< 31 May	2 June >

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 | confabulate _ 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Capital Management[edit]

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

May fail WP:CORP. In looking at coverage of this now-defunct company, it's a tough call as to whether there is enough significant coverage of the company in light of WP:CORPDEPTH. There is definitely significant coverage of its demise, but that one event should not make it notable in and of itself. Pre-demise, it also had coverage, but it's not clear if the coverage is significant enough or in-depth enough to satisfy the guidelines. What tipped it for me is it appears to be more of an attack article than anything else, but this AfD is to permit others to decide whether it's sufficiently notable to be kept. A speedy delete was declined (rightly so). It has had a notability tag for a while, and if the article is to be kept, it should then be removed. Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A/c to wells Fargo, it had $34 billion under managment. That's large enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 31 May 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, →B music ian 01:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was a stub, and as nominator notes it was entirely negative. I have now expanded it, removed the POV, and added sources about the company before and after its collapse. I think it meets WP:FIRM now; there is actually a fair amount of stuff at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR -Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Qadeer Siddiqi Qadri[edit]

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

Personal biography of non famous person Aliabbas aa (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs inline citations, but appears to meet notability guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly? SL93 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), point 4 (his books are commonly used as textbooks in India and Pakistan); WP:AUTHOR; WP:ANYBIO, point 2. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom should clearly state his case for lack of notability, because I don't see it. Roodog2k (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can it be a personal biography of somebody who died fifty years ago and thus 39 years before Wikipedia existed? Keresaspa (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no sources to verify any of the information. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nearly all in the external inks at the bottom of the page, especially this one. The quality of those sources is another matter but they do exist. Keresaspa (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are those links, but I don't waste time reading obvious useless sources. That website is bias as it is from the organization Correct Islamic Faith. I also don't know their qualifications for accurate information. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps, more information about this individual might be found in books, as opposed online. Thunderite (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes there are a lot of non English sources available that are not found online, this does not necessarily mean that the person is not famous or is not influential. The person who placed the deletion tag seems to have a biased view of the author, he must remember that his personal view does not count here. He is stressing that it is an unimportant article of an unimportant person. For him he maybe unimportant but there maybe a lot of people who came to know about the author via wikipedia. Limitedversion (talk) 31 May 2012. —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 31 May 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, →B music ian 02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References are external,article needs citations, but This does not necessarily means that the person is not notable or influential. The personality is very famous in Hyderabad (India). Most of the resources are in Urdu (hard copies) and not electronically available at the moment but there has been efforts to do that, hence the article may lack precise citations. I am sure all the references will be available soon and henceforth citations will be made precisely. I urge wikipedia not to delete this page.Shafi Chishti (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2012 (CEST)

Keep - Abdul Qadeer Siddqi is the most famous person in India, he is known as the ocean of knowledge and he he is the professor of arabic in osmania university. I urge Wikipedia not to delete this page.Azamuddin Mohammed (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2012 (AST)

While I'm inclined to agree that he is notable (and the article worth keeping), saying that he is the most famous person in India is pushing it a bit, don't you think? Put it another way, if he were indeed the most famous person in India we wouldn't be having this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A lot of non-English references are available which have not been produced online but this does not mean that the personality is not famous or is 'unimportant' (as quoted by the person placing the deletion tag). So please keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiqui qadri (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 June 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 | verbalize _ 23:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Khan[edit]

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

I believe that the article Rania Khan does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability criteria to justify a separate entry. I believe this article fails on a number of grounds. The creator of the article is User:Tanbircdq who has only ever made one entry - this one. I believe this is an example of sock puppetry and the actual author is the subject of the article. Either that, or the creator is a close associate of the subject. Therefore, this article is a prima facie example of self promotion. Furthermore, most of the sources cited in the article are minor references in political websites or articles where she receives a mention in trivial media. There are also one or two pieces she has written herself. Again this fails the notability criteria. A person independent of this topic would not consider her notable enough - or if she was - then every local councillor or occasional journalist deserves their own page. This article also fails for not providing Neutral sources as self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral and the piece is entirely uncritical. Aetheling1125 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetheling1125 (talk • contribs)

Comment Do not accuse someone of sock puppetry or conflict of interest without some evidence. Additionally, the admin noticeboard is a more appropriate location for complaints about other users. NJ Wine (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the sock puppetry comment. It was misplaced. But regarding the other points, there are tens of thousands of local politicians representing wards across the UK, does that mean they all get a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetheling1125 (talk • contribs)

I understand your perspective, because there was a certain amount of crap in the article that I removed. Normally, local politicians do not get Wiki articles, but based on the standard I list below, she is notable based on the amount of press coverage she has received. It is not our job to determine if it's fair that she should have received all this press coverage, but simply whether she meets Wikipedia's notability of people standard or not. NJ Wine (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ms. Khan appears to be an elected politician whose opinions have given her a decent amount of media coverage. WP:POLITICIAN lists several grounds for notability including: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. She meets this standard, and thus is notable. NJ Wine (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I agree that local politicians are not notable simply because they are local politicians, but Ms. Khan seems to have met the standard of WP:POLITICIAN based on the citations in the article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:27, 24 May 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) 00:39, 25 May 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, →B music ian 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Borough councillor and borough cabinet member are not positions at the level granted automatic notability by WP:POLITICIAN, so we should look to WP:GNG instead. Most of the references do not provide the independence and in-depth coverage required by GNG, but there are two exceptions: the East London Advertiser story on her award nomination and the British Bangladeshi Who's Who profile. That may be (barely) enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Meets GNG. Can keep with additional references. Bharathiya 03:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (talk)

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 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firebugs (video game)[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass the GNG or the suggestions at Notability. I've been unable to find in-depth coverage of the game on the web. Current source is unreliable, per WikiProject Video games — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subjects meets the GNG and Notability (video games), with detailed critical coverage in the Evening Chronicle, the Birmingham Mail, and the Waikato Times. I've added those sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources. May I inquire as to how you found them? I looked for the Evening Chronicle source, but no mentions online. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I found them in my library's digital archives of newspapers and periodicals. None of them appear to be available online. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, must be nice to have such access (where I live, such databases are a rarity).

Withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Carson[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, fails WP:ENT. SummerPhD (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this is a BLP PROD, as it is an unsourced BLP. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete all 3 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bertram Dean[edit]

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

Other than being a survivor of the Titanic disaster, I have not been able to find anything notable about this person. He did not contribute to any Titanic-related events after the sinking like his sister or Edith Brown, was never interviewed for any documentaries or film like Eva Hart or Michel Navratil, and never featured in any books like Ruth Becker or Louise Kink. On top of that, he did not have a career or lifestyle than would merit a Wikipedia and almost everything in the article is copied word for word from this website. I am also nominating the following related pages because for lack of evidence proving notability and having their entire content copied from the Titanic Encyclopedia site:

   :Anna McGowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Bertha Watt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in article. Period. EEng (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make the same recommendation for the other two articles mentioned above, but I think there's somthing mal-formed in setting up the disucssions -- is this a combined discussion for all three? EEng (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect- Redirect all three to Passengers of the RMS Titanic#Last survivors; merge Bertram to his sister's article, redirect as above if possible, if not, to his sister's article. Dru of Id (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three There is some mention of him in some sources, but this is really covered by WP:ONEEVENT. Not notable. In fact, probably Speedy delete Bertram Dean as a copyright infringement of http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-survivor/bertram-vere-dean.html. Encyclopedia Titanica's terms of use say "You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use Encyclopedia Titanica content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any Encyclopedia Titanica content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of Encyclopedia Titanica content requires the editor's prior written permission." I'm not sure whether the other two articles are copyvios. Elton Bunny (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the purloined text -- no point in rephrasing since I'm pretty sure we're headed to delete anyway. EEng (talk) 21:31, 7 June 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 is to keep. As a personal side note I wonder if the "Mike Hunt" gag in Porkys might have been inspired by this? Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tube Bar prank calls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional garbage Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in SPIN magazine, in Newsweek, in Rolling Stone, and in the Hudson Reporter. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a "list" article is not well sourced. And the Hudson Reporter article is pretty weak on sourcing. In fact this article is based upon another alleged article of whose sourcing is unknown. Where is the notability???Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep - they are historical prank calls. Disagree that the article is promotional garbage, if that is the case delete The Jerky Boys and any other prank calls. Tyros1972 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical? If so, show the RS. As for the other articles, feel free to nominate them for deletion, though I suspect the Jerkey Boys probably has dozens of sources and thus would survive.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Howard Stern Show is a RS Howard Stern Show.I don't now why you hate these so much? I grew up in NJ and know the calls but guess you didn't. Tyros1972 (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that The Howard Stern Show would be really acceptable as a reliable source, but there is certainly coverage of the Tube Bar prank calls scattered over time to show that this topic has endured and isn't a onetime bit of coverage. The SPIN coverage that has been noted was from the June 2002 issue. Not available with preview, but with snippets available are: Rolling Stone's alt-rock-o-rama from 1996 which states "Perhaps the best known of these items are the notorious "Tube Bar" tapes, which preserve an unidentified prank-caller's persistent harassment of short- fused, Newark, New Jersey, bar owner Red Deutsch. These tapes have spawned ..." and Alt. culture: an a-to-z guide to the '90s : underground, online, and over-the-counter from 1995 which states "...Bart Simpson's prank calls to Moe's Tavern ("I'm looking for an Al Coholic") borrow heavily from the legendary Tube Bar tapes that document the habitual harassment of a hot-headed Jersey City bartender named ..." -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The treatment of these crank calls in SPIN may be a list, but when its augmented with other coverage such as these books: [1], [2], [3], that suffices for me to say it is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 4 June 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 Shouryya Ray. There is a duplicate discussion about the same article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouryya Ray and any further comments should go there. Non-admin closure. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouryaa Ray[edit]

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

Unverified and not notable CodeTheorist (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is a duplicate of Shouryya Ray, which I believe is the correct spelling of his name. Additionally it contains unverified information from a number of newspapers, which have been accused of hyping the story. There is no real evidence that this person has actually solved the mathematical problem; on the contrary photographs of an equation and a poster suggest that he has rederived an already known constant of motion and has obtained a series solution for the problem, which does not qualify as an "analytic solution" in closed form. Thus I'd suggest that this article is not newsworthy and should be deleted. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to the correct spelling: Shouryya Ray. If I'd seen this page before this AfD proposal was here, I'd have just immediately redirected it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouryya Ray. -- 202.124.72.173 (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to write "Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouryya Ray" when that discussion has not been closed with a decision to delete. The discussion is still in progress. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected this to the correct spelling. It's not proper to have an AfD discussion based on notability of this person, or similar arguments, that is separate from another AfD discussion of the same thing, which is now in progress. This discussion should be taken to the discussion page for the AfD nomination of the article titled Shouryya Ray. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Puppet_Master_characters#Ninja. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja (Puppet Master)[edit]

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

"Character" in a B-horror flick. Zero notability here. JoelWhy? talk 21:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note All other character articles of this franchise have been prodded yesterday after their articles were restored from a years-long redirect form, see ((Puppet Master)) for the links. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puppet Master: Axis of Evil#Puppets, his first appearance. As the current article is unsourced, it does not establish notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Puppet Master characters. No established WP:NOTABILITY, no sourced real-world information (WP:WAF) and rather stubby (WP:AVOIDSPLIT). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A problematic redirect, as that list is itself unsourced and may well end up at a AFD itself for same reasons as this article. How about to Puppet Master (franchise)#Puppets where the puppet is already listed as a recurring in two of the films? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced or not, I doubt that a character list for a franchise spanning 11 films will get deleted (it's probably regarded as a reasonable spinout for size). And if the LoC gets deleted down the road, then the redirects can still be adjusted. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Puppet_Master_characters#Ninja, that already contains key data about this character. Cavarrone (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Puppet_Master_characters#Ninja, concur with Cavarrone's logic. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. As per the 2nd nomination. Again, no policy-based rationale given for deletion; AFD is not the venue for this, as editors have been told before. This is simply more disruption - a number of editors seriously need to read WP:IDHT and WP:POINT. I think another trip to WP:ANI is needed here because I suspect the community's patience will not last a huge amount longer. Black Kite (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in UFC events[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe this article should be deleted as it is overly long and packs far too much information regarding far too many separate events into a single page. NerdNinja9 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close Nominator does not express a valid deletion rationale, instead relying on their beliefs as to why it should be deleted. The Length argument has already been debunked and AfD is not the way to get split outs of logical units. Hasteur (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You didnt have a valid reason to delete the articles either, you MtKing or anyone else. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the nom seems ill-formed, nominator is clearly acting out of frustration about 28 other ill-formed nominations yesterday. It would be nice if closer could recommend a content-based solution to the nominator, such as WP:MEDCAB. JJB 20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've said in a couple places, I consider a trip to MedCab too early. There has yet to be a single un-derailed, un-filibustered, un-disrupted RfC about how we should go about evaluating the individual events for stand alone worthiness or to merge it into a "collection set" as appropriate. That the supporter group has switched their tactic from railing to keep the articles to railing to delete the articles. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 1 June 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 June 1. Snotbot t • c » 20:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteToo long and rushed; this article was rushed quickly by a mod with out consultation of anyone else. Using there mod powers they stated that this was the new standard where as no other companies (WWE, Affliction Entertainment) are subject to the same standard. If the mods would have talked with more Wiki users before rushing this thing out they could have reached a compromise to improve the UFC articles instead of deleting and merging to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.196 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets put this whole thing behind us. It is causing an unnecessary war and wasting each parties time. If we put this article behind us then we can concentrate on making the individual articles better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that by deleting this article there will be nothing on Wikipedia about UFC 143, UFC on Fox 4, UFC on Fox 5, UFC on Fuel TV 1, UFC on Fuel TV 2, UFC on Fuel TV 3, UFC on FX 1, UFC on Fuel TV: Munoz vs. Weidman, and probably a few others? Deleting this article will not overturn the consensus from the previous AfD discussions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this page is deleted I myself will focus on making those articles better and up to wikipedia standards Paul "The Wall" (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A valiant effort to be sure, however I can tell you this: having this article deleted will not automatically permit the individual articles recreation. Your best bet is to start an article (and by an article I mean one article at a time) in a sandbox within your userspace, get it up to snuff, request a third party review, and move it into the article space when appropriate. If you can do this for all the articles within the omnibus that were deleted, then this page would become redundant. Until such time, there is no reason to delete this page. Or to put it another way, there is no reason to delete information based on the possibility that it may be created in another form.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I dont think you get it Kelapstick, we dont want this article, and we will redo those articles, Paul, I will help you. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh I get it, don't worry about that. I have been paying attention to the discussion since the beginning, and I know what the mysterious "we" wants. And believe me, I do appreciate what "you" want, and don't disagree with the principle. Ideally I would love to see every UFC article brought up to the standard that permits its inclusion within Wikipedia policy. And you are free to userdraft UFC articles until they do and move them into the main space when they are ready. However this article being deleted is not going to expedite that process.

