to be now. — raeky t 13:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This and the associated other 53 articles in this series describe Torah readings in the annual cycle of Jewish Torah readings. There are numerous sources cited to classical Jewish historical documents like the Talmud, Mishnah, and Midrash. There is substantial content and focus here that are not present in the other articles cited by the nominator, as those articles do not address the subject's significance to the annual cycle of Torah readings. Destruction of this article, which has existed separately and with acceptance since 2005, would eliminate useful and separate content. -- Dauster (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm a bit concerned about an IP whose only edit is to praise what the IP refers to as Dauster's article. Particularly since the IP doesn't seem to understand that we cannot have two articles on the same subject with different content. The fact that an article has existed from 2005 is immaterial. If it were a pov fork, it should be deleted, but I'm not convinced that it is a fork. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not a POVFORK. It is one of 54 articles on the Weekly_Torah_portion. The articles discuss Jewish exegetical readings of the weekly Torah portions as subjects unto themselves, and are not attempts to evade WP:POV. There is superficial overlap between this article and Noah but the focus here is to explain the content of the Jewish exegetical readings, not to explain Genesis in Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.186.139 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What we have here is a name collision. This is not a POV fork - it's about the Weekly Torah portion (or parshah in Hebrew), which has the name Noah. The weekly reading contains the story of Noah, but the article is about the weekly reading, not the story of the man and his boat. Take a look at other articles on parshahs like Shemot (parsha), Shoftim (parsha) and Pinchas (parsha). In the case of the last one, the parsha contains most (but not all) of the story of Phinehas, as well as some other content. It will obviously differ from the article on Phinehas, but that doesn't mean it's a POV fork - it means it's about a different thing. --Bachrach44 (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Maybe this will help explain it. The torah is divided into 54 chapters. Each chapter has a name (although they could have simply been numbered 1-54, but where the fun in that?) This is about the chapter of the torah which has the name Noah. Pretend that it's simply called "torah chapter 2" and you'll clearly see that it's not a POV fork. --Bachrach44 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the series of Parshas an invaluable help to me when I try to understand the Jewish liturgical year ( it, the weekly readings of the Torah.) Separating one entry from all its affiliated entries, and then criquing its 'thoreoughness', seems to me equivalen to taking one chapter of Moby-Dick, say on whales, and critiquing it as having no beginning or end of plot. What the author of this entry has done is -- over many years -- put gether the annual cycle of Torah portions/readings, the Parshas, so that a knowledgeable (or not knowledgeable) reader of Wikipedia has access to the whole of the Torah as it is read, and studied, in the living religion. Sure, we give awards (or people do not get awards) for each stage in the Tour de France, but the sum total -- the Tour itself -- is much more than its parts. The same holds for this grealty iinformative series of commentaries -- which is complete, and as anyone who goes deeper (as I ahve, in tha past) will find, is updated often by its original author. -- Huck Gutman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.89.149 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dauster works in ~~the white house~~ u.s. senate, according to his user page, 156.33.89.149 is an IP address for the United States Senate... 96.241.126.33 & 71.174.186.139 are Verizon IP addresses for Ashburn, Virginia, as close as you can get to DC and not be DC (cell phones?). Possibly a bit of local canvasing, seems extremely odd 3 brand new IP editors show up to defend this editor and his pages and all are so connected geographically, Geolocate puts these IP's different locations, ones pretty close to DC though, still strange that this much anonymous support jumping in here so quickly... — raeky t 13:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is the ~~second~~ third IP editor that has never edited before showing up here to defend the creator of these pages.... interesting. Huck, this is an encyclopedia, not a religious study website, we don't need unabridged textual critiques of literature here, that's WP:NOT what wikipedia is about, these 52 articles (And I likely more articles Dauster has created, are not encyclopedia entries for this. I'm not saying the Jewish liturgical year isn't worthy of inclusion, but we don't need entire textual crituqes of every verse of the entire Torah here, and that's what this is pretty much. I'm not convinced we need a page for every one of these, one page for them all is probably all that an encyclopedia needs. — raeky t 13:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find all these mysterious first time editors annoying too, but don't let the "supporters" distract you from the cause. There is a page for each Sura (see Template:Sura), why should this be any different? Each one on it's own has been subject to significant independent coverage and treatment over the years, they are certainly notable. --Bachrach44 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By just looking at a few of them (there are a lot of them) they appear to be fairly small and obviously not a verse-by-verse critique as these appear to be. I would have less of an issue for a page for each if it was limited to overviews and universal unbiased opinion and WELL sourced, but as it is now it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic and more like a study guide for the religion. That's WP:NOT what wikipedia is about. Even if the decision is to keep this article, it will still likely need to be severely gutted and whittled down to an encyclopedic article. There's another issue is that this is essentially just the books of the bible with Jewish slant to their interpretation, why couldn't these views be put into the articles about each book? That's where the main issue of the POVFORK is I think, we already have articles about these books... these views should probably go into them? — raeky t 17:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep. I am opposed to the deletion of this Wikepedia article. This is not POVFORK. Over the years, I just used it for Torah class presentation and for finding additional documentation. I find it inspirational, well-written, and usedul for those of us who are Jewish. Probably the person who wants to delete this article does not understand that this and the associated other 53 articles in this series describe Torah readings in the annual cycle of Jewish Torah readings. I must state that I do not quite understand what is the problem. I can only say that to me this article and the other 53 articles are invaluable to me because they are not just explain my tradition but help me to formulate questions and to be challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caswellm (talk • contribs) 13:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep. This article and those on the other Torah portions represent the best of modern thinking applied to historic scholarship, encouraging us to question, reexamine and study further. I have used them for Torah study here in the middle of nowhere because they do not push a particular agenda. I think this is a work of exceptional scholarship, well within the Wiki scope.

--72.78.45.217 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I have sympathy with those who have created and developed the article, I do not see any clear evidence of notability of the subject independent of the original texts. Thus, I cannot see how these articles meet WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTGUIDE. The fact that it and the others are written in a rather clear in-universe, POV way is another strike against them. The Catholic Church has a regular cycle of Bible readings as well, but I don't see any articles relating to those specific readings, even though they are probably more notable, given the greater size of that body. While I can and do understand that there are almost certainly homiletic works among others which discuss these readings as these readings, that material would, reasonably, also be more reasonable in the articles on the main subjects. I have to agree that this article, and probably all the others in this grouping, should be deleted as POV forks and otherwise violations of policy. This is not to say that they might not be acceptable for inclusion in some other WF site, though. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John, regrettably you are attributing things to this article that don't exist and that simply do not compare, (your words in italics): "I have sympathy with those who have created and developed the article": indeed, as you can tell great effort and detail has gone in presenting this and the related 53 parsha articles with great care and precision and connection to their primary sources. "I do not see any clear evidence of notability of the subject independent of the original texts": Wrong, because the Weekly Torah portion is a fundamental ritual of every Shabbat synagogue service in all of Judaism's denominations, as well as connected to the daily synagogue services on every Monday and Thursday. "I cannot see how these articles meet WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTGUIDE": they are none of these because they are also the focus of Jewish education and synagogue life for generations. Kindly note that WP:NOTPAPER. "it and the others are written in a rather clear in-universe, POV way is another strike against them": articles can always be improved and perfected, it's a process, but no need rush to delete. "Catholic Church has a regular cycle of Bible readings as well, but I don't see any articles relating to those specific readings": This is the most absurd "analogy" because the weekly Torah readings and their lessons are the central and focal point of all Shabbat services for over 2000 years. "even though they are probably more notable, given the greater size of that body": You are making very poor comparisons and you should stop it. This is not about comparative religion, this is about a central feature in Jewish synagogue worship and ritual as well as Jewish religious education year-round. "there are almost certainly homiletic works among others which discuss these readings as these readings, that material would, reasonably, also be more reasonable in the articles on the main subjects": Not correct! Because this is the very material that is used in the tens of thousands of commentaries in Judaism over two millennia that are still used by Jewish and rabbinic scholars and laymen alike to study and practice these parshas on a weekly basis, and WP is providing just a drop in the bucket of what's out there. "this article, and probably all the others in this grouping, should be deleted as POV forks and otherwise violations of policy": They are not "pov-forks" of any kind, they represent the subject accurately. "This is not to say that they might not be acceptable for inclusion in some other WF site": Nope, they belong right here on WP because they are 100% and thoroughly encyclopedic and are used worldwide as an important reference. IZAK (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Izak, regretably, I have to very seriously wonder regarding your grasp of basic wikipedia policies and guidelines. The bulk of your comments seems to be, basically, "it's important." If it is so important, then there should easily be found independent reliable sources, which have not apparently yet been produced. I do not beleive that we are required to assume that people who have yet to demonstrate the notability of the subject of parsha readings distinct from the Biblical texts which constitute the readings themselves are notable. They may well be just a fraction of the Jewish comments on the Bible. I am sure they are. That does not make them anything other than Jewish comments on the Bible. There is an even larger, regular, body of work on various Christians interpretations of the bible, consistent with their weekly readings. However, having seen a lot of it, so far as I can remember, all of that specifically describes individual bible readings which are already covered elsewhere.
  - This material seems devoted to discussing Biblical material which is already discussed elsewhere in wikipedia, in articles on those selections of the Bible. If that is the case, then the material on those Biblical readings belongs in those articles on the Biblical readings themselves. Creating a separate article for exclusively Jewish views on a book held as "holy" by groups beyond Judaism is a POV fork, and would almost certainly lead to similar POV forks for most branches of Christianity, Islam, and other faiths. As I indicated, if there were reliable sources which specifically addressed all of a section's readings holistically, as opposed to individual readings, then notabiloity would be established. I have seen nothing to indicate that such sources have been produced. Therefore, I have not seen any reason to believe notability as per WP:N on these topics independent of the biblical readings themselves has been established. I would also ask the closing administrator to take into account the various comments which are unrelated to evidenced matters of policy and guidelines, and take that lack of addressing the central issues into account. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Bachrach44 explains, Parshat Noach (which this article details) is the second chapter in the Old Testament, and retells the story of Noah, Noah's Ark, and, later, the Tower of Babel. This article is basically a running explanation of the contents of the chapter, using verse-by-verse references, in much the same way that the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are presented. It is appropriate and notable. Responding to John Carter: there is a specific mitzvah (called Shnayim mikra ve-echad targum) for Jewish men to review the weekly Torah portion, as codified in the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch. Descriptions of each weekly parsha do not constitute a soapbox or a guide; perhaps you should read up on Jewish traditions before discarding them. Yoninah (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Responding to Yoninah, the fact of their being a mitzvah in no way is evidence that the material in question meets wikipedia's guidelines and policies. There are, in fact, other places that this material could be included, as I said earlier. But wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not necessarily a location which exists to allow men to meet their religious obligations. The above comment, in fact, while clearly making assumptions, does not in fact offer any evidence that the material meets the basic policies and guidelines, which I suggest others might read before further commenting. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of people have explained that this article is not about Noah, per se, but instead about the weekly Torah reading, which in this case happens to cover the story of Noah. I understand the difference. However, if we end up with an article covering that weekly Torah reading, then we need content in the article which discusses the reading itself, not the content of the reading. The article should defer questions of content to the appropriate main articles, such as Noah, and Book of Genesis. I am not opposed to having an article on the weekly Torah readings, but as Raeky notes above, one article to cover them all is probably enough. I also second John Carter's suggestion that these articles may fit nicely on another wiki, and I'd encourage that. They just aren't really suitable for this wiki. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic, namely the parsha itself as a clearly defined segment of the Torah, is clearly notable. The main problem with the article is that it needs better referencing. Rather than links to hosted online translations of the Talmud and other classical commentaries on this parsha, it would be best if there were conventional footnotes to a specific edition, with translator's name, publisher, year of publication and page number. It would also be good if footnoted observations and analysis by modern commentators were incorporated into the article. The reading list shows that there is ample discussion of the parshot as a specific topic in modern academic sources, not all of them written by observant religious Jews. This topic has been notable for many centuries, and has been discussed and analyzed by a wide range of commentators from every ideological strain within Judaism. The article contains external links to commentaries by some 38 different Jewish organizations, which present a very wide ideological and academic spectrum. By no means does this article push a narrow POV - the primary author is clearly open to incorporating a wide range of viewpoints on the topic. As for this article being a content fork from Noah, that is a weak argument, as the parsha also covers the Tower of Babel and the ancestors of Abraham. It is by no means only about Noah. I see no evidence whatsoever that the article presents the content of the parsha as "uncontested history" and such a comment shows a lack of understanding about how the wide range of Jews approach Torah study today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This (and the other 53 corresponding articles) provide thorough overviews of the corresponding weekly Torah portion. Given the material covered here there is hardly any surprise that there is overlap with Noah, Noah's Ark, Genesis creation narrative and Flood myth, though each has its place in Wikipedia and none are POVFORKs of any other, they simply cover different material. There are dozens of sources provided, and the work needed here should be devoted to tagging the sources as references, rather than deleting the article. Alansohn (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Raeky's comment on Dauster's job, revealed on Dauster's user page is both inaccurate and irrelevant. Dauster states he now works as a staffer in the U.S. Senate, and is a former White House staffer, but this should have no bearing at all on this deletion debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he struck the comment already before you posted this. The number of ips and new users with no other edits is concerning. I don't know what's going on, but it's no wonder someone is thinking about possible explanations. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He only partially struck the comment - the irrelevant and incorrect job information remains. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only brought it up because I saw the possibility of a link, maybe more with all these new SPA and IP's showing up here, it's obviously not relevant content wise to the discussion but for other issues like WP:CANVAS and WP:SOCK it may be relevant, a SPI has already been opened apparently on this issue. I can care less what he does for a living, but I do care about a QUICK influx of new editors flooding in indicating canvassing of some kind took place, at least to me it seems. — raeky t 16:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even is the decision goes against me, I will concede now that this has to be an all or none proposition regarding all articles in Category:Weekly_Torah_readings. It would just look bizarre and haphazard to delete some and leave others. If we need to change the listing to include the whole cat and refocus the conversation appropriately, then we should do so. --Bachrach44 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this discussion should be about all of them, the same concerns exist in all of them that this AFD is for. — raeky t 17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dauster, Bachrach44, Alansohn & Cullen328's explanations. The parashot are the subject of massive study and commentary, ancient, modern, and continuing, in this structure. Scrambling it up would inevitably lose valuable content and would be of no help to interested readers. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, we're not proposing that Parsha be deleted, nor are we proposing that notable views about the parsha be excluded from WP. I think we're saying that we don't need a line-by-line description of Noah's ark here (particularly with unsourced commentary) when we already have Noah and Noah's ark which cover the material. That content should be in wikipedia, but this article duplicates it unnecessarily, and per WP:CFORK, that's not ideal. The question is, should in-depth, detailed coverage of Noah be in the Noah article, or an article about the Parsha? The answer should not be both, particularly so when the latter is providing in-universe commentary on the subject without any sources. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wholehearted agreement. There are basically two issues here. One, is each reading notable in and of itself, which in this context would mean is the reading itself sufficiently notable as an entity unto itself to have separate articles. Well, without any sources, it is hard not to think that the answer is "No." This is not saying that the material could not be included in other existing articles, for instance, on the Biblical stories or texts themselves. In fact, in many cases, there already seems to be content relating to each of these readings in another article. The only way I could see that the notability policy requirement could be met is if reliable sources were produced which clearly and explicitly demonstrated that the readings per se met notability requirements. Reliable sources on the story of Noah, for instance, are not the same as reliable sources for a reading about Noah. And, yes, the lack of clearly established notability of these readings as themselves is sufficient grounds for the deletion of the articles from wikipedia.

