< 23 March	25 March >

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that there is not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambition (game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ambition (cards)

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

Proposed for deletion due to lack of notability.

This game has less than 10 players worldwide. It has been move to remove previous discussions and nomination for deletion. I'm sure SWReeds is none other than a Michael Church sock puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickedtothekurb (talk • contribs) 06:44, 25 March 2012‎

Where do you get the "less than 10 players worldwide" from? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how the nominator can state there are 10 players worldwide as I can find no reliable sources writing about this game. -- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage from WP:RS sources, and no reason to think there would be. If any can be found, happy to reevaluate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MFC 32[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage that this "event" received was totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results) the article does not attempt to demonstrate the event's lasting effect and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event. Mt king ^(edits) 22:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 22:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of MFC events or similar article. As the nom has explained, this article contains only WP:ROUTINE coverage of a WP:SPORTSEVENT that lacks well sourced prose. The article also only cites Maximum Fighting (the promoter of the event) and Sherdog.com and therefore lacks WP:DIVERSE sources. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into 2012 in mixed martial arts events If the significant aspects of this event are not already merged at the time of closing I'd like to request userfication to User:TreyGeek/MFC 32 so that I can have time to properly add any important or significant information to 2012 in mixed martial arts events. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to show this event has the significant long-lasting impact required by WP:EVENT. Indeed, it fails WP:ROUTINE because it's just reporting results. Astudent0 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Mdtemp (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve or merge per User:TreyGeek. I do not trust the nomination due to WP:TEND edits made by that account elsewhereand the deletes otherwise are coming from single-purpose accounts whose entire edit history consists of vote-stacking to delete MMA related articles. I am not convinced this article is a WP:HOAX, so per WP:PRESERVE, the content seems salvageable insome manner or other. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked Sock (see here).[reply]
Delete or very selectively merge to 2012 in mixed martial arts events. Coverage appears far too trivial to justify its own article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:04, 1 April 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. B music ian 06:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Market, Hove[edit]

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

Basically an advert for a venue of dubious notability. Orange Mike | Talk 22:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 1828 structure, coverage seems to establish notability of the structure per WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some edit repurposing towards being about the building throughout its history with a subsection on its current usage, rather than the other way about. AllyD (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a tourist advertisement, including an external link to the city's tourism site[1] Looks like any old building in any city. Nothing to satisfy WP:Notability. Iglooflame (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basically a historical building which is nearly 200 years old and documented in numerous reliable sources during those two centuries. Warden (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Even if it were only a venue for performances, it would probably be notable, but as a former market hall and a historic huilding it is addtionally notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a major venue in Hove, and an architecturally and historically significant building.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four/ Tobias[edit]

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

This seems to be redundant. I feel the information should be only in the main series page. LAA Fan 22:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not need to be a stand-alone article. More concretely, WP:GNG applies here per WP:FICT, and there's no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Terence7 (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete At this point, there's nothing to establish any sort of independent notability. Perhaps a redirect could be created in its stead to the main series article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_Divergent_characters#Tobias.2FFour. The book itself does appear to be genuinely notable, but I don't think there is enough material here to warrant a freestanding article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability or other relevance apparent. Consists only of unsourced and remarkably incompetently written plot summary, so should not be merged. Sandstein 08:10, 1 April 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Thurber[edit]

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

I'm seeing stuff from promotional sites and youtube, but nothing from reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:45, 17 March 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, JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have removed the text of the article at the time of the AFD as it was essentially a copy of a press release. I've restored the main body text from an earlier version. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11, pure advertising, no independent sourcing or indication of notability. Sandstein 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lichterman[edit]

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

Non-notable vanity Wikipedia bio page, suspected to have been created by the subject. See Wikipedia:Notability for guidelines. Kojiclutch (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All of the "sources" provided in the article are dead links but you can tell from the URLs that they are not reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Terence7 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 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, JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia entry. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Evans (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who meets none of the criteria at WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. The entire article consists of the fact that he's a professional super featherweight boxer. Boxrec currently ranks him 292nd in his division. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Article consists of the statement he's a professional boxer. He's now had 5 professional fights and obviously fails WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. Astudent0 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's five-fight record does not come across as notable, in my view. Janggeom (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, ranked 292nd in his division with a grand total of 5 fights. Subject fails to meet the notability standards for boxers. I can't believe this one line article was rejected for speedy deletion. Mdtemp (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I rejected it for speedy deletion because it seemed possible that the subject met the general notability guideline, as there are multiple reliable sources that discuss him. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I too had thought it was an obvious speedy. WP:CSD says it's eligible if it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and, since all the article said was that he was a professional boxer, it seemed clear cut (I think it's obvious that not all boxers are notable). I can now see Paul's thinking on this--thanks for sharing. However, I still strongly believe he's not notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tech Mahindra#Merger with Mahindra Satyam. Sandstein 08:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Mahindra-Mahindra Satyam merger[edit]