Having said all that, Wikipedia does not provide articles in the format that the public requests, because everybody wants something different. They provide articles in the format that is agreed upon by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, and while you are part of the Wikipedia community, you are in the minority when it comes to the way these articles should be handled within the Wikipedia community. So as I told Paul above, if you want to make a difference within the MMA articles on Wikipedia, improve them so that they meet the inclusion standard rather than trying to delete articles that you don't think should be here. Don't fight fire with fire, fight fire with water, you will find it much more effective. In case you don't get the analogy, don't fight deletion with deletion, fight deletion with article improvement. Also note my observation/proposal at Talk:2012 in UFC events. I welcome any rational discussion that anyone may wish to contribute.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have tried to reason with you, but you dont listen, you or MtKing. With that said I like your suggestion. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am sure that you will find that I am a very reasonable person. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is too long and fails many Wikipedia guidelines. It is also inaccurate and out of date. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zeekfox made an excellent statement for its deletion here: 1. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In what regard was that a good statement for it's deletion? That it is too big, or that it invites drama? Neither of those are justification for deletion. We do not delete articles because they are too big or too dramatic (if that were the case Barack Obama would have been deleted ages ago). I believe it was a well thought rational statement with some excellent points, however it is not a valid deletion justification. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has clearly turned into a failed experiment. We tried it and it just doesn't work. It's incredibly long and virtually impossible to easily navigate or find any information that one is looking for. The previous system of single event articles was by far not only more user friendly, but a much better kept up to date product. The end goal of wikipedia is to deliver accurate, information to as many users as possible. This being so, it is required that information be easy to obtain so the site appeals to the widest possible audience. The omnibus article fails miserably at that. While some people will cite a bunch of random and often changing WPs, they are missing the fact that it hurts the content and usability of wikipedia. Readily available, easy to find, well sourced, extremely accurate information was significantly more prevalent in the single event article structure - this is undeniable. The omnibus had its chance and it has proven to be a disaster. Delete this article so we can repair the significant damage already done in its name.I remember halloween (talk) 02:59, 2 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traction (Internet radio)[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct software product. Mikeblas (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete" I found no coverage. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in RS. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:WEB.-JayJasper (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, defunct internet radio service article with no RS or indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB#No inherent notability. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominator withdrew nomination.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 19:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, is poorly written, and has an inappropriate tone. —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix it (and please read WP:BEFORE). This Allmusic article is a pretty clear indication of notability, as is this article. His albums seem to have generated modest but relevant attention (this search, for instance). Keep. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability demonstrated by the above sources.--Michig (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination per Drmies—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 19:11, 3 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT community and student centres in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an address book. Wikipedia lists are lists of articles, not of everything that can be listed. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of non-notable items. Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each of those items could have an article, and some do, it's a question of turning more of the list items into articles. Keeping in mind that per WP:LISTPUR, lists shouldn't be primarily for future development of articles. Just like the list of Four-String Banjo Hall of Famers that you can find here.[4] Or the list of centuries here.[5] (I question the usefulness of that one, since it seems to be useful to readers who are innumerate.) Anyway, the community centres are key to the LGBT community for many reasons (geographically dispersed members have a safe place to meet, health and recreation services can be available, job-finding and training services for youth, shelter for homeless LGBT youth, and more) making them notable places, much like a union hall would be to a workers' organization, or cathedrals for Catholics. Some have historic significance in their cities.OttawaAC (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty much a textbook example of a directory, which is something that Wikipedia is not. If this is retained the "Now Closed" listings should be pared away. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails standalone list criteria; WP is not a directory; none of the entries have articles.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shame this stuff couldn't be speedied. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook WP:NOTDIR; worthy cause though it may be, this is not the place for it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It appears that this list is not ready; certainly when sources could be found, then it would be notable. I can't see how any reasonable person would say this list is random. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete: Most entries are not notable enough to survive an entry on their own. I agree with OttawaAC that such a list is useful and important to any LGBT person, particularly if they've got no-one else to turn to, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place to put it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT community centres in Canada[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an address book. Wikipedia lists are lists of articles, not of everything that can be listed. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the same reasons I oppose deleting the List of LGBT community and student centres in the United Kingdom article. I would've tried a merge with List of LGBT-related organizations, but that would be unrealistic to develop that article into an exhaustive list of all notable LGBT organizations worldwide; as Wikipedia grows, creating articles/lists by country is a better idea. Several of the items in the List of LGBT community centres in Canada are already standalone articles, so deleting a list of items that are themselves notable does not make any sense.OttawaAC (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list as it exists is not "an address book" by any stretch. It includes a reasonable number of articles that exist and some that need to be developed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A little better in form than the UK listing, but once again, this is a directory. What about List of dog grooming facilities in Ohio or List of car washes in in UK? We could do an infinite number of such lists, which I'm sure would be helpful to Ohioans interested in finding a place to take Mitzi for a haircut or to wash the Fiat in Swindon, ad infinitum. Those institutions on this list which meet GNG should have their own pages, without question, but this is nothing but a directory in the final analysis, which is something which Wikipedia is not. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: list is composed almost entirely of redlinks. Fails WP:STAND. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's rather obvious, isn't it? No special pleading. This information is perfectly legitimate on a personal blog, just not on Wikipedia. Arbitrary lists? Delete. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same reasoning as the UK equivalent list. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It appears that this list is not ready; certainly when sources could be found, then it would be notable. I can't see how any reasonable person would say this list is random. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Responding to the sole keep vote above, I'm not sure how this doesn't fall under the directory standard. It's just a list. Additionally, without any claim to notability, other concerns can be raised. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete This also seems like an WP:ADVERT, and the list in the UK should go too. If there is somethign specifically notabole about a centre then it can be made (though it could be an orphan)Lihaas (talk) 11:08, 7 June 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. I wonder, however, if there is an article entitled "List of notable performances on ToTP" that might be worth making? This incomplete list does not appear to serve much of a purpose. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of performances on Top of the Pops[edit]

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

Despite that this article is still woefully incomplete, it is already at bursting point. I can't see that this article adds any useful information to Wikipedia and meets virtually all of the criteria in WP:LISTCRUFT. Top of the Pops included all the songs to make the UK top 20 and most of the top 40, so it's basically a list of every hit in the UK charts within its 40+ year history. The list also includes "performances" from artists who appeared on a video clip rather than actually in studio.

I see from the previous AfD that the issue was that it was unreferenced and despite assurances from editors, three years down the line, not a single one has been added. I can't imagine the list is ever going to be complete (or even wholly reliable) since virtually all the shows from the 1960s don't exist in the archives, and a vast many of the 1970s as well, so entries could be added through guess work since they were hits. There are a great number of articles of minor chart acts which include a "See also" section which links this article (very often as its only See also), I can't see how seeing an artist's name listed here is of any value to also see.

Going on a random year (1977) I see there are 89 songs listed. Given that roughly 200 different songs appeared per year, this will give an idea of how incomplete the list is and how large the article could still get. Certainly the article could be split, but the informations is pointless.

The only way I could see it of any value is to list the songs that appeared on the show that weren't hits, because you can already assume that every hit was included (bar maybe about six banned songs in 40 years). Or perhaps a list of notable appearances, with a description of why each was notable and obviously a source. Although WP:NNC insists that entries of a list are notable, which of course in this case they are, the notability here depends on its appearance on the programme being notable. List of non-hit singles that appeared on Top of the Pops or List of notable appearances on Top of the Pops?

I propose deletion of this down to it being non-notable information.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very specific, clearly defined directly relevant list, i.e., not a random listcruft (unlike the suggested List of non-hit singles that appeared on Top of the Pops or hypothetical List of non-British artists appeared on TotP). The notability of its entries are irrelevant, since the list is not about these performances: it is a part of encyclopedic informanion about the "T of the P". Wikipedia is not paper and can go to this level of detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing particularly notable about songs being performed on a particular show. These aren't the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument irrelevant. The list is not about notability of songs (altough they were notable of the day, hence included in the programme). This is about the content of the show. Contrary the nominator, the show did not include every one of the Top 20. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well reasoned argument given by nom. If this article is notable, then so would every music program, Six Five Special, Ready, Steady Go, Juke Box Jury, The Tube, Old Grey Whistle Test, and that's before I start mentioning every US program, every worldwide program, then I suppose it would be reasonable to extend to radio programs, i.e. lots of listings with no real content. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And indeed why not? I would love to see the list for OGWT. May be it is just a nostalgy of my age... :-) Well-defined, directly relevant listing is content. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, listing is a form of content. And this is a typical WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, that is easily arguable. See the Saturday Night Live lists I cited below, if needed more exemples could be provided. Cavarrone (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well reasoned argument by the nominator that which I agree with completely. The list is so irrelevant that it shouldn't even have been created. The info is too specific and not notable too stay. And a question to Staszak Lem- how is this information "directly relevant?" What does that even mean? Directly relevant to what? Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer TofP is a programme specifically for performances of notable songs. Therefore the list of these performances is directly and immediately relevant to it. The argument that there were too many of them is of IDONTLIKE it type and has to bearing to wikipedia policies. I accept the argument that it is unreferenced. But this is curable, at least for the recent years. The argument "The info is too specific" is too laughable even to start discussing it. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, this statement - "This accounts for a number of acts who never appeared on the show due to their reluctance to perform in this way." - demonstrates that the arguments of the nominator is faulty, and this list is actual useful irreplaceable information. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Er, where exactly are you getting that quote from? It doesn't appear anywhere on this page. As for your assurance that references can be found, well, the article has been in existance for many years now and has not even got one. Funnily, enough the last nomination (three years ago) also said the same thing and still nothing's happened. As for the information being useful; if it's incomplete then I don't see that it can be, and if it's all unreferenced the information can be seen to have no value whatsoever as far as Wikipedia is concerned. One final point: your comment that another's opinion is "laughable" is not the way to go here. Thank you.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1) The quote is from the "parent" article. (2) References are here. (3) 3-year long and counting laziness of the fans of the TotP is not a reason to delete the article, since the issue is easily fixable, see item 2. (4) Unlike someone's persona, someone's argument about wikipedia content is fair game. If you disagree (i.e., you seriously find this argument serious and solid), you are welcome to request further explanations. I will just as happily answer: "On the contrary, I find this article lacks many detail (and this limits its utility, but this is fixable)". Happy editing. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what is supposed to be the specific problem with this article. The nominator's suggestions are worth of notice and his concerns are real but no-one of them could be considered a valid reason for deletion. The list is incomplete but surely being incomplete is a fixable problem and not a reason to delete an article. His suggestions of alternative lists are interesting but aren't conflicting with this one (please ie consider how many lists Saturday Night Live has: episodes, cast members, guests, DVD releases, guests section A – D etc.etc., hosts, five-times hosts writers, recurring characters,awards and nominations musical sketches, commercial parodies, characters and sketches (listed chronologically), guests who simultaneously hosted and performed, compilation albums and videos, feature films). Surely it passes WP:NLIST and WP:NNC requirements, and that is enough for me. Cavarrone (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. obvious pointy nomination. I & others have warned the nom. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19

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

This event fails WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event it's self will have any enduring notability. Any claim to such is at best speculation for an event still months away. The coverage it has to date is limited to the routine type of event announcements. Gamezero 05 16:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A reasonable placeholder stub for an installation of a reasonably expected notable event. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep ^ Same reasons, as it is already taking place online. As long as all the information is properly sourced, there should be no problem.Trafalk09 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Half of the sources have applied per WP:IRS. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of nominations[edit]

User talk page - Gamezero05 explains here why he listed the above nomination. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:07, 9 June 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. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 245[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks independent coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are some nominations for awards but inclusion on the BOCA albums is significant enough to confer notability here. This article appears to have been created by a SPA with a COI but much of that has been cleaned up and references added.RadioFan (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why that would be. Inclusion on a BOCA album (an organization which itself does not seem to be extensively covered) doesn't make this fit any of the automatic MUSIC notability requirements, so it would need to actually be covered significantly in reliable and independent sources. Which as far as I can tell, it isn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - BOCA is a production of the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella and International Championship of High School A Cappella. .--RadioFan (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah ok, well either way the point still stands.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awards are not major, compilation albums are not notable, performing lacks coverage. Nothing satisfying WP:BAND. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:35, 15 May 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) 23:09, 19 May 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close If no compelling deletion arguements can be found after 3 re-listings, it's time to move on. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that actual coverage about the person themselves does not meet the notability requirements. Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Kassam[edit]

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

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)).