Second, do these articles, basically, constitute POV forks? So far as I can tell, the answer to that will almost certainly be, now and into the future, yes. It is hard, if not impossible, for me to imagine that someone investigating "claims of the paranormal", or an archaeologist, or whatever, will refer explicitly to a specific ceremonial Jewish text from the Bible rather than the Biblical text in the broader sense. In that sense, these articles would seem to be inherent POV forks. Having said all that, as has already been said, wikipedia is not the only site out there. There are other Wikimedia Foundation sites, like Wikibooks, which do not have the same policies and guidelines, and I am all but certain that this material might well be acceptable in one or more of them. But I cannot see how these articles, particularly without specific references, meet policy and guideline requirements. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noach seems to be getting a lot of attention as a POV fork because of all the other articles related to the story listed above. Is this argument limited to Noach or do you believe that all the articles in the same cat are inherently POV forks? If the latter, can you tell me what, say, Kedoshim is a POV fork of? --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Leviticus, these are readings of the Torah, and we have pages for every book of it, so it's a POVFORK as well for each of those pages. — raeky t 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observation These same articles exist in the German, Hebrew, and French Wikipedias. I know this isn't a hard and fast criteria for anything, but it's just an indicator. --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those projects have absolutely zero relevance here, just as WP:OTHERCRAP isn't a valid argument. Also WP:OTHERLANGS. — raeky t 18:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please, per Caswellm, Dauster, Bachrach44, Alansohn, Cullen328 and Arxiloxos’ explanations. As a Christian, I find the articles on the Weekly Torah Portions very helpful in understanding and appreciating Judaism, Jewish religious practices, and interpretations of scripture. I particularly enjoy the images assembled in each article--they help to bring the biblical text alive for me--as well as many useful links to further reading and commentaries that I go to for addition study. Please KEEP these articles. Virgil11 (talk • 18:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC) --Virgil11 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone just found Noach (Parsha) and thought Noach (parsha) had been deleted! Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the redirect. Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all the keep vote reasons already given. I too find the Weekly Torah portions helpful and elucidating the Jewish interpretations for the same reasons amply given above. As a side note, "POVFORK" harks back to a time some years ago when there was a lot of clamor about only having one "official" macro-article for an entire subject, to supposedly present a "take" on every pov together. That movement has largely failed since then IMO, because wikipedia today is chock full of specialized articles that could potentially be described as POVFORKS (for instance, Islamic view of Noah). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess I don't entirely understand why some of the editors writing here wish so strongly to find grounds to delete articles on the Weekly Torah Portions. To someone Jewish, the individual Weekly Torah Portions are certainly notable per se. The traditional commentaries not only cover the textual contents of the Portions, but also, their order, placement, thematic unity, and so forth. They have individual identity beyond consisting of a certain number of pages or chapters in Biblical books. In fact, in Jewish tradition, they are actually considered a more appropriate division of the Torah's text than the customary chapters, which are later and of Christian origin.

Hebrew Wikipedia contains, for example, separate articles on Noah (the person/character/prophet/what have you--I'm not trying to pick fights here) and the Weekly Torah Portion of Noah (or Parashat Noah). Both of the articles in Hebrew, as it happens, are far shorter than their English Wikipedia counterparts, owing in substantial part to the inclusion of much less in the way of Christian-oriented source material in the Hebrew version. (And I appreciate that other Wiki-projects are not directly relevant, but I will tell you that as a model Hebrew Wikipedia handles them successfully in parallel, and with minimal duplication.)

Rather these consisting of a POV FORK, I would more describe them as a change in the level of focus and detail–a 10,000-ft. view, if you will, rather than a 30,000-ft. view. And while it is probably inevitable that an article on a Weekly Portion would tend to a Jewish-oriented POV, I think there are plenty of places in plenty of articles for different POV on Biblical topics in general. No one is looking to hide anything or promote an agenda.

So let me propose the following:

1. These articles are immediately renamed from * (parsha) to * (Weekly Torah Reading), because some people don't know what a "Parsha" is.

2. Over a bit of a longer stretch of time--and that might be a year, if, for example, one of these happens per week--let's let Dauster and others work to pull things apart a bit. I think it is reasonable to reduce duplication where it exists; not everything about Noah the person must also be included in Noah the Weekly Portion.

3. I would make the focus of the revised articles on Readings themselves more their general flow: their content (briefly), the reason they start and stop where they do, the juxtaposition of their characters, and so forth. It doesn't eliminate duplication, but it reduces it. (Example, for Lech Lecha, full coverage of Abraham's, or Lot's, or Sarah's personality wouldn't be appropriate. Enough coverage so that the reader would then understand why Abraham's and Lot's going their separate ways is significant within the reading would be.)

I'd appreciate some thoughtful response. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think there is the basic point of policy. The fact that some people find the parsha notable per se means nothing if they cannot find reliable sources on them, and, apparently, at least on this article, none have yet been found. Certainly, there are no clear "references" that I can see, but rather just a list of further readings. I am a Catholic, and I could say on the same basis that each and every one of our biannual Biblical readings is probably at least as notable as the parsha readings, considering that approximately 1 billion living people are members of that body, considerably more than the total number of practitioners of Judaism. That is one of the obvious, and I think most problematic, details here. If we keep one group's biblical readings on the undemonstrated assumption that they meet notability, and like I said, as yet there is no clear evidence of notability in the articles, can anyone give me good reasons to not have separate articles on the Catholic biblical readings, or the possibly multiple different Lutheran readings, or the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox readings, or those of any and all other religious groups with a set program of Biblical readings? I could easily imagine several hundred, if not maybe even thousands, of such articles being created if there is a single precedent, like this one. Regarding keeping the articles for a year for them to be cleared up, I think a better solution, which is both more in line with policy and guidelines and precedent, would be to move the articles into userspace so that they can be cleaned up there before being moved back into main article space. I can see some possibility that there might be one or more salvagable articles out of all this, but, honestly, even that is an assumption that work which has apparently not yet been done, over several years of the articles' existence, will be done in the future. I can't see any really logical reason to make that assumption. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the above assertion, there are references inline in the text. They are to the Babylonian Talmud, Genesis Rabbah, and other sources that report what the classical Rabbis said about the Torah reading. These are the most authoritative sources available for the classical interpretation of the reading. -- Dauster (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. However, they do nothing to establish the notability of the subject unless they are clearly and explicitly discussing the reading as the reading. If they are discussing the reading as the reading in a way which could not be added to any other extant articles, then I still think that the issues of POVFORK and others that have been mentioned apply. To date, admitting I have not reviewed them myself, I do not see that they have been established to do so. But, if they do not, my apologies. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, within Judaism, the sources Dauster cites–the Talmud, the Midrash Rabbah, and the like–are considered absolutely authoritative and reliable. They are centuries and millenia old, and are still studied regularly in the Jewish community. Whatever one's view is of the authorship of Jewish Scripture, the Talmud and Midrash were not written by the same author as the Torah; indeed, they are the subjects of Wikipedia articles themselves, and are notable in their own right.

John, based on the good work you do in Wikipedia and in the Christianity projects in particular, I am trying very, very hard to assume good faith on your part. But I am having some trouble doing that. If you are going to tell me that something cannot be notable if only Jews consider it notable, or if you are going to tell me that unquestionably important classical Jewish sources do not serve as independent, verifiable references on Jewish subjects, then I have to assume that you are either trying to eliminate Jewish content in Wikipedia or that you are incredibly ignorant of how Judaism works. All the evidence on Wikipedia suggests the opposite, so what gives? Really?

John, there are approximately six million Jews in the United States, and many more Anglophone Jews elsewhere. Roughly speaking–I'm not looking it up–somewhere between 10% and 25% of those Jews would consider themselves Orthodox of one flavor or another, and many more would consider themselves traditional to a greater or lesser extent. At minimum–and I don't concede only the minimum, but I'm arguing it for argument's sake–one million English-speaking Jews exist who would tell you that in no uncertain terms, the Weekly Torah Portions are notable. They are the basis of our study every week of every year. You, frankly, do not have the right to tell them/us that they/we are wrong. And while I do not quite know how many people have to think something is notable enough to make it notable for Wikipedia purposes, the number does not have to be as high as a million.

Finally, concerning your last response to Dauster: People spend their lives learning from the Talmud and the Midrash. You would have a hard time reviewing these sources well enough to determine if they meet your criteria, even if you read Hebrew and Aramaic. You're not the expert; we are, at least relatively speaking. You need to give us a presumption of good faith, too.

John, I'll be honest with you: I personally think the Parsha articles can absolutely stay in Wikipedia, absolutely as they are now, under any criteria you want to name, including inter alia POVFORK. I happen to agree with you and others here that there is probably duplication that could be removed, and I would strongly encourage that. But if you are going to question the notability of the subjects and the objectiveness and verifiability of the sources, I am telling you right now that you are out of line.

StevenJ81 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Steven, first of all, you're overly personalizing this dispute. Please don't do that. I guarantee you that all the editors discussing the deletion of this article are operating in good faith. As far as this sub-discussion is concerned, you are missing a fundamental point. There is a difference between a work, and the content of a work. For example, imagine that I took a copy of the Bible and I cut it up and made a collage. My collage would not have notability just because the bible verses I used to make it were discussed in reliable sources. The fact that collages are notable would not make my collage notable either. We have a case where the Parshas are notable, and the contents they cover are notable, but that doesn't mean this individual work is notable and requires its own article. Do you see the difference? The story of Noah's ark is notable, but the fact that Noah's ark appears in this Parsha is not notable. We need reliable sources indicating why its presence here is notable before we can have an article covering a detailed analysis of each line... much less 53 separate articles doing the same thing. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, I notice that, in all your repetition of my name above, I have seen nothing that clearly demonstrates that these pages meet WP:N. Steven, are you somehow saying that somehow these pages transcend policy? Steven, I did state above that, if the links included clearly and demonstrably refer to these readings as these readings, and that the material they provide could not fit into any other existing page, then they could be kept. Steven, I'll be honest with you. Wikipedia policies and guidelines basically rule here, not the opinions of self-appointed experts. All that is being asked of any of you is to demonstrate notability as per wikipedia policy. Would it not be more useful, and productive, to provide the sources required by policy, or point out specifically how those sources provide refer to these readings as these readings, than to engage in such lengthy commentary and repetition of other editors' names? As I and others have already stated, there is probably basis for including this material "as is" on one of the other WF sites, which could be linked to here. I cannot see why we are being asked to assume without clearly demonstrated evidence that the subjects are notable because editors say they are. I am very much trying to assume good faith on the part of those editors, but, if the topics were so notable in their own right, I have trouble seeing how there could be so much need to engage in commentary here rather than producing evidence which would clearly establish notability and by so doing end the discussion here on that basis. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move for speedy keep per wp:snow, with a recommendation to do some cleanup. Because in any case that is going to be the outcome of this discussion, and see also WT:Judaism. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the votes may be valid, there's WP:SPA issues and an ongoing SPI investigation, secondly the whole issue of POVFORK hasn't really been fully addressed, and obviously we don't go by votes alone, only consensus and validity of the arguments, so even though it looks like a lot of keeps, the reality is it's not a cut-and-dry snow case by a LONG shot. — raeky t 22:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much has been made of the lack of specific references within this article to establish the notability of the topic of the parsha itself. Though this is a valid criticism, it is not a reason to delete the article, but instead an argument for improving the article. Significant coverage of this (and of the other parashot) in reliable sources is so extensive and varied that any questions about notability ought to be moot - the challenge is to identify and select among the vast array of sources readily available to include those of the highest academic quality and that reflect the full range of significant points of view about the topic. I do not have the expertise to identify those sources, but I am absolutely certain that they exist in abundance and winnowing them is the task at hand. I offer just one example - Entering Torah: Prefaces to the Weekly Torah Portion a 2009 book by Reuven Hammer, a mainstream commentator on Jewish topics. This book devotes five pages (11-15) to analysis of Noach, and a similar amount to the other parashot. There must be thousands of other examples published over many hundreds of years. These parashot are notable as individual subjects of intensive and focused study and published commentary of the most rigorous academic standards. That makes them notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, I want to thank Cullen328 for making an attempt to establish notability, which if it were established would end the discussion immediately. I agree it should perhaps be moot to establish notability. The question is whether we would be establishing notability of the torah readings as a specific subject, and I haven't seen any clear evidence that anyone is challenging that, or of the individual "parsha" (or whatever the plural is), or whether any evidence regarding those reviews of the readings would be different from the existing main biblical articles. As I said above, as an example, the Catholic Church has a schedule of readings which repeats every other year. If I had to, I could probably produce some regular publication for priests outlining the meanings of the texts and possible sermons to be based on them, because I know they exist, I've even seen them. But that would not necessarily establish that the texts of the readings as a separate subject unto itself, unless the text included somehow made linkages of the subjects sufficient to establish notability of the various separate readings which could not be included in any other of the existing articles. I have not seen any clear indication that there is evidence of notability of that sort of material. If there is, my apologies. But, having said that, having (years ago, admittedly) somewhat regularly looked through some of the Catholic homiletics publications I mentioned above, I can't see how they would necessarily be able to meet those requirements either. And, like I said, they have a bigger population base, which would probably mean they have a larger number of people to try to find such, as well as a larger group of people for them to be distributed to. All anyone has really been asking is that the evidence of the notability of the subject of this article, as well as that of the other articles, as individual entities be clearly established. With all the people so vocally calling for their being kept, it is somewhat odd in my eyes that, if the subject were so simple to establish, that simpler act has not been done.
I still think that it might be possible to move these articles to Wikibooks, or possibly userspace. In either location, they would still be accessible, revisable, and improvable. I honestly cannot see any clear reason why they must remain in wikipedia space if, yes, after six years of existence, their notability still has not been clearly established. That lack of establishing notability may well be seen as particularly significant under the circumstances here. John Carter (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologize to all, and particularly to John Carter for getting personal above. I let my frustrations get the best of me.

To address John Carter with respect to notability: Cullen328 made my argument far better than I did. I'll rest that part of my case. Still, there are a couple of points worth closing the loop on:

I am not at all seeking to substitute policies on notability by pontifications of self-appointed experts, especially me. But sometimes people who know a subject also know when the subject is patently notable or not, and perhaps that expertise is due some extra weight—not outright deference, but extra weight. I appreciate that you and many others here do not think that sources have been provided to prove notability, but if this is because the sources cited are not familiar or accessible to you (plural), then I think you need to be especially cautious when you state that affirming sources have not been provided. And if I say something like "One million Orthodox and other traditional Jews would unquestionably consider the parashiyyot (that's the plural) notable," I'm really not blowing hot air. One can challenge that statement, but if the statement is in fact true, then the topic is notable, because what one million people think is notable is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia.

In support of Cullen328: I just went to Amazon and entered "Weekly Torah Portion" in the search bar. It delivered 1,121 results. I paged through the first three pages containing 48 results; if I counted right 35 were in fact independent publications, rather than editions of the same works. And at least in the first three pages, none of them were editions of classical sources. As you say: Lots of sources; which ones good?

To address Jess: Thank you for your calm tone. I do understand the differences you are suggesting. Read on for some specific points.

Concerning the issue of POVFORK, and other arguments as to the best way to handle the material if it stays in Wikipedia: As I said above, I personally think it's a matter of focus, not forking. But to those who would consider it POVFORK and bring the subjects back into the five articles on the five individual books of the Torah: You might not prefer that. NPOV allows an article to include a digest of multiple POVs (PsOV?). But if these articles are where summaries of the parashiyyot go, then the Jewish POV in those articles becomes excessively weighty. And, additionally, the focus level of the articles becomes mixed, because it includes information at the whole-book level and at the sub-book level. It is probably better for everyone if parsha summaries stay separate from that.

I'm not sure Jess and others aren't right that strictly from a policy perspective, putting these articles into five articles called "Weekly Torah Portions in the Book of ____________" isn't the best approach. I simply think that as a practical matter, it is easier to access the information in these articles if they remain separate than if they are merged.

To John Carter concerning the analogy to Catholic readings: I appreciate the analogy based on your experience, but I don't think the analogy really holds. Best to discuss why privately so that I don't take more airtime here, but I would consider the weekly prophetic readings (Haftarot) to be a closer analogy to Catholic readings for this purpose.

To Dauster and everyone else concerning a different Wiki project: As far as I could see, that alternative only came up fairly late in the discussion. It might be a good approach. I think Dauster's articles are great, and need to stay somewhere. I also think that the parashiyyot are Wikipedia worthy, and need some coverage in Wikipedia itself. I'm not sure whether a full-blown parsha discussion is encyclopedia-worthy.

Final comment, and then I'm going to retreat to the sidelines on this topic: I think perhaps many people still don't appreciate the difference between article on subject and article on parsha. Let me use last week's reading, Balak, as an example. Last week's reading features Balak and Balaam. As you see from the links, all three of these things have articles. Without making a case for how I would separate things out, I can give a couple of quick examples of items that belong to the parsha article and definitely not to either character article. First: Why do the Masoretes break the seven readings within the parsha exactly as they do--each one (of the first six) ends with the explicit assertion that Balaam can only speak according to God's will. Second: Why, when the first 6.5/7 of the parsha consists of the story of Balak and Balaam, does this parsha include the beginning of the story of Phinehas and Ba'al Pe'or? Why not start that story the following week? Those are subjects for the parsha articles, not for the subject articles.