Delete Non-notable person. I admit this is a borderline case, as he appears to have been widely quoted and published in the British media, as demonstrated by the references. But I can find virtually no coverage in independent reliable sources which focuses on him and covers him in detail, as opposed to mentioning him briefly. (The best there is is this brief portrait in the Evening Standard:[6]) I don't think there's enough significant coverage of him to pass the notability test. (Additionally, there are concerns this article has been subject to conflict-of-interest editing [7], although that's separate from the notability issue.) Robofish (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual meets notability requirements. Fairly frequent references in the media to Raheem Kassam, and enough reliable independent third party sources to create a credible article. That does not mean the piece is currently in an acceptable state, but the problems can be resolved. Philip Cross (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a vanity page. Looks self-edited, too. Note things like the description of the THE article as an "interview" (when he is one of lots of people cited [8]). The notability guidelines[9] say "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." That does not mean being cited in newspapers because you have sent out press releases on a widely covered story. Only one source - the Evening Standard article[10] - meets that criterion. And the premise of that article is "here are people who might matter one day but do not now". Nor, indeed, does it mean getting stuff onto comment pages as a guest writer. As the notability guidelines say[11]: "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability". Indeed, if we judge him as a journalist, he clearly fails. He runs a blog. He is not, to quote the guidance on journalists, "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Afraid not, Raheem. Hippogriffinette (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)— Hippogriffinette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The fact that this individual has a Wikipedia page is a joke. He is minor even amongst other Westminster activists/talking heads. Other more notable individuals who do exactly the same thing as RK, like Harry Cole who co-writes the Order-order.com blog, do not have pages. For a sense of perspective Harry Cole has just under 17,000 followers on Twitter, RK has < 4,000. The founder of the TPA, Matthew Elliott, the man who effectively won the No2AV campaign and is said to be an adviser to David Cameron has a Wikipedia page half the length of RKs. Also Student Rights and YBF are both owned by the same individual, Donal Blaney. RK speaking at YBF events is treated as something apart from his job when in fact he is obligated to do so. Most of the articles citing RK are not intellectually independent of each other. People who work at/write for ConservativeHome have close links to YBF and the TPA. Jonathan Isaby, for example, was an editor at ConHome and now works for the TPA. Donal Blaney, his employer, writes frequently for ConHome. RK is listed as an 'MIP People' person. Nick Wood, the CEO of MIP writes regularly for ConHome. Another 'MIP People' person is Olivia Cole who is a 'contributing editor' of ES (Evening Standard) Magazine. If you take out the YBF, Student Rights, ConHome and other articles on platforms published by his employers, former employers, his friends and himself the citations for this article become very thin indeed. 86.145.246.83 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — 86.145.246.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I fail to see how anyone can possible come to the conclusion that this individual is notable when so many others who do the same thing so much more successfully do not have Wikipedia pages. We would be setting a really bad precedent. Essentially, Mr. Kassam runs a blog, occasionally writes a few articles and is invited on the BBC to offer his thoughts on political stories on slow news days. RK has never even been on Question Time or written a book unlike other political commentators/journalists. I don't think [any amount of editing can cover up this blatant lack of notability]. This guy may become more notable in the future but having your own Wikipedia depends on being notable now. 86.145.246.83 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this has spun out of a posting of mine at WP:AN, referencing this article which mentions the distinct possibility that Kassam has substantially edited his own article, both as a registered editor and as an IP. I agree with the nominator's assertion that there is not enough significant, third-party coverage for him to be considered notable. Giant Snowman 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - notability guidelines are clearly met. Demands for removal seem politically motivated. Where are the mods on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.15.181 (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The Mods are the ones who proposed this page be deleted, Raheem. I strongly recommend you read this Wikipedia essay. 86.145.246.83 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page - The previous comment is from an Israeli ISP. It could be that Mr Kassam is well known around the globe. Or it could be that Raheem himself, currently in Israel, is still self-promoting. STOP IT, RAHEEM. Hippogriffinette (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've indented this as to insure it doesn't look like a separate !vote, since this editor has already !voted above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's the argument, here? Just because there is a lot written on the subject doesn't mean he is notable for a page on this encyclopaedia. The entire article reads like a Curriculum vitae, to whom is it beneficial that the subject has worked on a minor Presidential candidate's campaign? The reader or the subject? or that the subject has a position at antiquated think-tank? Why should we care that he worked briefly for the Taxpayers' Alliance? How is this individual notable enough for that information to be useful? From the beginning of this article, it looks as if it has been the victim of sock-puppeting - and even if it isn't - how is the subject notable enough to be on this encyclopaedia? Blog-posts or 'executive editors' (who normal web-masters would call 'Admins') of minor blogs have never been enough for an article entry. I recommend deleting. The entire page sounds like a marketing campaign for the subject and, by the style of the writing, most likely to have been written by the subject himself. I direct users to WP:SOAP and WP:N for I believe these two issues are the one's at heart at deleting this page. 78.40.152.129 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is an ugly mess, but having reviewed some of the sources, they appear to show notability. Other than a possible COI, I don't see a problem. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's plenty of sources quoted here leading to a first impression of obvious notability. Scratch the surface though, and they fall roughly into two camps: the tangentially related or works of the subject of the article. That a person whose work includes writing has writings published on the Internet where they can be referenced does not in itself lend notability: it is an inevitable part of that role. Where are the independent non-trivial sources asserting the notability of this individual? I don't see them here, and the fact that someone has taken the trouble to find so many references that don't fit that criteria leads me to believe that they probably don't exist. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No independent sources which discuss the person at reasonable length. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Bearian. The provided references indicate notability. AFD is not for cleanup and we don't delete things simply to spite SPAs. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Almost no-one who is not outside of the Pakistani or Muslim community in England and in the United Kingdom has ever heard of him, until now, and there is no documentary evidence to suggest otherwise. He is probably a little too young to have an entry upon Wikipedia, anyhow. He is hardly Mr. Mark Zuckerberg, is he? — KC9TV 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO. Raheem Kassam may have worked for a number of notable people and the article namechecks a lot of them, but nothing that Raheem has done is notable in itself. --17:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs)

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. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artis Birze[edit]

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

Non-notable Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 16:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Falling back to WP:GNG, I'm not finding multiple independent sources of significant coverage. WP:TRIVIALMENTION on a statistic listing does not count.—Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNews had no results, that's always a big red flag for current athletes. The Determinator p t c 15:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage. Fails WP:ATHLETE. SL93 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: minimal ghits even on Latvian Google. Also doesn't have an article on Latvian Wikipedia. The guy averages 6 points a game for the Latvian League's second division. He just isn't notable. Rikster2 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. I was foolish to just link to policies and guidelines as arguments (especially WP:COMMON). I regret wasting everyone's time by continuing with my foolish deletion crusade after it became clear the article was going to be kept. I personally offer to help make the article better as an apology. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine de Baron'arques[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable winery. A Google Books search turned up only one book with significant coverage of the winery, and that was an autobiography of one of the owners. When I looked at the creator's contributions, the contribs suggested a single-purpose account. That was not a surprise, as the article reminded me of an advertisement. Disclosure: I have edited the page to correct a typo and added a speedy tag, but later removed the speedy tag (the typo remains fixed, though). Nomination withdrawn. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion there's a possibility to write a decent article using multiple reliable sources: [12] (Wine Spectator), [13], [14] (La Dépêche du Midi, see also other articles by this newspaper in the G-news archives), [15] (France Today). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Vejvančický: WP: GNG says that a topic needs to have "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources"; Articles 2 and 3 are from the same newspaper, Article 4 is not reliable as it promotes the winery, and Articles 2, 3 and 4 are all local coverage, as Amatulic said below. And as Amatulic said below, a Wine Spectator review is not significant coverage, as it is nothing more than a routine review, and Wine Spectator does thousands of those per year. Besides, the creator's only edits are to that article, making me suspect soapboxing by a single-purpose account; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if the winery were notable (which, as I stated above, it isn't), soapboxing is forbidden by policy. ChromaNebula (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete, may change my mind to keep.~~ Weak keep. My first thought is, Wine Spectator doesn't count. That magazine's entire purpose is to publish wine reviews, and they publish countless thousands per year. The chance that a wine from any winery in the world has been reviewed in Wine Spectator approaches 100%. Coverage of a winery is a bit more meaningful, but still, it's Wine Spectator, not a good indication of notability. The other sources found by Vejvančický may be OK, but I'd be wary; a French winery covered by French sources is essentially local coverage. While WP:WINERY isn't an official guideline, due to the nature of the wine world, it is desirable to have more than regional coverage to be considered notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Amatulić ... I know of several notable Moravian wineries (actually, I'm a not notable Moravian winemaker maintaining some 400/500 hundred bushes of wine:) and I can imagine decent articles about them that would enrich our coverage of wine topics in various parts of the world. All I could cite would be local Czech coverage. What's wrong with that? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to policy, local coverage does not establish notability. ChromaNebula (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What policy? And, anyway, both you and Amatulić appear not to understand the meaning of the word "local". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not policy, but rather the guidelines WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Regardless of how I characterized the other sources, note that I wrote in my comment that "more than regional coverage" is desirable per WP:WINERY. When I know more about breadth of the other sources, I may still change my view to "keep" as I noted above. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accept the basic premise of WP:WINERY, which appears to be that wineries should be subject to stricter notability guidelines than other organisations. The requirement for notability of any topic, including a winery, is that it should have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which this one does. We have never required any subject to have attracted international coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the stricter inclusion criteria are given in that document. As I said, it isn't official, but reflects the general consensus in the Wikipedia Wine project. It would be nice if a source outside of France were found other than Wine Spectator, but for now I think they're satisfactory, so I am changing my entry to "weak keep". ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This winery has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and passes WP:GNG: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: WP: GNG says that a topic needs to have "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources". Article 5 is from Wine Spectator, which publishes exclusively about wine, so it is not a reliable source; Articles 7 through 11 are from the same newspaper. 6-11 are local coverage, as Amatulic said above, so they don't count as much. Besides, the creator's only edits are to that article, making me suspect soapboxing by a single-purpose account; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if the winery were notable (which, as I stated above, it isn't), soapboxing is forbidden by policy. ChromaNebula (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Spectator is a reliable source. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and has editorial integrity in objective reporting. Articles from the same newspaper about the same topic, but with varying topical themes and published at different times do not count as one source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How on earth is a publication that publishes exclusively about wine not a reliable source for wine? It's one of the most reliable sources that you can get, and the article runs to about 500 words, so is certainly significant coverage. The French sources offered by Vejvančický and Northamerica1000 are not local: France Today and Le Journal du Net are national publications, and La Dépêche du Midi is a regional newspaper. And I've been trying hard to find anything approaching soapboxing in the article and can only find facts presented in a straightforward neutral manner, but if there is any soapboxing that I have missed then the solution is to edit the article, not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think ChromaNebula erred in characterizing Wine Spectator as an unreliable source. It's reliable enough, given that the opinions they publish have garnered trust by the public. The problem is, it isn't really an independent source. It's a wine industry source. It exists to publish reviews, and it publishes thousands of them each year. It routinely reviews decidedly non-notable wineries (you can find reviews about non-established or newly-opened wineries, for example). A review in Wine Spectator, therefore, doesn't serve to confer any notability whatsoever, so coverage in other sources should be found. The notability conferred by coverage in Wine Spectator is even weaker than Zagat for restaurants; we don't have an article about a restaurant just because it appeared in Zagat. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources including national level coverage have been provided. If the Wine Spectator mention was only a tasting note I would agree that it should be discounted (similar to a review in Zagat), but it is an full news article in a reliable source and contributes to notability. Here's another short (but non-trivial) article [23]. If the article has problems with neutrality (and it looks reasonably fine in that regard to me) then it should be solved via editing as mentioned by another user. Camw (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But we probably want to consider a merge with Château Mouton-Rothschild as nearly all of the winery's notability and independent coverage is tied into connection to Mouton as essentially a "winery brand". It is very common for us to merge smaller brand articles into the parent winery article see Maison Joseph Drouhin with its Oregon winery Domaine Drouhin, the numerous wine brands/vineyard estates rolled into the main Antinori and many brands of E & J Gallo Winery. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Regardless of whether the winery is notable or not, an article created by a single-purpose account should not be allowed to stand, as single-purpose accounts are usually used for soapboxing, and this does not look like an exception to me. ChromaNebula (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think you're being a bit too harsh here. Technically speaking I am a single-purpose account since I almost exclusively contain my editing to the narrow set of wine-related articles. So does that mean that the articles that I make, like this one I just finished, should not be allowed to stand? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wine-related articles are not a terribly narrow set, and you're not pushing an agenda with your editing, so you are not a single-purpose account. ChromaNebula (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate where in any guideline or policy it says that we should delete notable, reasonably neutral content because it was started by a possible single purpose account. Camw (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:GAME, WP:COMMON~~ Comment withdrawn. ChromaNebula (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is an incredibly weak argument, deleting a notable article because of the potential that the creator is a single purpose account in no way improves the encyclopedia per IAR (parent comment was edited to remove IAR and add WP:COMMON while I was typing this up, but the same sentiment applies). The overwhelming position of those in this discussion so far has been to keep the article, including input from a number of people who take a hard line approach to notability in the wine area. Camw (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also please take care with adding comments as you appended a line to the end of my previous question with a comment that I did not make and I have now removed. Camw (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. Time to quit, resign, give up, whatever. I apologize for any unwise comments. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:22, 6 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Torralbas[edit]