I'm done. Sorry for being long-winded. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep this set of articles is indispensable, makes Wikipedia worth reading. Сол-раз (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that everyone participating agrees that the topic Parashah (which we are transliterating here as "parsha") is a notable topic. The question is whether the individual parashot are notable enough for individual articles. Even the most superficial review of the literature shows that they are individually notable. Here are some reliable sources that demonstrate that:

The Torah: A Women's Commentary This 1350 page book is on my personal bookshelf and is almost entirely structured around the parashot, with a chapter devoted to each. The section on Noach (parsha) goes from pages 35 to 59, and includes essays by four women scholars on this specific parsha. This book had 13 scholars on its editorial board.

The Women's Torah Commentary: New Insights from Women Rabbis on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions Though I haven't studied this book, it is clear that it reflects a perspective very different from Orthodox Judiasm, which rejects the notion of women becoming rabbis. Every strand of Judiasm studies the individual parashot in detail.

The Language of Truth: The Torah Commentary of the Sefat Emet, Rabbi Yehudah Leib Alter of Ger This translation of the life works of a 19th century Polish Hasidic mystic is organized mainly into individual sections discussing each of the parashot in detail.

Torah Queeries: Weekly Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible This book published by New York University Press contains lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender commentaries on the individual parashot.

Stringing the Pearls: How to Read the Weekly Torah Portion The second sentence of this book is, "The volume of material commenting on and analyzing the 54 slices of the Five Books of Moses is immense, and, happily, continues to proliferate."

The Modern Men's Torah Commentary: New Insights from Jewish Men on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions Since I mentioned two books written from a women's perspective, here's one (of many) written by men. This book is honest enough to admit it.

Essential Torah: A Complete Guide to the Five Books of Moses Although this book is not structured solely around discussion of the individual parashot, the author considers such commentary important enough to devote about one third of the text to commentary on each portion.

This is just a very small sampling of the vast number of reliable sources that discuss each individual parsha as a topic worthy of significant coverage.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other collections of articles on the parshyot include --

If I had a bit of time, I could easily make this a very long list. -- Dauster (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here are a few more of the same sort:

-- Dauster (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, regarding what was said above, there is a difference between a work and the content in the work. We aren't concerned with determining that the story of Noah's ark has received discussion and is notable. We are concerned with determining that the existence of Noah's ark in this particular Parsha is notable. Many of those sources discuss the content of the work, that is, Noah's ark, which is not relevant to this issue. If you could, please provide relevant quotes from those sources above which indicate that Noah's ark, from a Jewish perspective, is distinctly notable from Noah's ark generally. If we do end up keeping these articles, understand that we will have to remove all the duplicate content in them which is already covered in related articles (like Noah, Noah's ark, Book of genesis, Parsha, and so forth). The content you've cited so far can fit into those articles very comfortably. To keep these articles, we need sources to indicate that this topic is distinct (and notable apart from) them. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full agreement. I hope the closing administrator takes that into account. There are separate points here. The first is the notability of the Biblical texts which are selected as parsha. No one is necessarily questioning the notability of Biblical stories in any way, shape or form. The second is the notability of the parsha independent of the broader Biblical material they contain. We already have several articles on the Category:Book of Genesis, for instance, and we are supposed to try to avoid duplication of content wherever possible. It does seem that there is a distinct overlap between the existing and potential articles on these Biblical articles and the Parsha articles. In those instances, the articles more clearly and directly on the Bible per se would, clearly, take priority. Therefore, these articles need to establish notability and avoid problems of duplication of content and establish their specific notability through reliable sources which address at some length the parsha readings as a subject independent of their specific content, which would be covered elsewhere. That might be possible, but, seemingly, it hasn't yet apparently been done. And, yes, that additional material might well qualify as being a POV fork in some way.

And, referring back to the Catholic analog I mentioned earlier, I think it would be useful to use that as an example. There are three readings during a Sunday service, one from the Hebrew Bible, a recitation of a Pslam portion, another reading from the New Testament epistles, and one reading from a Gospel. Clearly, any material about any one of those individual readings, as an individual subject, would belong first and primarily in articles relating to those sections of the Bible. Additional material on them in Catholic context would be a POV fork. The only way I could see the weekly readings being independently notable in and of themselves would be if we could demonstrate that there is sufficient material dealing with them as a group, not individually, to meet notability requirements and provide sufficient material for a separate article. There is, like I said, a lot of material on these weekly readings, actually a rather staggeringly huge amount, both in the homiletics journals and in the various published sermons and other works of priests through the ages. But most of the homiletics journals deal with broad ideas for sermons, not specific material which specifically deals with the specific readings directly in the context of each other. And the specific sermons of, say, Anthony of Padua, might be notable as themselves, but probably first as that, not as "sermons about the third week's Bible readings" or whatever. That being the case, they probably wouldn't be useful for similar articles for individual week's readings in the Catholic liturgical cycle. That being the case, I don't think there is enough more or less consistent material there to establish notability of the individual weekly readings of the Catholic liturgical cycle either. So, I doubt they would meet notability. The same rules, I think, would apply here. To date, evidently, neither I or the nominator here has seen evidence on these pages that the material these articles would require to establish their specific notability has yet to be presented. That being the case, I don't think they qualify as notable or meet encyclopedic standards, and they should be removed. Transwiki-ing to Wikibooks or some other sister site would, I think, be reasonable. And I myself have no objections per se to the material being somewhere. But I don't yet have any reason to think that they clearly meet Wikipedia's own specific policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jasonasosa has during the time of this discussion deleted the part of the article that summarizes the Noah story, and all that is left is the treatment of the Torah portion in the Jewish tradition. -- Dauster (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I find some of the hostility to content in this discussion astounding. What is so wrong with having additional information on this topic available in the encyclopedia, even if one cannot recognize an analog in one's own cultural tradition? Plainly, the three or four editors who dislike these articles have made their argument, but to me the result they propose is merely the reduction of information available in Wikipedia. Deletion of dozens of articles that have been read and edited for 7 years merely because they do not fit the conception of three or four editors strikes me as some hubris. -- Dauster (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dauster, please don't personalize this issue, or forget WP:AGF. We have guidelines and policies for a reason. WP:CFORK, WP:WEIGHT, WP:N and WP:V are the notable pages at play. If these articles do, indeed, violate principles found in those pages, which I maintain that they do, then there is a very good reason why they should be deleted. Wikipedia is not for everything. Editors have eagerly pointed out that this article may be appropriate at another venue, with different policies, and a different mission. However, wikipedia's goal is not to provide a study guide for Judaism. Our goal is not to provide multiple articles written about the same topic from simply different points of view. Our goal is not to cover topics which aren't covered by independent secondary sources, which allow us to write the article in accord with WP:NPOV. Our goal is not to write articles for the sake of having in-universe style essays which may be useful to a subset of our readership for religious reasons. As far as I can tell, the reasons to keep this article so far have fallen, almost exclusively, into those categories, but that contravenes our policies. It doesn't mean this article isn't useful, or can't find a home somewhere else to serve this purpose. It just means it's not suited for here. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Wikipedia, as such, is an encyclopedia. As such, the content it contains is expected to be, basically, encyclopedic. And I also find the insistence that they are going to be "deleted" to indicate that at least one editor hasn't actually read many of the comments. It is, basiically, being suggested to be moved to another venue, whose rules it seems to more closely adhere to. It is hard not to get the impression form some of the editors that they have the impression that having an article in wikipedia, as wikipedia, is somehow the goal here. While that is, obviously, flattering to the project, it also could be seen as displaying a bit of contempt for the other projects. So far as I can see, the article as it exists may also violate WP:QUOTEFARM as well. So far as I can tell, each of the "Rabbinic interpretations" included is, in fact, specifically applicable to a specific limited text. As such, they very clearly could be included in the existing articles which deal with those texts more directly. The fact that they are given such heavy weight in this article, to the apparent exclusion of almost everything else, also makes it rather clearly violate POV fork. I am sorry that some individuals cannot see that policies and guidelines pretty much have to take priority over all else. Yes, I could very easily create a virtual equivalent of Our Daily Bread on wikipedia as well, and defend it with almost the identical arguments that have been used here. If I did, I am sure those articles would be subjected to deletion in the same way. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter—you are requesting an indication of Notability for Weekly Torah portions. You mention Our Daily Bread. You say "Yes, I could very easily create a virtual equivalent of Our Daily Bread on wikipedia as well, and defend it with almost the identical arguments that have been used here. If I did, I am sure those articles would be subjected to deletion in the same way."[55] According to our article "Our Daily Bread" was "first published in April 1956".[56] Wouldn't different standards of notability apply? The "Weekly Torah portion" is much older. The commentaries on the weekly Torah portion are in instances many centuries old. Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please see my comments and contributions on Talk:Noach (parsha). Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Would Wikibooks or Wikiversity be a better place to host a lot of this? It's good work, but maybe not encyclopedic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯
Keep for the simple reason that the nominator seems blissfully ignorant of the main reason for this and the other 53 "parsha" articles, namely, the key ritual of the Weekly Torah portion without which this article and the 53 ones like it is not understandable. It would wreck the entire structure of the encyclopedic Table of weekly readings. Sure, there is an overlap with subjects in the Bible, but it's definitely not a case of an artificial or contrived "POV-fork" because this division into parshas is ancient -- going back over 2,000 years in Judaism, the divisions and lessons that classical Judaism has relied on for the weekly Shabbat Torah readings are encapsulated in this and similar articles. The nominator would have been well-advised to seek input at WP:TALKJUDAISM for enlightenment and help. Kindly also note that WP:NOTPAPER. As a comparative exercise, surely the nominator and John Carter would not delete the thousands of articles about Cowboy movies "just because" they are all "repetitious" and "overlap" and steal from each other in theme, content, outcomes, etc etc etc, namely: "good guys eventually win against the bad guys after a few shoot-outs, they kiss and get the prettiest girl/s, and live happily ever after on ranches or keep the winnings, and oh yeah, there are a lot of horses and chase scenes on wagons while Native Americans and African American slaves are depicted as 'savages'" -- no one suggests that tens of thousands of articles in Category:Western films be "deleted" because they all over-lap, are silly and repetitious, they ARE ALL POV-forks one way or another and could just as easily be summed up in one or two main articles! Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as someone that hears every week of the year a discussion of the weekly Parasha, I cannot even start to understand the idea of deleting this or other parashot. For thousands of years they are discussed over and over again, and they are an important part of the Jewish tradition. --Yoavd (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have articles - for instance - on every Sura in Qur'an so I support in principle to maintain articles on each of the parshiot of the Torah. It is the unit most familiar to observant and traditional Jews worldwide, as opposed to having articles on each chapter. I do feel that the content is largely WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH and would do with redacting and sourcing, but that does not in principle invalidate the argument that we need this article. JFW | T@lk 13:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a POV fork but an article on one of the set sections into which the weekly Torah reading cycle has been broken, and notable in its own right (see JFW above). Avi (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Though we do not fork, some extremely important and complex subjects need to be covered in multiple articles, some sometimes with a different emphasis. The traditional Jewish way of reading and interpreting the Bible is a distinct intellectual system (as is the traditional Islamic system.) It can not really be presented adequately except by using its own terms, and its own sources. WP is written for general readers, not for specialists in the tradition; I am, FWIW, not one of those specialists, but I, like others , want to understand it to some extent, both in general, and, from time to time, for specific information. WP is intended for purposes like this. This article carries out the purpose, and does it in an appropriate manner and with appropriate references. I support the renaming proposal above, which will help users find them. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from everything else, something that survives for millennia and is known today is far more worthy of encyclopedic coverage than are fly-by-night musicians and pay-per-view sporting events that are kept at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a simple misunderstanding. --Shuki (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judaism warrants being represented for what it is. Judaism is not the underlying religious text. Judaism is the commentary on the underlying religious text. The commentary translates interprets and applies religious text into what can be called a cultural component if we regard that term culturally broadly enough. It is recommended in Judaism to not just read the underlying religious text but to read the commentary on that text too. This is expressed in the idea of Shnayim mikra ve-echad targum. The commentary provided is not just any commentary. There is recommended commentary by people considered more important than others. Rashi is not considered merely someone who had an opinion to express. The opinions of some commentators are understood to be especially relevant. Any reader whether Jewish or not coming to an encyclopedia should be afforded the opportunity of seeing Judaism comment on the underlying religious text precisely because it is the commentary that is of chief importance in Judaism. This is what is known as the Torah portion of the week. It is a partial but nevertheless important expression of what Judaism is. Judaism is of course not about belief. In fact it would be more correct to characterize Judaism as a questioning of belief. Commentators can and do disagree with one another in readings of the parashah. Note in this brief paragraph the divergent views on whether Noah should be considered "righteous" in his generation. These are responses by standard commentators many of whom have their own articles on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Honestly I feel the AFD nominator's reasoning is misguided and the objections raised aren't actually seen in the article. Whether the subject of the article itself is notable was not questioned by the nominator, thankfully, and I don't really even see those here !voting to delete questioning notability. Hopefully those who were thinking this is a POVFORK can now see the difference between an article on Noah the biblical charater, and this article on Noach the Torah parsha. So, the other basic reasons to delete are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V) and "original research" (violates WP:NOR).

Certainly, WP:V is being followed, as the nom points out that the article does have many in-line references. Although the complaint was brought that this article's reference style doesn't match Wikipedia's preferred in-line footnote style, that's not a reason to delete.
WP:NOR is being followed, as no original analysis is being offered in the article; again, everything is attributed to a reliable source

The main reason the nominator brings is:

"The article is also written in an explicitly in-universe POV, describing the book of genesis in wikipedia's voice"

Looking at the article, I do not find this to be the case. Over and over again, the article attributes interpretation explicitly to many authoritative sources. For example, the article says,

"Interpreting the words, 'And the earth was corrupt (תִּשָּׁחֵת, tishachet) before God,' in Genesis 6:11, a Baraita of the School of Rabbi Ishmael taught that whenever Scripture uses the word 'corruption,' it refers to sexual immorality and idolatry."

If the article actually suffered from the criticism put forth, it would instead say something like,

"The corruption in Genesis 6:11 refers to sexual immorality and idolatry."

without attribution. The article also offers many contrasting interpretations from authoritative sources. I have trouble finding any biblical interpretation here given "in-universe" in Wikipedia's voice. The one thing that could be improved is perhaps providing the context for the interpretation, but this is a reason to improve the article, not delete it.

For comparison, I looked for another religion article, one that has WP:GOOD status, to compare this article to. Look at Shiva, and, for example, under Attributes, where it says:

"Sacred Ganges: The Ganges river flows from the matted hair of Shiva. The epithet Gaṅgādhara ("bearer of the river Gaṅgā") refers to this feature.[91][92] The Gaṅgā (Ganges), one of the major rivers of the country, is said to have made her abode in Shiva's hair.[93] The flow of the Ganges also represents the nectar of immortality."

with reference to interpretation from religious scholars. This is similar to what is in this article, although (again) it's the citation style that's different. For another comparison, look at Jesus#Proclamation_as_Christ_and_Transfiguration. (Although it's not a WP:GOOD article, it certainly gets a lot of editorial attention.) I think it's reasonable to expect our readers to understand the context in which these kinds of articles are written once they are reading the body of the articles, and if the context isn't explained adequately, improve it, but again, not a reason to delete. Zad68 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is not a democracy and vote-counting doesn't matter, but it does appear to be 26 Keeps to 3 Deletes if I count the suspicious SPA/IPs, and still nearly as lopsided if those !votes aren't considered. Zad68 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The delete arguments seem to be arguing for cleanup rather than deletion - certainly material that is most relevant to the character or the story, rather than to the parasha, can be moved to those articles, but there exists reliably sourced rabbinical commentary on the parasha which probably belongs here rather than in more general articles that also include traditions from other religions. As well, this is part of an article scheme which includes articles on parashot that don't have overlapping "story" or "character" articles, and consistency asks us to keep it for that reason as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 16 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 deleted by Jimfbleak as G11. Non-admin technical closure.Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Tong[edit]

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

Student of questionable notability. Reads like a fansite for the kid. A Google news search shows limited local coverage (only five articles), but no significant coverage from independent sources. Standard search is inconclusive due to the common name. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wayward enrty from Who's Who among American High School Students which somehow wandered onto Wikipedia. I can't decide which would be sadder: if it turns out that the subject himself posted this, or that his parents posted it. Someone needs to clue these people in. EEng (talk) 06:34, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Canada)[edit]

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

not clear how this subject is notable and cannot be sufficiently covered in the parent article Disney XD RadioFan (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, Disney XD is not the parent article. Disney does not own this channel, Astral Media does, and runs it as a sister channel to Family, with some content from the US Disney XD channel. WP:BROADCAST asks if original content has been created for the channel, Astral original series' Baxter, Connor Undercover, What's Up Warthogs!, and Wingin' It air on Disney XD, sometimes premiering before Family, its own film is also in the works [57]. It also asks if it has been covered through reliable sources, granted this article is not that well written with sources, they can be found [58][59]. Most cable and satellite channels in Canada are notable for their own article. 117Avenue (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated by 117Avenue, all specialty channels (on air or not) that have been licensed by the CRTC are notable enough to have their own articles. Per WP:TVS:

While television station articles, like all articles on Wikipedia, should ideally meet the general notability guidelines, in general, any television station which produces original content and is licensed by a national government (e.g., the FCC in the United States) is presumed to be notable.

As it currently stands, Disney XD Canada meets both criteria of notability established by the Wikiproject. It's the same reason why we have an article on every single television or radio station that has been licensed by the FCC (and CRTC). Even stations that were pretty much direct copies of the American channel such as MSNBC Canada or of a foreign television service with some additional Canadian content such as Abu_Dhabi_TV_(Canada) have kept their own articles. █ EMARSEE 06:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets notability criteria in my opinion. It has a significant enough difference in terms of content and history to differentiate it from the Disney XD article. It has a large number of press coverage specific to the channel to make it notable itself.musimax. (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Since Canada editions of Disney XD is the only version not owned by The Walt Disney Company, there is no resaon to delete them.--jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 02:55, 16 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 by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger penis[edit]

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

There's nothing sourced here, and what is here could be merged into Pizzle or traditional Chinese medicine easily. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Tiger#Traditional Asian medicine. Seems like most of this info is already there. I think you're right that it might have a place in Pizzle as well, though. Zujua (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separately, as there's enough material and a good chance to write about this specific topic ([60], [61]). The article has potential. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ref now included. --Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've restored two previously deleted referenced sections, see [62] [63]. @nominator: when nominating an article at AfD, please, don't forget to check also the article's history. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly this edit took nearly a year to be reverted. I should have put this on my watchlist. Tiger penis and Deer penis are notable in Asia in their own right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourced article establishes topic importance and the availability of separate independent reliable sources. --LauraHale (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I'm chalking this up to an "oops" moment. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked "edit" before I read the withdrawal above, but since I'm here already, it definitely passes notability tests.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:35, 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} 02:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Lorgat[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:37, 2 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) 02:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article may fail WP:NTENNIS, however I am seeing significant media coverage through the first five pages of a simple Google search. Seems to meet WP:GNG.Keystoneridin (speak) 03:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Review of first 10 pages of google results didn't show any obvious reliable source treatments of the subject (I didn't notice any reliable sources in the results; zero direct sources in news search). I assert GNG is not obviously met, and NTENNIS is specifically failed (for now). / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NTENNIS and no evidence that it meets CNG --Wolbo (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I saw no real sources on Google... the first hits are this wiki article, twitter and youtube stuff. Nothing at the ATP or ITF sites either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Snapes[edit]

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

clearly fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 2 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) 02:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliably sourced assertion of notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Referance doesn't work, external sources only passing mentions, non notable player Seasider91 (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 2010 article with no clear verifiable assertion of notability for the subject. --Artene50 (talk) 06:22, 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} 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean pressure electric conversion[edit]

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

A cranky idea that violates the second law of thermodynamics. While there is indeed a pressure differential between the surface and the depths of the ocean, useful energy can't be extracted from it since its energy is not Gibbs free energy. Yet another non-notable scientific hoax, I'm afraid. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this is not a policy-based reason for deleting an article. Though Dyson sphere and Transatlantic tunnel may violate laws of the universe and economic laws, they are cited and sourced concepts—and justifiable articles—for other reasons. This article can probably be deleted for lacking sources and hence lacking notability. —EncMstr (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, One of the references is rather literally done in crayon; and rather than explain the scientific issues here, let's just say that the other reference mentions how the fifty-something accountant 'always interested in science' can't get a patent because of the perpetual motion-y aspects of the supposed design. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Y'know, since deleting the article wont stop anyone searching for it, is there any sort of 'list of perpetual motion/free energy proposals' that this particular term could be directed to? Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a fringe theory, it is out there and as such, it is notable to have its own article. It probably needs rewriting to say that this is hypotetical/fringe theory, and to be re-categorized accordingly (Category:Fringe theories or Category:Pseudoscience). Beagel (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article's creator and primary contributor is RickDick2, a SPA presumably belonging to the same Richard Dixon mentioned as the inventor. So there is clear self-promotion going on here. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 15:55, 4 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) 02:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The policy-based reason for deletion is that the topic isn't notable. It has not received significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources. I disagree with Beagel that it is notable simply because it is "out there". There are plenty of fringe science topics that have received the sort of coverage required for notability on Wikipedia. This isn't one of them. LonelyBoy2012 points out likely self promotion and conflict of interest on the part of the author. By itself, that would not be enough for deletion. In combination with the lack of good sources, though, it strengthens the case for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete previous article was not relevant.Keystoneridin (speak) 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That NOAA article is about Ocean thermal energy conversion, which is a different concept than this one (and unlike this one, OTEC actually has scientific backing). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Cullen and Darryl. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scientific rubbish of which no significant notice has been taken. EEng (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no reliable sources. CodeTheorist (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:58, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Blues Collection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability — Bdb484 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or attempt to provide sourcing. Potential A7 speedy in my opinion MacMed^talk _stalk 01:51, 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, KTC (talk) 01:20, 2 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) 02:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:15, 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} 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shamil Abdurahimov[edit]