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

Mixed martial arts and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu competitor and instrutor. Fails WP:NMMA, WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Article appears to be more of an ad for his BJJ studio than anything else. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's sources don't seem to be independent and he doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Since he's not a black belt and he hasn't competed at a world championship then he hasn't competed at the highest level of this sport so WP:ATHLETE isn't met, either. Finally, the article does have a promotional tone regarding his school. Jakejr (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see significant independent coverage. The subject is an underbelt and does not meet the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not remotely notable. Promotional, perhaps self-promotional, article. Elton Bunny (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bladder Run[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This film looks interesting, but the only source I could find about it was this one from a local newspaper, meaning it fails the notability guidelines for films. The film might qualify for an article after it is released if it is reviewed by other newspapers or film critics, but for now it is probably too soon for it to have an article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:11, 1 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roomsurge.com[edit]

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

I didn't CFD this since there is one decent source in the article, but it's the only significant coverage I could find of the site/company in any reliable source. To me, this is a non-notable company/website. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who initiated this page. Sorry I didn't cite more sources as I didn't feel more were necessary. I believe the article in question is a spin-off company off another Fortune 200 company which in my view is significant enough :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilytisch (talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, when creating this page, I used the models from both Wikipedia's own documentation AND other similar companies who have been on Wikipedia for a while now (and thus, proving in my view that they are valid submissions to Wikipedia). I tried my best to follow the models of several of those websites that weren't deleted and yet, mine was put up for deletion within 10 minutes. I'm not sure how or what you do to determine which pages stay or why some pages are deleted within 10 minutes that are worded in the exact same way that MANY companies on Wiki are worded. I tried to word this in the most neutral way possible as I have no incentive to advertise this company since (A) I do not work for them and (B) I do not work for the Fortune 500 company that it spun off of. But now I question whether certain editors do have an incentive to keep certain companies on here and delete others. Second, I have seen a LOT of articles on Wikipedia about small start up companies that have similar sources. Now I understand that you're going to counter with the fact that I should not name other examples to try to explain my own. But the prevalence of so many of these articles on Wiki, many that have gone famous AFTER they've been on Wiki for a while now (thus proving they've withstood deletion attempts). For example, Wiggio uses several sources as the basis for the Wiki page's statements. They might use CNET as a source, but upon further examination, the author of the "Cnet" article is actually a college blogger who was given permission to blog on Cnet's technology blog. Would that be considered as "independent" reporting? I think not! So how is that better than what I have here? And one of the sources on RoomSurge's page is from SeekingAlpha which is heavily known in the business community. They even have a page here SeekingAlpha. Would you suggest that that page on Wiki isn't considered as "advertising" or less so than the page that I just posted? What is your rationale? The American court system uses the concept of precedents to determine the biggest landmark cases in our history. Please state your rationale for deleting my page, and tell me why other certain pages weren't deleted. Perhaps if you are right, I might learn something and will contribute better articles in the future. But if you made a mistake, I want my page reinstated and this deletion proposal removed immediately. . I'm just confused as why the page I spent time to write up for no financial incentive whatsoever was considered more as "advertising" than, say, SeekingAlpha, which is actually one of the sources I cited. I know, you said not to talk about precedent again but if American court system uses 99% of the time, precedents - verdicts and opinions of judges from PREVIOUS cases, to determine the fate of present landmark cases I can use that here. So I just can't understand what else I'd have to add (or delete) in order to make my article valid. Do you just want one more cited source? I didn't even name the website itself as a source - a practice I've seen tons of others do - which shows I really tried my best to make this one neutral. Emilytisch (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Emilytisch (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I don't see a claim to "importance or significance" anywhere in the article—just that they exist. It doesn't appear to meet either WP:Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:GNG. Now that I think about it, it should be up for CSD… I think I'll go do that, in fact. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Upon looking into this a little further, it's getting more interesting… From "Jonathan Leize"'s Seeking Alpha profile page:
Jonathan is a professional technical trader, financial analyst, and finance journalist working in Chicago. He holds a BS in Economics from Northwestern University.
But Google says that he appeared today out of nowhere. A journalist—with zero bylines. A degree from Northwestern—but no Facebook page, Twitter account, nothing. Google also says that his profile image belongs to a Turkish actor named Yağmur Atacan, so I'm calling this article a hoax. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this any time soon. I will be adding more relevant sources once I get the links / permission to post them here. Thanks. 69.38.79.221 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 69.38.79.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. Techcrunch is simply a directory listing. I'm a little dubious on the Seeking alpha article. And Facebook? No. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 4 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent prisoner's dilemma[edit]

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

No sourcing given showing that this topic is not original research. Appears to be soapboxing, given this edit. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My soapboxing or medwed's ? Penyulap ☏ 13:53, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Keep I don't care one way or the other about the article's topic, but I see that the content is sourced and that those sources appear to pass WP:RS and with that that fulfilled the article passes WP:GNG. Since the nominator appears not to see the sources, perhaps I should be told what I have missed? I have not followed every citation to view every source, but then, why would I? The article's topic makes sense and feels as it f is a valid topic for an encyclopaedia whether I care about it or not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only two sources for the existence of the topic -- the rest of the sourcing is for particular examples. We need better sourcing to establish that this is an encyclopedic topic, rather than Original research and Synthesis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - By showing examples of the topic it is shown that the topic exists. I am, so far, unconvinced. Convince me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - These three examples are clearly related cases of Miscarriage of Justice, as the IP mentions below. It's less clear that there's a particular subtopic called "Innocent prisoner's dilemma".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That argument convinces me that my keep !vote is valid, a paradox since you are arguing for deletion Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It should have convinced you that miscarriage of justice is a valid subject. You exemplify the problem with the argument for keeping. "Sources have been cited that deal with other subjects — miscarriage of justice, parole, parole boards, Alford pleas, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and various individual criminal convictions — therefore keep a different subject." goes the argument. But nowhere is a source that even uses the phrase to connote a concept, let alone tells us that Medwed was writing about anything other than parole and parole boards, especially when he himself, in the abstract of his paper, tells us that those are precisely what he is writing about. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure that the title as such has to be shown by reliable sources. All that has to be shown using reliable sources is that the topic exists and is notable, and that I feel has been easily done. The current title is neat and without a much more WP:COMMONNAME we might as well keep the article under it. Egg Centri c 12:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The topics that are actually in the major source here, are parole, parole boards, their decision making, and reform thereof. We already have articles for those. No sources have shown that this topic exists. For starters, no-one seems to be able to name it. If anyone here had read the sources cited and found the topic that they discussed named therein, you'd think that they'd be able to do the simple thing of naming it, wouldn't you? I've read Medwed's article, and I can name parole, parole boards, Alford pleas, and various other things. See whether you can, after reading the sources, name this topic as the cited sources name it. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per: WP:GNG, WP:N/WP:V with WP:RS. Good grief Sarek - give folks a chance to get something flushed out before you go running off to the zOMG "DELETE" end of the pool. @Penyulap - if need be we'll re-sandbox it. Geesh. Chedzilla (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ten pound hammer is all I have to say :) Penyulap ☏ 14:55, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
keep This is a well-recognised issue in law, particularly when contrasting US & UK criminal law. If the article isn't up to scratch as yet, then fix it, but I see no reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have articles on parole and parole boards, which is what source #2 is actually about (this name being just the article's title, and not used as the name of anything in the article itself), and the Alford plea, which source #2 mentions several times. Yes, the issue is recognized, but we already have articles on the things discussed in the sources by the actual names used in the sources. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is a reason for having an overall article. Very few UK readers would know what an Alford plea was, or at least not under that name. An important aspect of this is its relevance to jurisdictions where there is little dilemma at present (so over-specific terms like Alford aren't known), but where potential reforms to the law increase the risk of such a dilemma. Readers in these jurisdictions should be guided to the specifics that have already arisen in jurisdictions where this dilemma is long-established, as they won't know the specific terms already. Nor will those looking at issues around sentencing be heading first for articles on parole. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have the overall articles. They are parole, parole board, Alford plea, and (to some extent) remorse. You're basing the remainder of your argument on the idea that there's some overarching "general term". There isn't. This name is the headline title of a paper and a video. It doesn't "guide" the reader, who is perfectly capable of going to the obviously placed parole#United States to learn about parole in the U.S., anywhere. And the paper is about parole and parole boards. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think deletion would be a bad idea. There is plenty of verifiable, encyclopedic content here, which, if the topic proves not to be notable, could be merged into the likes of Miscarriage of justice. 109.77.140.18 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep causa sui (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance of a rationale for that bare vote? Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The user's name explains all. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    - In other words: for no reason. That's a fairly useless contribution to the discussion, if it is as you claim. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Not sure to what, but to call something a "dilemma" does not seem NPOV. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why. The question faced by the innocent prisoner is indubitably a dilemma, or practical as well as moral dimensions. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Good RS. No reason by the way not to keep the word "dilemma" which is fully justified by the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it isn't. It's the title of a video and a paper. It's not actually the name for anything. Medwed's article is all about parole reform and the decision making processes of parole boards, and mentions Alford pleas in various places. It doesn't actually use this name anywhere in the body of the article. (Ironically, it mentions the prisoner's dilemma on page 497, and that's as close as it comes.) Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is an argument for a different article title, surely? I see no objection to improving the title if necessary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We already have the articles by the right titles. We've had them for years. We've had parole since 2003. This isn't an alternative title for them. It's a non-title, taken not from the content of a source but from its title, that doesn't actually denote even a subject that's named in the source. Medwed has written another article entitled The Zeal Deal: Prosecutorial resistance to post-conviction claims of innocence. We should no more have a Zeal Deal article because of that title than we should have this article because of the Medwed paper cited here. It's not a name of a subject; it's a catchy headline title for a paper. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uncle G, I wonder, if you went by a description of the subject alone, rather than the title of some paper, but described all the different ways in the English language you could label the topic, and then put them in one of those pyramid diagram things, so that words that are not universal are lower than universally understood ones, and you put the related topics lower down, and put the crux of the problem at the top of the triangle, I wonder, how would you describe the crux of the issue in plain and simple terms ? Penyulap ☏ 22:47, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
        The description of the subject alone, as actually documented in the source you hung the article from, is parole and parole boards, as I already pointed out. It says so several times over in the article's abstract alone. That's what Medwed is addressing. You didn't actually read Medwed's article, did you? You didn't even read the abstract, did you? Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources may be reliable, but I seem to be the only person who has read the one from whose title alone this entire article is hung. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge into Parole - or Miscarriage of justice. The phenomenon described is real enough, and is periodically the subject of discussion in the wider media - I recall it coming up in the broadsheets after the collapse of the Birmingham Six/Guilford Four/Maguire Seven convictions, and it comes up often when a conviction is overturned after a number of years and the prisoner was previously refused parole. But I think "Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma" is a neologism that is not in popular usage, as there is little analysis of the subject in the academic literature. If it does become more widely recognised as a topic for students of jurisprudence, it could join Alford plea. As it is, the addition of individual cases who experienced the phenomenon but did not give rise to secondary sources discussing it suggests an element of WP:OR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am quite fond of describing subjects using illustrations myself, but in this case, I guess an image is not going to help the reader, so a few places where it gets a mention might be helpful. Penyulap ☏ 22:51, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Keep - a well discussed problem with plenty of coverage. It may be that it ends up being moved, but for the time being the current title at least has some backing and sounds neat Egg Centri c 23:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article title may be ambiguous as far as the question "is the title the description of an idea, or is it the name of a thing that exists in the real world". The confusion to some editors ironically may be born of clarity.
When I came across the problem in policy, and wanted to describe it as precisely as I could, I went looking for that idea expressed properly and clearly. The only difference is Medwed describes prisoners and I describe banned users. Rather than write the WP:Essay I figured kill two birds with one stone and write the article. Medwed put some thought into the title of his paper, and when he loosed his arrow to choose a title I think he struck the bullseye. There is no requirement to choose which we should use, title or description, it's simple and allowable to just accept they at least intersect, or are in fact the same thing. I think it would be interesting, if policy is to take this into account at some point, if we can simply forgo the essay development/guideline sort of stage and have one less page to argue over, and simply use the term, and the article as a description of the term . The cleanliness and 'one less thing to do' is quite appealing to me.
When I was doing this 'shameless soapboxing', if you like to call it that I guess, I managed to accidentally shove it into wikipedia space (Wikipedia:Innocent prisoner's dilemma) I'm quite an idiot actually, but if anyone wants to delete it that would be cool, rather than make it a complete essay sort of thing. Penyulap ☏ 08:32, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell from that meandering: You want to invent an idea that doesn't exist in the supporting sources, and place it in the main namespace in order to bolster your discussions of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in project space (at the Village Pump). You didn't actually read the source itself; you simply appropriated its catchy headline title (a phrase that the source doesn't use in its body) for inventing your argument-supporting idea around. Is that it? Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good coverage of what, Cirt? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known and well documented phenomenon, and supplement with information on abuse of plea bargains. Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- We already have an article on plea bargains. You're exemplifying exactly the problem with this article. This is no more than the catchy headline title of an article about parole, so it's become a mish-mash of subjects that we already have. As I pointed out, a lot of people don't seem to have read the sources from which this article has been hung. The problem here isn't a case of non-existent sources, it's case of mis-use of sources, to bring into existence an encyclopaedia article whose apparent aim is to make a point in project space discussions. Go and read the abstract of Medwed's article, even if you don't read the article itself. It tells you that part 1 is about parole, part 2 is about parole board decision making, part 3 is about remorse and the parole system, and part 4 is about parole reform. Notice how many times the word "parole" is there? What do you think Medwed is writing about, when he says he's writing about parole?
  Then meet my challenge: Read the sources and name this topic, as the sources name it. If one has read the sources, simply saying what they call this, which no-one seems to know, should be easy. I've read Medwed, and I can name parole, parole boards, and a lot of other things that aren't this. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it might be a foreign concept, but it is a good concept and well known by many people. Penyulap ☏ 05:47, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The article does contain some marginal original research, but there's clearly valid material there too, and the topic is fine and is backed up by citations. Don't throw out the good with the bad, clean up the article. Andrewa (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Marginal"? It's not in the margins. The original research is right at the core, where a catchy paper headline title is abused as if it were a concept. The valid material doesn't belong here, because this isn't a subject. We already have articles on the subjects addressed, and have had some of them for approaching a decade at this point. There's nothing to rename to, as the titles already have articles, and there's no merger target because this is a rag-bag collection of verifiable things in support of a project-space argument made by the article's creator. The project-space argument is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should wikipedia policy recognise its own imperfection., by the way.
  If you want to show differently, meet my challenge: Read the sources, starting with Medwed, and tell us the name of this topic, as given in sources. No-one of the people whose argument is that the sources are reliable, has yet to even say what the name of the topic is. Surely if they have read and evaluated the sources, they'd be able to do that with ease, as they'd be able just to take the name from what they've read.
  Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent prisoner's dilemma (IPD) is a legal system so up itself that it is hurting some people.
A plea bargain is a legal system that is so completely, hopelessly, and thoroughly degenerate even they offer no contest to the charge, and do their best to drag everyone they can down to their level. A plea bargain is an offer "why don't you join us in depravity"
parole is promising to be nice from now on. The Innocent prisoner's dilemma prevents access to the parole, it's not the parole itself.
parole boards are people who want you to tell lies and reward anyone who does.
Alford pleas was invented in 1963, innocent prisoner's dilemma is older than that.
miscarriage of justice let's just merge everything to 'law' instead.
Parole deal is probably too misleading and requires disambiguation.
parole#United States what does that have to do with it ?
"a rag-bag collection of verifiable things in support of a project-space argument made by the article's creator." well yes, that is precisely what it is, except maybe the ragbag bit, but meh, one man's trash is another mans treasure.

I like the idea of writing an article to explain the concept, and was surprised it wasn't there, but then again, it is clear from the article that the concept is simply not well known in some countries, as illustrated by their legal systems.

Plus, there are the other advantages which appeal to me also, that there is no real need to copy every single concept into project space to explain everything (leave aside the fact I accidentally copied it in by mistake). I figure why not just leave some things as articles, and that way people can't fill them up with as much shit as they usually do to essays. At least with the articles there are set standards, and either way I think that readers get the general idea by the time they have read it.

Of course I am probably breaking some rule or other, I try to break at least something everyday. I do quite have contempt for the little letters of the law, but the spirit or the law, that is a different thing altogether, it is the spirit which I embrace and protect while I take a dump on the letters.

So am I using an article to say 'hey I'm not making this shit up, it's an actual real concept', well, yes, I guess I am. Penyulap ☏ 14:19, 4 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Having read wp:soap again, I'm thinking it's just explaining the concept. As for neutrality, I can't actually see how to divide the subject into different sides of the issue, I haven't seen any controversy over it, or different schools of thought, but if there is something I'm missing here with the article I would dearly love to fix it, so any hints in that regard would be appreciated. Penyulap ☏ 23:22, 4 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think there is a valid view that this is soapboxing, I guess where you figure there is a silent majority who view the system (justice or wiki) as perfect, then pointing out the problems IS soapboxing. That is assuming that 'everyone is happy' with the system hurting individuals and the community itself. Penyulap ☏ 02:41, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There is significant coverage of this term in a broad series of sources. This helps illustrate the idea that this term is not a neologism but something approaching a term of art. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. I've actually been reading the sources, as should be evident from the above discussion, and challenge you to name even one of those "broad series of sources" you claim exists that uses this term. (Hint: It isn't Medwed, for starters. I've already pointed out that the nearest he comes is on page 497 where he mentions the prisoner's dilemma.) I suggest that you actually read the sources. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - p497 of which ref ? I can find p15xx but i can't find 497 straight off ... Penyulap ☏ 13:25, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)
  - Haven't read all of the discussion, but as far as I understood, your point is no source has mentioned the term except title of that paper, if so, would this fix the problem? (see the quote) --Z 15:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The term has been used in the paper too, in page 556, lines 11 and 12. --Z 16:20, 7 June 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. Although WP:CRYSTAL is likely quite valid, there appears to be no consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol (season 12)[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, this article on a TV series seven months from broadcast is unjustified. All that appears to be known is that the series will take place, a couple of people will be involved and there will be auditions. Page history reveals numerous attempts to redirect page to American Idol have been overturned without much reasoning (WP:OWN?), hence this AFD to ascertain consensus. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above Tate Brandley Stockwell 15:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i originally created that as a redirect Tate Brandley Stockwell 15:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol and recreate article when broadcast draws nearer. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. CRYSTAL doesn't apply, as (barring those sneaky Mayans) this show will go on (and on and on). There's just barely enough info to justify its existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It will be broadcast, broadcasting schedule has already been announced for next season [24]. There are numerous reports how Fox intend to keep the show running and what they plan to do next seasons - [25][26][27]. The whole process (the audition) starts next week, so it is not WP:TOOSOON - nearly every season over 100,000 auditioned, this is therefore of great interest to many people. It satisfies #1 of WP:CRYSTAL, it is well-documented that the show will take place, and it is still the biggest non-sport show on TV. Hzh (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A broadcasting schedule for next year is not a valid reason for an article to exist. There are numerous incidences of speculation and gossip, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia (see WP:SPECULATION and WP:GOSSIP. And WP:CRYSTAL 1 states future events are not suited for inclusion "if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.". And there clearly aint, because this article is just a couple of lines of fluff and a table displaying audition dates. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You do realise that WP:SPECULATION and WP:GOSSIP refer to OTHER people speculating and gossiping about an event? This is Fox exec's stated intent about their own show, not gossip or speculation. It is a direct quotation, verifiable as news report and certainly cannot be consider original research. Hzh (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move existing info to the section for season 12 on the American Idol page, which is currently almost empty. Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely should not move anything into the American Idol page. That page is already too big, and season-specific information such as the audition dates and locations would be deleted from that page. Hzh (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only viable cited info on this series is that it exists and will undergo some creative tweaking. That's a brief sentence which is not even worth mentioning on the main article. The stuff about there being auditions in certain cities is irrelevant crap that's of no use to man or beast. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is about a page for the season, not the main American Idol page. I'm simply pointing out that those bits of information can't stay in the American Idol page and are only suitable for individual season's page, and should not be considered an acceptable option. It should not be brought into this discussion. Hzh (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The American Idol season 12 auditions have already been announced during season 11 and on the official American Idol website. We need to look out for new information about season 12 in the months to come. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 23:31, 5 June 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 - spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Institute of Creative Art (ZICA)[edit]

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

No references. Apparently an advertisement. HARSH ^TALK 11:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertisement per G11. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Anders Grothaug Kruse[edit]

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

No sign of meeting WP:BIO. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 no claim to notability in the article. Dricherby (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see anything he's done that merits an article, and lack of secondary sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability and probably could be speedy. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Please, save us some time for less-clear cases... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The article does not even attempt to show notability. Matt Deres (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Smith[edit]

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

Completely unsourced BLP. Looks like a hoax. Tiptoety ^talk 07:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax; he's not in List of Olympic medalists in badminton. I can't find anything to prove other claims. Also violates WP:BLP as it has no references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax - I have tagged it as such. — sparklism ^hey! 10:10, 1 June 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. As shown by the delete arguments below, current consensus and precedent is that such articles are not notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think there were a lot of others, but this one lived. Third time charm? It shoar iz purdy ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err .. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see sea of redlinks; it was... ; ) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This info could be covered via a list/category of Australian daytime TV programs (a list could give info on broadcasting dates/scheduling/channel), but a page per year seems excessive. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said at AfD2, "national network schedules are notable-- if only as a navigational guide for the various articles on the shows. The distinction that should be made is national/local, as in so many areas of notability. I further think there is probably press coverage on the general nature of the schedule--there certainly is on the placement of individual shows within it. This doesn't fall under not directory, or not TV Guide, because it includes only the general outline of the schedule--a TV guide would give the details of the week-to-week changes" DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Keeping such articles about the schedule (as opposed to daily programming) is consistent with WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory . This is not "TV Guide," which says what the program's episode will be on a particular day. In a given country, the network TV schedules have typically been discussed in more depth in books, magazines, and newspaper media columns, than mere listings of the days programming. The schedule is a strategic choice of what program leads into a given program, and what the competition is in a time slot. Edison (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a scrap of encyclopedic value. Would anybody seriously suggest placing anything like this in Britannica? or any other encyclopedia for that matter? This article is a TV Guide, pure and simple, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a defunct paper encyclopedia, and whether you would find something in Britannica, Compton's or Funk & Wagnalls is not an appropriate standard for judging notability here. A "TV Guide" would tell you what happens in the episode this week in every program, and has no bearing on an article about the actual weekly schedule. Edison (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What makes the 2009 season notable, when we have no articles on the remaining seasons on this template? Eleven of the TV seasons red-linked on the template were deleted as a result of deletion discussions: 1957, 1958, 1966, 1972, 1975, 1977, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1990, and 1993. Looks like the only reason this article still exists is because a different person closed the deletion discussion. -- Dianna (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST" is a pretty weak argument for deletion of this article. Edison (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retort "OTHERCRAPWASDELETEDBUTTHISWASMISSEDSOTHERESPRECEDENTFORNUKINGTHISPIG" is a pretty compelling reason to keep me from adding gradients to this sow's ear. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic content, interpretation or analysis. Title is also misleading, as it states it's based on Sydney and Melbourne, not the other cities (and Australian networks aren't always the same nationwide), and it's only the "autumn & spring schedules", not all of 2009. What's wrong with Summer and Winter? What about the non-ratings periods? Why isn't "Daytime" in the title? I guess Autumn and Spring 2009 Daytime Sydney and Melbourne network television schedule (weekday) is a bit too long? The-Pope (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see also:
- 1957 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1966 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1966 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1972 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1972 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1975 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1975 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1977 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1977 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1982 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1983 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1984 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1984 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1990 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
- 1993 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see TV schedules as inherently notable and despite the above assertions that sources will probably exist, no independent sources have been provided and the only reference in the article is non-independent TV guide. Jenks24 (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete precedent has been set with other similar deletions. LibStar (talk) 08:32, 4 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barasat Euro Musketeers[edit]