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

Contested PROD - his wins were in non-notable tournaments. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's an MMA fighter with no bouts for a first or second tier MMA organization. He clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 21:40, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails relevant notability guideline. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:16, 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 no consensus. -Scottywong | converse _ 15:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oren wilkes[edit]

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

The notability of the subject is dubious. This is the third time that the same editor has created the same article, about the same subject. The article was deleted on the previous two occasions. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person clearly exists, and is a professional model. However, I failed to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources sufficient to write a well-referenced biography. He is not yet notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has features in Vibe Magazine, Essence Magazine, Huffington Post, AOL News, along with tons of top celebrity entertainment blogs. He is the face of one of the largest skin care brands in the world alongside Rihanna and he isn't credible? He also runs the flagship men's lifestyle blog apart of Glam Media ( they rep some of the biggest sites on the web). I can provide you with over 30 credible sources. He is probably one of the bigger black male models working in the industry right now and has been signed with Wilhelmina since college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Josepha (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Josepha, the issue is not whether Oren Wilkes is "credible" as you say, but rather whether he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Your claim that he is "probably one of the bigger black male models working in the industry right now and has been signed with Wilhelmina since college" means nothing here since that is an unreferenced opinion followed by an unreferenced factual claim, but if a reliable, independent source says similar things about Oren Wilkes, then that is another matter. Instead of mentioning but not bringing forth "30 credible sources", I recommend that you actually bring forth three solid sources of the highest quality that you believe show the notability of Oren Wilkes by Wikipedia's standards, not your own personal standards. I hope my comments help you focus your efforts. Good luck to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Article from the Huffington Post:http://www.bvwellness.com/2011/06/11/nivea-for-men-kicks-off-new-campaign-in-las-vegas/ Article from Essence Magazine (they have a wikipedia page): www.essence.com/2011/08/15/eye-candy-oren-wilkes/ Article from Vibe Magazine (they have a wikipedia page): http://www.vibevixen.com/2011/08/men-in-fashion-model-oren-wilkes-becomes-the-new-face-of-nivea-for-men/ Article from Centrictv (owned by BET): blogs.centrictv.com/lifestyle/culturelist/tag/oren-wilkes/ Article from the Theybf.com (they have a wikipedia page one of the biggest black celeb blogs): http://theybf.com/2011/08/03/fresh-meat-meet-oren-wilkes-the-new-face-of-nivea-for-men Video from author series presented by Subaru: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqX1QzMqZlw Also please check out http://glammedia.com (they have a wikipedia page you will see his site on the front on their website...he owns one of their flagship sites

Please let me know if you need more info ..in addition to the above articles there are countless others online ...you can even find him on Models.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Josepha (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tricky one. Whilst many of the links Robert Josepha has cited are a bit gossip-magazine, they do demonstrate coverage, although there's not a lot ongoing outside the blogs/forums/Tumblr. The difficulty with such people is that their Internet presence - blogs, etc - and modelling fanbase tend to give a very trivial/non-reliable source look to Google results, and I'm not finding any other Reliable Sources for Oren Wilkes on a Google search results trawl (after removing all refs to Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr). So I'm going to have to abstain from a vote here as I honestly can't call this one. Mabalu (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a chance please watch : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqX1QzMqZlw I don't think Subaru would shoot a commercial spec with him if he was credible. In addition, if you go to Glammedia.com you will see that his site is on the front page and one of their premiere men's sites...they rep some of the biggest bloggers and websites. And lastly, he had a global deal with Nivea alongside Rihanna. I can provide more if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Josepha (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOYT cleary states that "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources…". — Fly by Night (talk) 21:35, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point with showing you the youtube video was so that you could watch him in his national ad with Subaru where it clear talks about him and his site. I've provided links from aol news, huffington post, essence magazine, vibe magazine, and more. Please let me know what else is needed. All of the above listed sites are credible and infact have their own wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Josepha (talk • contribs) 21:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a weak keep based on one certain RS, several maybe-reliables, and a starring role in two large advertising campaigns ("other productions"). The Steve 06:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can rewrite the bio if needed ...please let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Josepha (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to follow up on the page and see if we have come to a decision? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Josepha (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 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) 01:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Close to the edge, but giving the benefit of the doubt. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 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 keep. -Scottywong | confess _ 15:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 10[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer- This AfD was not listed in the deletion log, I have added it now. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:34, 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) 01:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable top event in it's sporting event, just because you don't watch or like this particular sport doesn't mean it should be deleted, this is like me AFDing the superbowl because I don't like American Football, ridiculous nom Seasider91 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If you are going to keep any UFC articles, you'd want to keep them all, and not arbitrarily discard a few of them. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't believe I'm saying this, but there's literally no independent sources - no historical reviews in books, no old newspaper articles, nothing that I can find. I suppose one must regard UFC as not a notable sport in 1996, and thus not apply the "champianship of a sport" criterion, anymore than my backyard tacklesport championships would qualify. I'd change my mind if sources (newspaper, magazine, book) could be found. Wily D 08:26, 18 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} 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Save Ringer[edit]

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

Not every facebook-community needs a wikipedia-page. WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GROUP and WP:WEB. Content in the article is largely about the show itself, and not the "organization". --IShadowed 02:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely an unattributed copy of Ringer (TV series)#Cancellation and aftermath, which does the job much better. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IShadowed. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasons. --Artene50 (talk) 02:26, 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} 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fanadvertising[edit]

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

Neologism in Spanish Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=fanadvertising&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogwaicat (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; you've made my case! A click on Google Scholar reveals the one article in Spanish using the neologism (with an English summary); plus oddles of false positives about a fan (in the sense of that paddle-shaped piece of cardboard you hold in your hand) advertising a funeral home or the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:43, 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, KTC (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this word even exists in English. The article does not even explain its meaning in any clear way. Borock (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fan labor. The source can be added to the appropriate section. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds very similar to Viral marketing. If people think this is a real term, could redirect there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 2 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) 01:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAD. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:14, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 01:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate Recovery[edit]

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

Article is promotional and unencyclopaedic. It reads like a Sunday school handout. Jschnur (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several news sources discussing the program, as well as book sources like this. Passes WP:N. Style issues are not a matter for AfD. -- 202.124.74.41 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to go out on a limb and call the then-current President of the United States an independent reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if serious cleanup is performed on the article. It meets WP:N, but it fails WP:NPOV completely. Nominator's "Sunday School Handout" description is pretty accurate, but per above, that is not an AfD issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But condense to a one-paragraph stub. Most of the article is original research and synthesis based on primary sources. First Light (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three out of four comments above have convinced me that I was in error in nominating this article for deletion. However I believe a disinterested and experienced user should be invited to clean this article up along the lines suggested by Sleddog116 and First Light . How do we do this? Jschnur (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I did it - I condensed the article to what is available in neutral, third-party, reliable sources. Not surprisingly, some of the material in the reliable sources doesn't jibe with the more promotional tone of the older version. And, I'm about as disinterested and experienced an editor as we could likely find to do this. First Light (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So much better now. Good job. Jschnur (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is Christian version of Twelve-Step Program. The present text looks good to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It Is What It Is[edit]

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

None of these 3 works has a page, making this a complete dead-end of a dab. What's the point of a dab if it leads you nowhere? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not entirely sure what to do with this; however, it would certainly be a plausible redirect to at least one of the three items. At an absolute minimum, it would be tagged with ((Wiktionary redirect)) rather than deletion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have WP:HEY for DAB pages? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I created this. I don't remember the circumstances at all, but according to the history I created it as a redirect and User:Topbanana turned it into a dab earlier this year. Can't say I care too much one way or the other, but I'm not so sure I agree with the contention that this is a complete dead end as each entry does have a bluelink in it, albeit one that does not point to an actual article by the name "it is what it is." I don't believe I have ever encountered this particular situation before, but it would seem to me that the central question to be resolved here would be "does this page help readers find content they are looking for?" Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are enough articles that treat things with the title that disambiguation is appropriate. older ≠ wiser 02:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated above, this was a redirect until earlier this year. It was flagged up as having incoming links from very disparate subjects by an automated tool, and on inspection I found that it was indeed the target of links intended for three different topics. As there was no clear primary, I converted it into a (not wishing to debate the definition of a "DAB page") list of relevant uses of this term and repaired/removed/corrected incoming links. In it's current form it encapsulates useful information that is not present elsewhere, helping readers and editors alike locate a more precise topic for this ambiguous term. I'd say keep, but would be delighted if someone came up with a more elegant solution. - TB (talk) 06:56, 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.

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. See User:Sandstein/AfD closing for methodological comments. Although "keep" and "delete" opinions are about equally divided by number, the "keep" opinions make particularly weak arguments in the light of applicable poilicies and practices: Most amount only to WP:USEFUL, and do not address the WP:NOT#NEWS issues raised by the other side, which is an argument based on the core policy WP:NOT and would therefore at least need to be discussed by those wanting to keep the article. Sandstein 06:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition[edit]

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

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

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

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

Tentatively nominating this per WP:NOTNEWS. The information contained in this may be valuable, but to my eyes the problem is that it does nothing but provide coverage of an inherently transient situation. For that reason I feel it constitutes journalism, and not encyclopaedic content. An article written after the conflict detailing how areas changed hands would be appropriate, but not this.

In addition, the article is very poorly sourced - there are lots of references used, but they are mostly to verify the population of each area mentioned, and these references disguise the lack of sources for the actual point of the article - which areas are controlled and which ones aren't. I actually feel that this information is difficult to verify at all with the situation as fluid as it is, and so it's probably best to hold off creating this article until the conflict is concluded. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The author of the article left a comment at the talk page of the Syrian Uprising article here. I'm not necessarily making any accusation of canvassing, but I just want the closing administrator to be aware of this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. I don't think an article like this is of encyclopedic value; as the nominator said, the situation is too fluid, and by the time it's not fluid, there likely won't be a need for such an article (because the two most plausible outcomes are that the opposition will control either all of Syria or none of Syria). Sleddog116 (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is transient news information. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC) To clarify, I think the issue here is not that this covers recent events, but that the very nature of the page requires near constant updating and is only relevant for a limited amount of time. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; an encyclopedia should not try to keep track of a moving ball like this. Definitely a NOTNEWS problem, as well as WP:RECENT. An overall history, maybe with a timeline, is the way to go. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator: I thought I would give some background about the creation of this list. There were talks around the Syrian uprising articles of the need to provide a map of the conflict similar to the one that was given in the article about the Libya revolution. So I created this list as a first step to help us create such a map. The list would be a starting point to have editors start compiling sourced information and keep track of the evolution of the situation on the ground. As indicated by Syria’s Maturing Insurgency, 5. “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” So it is helpful to have this list to keep track of these “safe zones”. The list will make the creation of a map easy since the map creator would just need to go down the list and put the colored dots (or whatever) on a template map (the list gives the district and province of each town…) So I view this list as more of a supporting article to the main article on Syrian Uprising (and other related articles) . The list will make the Syrian Uprising article better by allowing the creating of supporting maps, tables, etc. The list being itself an article has the advantage of allowing a wide spectrum of editors to add their little piece of sourced info to create the big picture. Keep in mind that articles such as the Syrian Uprising one, are updated every day and wikipedia readers want to read about the conflict today and not necessarily after the conflict is over. The sources of the list allowed the creation of the following two maps which I think are useful to help in understanding the conflict:

Next, I wanted to clarify the concerns related to the “sourcing” of the list. The article has very few references at this time because it relies heavily on one authoritative study (see above) that was recently released. However, as time goes by, the list will be updated from other sources.