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

Non notable football club. This club is only a state league club which has not played in a national competition yet nor has this club even played a game yet. Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability for the club criteria. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:00, 1 June 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 June 1. Snotbot t • c » 05:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning towards keep~~. Neutral This club has NOT played any soccer games yet, but it is one of the 6 clubs playing in Bengal Premier League Soccer, which is starting this year. Indeed, this club has the highest budget of all the teams. The name may not be covered in media yet, but it is slowly appearing. For example, [28], [29], [30], [31], .--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I dont think you see the issue. According to wikipedia guidelines a club is only notable if they have played in a national competition which for India would be I-League, Federation Cup, Durand Cup or I-League 2nd Division. That is it and Barasat has not played in any of those leagues/cups. Also all 4 of your sources fail WP:GNG as they are all very basic football reporting which is normal to see in all new leagues. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I understand that the club does not meet the club notability requirement as told in the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Indeed the club will never meet this criteria as it is never going to play in a national league. However, the club would meet notability for general notability reason. One thing I must say the club may not meet any notability criteria as of now, since coverage in the media is minimal. However, it would be covered in regional and national newspapers once the league starts. I am not completely voting keep, as this is an expected outcome in near future, and has not happened yet. However, I would be reluctant to vote "delete" as well. The coverage by regional media, large fan-base etc can make something notable even if it does not meet the club notability criteria outlined in that essay.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I doubt it. The coverage would just be normal match-reports and maybe interviews with players. Nothing special. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Delete, with the intention to revisit if the club gets national attention.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. the club slowly rising in next days.--Neogeolegend (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete objective vote based on Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. The WP:GNG would be a good place to start. Cloudz 679 13:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability so far. Article can be created later on when/if they play in a National League and become notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Jonathan but the consensus is that this isn't notable at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Satyrical Press[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the school or publication Yaksar (let's chat) 05:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the vast majority of school newspapers and similar are not notable (even when the school is), and nothing in the article or elsewhere suggests this is any exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was hoping to find sources to save this but failed to find anything substantial. It does seem a particularly good student newspaper, but. If anyone finds good sources I'll be happy to change my mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is just a regular non-notable student newspaper. SL93 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Thank you for alerting me of the possibility of deletion this article. As the original author of the article, I, of course, believe that it is worth keeping. Harvard Satyrical Press was a small publication, however it had a devout circle of fans, contributors, and followers. Currently the site is down, I believe due to the recent graduation of the chief editor. I will work with him on finding a replacement, and "beefing" up the Wikipedia article.

Thank you for your understanding-- Jonathan (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, the way Wikipedia works is that articles are kept based on evidence of notability. In the case of a publication, this means that other places, independent of it and themselves considered reliable sources, have discussed it in substantial detail. For example if you can show that some papers like the New York Times have talked about the Harvard Satyrical Press you'll be home and dry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan, it also sounds like you have a rather serious WP:COI problem as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 7 June 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. Article requires clean-up, to be certain. However, sources indicate notability, and AFD is not for clean-up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zilan massacre[edit]

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

this references is not reliable sources and are described Ağrı revolts in this article. WP:NOR Nihan (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This article has a huge number of independent sources, and I easily found many more[32],[33],[34]. This article clearly meets Wikipedia's event notability guideline. Please note that journalists in Turkey have been jailed for trying to investigate the Zilan Massacre [35], and I see the proposed deletion of this article as potentialy a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or worse yet WP:CENSOR. NJ Wine (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azadiya Welat, Yeni Özgür Politika, HABER DIYARBAKIR, Nasname, Gündem, Med yayınları, Pêrî are biased publications. If Al Shabab says "100 000 civilians killed by U.S.", can we assume impartiality of this resource ? other references explains Ağrı revolts. There is a better source for journalists in jail. But this is not related to the subject. Please read WP:POINT--Nihan (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nihan, You have made the claim that this article is original research. Even if your claim is true that some of the sources are biased, that doesn't make this original research. It just means that the article should be editted, not deleted. Original research is defines as: "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." In my post above, I mention 4 additional references that I was able to find online, which include independent sources such as newspapers and journal articles. NJ Wine (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Berliner Tageblatt was a reliable source, for example, and when something gets coverage on other continents over most of a century, we have no reason to call it non-notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and there are quite a number of reliable sources. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously delete or Partly merge to Ararat rebellion. The page "Zilan massacre" is an original research and the sources mostly not reliable sources --Kmoksy (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What causes you to say that these sources are unreliable? Do you doubt that this event actually happened? If the whole thing were a fabrication, why would Ercan Öksüz and Oktay Candemir have risked prison time to speak with a hoaxer? Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where historians? Please, see original research OK! --Kmoksy (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kmoksy, Please read my posts above. There may be issues with the article, but it is not original research. NJ Wine (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is "partly", but that image is "full". Where Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Where? Please --Kmoksy (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cumhuriyet appears to be one of your country's leading publications. Why do you believe that it's not a reliable source? Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cumhuriyet newspaper is "main" and "mono" source for Zilan rebellion (: "Zeylân hâdisesi" in the Cumhuriyet) (not "massacre"). The image on the page is "partly". Why partly? Why not full? Because intentional! --Kmoksy (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...you do believe that it happened, that it's not necessarily original research, and that we do have reliable sources here. Please don't say that we're intentionally hiding an important part of the newspaper. If you look at the image from their archive, you'll see that it's so small that we can't read anything smaller than "başladı" — it's simply too small to be useful, while the other image is large enough that we can read everything. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where true historians? No!, The page of newspaper should be fully. The "only source" and "main source" is the news for Zeylân in the Cumhuriyet newspaper : 1 (mid-upper column) Hükûmetin tebliği [«the notification of government»]; 2 (right column) Şark'taki hadise ve İran! [«The Event in the East and Iran»]; 3 (top left of the column) Zeylân hâdisesi / İbrahim Tali Bey bir beyanname neşretti [«Zeylân event / Mr. İbrahim Tali declaration issued»]; 4 (lower-middle column) Temizlik başladı / Zeylân deresindekiler tamamen imha edildi [«Cleaning started / The Rebels at Zeylân valley were completely annihilated»]. The news of Cumhuriyet for "Zeylân rebellion" (a part of Ararat rebellion. See "history" section of "template of Ararat rebellin") and is not "massacre". Why partly image of newspaper? This image is not "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". --Kmoksy (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images don't need to be neutral; we use them neutrally, but they don't have to be neutral by themselves. Otherwise, we'd have to delete nearly all of the images used in the Advertising article, for example. And I told you — the image of the entire article is too small to be useful. If displayed at this resolution, an image of the entire newspaper page would overwhelm the page. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The translation from Cumhuriyet news "Temizlik başladı / Zeylân deresindekiler tamamen imha edildi" as Cleaning started, people at Zeylân valley were completely annihilated is mistranslation. Because, Turkish "Zeylân deresindekiler" is not "people at Zeylân valley"; true translation is "the ones at Zeylân valley" = "The Rebels at Zeylân valley". The Cumhuriyet news are for the Zeylan rebellion section of Ararat rebellion. Please --Kmoksy (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admin, note that the nominator here has also nominated it for deletion at tr:wp. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea about whether this article is notable, but this is currently a hot debate on Turkish Wikipedia, and the discussion does not seem to be centered on POV-pushing or censorship efforts (at least I can say that the users voting for its deletion are not necessarily POV-pushers, I am pretty sure about that as tr.wiki is a small community), but the sources are examined one by one (although there is nothing about e.g. Berliner Tageblatt). I am aware that Google Translate does not work very well when it comes to Turkish, but still, this could give an idea. --Seksen (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, what they are saying is that this event is not covered in any academical research published later (Christopher Houston is said to be unreliable and Ayşe Hür talks about a "claim", she does not present it as a solid fact) and that the sources about this event are either biased Kurdish sources or they all cite the Cumhuriyet article, and there is no source other than contemporary newspaper articles, and that the other reliable sources are about the Ağrı rebellion. On the other hand, the Berliner Tageblatt and the UK Foreign Office are not mentioned. --Seksen (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick JSTOR search revealed this article, which both discusses the event and also refers to multiple published books that devote substantial attention to it. Note that JSTOR says that it was published in "a journal unrivalled by any other in its field"; this is definitely solid research. Regardless of the content currently in the article, solid scholarly research into this subject has been published. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very important sentences There is another recently published work containing documents purportedly from the Turkish War Ministry's Historical Archivesdescribing TAF activities during the Mt. Ararat revolt.34 The section of the book dealing with the Ararat revolt is divided into several sections. The first discusses the Zeylan rebellion and its suppression from 20 July to the first part of September.

In heavy fighting from 20 June to 27 July in the Zeylan valley, he states that the Kurds shot down 8 Turkish aircraft with machine guns and rifles.

On 13 July, Cumhuriyet declared the rebellion in Zeylan had been suppressed. The TAF squadrons composed of "10-15 aircraft" were accorded great prominence in the crushing of the revolt, although the Kurds did manage to return fire.

There are no words about the massacre. Such an identification made by the author of this article and unreliable sources. This article part of the Ağrı Rebellion. The only thing is known about the event, news of the Cumhuriyet newspaper.This article must be included in Ağrı Rebellion. --Nihan (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
At present, I feel this is the case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Uses claims (not only here but also in DR in Turkish Wikipedia) that this article must be NOR without showing specific examples. This is worse than the case on Armenian Genocide denial. Because there is no denial theses on Zilan massacre. So users personally deny this event. I claim neither this massacre occured nor didn't occured. I only collected existing sources that I could find and I uploaded File:Zilanmassacre.jpg simply because I couldn't find other versions.
Some users misunderstand and claims that Cumhuriyet is single source. Even in DR in Turkish Wikipedia, most of all users made a same mistake. But,

Not only Cumhuriyet but also Vatan newspaper (July 13, 1930) reported this massacre.
There are testimony of survivers. I omitted most of these sources because stories are too vivid and I feared this article might became like a splatter film. Probably this my behave was wrong, if need, you can added such information.
There are confession of soldiers who participated in the massacre (Malazgirtli Zazo, Mirza Efendi oğlu Hüseyin, İpek Yılmaz, Dursun Çakıroğlu etc.)
Secondary sources. Kemal Basoğlu, Delal: Zilan katliamı ve gerçekler, Do, Istanbul, 2010, Sedat Uluğana, Ağrı Kürt direnişi ve Zîlan katliamı, 1926-1931, Pêrî Yayınları, Istanbul, 2010, Kemal Süphandağ, Hamidiye Alayları ve Zilan Katliamı, Perî yayınları, 2012 etc.

Although User:Nihan claims Azadiya Welat, Yeni Özgür Politika, HABER DIYARBAKIR, Nasname, Gündem, Med yayınları, Pêrî are biased publications. I think this claim is biased. User can consult at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
User:Kmoksy calls repeatedly "Where historians? ". but for example Garo Sassouni was a historian. Turkish historian Mustafa Mustafa Armağan also mentions to Zilan katliamı.
As to Zeylan rebellion, the rebellion was started by sons of Kor Hussein Pasha (Kör Hüseyin Paşa ) and of Emin Pasha at the night 19/20 June 1930. More than 100 rebels raided on the center of district of Zeylan (Zilan) and the gendarmerie station. Then they made their own tribesmen (Kor Hussein Pasha's tribesmen lived in the area) joined to their forces and marched toward Erciş. (Faik Bulut, Devletin Gözüyle Türkiye'de Kürt İsyanları "Kurdish rebellions in the point of view of the (Turkish) state" with the preface by Lieutenant-general Namık Kemal Ersun, Yön, 1991, p. 162.) Turkish General Staff calls this raid, Zeylan (Zilan) incident (Zeylan hadisesi or Zeylan olayı ). Someone call Erciç incident. Moreover, Zeylan (Zilan) rebellion covered not only Zeylan (Geliyê Zîlan) but also Patnos, Çaldıran continued till September 1930. (Faik Bulut, Devletin Gözüyle Türkiye'de Kürt İsyanları, Yön, 1991, p. 167.)

So Zeylan (Zilan) incident is not same as Zilan (Zeylan) massacre that took place in July 1930. Zeylan (Zilan) rebellion is not same as Zilan (Zeylan) massacre.

Zilan Deresi Katliamı went to the European Court of Human Rights. Even in the document of UNHCR, the term "1930 Zilan massacre" is used.
It's clear that the notability of this subject was established independently. So it's not nessesary to be merged. It must not be merged to other articles. As we know, Malmedy massacre was committed during the Battle of the Bulge, it must be not merged to Battle of the Bulge. Holocaust must not be merged to Second World War or Nazi Germany, the Armenian Genocide must not be merged to First World War, or Middle Eastern theatre of World War I.

Formerly I planned to create also Zeylan rebellion (or Zilan rebellion) with focusing on military conflicts between June 19 and September. But it's very complicated. Because many tribes participated in conflicts and some of them support the Turkish forces, some of them were suppressed despite they didn't participated in conflict. If users created articles such as First Ararat rebellion (tr:Birinci Ağrı Harekâtı), Second Ararat rebellion or Second Ararat operation (tr:İkinci Ağrı Harekâtı), Zeylan rebellion, Third Ararat rebellion or Third Ararat operation (tr:Üçüncü Ağrı harekâtı) in addition to this article, they will be useful for readers of English Wikipedia.

By the way, I want to know oppinions of users from Kurdish Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kurdistan is needed. Takabeg (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - multiple reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Buckshot and others. Sourcing seems reliable. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:48, 5 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2004–05 ABN-AMRO Twenty-20 Cup[edit]

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

Created in October 2011 and left in stub state since. No substantial improvement to the information provided in Twenty-20 Cup. No indication of WP:N. SocietyBox (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Official tournament sanctioned by the Pakistan Cricket Board and played with official Twenty20 status - the highest level of domestic cricket in Pakistan. These tournaments should all have seperate articles as they are all notable in their own right - unfortunately this wikiproject is mostly an Anglo/Australian effort, so our coverage of Asian domestic cricket is somewhat neglected. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:24, 31 May 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) 03:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They may be recreated when someone decides to properly research and write them. The nomination was based on the articles' current state. --SocietyBox (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See WP:RUBBISH. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was suggesting a reason closer to WP:A3 and not WP: RUBBISH. --SocietyBox (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep border-line cases I think, but the idea of stubs are articles that can be expanded, and these all provide enough information to enable expansions, while still having a use at the moment (they generally list the teams taking part, and the winner of the tournament, along with a few other key details in some). Harrias ^talk 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per systematic bias pointed out by Howzat?Out!Out!Out and because this can be significantly improved on the current content. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Howzat. Mar4d (talk) 03:04, 7 June 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 Basically WP:NEO, but is perhaps a valid definition. Article should possibly be transwikied to Wiktionary, but consensus is that this does not warrant an article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiting (video gaming)[edit]

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

A concept in video gaming that may not pass WP:GNG. A search for "kiting mmo" finds tons of WP:SPS, but one book mention: a footnote that incidentally gives an etymology that is different from the one in the article. The sources now in the article are an offline book at whose depth of coverage I can only guess at, a Youtube-type video and a brief glossary of gaming terms. If more coverage can't be found during this discussion, the topic could also be selectively merged into a Glossary of video game terms (surprisingly nonexistent) or another appropriate article. Sandstein 22:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm, tricky. I've seen the term used at least a hundred times by WP:Reliable sources on the web, but that wouldn't pass WP:NEO even if I could track them down. Given Wikipedia is a not dictionary is really hard to justify an article. A tad annoying when you consider that there's an article for the offside rule for five different sports (Offside). I think a Glossary of video game terms would be an appropriate place, if one is permitted. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is certainly a tactic in many MMORPG (I've done it myself), but the problem here is that the coverage of this tactic doesn't exist in reliable sources. There is rather detailed analysis of kiting for many different games but these are found in web forums, and not the type of source we would say is reliable for establishing notability. I could not find sources to establish notability, but I will reconsider if somebody can bring up sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 28 May 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) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. The beginning of the article, which defines the word, and gives its etymology contradicts "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". The remainder of the article lacks references, and gives an analysis of kiting that may be too limited, and may not apply to all applicable video games. I think the best thing to do is to transfer the definition and etymology to the Wiktionary entry for kiting. NJ Wine (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary transwiki, it's not an encyclopedia topic. But it is a useful term. Shadowjams (talk) 06:06, 1 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pasha Hashemi[edit]

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

Contested PROD by IP with no rationale given. Article is about a footballer who hasn't made his first team debut therefore fails WP:NFOOTY & has not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Doesn't meet NSPORTS criteria for biographies. Shadowjams (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. →TSU ^tp* 17:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article have no sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- Alexf^(talk) 12:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Gun[edit]

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

Non notable element from a series named The Man from U.N.C.L.E.. Also, it is written as an advertisement for the real-life gun that "can be found and purchased on the website http://www.theunclegun.com/" Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. DarkAudit (talk) 08:07, 1 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad (song)[edit]

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

I'm concerned this doesn't meet criteria for a standalone article. I've searched Billboard as well as other sites and only sparce info is available for the single nor the parent album. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - then you can't have looked very hard - I found several references in Billboard to the single charting in Malaysia. Dan arndt (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have expertise searching music databases and no references for album/single exist on Billboard as of now. Not even the tracklisting for the parent album is available. See for yourself: http://www.billboard.com/#/album/maurice-gibb/the-loner/811100
Ok, i have found the ref you put on the article. No.5 in Malaysia in 1971. Ok, i see your point. Still, i think it might be all put into the main article. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – appeared on a national chart, mentioned in numerous reliable sources. Aside from notability there is sufficient material for a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Newman[edit]

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

Disambiguation in which all of the articles that should "disambiguate" doesn't exist. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm surprised there isn't a speedy criterion or something that would keep something obvious like this from clogging up AfD. Carrite (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The producer has some hefty credits (Children of Men, Dawn of the Dead (2004 film), The Thing (2011 film), Flash of Genius), and he's done some interviews[36][37].The snooker player competed in the qualifying rounds of the 1947 and 1948 World Snooker Championships, so he's marginally notable. Not sure about the head coach of the University of California, San Diego basketball team. Alternatively, the article could be converted into the producer's bio. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point here is that unless the articles for those Eric Newmans are created and meet GNG, we don't need a disambiguation page, since it's useless. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - this falls clearly under MOS:DABRL "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link". Perhaps some day the DAB page may be required, but that time is not now. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 02:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep as the page is now a valid DAB.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've just added links to the half dozen high profile films Newman co-produced, and the snooker player was already linked (though just to this page, which I've rectified). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I repeat. For this DP to exist, first the articles which it is supposed to disambiguate must exist. The Dp is useless if it disambiguates to non-existent information. If you found information regarding this Eric Newmans, i suggest you to be bold and create all those articles that it disambiguates. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Comment Each entry in a DAB page needs to link to an actual article - each entry must have at least one navigable blue link as that is the entire purpose of a dab page. See MOS:DABENTRY "Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term". The purpose of a DAB page is to disambiguate common titles of extant Wikipedia articles, it is not intended to be a list of potential articles, that is what the search function is for. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Uh, did you (Hahc21) read Ponyo's comment? Redlinks are allowed. I've added a rapper who has an article, to go with the producer who deserves one (which I may get around to) and the snooker player. Three entries, with related bluelinks, are more than sufficient to support a dab page, regardless of the worthiness of the others. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And did you carefully read Ponyo's comment? Read again, please. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "navigable (blue) link ... to the most relevant article": check. As for "it is not intended to be a list of potential articles", that is not stated in the link; on the contrary, WP:MOSDABRL specifically covers this situation. Think you're talking to a newb about dab pages? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Addendum. The numismatist looks pretty notable too. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal opinion about this one way or the other — but just to provide a bit of context, the title's original iteration was as a straight redirect to Luka Magnotta. However, there were numerous other articles expecting different Eric Newmans, and for obvious reasons we don't want to mislead people with an incorrect link (the fact that the accidental link was to an alleged necrophiliac serial killer making it even more urgent to stay right on top of this!), so I deleted the redirect as problematic and it was then recreated as the current dab page by the same user who had originally created the redirect. It's true that a dab page shouldn't normally exist where only one bluelink is actually present on the page — but it's also true that if there's more than one bluelink, then it is acceptable for there to be some redlinks too. I'm fine with either keeping this or deleting it, but the one thing that the title absolutely cannot be is a straight redirect to Magnotta. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:DABMENTION says "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included.", so the producer, snooker player, etc are all justified, either as redlinks or just as black text with an associated bluelink. PamD 07:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's plausible that someone would search "Eric Newman", looking for either the rapper or the fugitive, both of whom have articles. The redlink to the film producer seems justifiable, the others perhaps less so, but it's clear there is a need to disambiguate between several semi-notable Erics. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. i created this as a redirect to Luka Magnotta, since it is his BIRTH NAME. the redirect was deleted with the following rationale:
18:31, May 31, 2012 Bearcat (talk | contribs) deleted page Eric Newman (bad redirect, causing legitimate redlinks about unrelated people with the same name (including a screenwriter and a baseball player) to link to the alleged murderer.)
. it seems to me that this page needs to exist, even if not in its current form. perhaps a hatnote at the top of Stagga Lee, but i doubt that would go over well with the fans of that artist. -badmachine 08:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to slamdunkify this, I've started Eric P. Newman, which I'll finish tomorrow. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The point here is to "disambiguate". There are several possible "Eric Newman" articles which may qualify as notable.Ryoung122 14:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep 3 people called Eric Newman have articles, and 4 entries clearly meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION. Valid dab. Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no question about it. Each dab entry must have a bluelink, and there must be more than one entry worth keeping. Conditions met. We can replace the redlinks with black text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this now snow keep? Especially as big improvements have been made to the page since its nomination. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's safe to assume that. im unwatchlisting this. -badmachine 13:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would have been speedy, but someone voted delete. This disambiguation page serves as a very informative purpose. The birth names are good entries, and the producer... is not that searchable because the name itself may be ambiguous --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. I'll watchlist this as well, given the late unpleasantness - it's easy to overlook how disambiguation pages interface with BLP, but it's an important concern. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion rationale is no longer valid as the disambig has been improved. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:42, 7 June 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. Copyright violation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Reunions[edit]

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

The name of the article is "Memphis Reunions" but its content relates to a "United Confederate Veterans". The latter already has a page on Wikipedia covering the info shown here without the advertising tone. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binyamin Goldman[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No sources. Google hits on social networking sites or other people. DarkAudit (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I retrieved the link to one of the subject's roles mentioned in the article, but it amounted to one piece of user-submitted content. No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 21:17, 25 May 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, →B music ian 02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably A7 as the article doesn't really claim any notability, fails WP:BIO. Secret ^account 06:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreeing with most of the above, there's an additional item to note. The sources for the article don't actually discuss the subject of the article (Goldman) but other companies he's been involved in. Therefore, it does seem to fit under A7 fairly well; yet my concerns are heightened at the lack of reliable sources. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

onbvious and speedy delete article creator has only made his and its the same name. Though his talk page says other COI's. THe source is also to the website that this person wrote on.Lihaas (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would have speedied this if I had seen it with a CSD tag, but don't want to subvert the process now it's here. No assertions of notability or reliable sources of any kind. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Snowball I think it's better to shorten proceedings when it's clear the target is utterly non-notable (and the creator has a conflict of interest as well) per WP:SNOWBALL. I think it's clear that this should have been speedy deleted rather than going to AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I erred on the side of caution with that CEO claim. That could be considered an "assertion of notability". DarkAudit (talk) 21:25, 7 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day Before (Film)[edit]

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

I have searched and had no luck turning up any independent secondary reliable sources to indicate that this film has had any coverage to pass WP:NFILMS. It was deproded by the original author, and after being reprodded by a different editor, it was then deproded by an SPA anon IP. This $8000 budget film short just doesn't seem to be notable, as I can't find any significant press/media coverage of it. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering that it was released in 2010 and still has yet to get any sort of reliable coverage of it, it's unlikely that it will pass WP:NFILMS anytime before the end of the AfD. The only thing I see going for it is that it has been screened after its initial release in 2010, but that in itself won't show notability unless it'd been screened at a festival 5 years after its initial release. (Even then, I'm not sure if that would count all festivals, or just ones that Wikipedia considers notable.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NFILMS. Zappa O Mati 22:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not so much "TOO SOON", as the film has screened... but more simply a failure of WP:NF in that it did not receive the requisite coverage in reliable sources. As it screened in South Africa, is it possible it had non-English coverage under a different title? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: perhaps an exercize in futility, but I just made the thing somewhat prettier.[38] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 2 June 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. Fails WP:BLP alone with no sourcing, and his "book" does not create notability as it's not notable on its own. Fails WP:PROFESSOR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Iqbal Qazilbash[edit]