To summarize, I would say that deleting this list will deprive Wikipedia from a nice tool to create maps and other supporting materials for the Syria Uprising articles. Tradedia^talk 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only WP:NOTNEWS, in some ways this is WP:OR as well, if you want a place to create maps and gather info there is always wikipedia commons and Sandbox as well as making your own userpage for this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that wiki commons, Sandbox, userpage will not allow a wide range of editors to help in collecting the sourced info (I have no intention of doing all the work to create the maps on my own) Tradedia^talk 17:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a regular editor of the Syrian uprising article, I would say that Tradedia's hard work does not constitute original research, but is rather a visual representation of information from a reliable source. It generates no information, no OR, but merely displays reliable information in a different form. People create graphs of GDP on the basis of government data; I therefore do not see anything wrong with creating maps of combat situations. Additionally, the argument about the article changing over time could be said of any article on current events. I like it, and it adds a helpful visual element to the crisis. Fanzine999 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article on the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list is 18K. Do you think the Syrian Uprising article can absorb it? Tradedia^talk 17:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything, just merge the Maps of areas held by Syrian opposition in June with a few comments on the maps. Everything else delete. EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to create a new up-to-date map (once this one is no longer up-to-date) without the list? The map is based on the sources of the list. The list is the mother, the map is the daughter. The map doesn’t just appear by magic. Someone has to draw it based on data. Tradedia^talk 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Than draw it. And please tone down the sarcasm. There is no need for it. And if you want to merge the table than do that too. In regards to the 18K, it can substantially be trimmed down if the individual maps of Syrian provinces are deleted. They don't show anything at all anyway except where the district borders are. If they showed individual rebel and government territories ok, but as they are at the moment they are not needed. EkoGraf (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to be sarcastic but rather struggling to clarify an important point. Let me do a better job at explaining. I cannot draw a map unless there is an up-to-date list. I am not willing to update the list all by myself because it is too much work. So that is why I want the list to be an article, so that a wide range of editors can participate in updating it from RS. If the list is an article, then everyone can look at it and insure it is NPOV and based on RS so that when maps are created or whatnot, the credibility/truthfulness of these output elements (maps) is not in question.

Concerning the individual maps of Syrian provinces, I put those so that readers who look up the status of a specific town can figure out its location. For example, if someone looks up the town of Al-Rastan, the table will show him that it is in Ar-Rastan District and in Homs province. So the reader will go down to the Homs province map and easily see the location of Ar-Rastan District. Even if we remove the province maps (which are about 2.5 pages on my computer screen), there will still be the table/list which is about 100 items and about 7 pages long. The length of the list will get much longer as more information will be added by editors about areas that are now listed as n/a (non available), so the list could become double the length of it today. It would seem strange to have in the Syrian uprising article, a table that is more than half as large as the rest of the article. Tradedia^talk 23:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The individual maps are still not needed. A user can just click on the name of the town and go to the town's article and see the map there where it is located. If this article is not deleted or merged I highly recommend removing those individual maps. EkoGraf (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I removed the province maps. Tradedia^talk 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge to Syrian uprising (2011–present). This is certainly news. The creator of this article is likely trying to give a separate updated situation on the ground in Syria where the Syrian government cannot hold territory in the countryside and whenever they leave a rebellious town, it immediately falls into rebel hands. The article could be merged into the Syrian uprising but it would not be easily done. Its a tough call for the Administrator. --Artene50 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If not a keep, how about a merge of the maps into the timeline article? The maps could then be displayed alongside the other information, and show a visual chronology alongside the text, if that makes sense? Fanzine999 (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if the list does not exist anymore then, the maps will not exist either because, the maps are based on the sources of the list. Tradedia^talk 17:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a news service. When everything has settled then the history can be writted in stead of chasing current affairs with poor inaccurate information.Petebutt (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“When everything has settled then the history can be writted”: this is not how articles like Syrian uprising work. Are we waiting for the uprising to be over to write an article about it? No. The article is being updated every day. Our readers expect to get up to date coverage of the conflict. We are constantly updating death tolls, demonstrations, political positions, etc. and all these you can argue are “poor inaccurate information”. This is the nature of conflict type articles…

I went back and read NOTNEWS carefully. It does say: “As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events.”; “Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.” It seems to me that the NOTNEWS policy is geared more towards avoiding primary research and trivial newspaper items rather than, deter editors from including up to date info about very important topics. I cite again from the NOTNEWS policy: ”Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source.”; “Wikipedia is also not written in news style.”; “routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.”; “Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.” Tradedia^talk 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately - I see a page of propaganda here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a field of expressing someone's own views.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This shows different territory in Syria, the maps we should keep, and this article actually shows what is happening when the Syrian uprising article is mainly dealing with deaths, not territorial changes that are happening recently in Syria. Goltak (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)
Keep - this is good work and it displays the information successfully good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.58 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — 24.0.208.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -It is useful. The Maps we should definetly keep, and this article actually shows what is happening when the Syrian uprising article and it shows that the regime is losing land — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use neutral wording while on Wikipedia Alhanuty, we have established regime is a weasel word. EkoGraf (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The map is coming from a syrian oipposition blog. I found it and posted it on a talk page as an indication, saying it was not reliable but someone has been posting it in all articles.--DanielUmel (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly mistaken. I defy you to find these two maps anywhere other than on wikipedia. These are 100% wikipedia maps, made by wikipedia, for wikipedia. Again, these maps are based on the sources of the list. And the sources of the list are all RS as they should be. Non-RS are not allowed on this list, just like for any other wikipedia article. Tradedia^talk 01:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll be honest, I'm not seeing much from keep !voters here other than "it's pretty and I like it". I think an article or map of this type chronicling the control of territory during the conflict would be a good idea once the conflict is concluded, but for as long as the situation is so fluid all that's being proposed here is a ticker. The crux of the problem here is that it's not just elements of the article which are prone to change often (as is the case in the Syrian Uprising article, or a biographical article concerning a recently deceased subject, for example) - the entirety of the content is transient and subject to change. In addition, because of the nature of conflict, it's inherently impossible to reliably verify the content that would be required for this article, especially since journalists have such limited access to the areas in question. It's important that we don't use wikipedia as an advocate or propaganda host for either side (even the side which appears undoubtedly "in the right" to most rational people). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as an issue too, I think we should just stick to the maps to show areas of control for the opposition at least for now, thats what we did for the civil war in Libya and it turned out fine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to create a new up-to-date map (once this one is no longer up-to-date) without the list? The map is based on the sources of the list. The list is the mother, the map is the daughter. The map doesn’t just appear by magic. Someone has to draw it based on data. Tradedia^talk 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This "but the map is great" argument is equally anaemic. You claim that it's based "on the same sources as the list" but as I pointed out in the nomination the list is hopelessly undersourced - most of the "Controlled" column is unsupported. I think the maps are useful, but as content based on the list they suffer from the same problems. Ultimately, the maps are prettier than the list but they suffer from exactly the same problems, in that they are entirely transient, inherently difficult to verify with accuracy and are unsourced. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a misunderstanding relating to the “sourcing” of the "Controlled" column. If the “Details” column is not empty, then the reference(s) is attached to it and the "Controlled" column has no superscript ref. This is because the "Controlled" column is a summary, in a sense, of the “Details” column. Moreover, you see a relatively small references section, because a lot of the info comes from the authoritative study that was recently released by the Institute for the Study of War (see above). The rest of the info is sourced to Reuters, bbc, washington post, the economist, the guardian, Miami herald, scotsman and itv news. So again, all the info in the "Controlled" column is sourced to RS. If you find any town that is not sourced to a RS, then please switch it to n/a (non available). As time goes by, the info in the study by the Institute for the Study of War will become outdated and new info will have to come from other RS, which will increase the size of the references section. Tradedia^talk 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“all that's being proposed here is a ticker”: The list is more than just a “ticker”. It doesn’t just have a yes/no in the "Controlled" column. In addition, it gives some historic details in the “Details” column like the dates of change of hands (and the circumstances) and other info such as the name of the free Syrian army battalion in the area, the strategic importance of the area (like key smuggling nodes from Lebanon, turkey…), etc. For example, the “Details” column of Haffah says: “Haffah is a Sunni Muslim town that lies in the foothills of the coastal mountains that form the heartland of Assad's Alawi sect. It is strategically located close to the port city of Latakia, as well as, the Turkish border which has been used by the rebels to smuggle people and supplies. On 12 June, the military recaptured al-Haffah, and the remaining 200 FSA fighters under heavy bombardment by government forces withdrew from the town. The rebels were reported to have retreated to Turkey.” This gives some historic perspective and will stay the same until Haffah falls into rebels hands. In this case, we could just keep the previous text and add new text relating to the rebels taking it back. This will give a historic of events and not just be a “ticker”. Obviously, this will lead to the article increasing in size over time, but might be worthwhile.

“the entirety of the content is transient and subject to change”: this is theoretically true. However, in practice, this is an exaggeration. For example, since I created the article a few days ago, no RS Has reported a change in hands in one of the towns that are on our list. On the other hand, in the meantime, death tolls for example on the syrian uprising article have been updated a few times already. So for example, the maps I show above and that were done on july 2, would look the same if they had to be redone today. In fact, Khan Sheikhoun changed hands on july 6, but since it is on The eastern edge of one of the “safe zones”, it did not change the shape of the “safe zone” by more than a hair.

“it's inherently impossible to reliably verify the content”: see my response to EllsworthSK below.