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

My first impulse was to prod this article as a non referenced BLP but I'll let someone else decide if thats necessary. Although the person appears notable the article needs to be completely rewritten and appears to be substantially copied from somewhere. A lot of spelling and grammar mistakes are present indicating it may have been a translation. Kumioko (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article is a collosal mess, but AfD is not the proper forum for that. Qazilbash is clearly notable, being listed on reference site for famous Iranian poets. Being that he is notable, and there are no known insurmountable neutrality or verifiability issues with this article, let's keep it. NJ Wine (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How do you know "being listed on reference site for famous Iranian poets" is a reliable site? Just because somebody on on a "site for famous <insert>", doesn't make the person famous. The site being referenced was setup up for the "Second conference of Iranian and world poets" held in October 2011. Conference was organized by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. He was one of the attendees and therefore had some of his poetry on the website. The only information I can find about the conference comes from Iranian papers and they all use the same wording. The following month, the "International Islamic Resistance Poetry Festival" was also held in Iran and I can't find any English refs he attended that one, little alone English refs about the festival. I'm unable to find any English references that has any reliable information about him. He does work for Ansariyan Publications as a translator. Ansariyan is a private (it appears) company that publishes Shi'a twelver literature into English. I have to go with delete unless some Persian sources show up. Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per NJ Wine, AFD is not clean up. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The http://irworldpoets.com/ site has four lines of text and two bullet points. This is not indepth coverage. Feel free to ping my talk page if other references with indepth coverage are found. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 07:25, 28 May 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This article is such a mess that we'll do better to get rid of it and try again later. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and allow time for improvements, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article's style and layout have been improved as of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Northamerica1000. The article has a decent format and structure now, along with references. This provides passing notability, IMHO. Mar4d (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR. His book is not famous and neither is he. Nothing notable that this gentleman has done has generated wide significant coverage per WP:GNG. If proof exists in his native language it probably should be added but I couldn't find him in urdu wikipedia so I have my doubts that it exists. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No reliable sources found to show notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Raza Mir[edit]

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

I was asked out of the blue by another editor with whom I am unfamiliar to nominate this article. That being said, there are some unreliable sources who think he is a dangerous Muslim radical living in the US. The United States government seems to agree as it tried unsuccessfully to bar him from reentering the country.[39] Neither this nor his accomplishments as listed in his article amount to enough to clear the notability bar IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are many reasons as to why I think this article should be deleted:

The subject of the article is not truly notable: he is an imam of a mosque but there are millions of imams in the world -- not every one of them should be allowed an article in WikiPedia
The article has original content, which is against WikiPedia policy
The contributer of the article has written it in a way that promotes the subject of the article
The article is not objective as it fails to address the fact that:
1. The United States Government does not desire Mr. Mir to stay in the United States
2. That the imam has sued the United States Government on multiple occasions
3. That the imam has serious conflicts with others
4. That the son of the imam is subject to TV programs that allege that he is engaged in pro-terrorism activities
The article relies on a single source: The organization hosting the imam
The article fails to address the imam's political agenda in the United States (something obviously known to the U.S. Government)
The article includes mainly insignificant "filler" information, such as the imam attending an obscure conference and answering questions or the story of the imam receiving a PhD in Iran...

All in all, an objective article is not going to be to the advantage of the imam anyway... YankeeYiddel (talk) 21:55, 30 May 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no independent sources, and I couldn't find any independent sources for Nabi Raza Mir. Furthermore I agree with the concerns of YankeeYiddel that the article violates WP:NPOV. NJ Wine (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs need WP:V reliable sources and a reason to be in the encyclopedia, the vague claims in the sources available just say that this is a Shia pastor who studied in Iran and moved to the U.S. Even for the claim that the FBI is interested in him, I see no source. Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I gave a link to the case. It wasn't the FBI, but a number of other agencies that filed. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 9 June 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 2012 in mixed martial arts events#ONE Fighting Championship . Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Fighting Championship: War of the Lions[edit]

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

Contested PROD: This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT , there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, I am unable to find any other sources that cover the event in detail other than the sort of routine coverage any sports event gets. Mt king ^(edits) 00:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ONE Fighting Championship. Article has no independent sources list, nor could I find any independent sources when I searched on Google, so it fails Wikipedia's mixed martial art notability guideline. Because ONE Fighting Championship is notable, we should merge ONE Fighting Championship: War of the Lions into that article. NJ Wine (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in mixed martial arts events#ONE Fighting Championship --TreyGeek (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in mixed martial arts events#ONE Fighting Championship I think this redirect will keep some prose about the event, while merging it into ONE Fighting Championship will eliminate almost everything about the event except the fact of its existence. There is definitely not enough for this event to have its own article. Jakejr (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect Either of those options seems reasonable to me. I don't see how this event merits its own article because it fails both WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the highest recorded crowd at a mixed martial arts event in the history of Singapore and was the subject of numerous articles in national newspapers and international websites. Werda666 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werda66 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep This was one of the most significant sporting events ever to take place in Singapore and received widespread media coverage as is clearly demonstrated by the links. Sadoka74 (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT per improvements and sources provided during AfD. Cavarrone (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in mixed martial arts events#ONE Fighting Championship: All sources about this event are routine coverage, and there is nothing in the article or the sources to indicate that the event has historical significance or a significant lasting effect. They way the article is, it falls into what Wikipedia is not as it is at best a news report. Per the primary notability guideline of current and past real events, outside of routine coverage, there aren't multiple reliable sources with significant, non-routine coverage that make analytic or evaluative claims about the significance of the event to presume that as a topic it passes the general notability guideline, so I do not think that it deserves a stand-alone article. The only notable non-routine coverage element is related to the female fighter Nicole Chua, not the event itself and that is at best a footnote or part of an article about her, not the event. Jfgslo (talk) 22:09, 9 June 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 2012 in mixed martial arts events#ONE Fighting Championship. (Any other useful information can be merged). None of the Keep comments relate to any notability for the particular event. Black Kite (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Fighting Championship: Destiny of Warriors[edit]

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

Contested PROD : This yet to happen sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT , there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate what if any lasting significance this event will have. Mt king ^(edits) 00:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ONE Fighting Championship. Article has no independent sources listed, nor could I find any independent sources when I searched on Google, so it fails Wikipedia's mixed martial art notability guideline. Because ONE Fighting Championship is notable, we should merge ONE Fighting Championship: Destiny of Warriors into that article. NJ Wine (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ONE Fighting Championship... Agree with NJ Wine... this makes the most sense. Theopolisme _TALK 01:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in mixed martial arts events#ONE Fighting Championship --TreyGeek (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in mixed martial arts events#ONE Fighting Championship I think this redirect will keep some prose about the event, while merging it into ONE Fighting Championship will eliminate almost everything about the event except the fact of its existence. There is definitely not enough for this event to have its own article. Jakejr (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is the biggest MMA event to ever take place in Malaysia and is being held in the second biggest indoor venue in the entire country. There have been articles about it in the two major English language national newspapers in Malaysia. The Star (Malaysia) and the New Straits Times which I have added to the article as well as in every single major MMA website including Sherdog, MMA Weekly, Bloody Elbow and MMA Mania. It is an event which has massive significance in South East Asia.Sadoka74 (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because with the closing of DREAM, ONE FC is Asia's biggest MMA Promotion. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't about One FC, it's about this particular fight card.

Keep I feel as if this article is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia and would be questionable if deleted, as it improves the coverage as said above Asian MMA. (Sepulwiki) 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Merge or Redirect Either of those options seems reasonable to me, but I think this event has problems with both WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE on its own. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this event has clearly been shown to be the subject of numerous articles in major newspapers or websites and is the first significant mixed martials event ever to be held in Malaysia. Werda666 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werda66 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep One FC is currently the biggest MMA promotion in Asia. Events held by such an organisation are notable per se. Behemoth (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the previous comments are equivalent to saying that all NFL games are notable because they're covered by many papers and held by the largest football league. Jakejr (talk) 20:05, 8 June 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. If it was down to me, this one would hit "delete" straight away, but since there's clearly a disagreement about how BLP1E applies here, I'll have to close it this way. Feel free to DRV if you wish without contacting me. Black Kite (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Manhart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is obviously a WP:BLP1E. I'm not sure at all how this got past AFD last time in 2007. All of the references point to the singular event that got her punished by the Air Force. Nothing else in the article makes her notable, therefore this article should be deleted. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I carefully read through Wikipedia's policy on individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E), and I don't think it applies to Michelle Manhart. WP:BLP1E states an individual should not have their own article if all three of the following are true: (1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; (2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article; (3) It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Based on IMDb, it seems that Ms. Manhart is now an actress, as well as a PETA spokeswoman, so criteria 1 and 2 are not true. Furthermore, there is no article which currently exists, or which I could imagine existing into which this article could be merged. Thus, I think we need to keep this page. NJ Wine (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a comment, but, IMDB isn't considered a reliable source per WP:IMDB. Sarah (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, WP:IMDB is from an essay WP:ELPEREN, and is not a Wikipedia policy. While I think that the WP:ELPEREN essay is valuable and well-written, I'm going to have to disagree with the exclusion of IMDB as a reliable source. IMDB contains a great deal of information about actors that just isn't contained elsewhere, and the vast majority of articles on actors cite IMDB. Furthermore, I question why Wikipedia has a template, Template:IMDb name, if IMDB is not reliable. NJ Wine (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry NJ Wine, but Wikipedia is not a news repository. Not a single one of her roles in the movies listed at IMDB could stand a chance at making her notable. There hasn't even been a news story on her since 2007. She's also not a PETA spokeswoman, she only did one ad with them and certain media outlets only covered it because it was directly after she had left the Air Force. I've read that policy thousands of times and enforced it as well; this article does not even come close to passing it. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to weigh in and say as to why IMDb isn't used as a reliable source to show notability: it's because it can be edited by the person in question. We've had cases in the past where entire pages were added to IMDb by the individual(s) involved, not to mention bits and pieces where individual users added trivia and whatnot to the IMDb entries. At the very, very most IMDb can be used as a trivial source to back up small things. While the page is considered to be an essay, it's pretty much accepted that IMDb is not a reliable source and is at best a trivial source due to its easily edited nature. I'm not saying that Manhart or anyone representing her has edited her page, just that in the past others have manipulated IMDb in the past to where it's not seen as a reliable source. We've got years of precedent backing up the whole "IMDb doesn't show notability" stuff. If the article is going to be kept, it's not going to be because of her IMDb account, so anyone interested in rescuing the article must find other sources that aren't primary (WP:PRIMARY), trivial, or IMDb.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She wasn't even the Playmate of the Month, and even most of those don't get their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, Michelle Manhart's notability is being evaluated under WP:BLP1E, not WP:PORNBIO. She is notable because of the media reaction surrounding the military's dismissal of her, not because she was such a renowned porn star. NJ Wine (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually NJ, there is no clause in AFD policy preventing the article from being reviewed against multiple Wikipedia policies. Your statement here though kind of proves my point as to why this is a BLP1E. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a person can be evaluated under multiple notability guidelines, but they are only required to pass one of them to be considered notable. I was simply trying to make a point that just because Michelle Manhart was not Playmate of the Month, and doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO notability, does not make her non-notable. NJ Wine (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NJ Wine. Hektor (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The initial events were covered internationally, raising Manhart to a high profile and subsequently, e.g. with the PETA advertisement, so BLP1E does not apply (specifically, condition 2 is not met). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E, including, yes, the second criterion, as the one event is still the only thing she is known for, and. Now whether or not the scandal itself is worthy of an article might be an interesting topic to ponder, but she fails WP:BLP1E. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's have another look at this. I guess it comes down to whether the PETA ad was purely subsidiary to the initial event, or whether it took on a life of its own. It seems not to have been followed up by anything much, and it was close in time to the initial fuss, so it's reasonable to treat it as subsidiary. So BLP1E(2) does apply, and I'm changing my vote to Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Manhart definitely met the notability criteria and her case is still a part of the military subculture. For instance, I saw her referenced in a news story just yesterday, about a controversy involving military women breastfeeding in public..."People are comparing breastfeeding in uniform to urinating and defecating in uniform. They're comparing it to the woman who posed in "Playboy" in uniform [in 2007]" Scott told Yahoo! in an interview. "We never expected it to be like this."[40] - Kelly ^hi! 17:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the phrase "the woman who" implies she's not known under her name any more. Is there not another article she would sensibly merge to? Whatever the outcome of this AfD, would a mention in Women in warfare and the military (2000–present) be appropriate - at the moment that article is all "first woman to do this" and "first woman to do that". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and not sufficiently notable. Off-topic thought: isn't there some sort of porn-pedia? What's the transfer protocol? ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I don't have any problem with WP:BLP1E, either, but for different reasons. She does not remain a low-profile individual, in the sense that she set a precident in the US Military: Don't pose nude. Also, she did go on to pose nude in a notable ad campaign. Those two points are enough for me. Keep for now. Roodog2k (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per previous nomination which ended in an overwhelming decision to keep. This "event" garnered international attention. The reason because the two earlier similar military cases haven't gotten an article is because they didn't get this amount of attention and sources and still date from a time when the internet coverage was minimal and information scarce. If one deletes this one, than you should also delete the articles about police officers Carol Shaya Castro and Barbara Schantz. – fdewaele, 5 June 2012.
No AfD discussion needed A WP:BLP1E argument is never an argument for deletion, it is an argument for merger. And having done a WP:BIO1E merge recently at Thomas Mantell, the benefits of a BIO merger are not clear cut. No admin tools are needed here. Also, WP:BLP1E states, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals", yet no argument has been made that this is a "low-profile individual", rather the contrary. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The event may be notable, the person isn't per WP:BLP1E (Ms. Manhart was low-profile and has returned to low-profile status since the timeframe for the event). I recommend the article be renamed and rewritten to be about the event per WP:Notability (events), then it can be considered under the correct notability guidelines. --Joshuaism (talk) 16:45, 9 June 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.