“It's important that we don't use wikipedia as an advocate or propaganda host for either side”: I don’t see how this article is more prone to propaganda than any other political article. All the info will come from RS; The same RS that we use for all other articles. The way propaganda gets removed from Wikipedia is because a wide range of editors are participating. If a “pro-opposition” editor puts something not from RS, then a “pro-government” editor will remove it (and vice versa); not to mention all the neutral editors who work tirelessly to correct/remove POV. I would argue that the list article is less prone to propaganda than the other Syrian uprising articles. This is because in the other articles, decisions have to be made on what events to cover, how much weight to put on the different events, how to word things, etc. On the other hand, in the list article, there are much less decisions of that type to be made. The editors will just report what RS are saying about who holds what. For example, no one today is claiming that the opposition holds Haffah. On the other hand, you will have disagreement on who did the latest massacre for example, who were the victims, why it happened, etc… So I expect the talk page of the list article to be rather boring as compared to that of the syrian Uprising or other articles… Tradedia^talk 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for many readers of Wikipedia a list that notes the areas of control by the government and the opposition is very useful and expected. This conflict has been going on for a year now and will likely go on for some time. Noting the areas of control only after the conflict is over is not the way an up to date encyclopedia is created. Wars go on for years and readers expect to know what territory is controlled by which party. The article, however, does need work on the layout and choice of maps at the bottom. If the article is deleted, the user who created the list can place it on his talk page where other editors, who work on the Syria topic, can update the information in an organised fashion for use in other related articles. Guest2625 (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is a I like it comment, it does not address the problems put forward by people here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the argument put forward not to include the list of occupied territory is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that material would be considered too recent. However, the question arises how do you create an encyclopedia article of an event that is evolving with time. My main concern is that wars usually take years. Encyclopedia's during World War II, the Vietnam War, or during any other war didn't hold back on making lists or maps of held territory just because the war was ongoing. It is in fact completely unencyclopedic not to chronologically detail the changing territory of a war that is certainly what was done during World War II. The question becomes how many years into the Syrian war should Wikipedia wait until it is 'not a newspaper' like to inform the reader of the chronological change in territory. Guest2625 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every conflict is diffrent, in WWII for example there were people on the ground from other countries and the conflict was more widespread mapping of the conflict was also done on the ground, the allies did not know everything an example being the death camps. Trust me I would love to see an article like this but for now given the issues I think maps would do just fine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not think that at this moment this map is at the level of Wikipedia quality, however I do support the base idea of a list of rebel held areas. A map would also be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.20.89 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I struck out this comment by user 24.0.208.70 due to it seeming to be the same IP editor that already cast his opinion up above. You can only vote once. EkoGraf (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion, this article could potentially be very helpful, because it appears to be a pretty good representation, of the current Syrian situation. However, I also don't get it, how Wikipedia cannot have content about news. Just because this is a fluid topic, doesn't mean that it isn't fit for Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is not like a paper encyclopedia, so there's nothing wrong with including information about current events, here. For example, Wikipedia even has a Portal, all about Current events. So, in my opinion, there is no reason why this article should be deleted. SuperHero2111 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as I argued many times before, currently it is not possible to create such list or map. In some cases, control over areas, villages and towns is shifting rather rapidly and many times is not reported. This is not frontline war as in Libya, this is asymmetric warfare. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“currently it is not possible to create such list or map.”: In this case, explain how the prestigious Institute for the Study of War has done exactly this. They have released a study last month that show such maps on pages 8 and 12. The major point of their study is that the nature of the conflict is changing: “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” These zones have been relatively stable in the last few weeks for example. The list is not trying to track every village. As you can see, the list is essentially the capitals of the 64 districts and a couple dozen more major towns. These do not change hands that often and when they do, plenty of RS report on them. For example, no major town was reported to change hands in the last 3 days. On the other hand, Khan Sheikhoun changed hands on july 6 and plenty of RS reported the news (the independent, fox, etc) A town changing hands is more reliable news than other things we report on routinely in the syrian uprising article such as a tank being blown up with five soldiers killed... There will never be in the article anything that is not reported by a RS. If the washington post is willing to make a statement about who controls what, then we should be able to use that. Our standards of reliability are not higher than those of the RS we use. As the opposition keeps getting more weapons from outside, the nature of the conflict will continue to move towards a more traditional war of positions… Tradedia^talk 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet that prestigious Institute map is wrong on load of levels. Jisr al-Shughour, we had a journalist in that area who was very explicit (together with rebel fighters originating from that town) about who controls it. Army, not rebels, they have presence on outskirts but it is not rebel hub as yadayada Institute claims [64]. There are also no sources talking about rebel activity in Druze Sweida, where locals remained neutral out of fear. And I am not talking about towns, but also villages. For example how many sources mentioned Houla before the massacre? One and that was nearly year ago. We knew nothing about who controls it. How many sources reported about Azaz? Nearly none, I still can´t figure out how comes that border checkpoint is under army control while city is under rebel control for months. Gathering sources for Deir ez-Zor article is one extremely major pain in the arse as all I can find is claim by SOHR which just say "army shelled the area, killed several civilians" what is cool but who controls the damn city? Asymmetric warfare and map of control does not go hand in hand. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“Jisr al-Shughour, …who controls it… Army, not rebels,”: Nowhere in the article you link, they say that Jisr al-Shughour is under army control. They talk about the city of Idlib and say: “The army holds the center of Idlib, the largest city in northwestern Syria, but the edges of the city and the surrounding areas belong to the rebels.”

“There are also no sources talking about rebel activity in Druze Sweida, where locals remained neutral out of fear”: The institute does not claim that any major town in Sweida is held by opposition. What they are talking about is a very small area which is the continuation of the area controlled by opposition east of daraa city (their control does not stop at the frontier of Sweida province). You can see this very small area on the map. So there is no contradiction between what you said and what the institute said.

“We knew nothing about who controls it”: this is fine. It just stays n/a (non available). I am not claiming we should know who controls every single town. Wikipedia just reflects what the RS say, nothing more.

“who controls the damn city?”: The latest RS in the list is Aljazeera from june 28 which says: “the opposition almost entirely controlled the city of Deir ez-Zor, while the government army had shelled it, trying to take it back.”

“prestigious Institute map is wrong on load of levels” No. As I show above, the Institute’s map is correct. Tradedia^talk 01:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, this does not belong in Wikipedia, this is a make up ongoing thing - not an article, or anything worth keeping. Per nom as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be helpful. Guillaume70 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator: On a second thought, maybe the article’s name should be changed to “List of areas held by Syrian opposition” (without “currently”). In this case, the “currently” aspect will be deemphasized. The list will then collect the historic evolution of the control of a town. This is already done in the “Details” column of many towns in the list (See my example for the town of Haffah in my response to Basalisk’s comment above). The "Controlled" Column will still give the latest status as reported by RS. All this will make the article more encyclopedic. Obviously, this will lead to the article increasing in size over time, (as more events keep accumulating over time, without the previous events being removed), but might be worthwhile. Also, the maps being done over time will all be included to give the historic evolution. Tradedia^talk 16:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Update: I have been actively working on transforming the article following the new orientation above. I am now convinced that this is the way to go. I now have a better appreciation for some of the comments by those who voted to delete. The list will now give both the historic and the present of the holding of towns. As time goes by, the historic part in the “Details” column will be synthesized as to not become too long and detailed. This is the same as the Syrian uprising article where we keep adding new up-to-date info, but also go back and synthesize what is already there to avoid the article becoming too long and detailed. Tradedia^talk 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A map showing the areas held by the opposition has been added to the Syrian Uprising main article, it pretty much shows the areas held rather than going into detail like this article does and can also be updated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the map will be updated without using the list article. Tradedia^talk 01:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By using reliable sources per WP:V, and avoiding simply relying on references to other unsourced wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a misunderstanding relating to the “sourcing” of the "Controlled" column. If the “Details” column is not empty, then the reference(s) is attached to it and the "Controlled" column has no superscript ref. This is because the "Controlled" column is a summary, in a sense, of the “Details” column. Moreover, you see a relatively small references section, because a lot of the info comes from the authoritative study that was recently released by the Institute for the Study of War (see above). The rest of the info is sourced to Reuters, bbc, washington post, the economist, aljazeera, france 24, new York times, the guardian, Miami herald, Scotsman, itv news, etc. So again, all the info in the "Controlled" column is sourced to RS. If you find any town that is not sourced to a RS, then please switch it to n/a (non available). As time goes by, the info in the study by the Institute for the Study of War will become outdated and new info will have to come from other RS, which will increase the size of the references section. Tradedia^talk 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a map of how Libya was done: [[File:Libyan Uprising(2011-03-06).svg]] the map is from March 2011 and was updated as the conflict went along with references. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this:

What is easier for the person who will update the map?

(a) Find all the references already collected in one convenient place, or

(b) Have to go all over the internet looking for references Tradedia^talk 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this fails WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:OR. It shouldn't be being used as a source for maps as well - that's WP:SYNTH. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, though it needs to be refocused as 'Areas held by the Syrian opposition.' 'Current' is not possible (WP:NOTNEWS) but a more detailed history of areas captured and lost will be helpful later on. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:16, 16 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truehope[edit]

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

Company is not notable, reads somewhat like WP:G11 The Determinator p t c 00:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG as there are reliable sources, although the article is somewhat adverty. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company lost their constitutional fight in Canada's Supreme Court. Their fight against the Canadian government to market their products continuesdrtap4 (talk) 10.00, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — drtap4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Please support your keep Vote! with a valid Wikipedia based reason. ~~Because the, "company [was] blamed for death of patient" is not a valid reason.~~ Losing a "constitutional fight in Canada's Supreme Court" does not automatically make them notable. Please see WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. References are trivial in nature. The reliable sources mentioned in the "keep" comment are only passing mentions of the company. reddogsix (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Public needs to be warned about this company. Health Canada warnings about this company ongoing.As the sister of the deceased my reasons are valid and an inquest is pendingdigitel9598 (talk)(UTC) — digitel9598 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Digitel9598 (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide a valid reason for keeping the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a warning system. I am sorry for your loss, however, this is not a valid Wikipedia reason for inclusion in Wikipedia and it is certainly not an unbiased opinion. reddogsix (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing with Electriccatfish2 in part. Although I don't think the article reads like an advertisement. This company's 'medicines' have been linked to and appear to have precipitated a murder. Doesn't exactly reflect well on Truehope. The news sources might be considered reliable, but even these are supplementary to the main reference, which is a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The number of news articles on the subject serves to illustrate that this is something people are interested in. Another reason to keep. evan.morien (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources indicating notability returned via Google web or news searches. None of the references in the article establish notability. MisterUnit (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough as per other comments, and as per when this article was deleted 6 months ago.[65] It has not become more notable in only 6 months. —Thempp (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (in its present form) It appears to be written for the sole purpose of WP:SOAPboxing. See the author's remarks here and the comment above. If an NPOV article that is actually about the company can be constructed from the sources then I'd change to "weak keep" (the coverage still seems fairly scant).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:NOTADVOCATE. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above. Though without prejudice for recreation, though the sources are insufficient, the subject matter suggests it may achieve notability in the near future. Trusilver 06:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage cited in the article seems to meet GNG for me. There is quite a bit of national news coverage about the murder incident. A google news search for Truehope yields many articles. The article are not exclusively about Truehope, but some of them do cover it in a significant way. -Scottywong | talk _ 16:21, 18 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.