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

This honestly reads like a press release to me. I'm left with the impression that coverage of this material to the articles for the companies merging is the best practice. I am not, however, sure that people would agree - so here we are. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC) `[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tech Mahindra#Merger with Mahindra Satyam. No need for a separate article and the material is not suitable for merging as it reads like a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Guy Bomanyama-Zandu. There is certainly no consensus to delete and merger or retargeting discussions can take place as an ordinary editorial discussion on the Talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Mémoire du Congo en péril[edit]

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

non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple sources and might I say a very interesting subject matter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Covered in multiple sources, and archived in the Congolese Film Library to meet WP:NF. We do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suport merge and redirect Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unfortunately, I have not been able to find any bona fide third-party WP:RS. Am I missing something? Articles like this show that the whole area of Congolese (and African) cinema is woefully lacking here, so it would be great if we had a Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo parent article to merge this article to, as this film and its companion, Le Congo, quel cinéma! seem to explore very significant chapters in that country's history of cinema. But I don't have the time to create such an article, even in stub form, unfortunately. Shawn in Montreal(talk) 14:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another option could be to merge into the director's article, Guy Bomanyama-Zandu. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better idea: support, at the very least, a redirect and merge into the director's article, retaining categories on the redirect page to aid navigation. I can just do this myself, per an admin's closing remarks at another recent CfD in this area. It doesn't require administrator action, and all sides of the issue will be happy with the end result, I suspect, satisfying both WP:NFILM and WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 00:02, 16 March 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, Sandstein 19:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In view of limited participation, this is a SOFTDELETE - as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request, though it may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TK-N-CASH[edit]

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

I believe it fails the notability requirement for a music group with no significant, non-trivial, reliable sources MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 21:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Author believed it qualified under 4 and 5 for the WP:NMG. I left my reasoning on the talk page. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any third-party source about this group and, as you rightly say, the three mixtapes do not qualify as major albums. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 March 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, Sandstein 19:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Participants in the discussion have advanced to opposed points of view, that the organization fails the relevant notability guidelines and that the guidelines should be liberally interpreted or set aside for political organizations. While not embodied in the text of, say, WP:ORG the view that we should have deliberately broad coverage of political parties and organizations is common enough at AfD and I am not willing to ignore a view espoused by three upstanding members of the community in good faith, especially when the discussion has only six participants. Also there is no apparent concern that coverage is insufficient to meet the policy standard of verifiability. Given the above analysis an No Consensus close is inevitable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Conservative Training[edit]

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

This group claims to be notable for organizing several Tea Party protests between 2009-2010, in particular the Kansas City tea party at the Liberty Memorial (see List of Tea Party protests, 2010). In April 2010, a single wire story about the Tea Party mentioned the group and was picked up by two sources, the Winnipeg Free Press[8] and the McClatchy-Tribune News Service[9]. The story was a reprinted news item from a Kansas City Star article which mentioned the group in the context of "thousands of tea partiers and hundreds of tea party groups". The organizer of the group, Andrea Plunkett, then a student and previously a volunteer for McCain's 2008 campaign, received a glowing hagiography by KCUR-FM [10] and the group received passing mention in local news stories about political races in 2010.[11] However, Americans for Conservative Training appears to be a defunct, Facebook-only group at this time[12] with little encyclopedic importance. I have no objection to a redirect to Tea Party protests but I fail to see the importance of a group whose sole claim to fame is organizing a protest in Kansas City and backing a losing candidate. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I advocate a very low bar for the inclusion of political organizations in WP. This is material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. There seems to be a large enough web footprint for this organization that sources probably exist. I feel at least as certain that Andrea Plunkett could be made into a notable biographical subject if this organization is not, with a redirect extremely appropriate in that eventuality. I do not share the assessment that this is a "Facebook only" organization, nor am I convinced that the organization is now defunct. This might be a good target for improvement by ARTICLE RESCUE SQUAD if they want to invest some time in digging up sourcing. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Feelings are good, as they guide us in making sound decisions. But they are only helpful after we examine the hard data and the evidence and we let the evidence, not our feelings sway us. In this case, please see the evidence I've collected at User:Viriditas/Americans for Conservative Training. To summarize, the organization, Americans for Conservative Training, received no significant coverage in either reliable or even unreliable sources. Per WP:ORG, "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The organization has also failed WP:CORPDEPTH. Andrea Plunkett, on the other hand, has received significant coverage in at least one reliable source and one unreliable source, but again, this is not enough. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined the sources, but surely there is a difference between "importance" and WP:Notability, isn't there? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Importance refers to content, and notability to source coverage. However, there is a close relationship between the two. For example, if the organization was important enough to the tea party movement, we would expect to find more significant coverage enhancing its notability. Importance is more arbitrary than notability, but it can be gauged. The fact that no reliable sources give this organization credit in 2009 when the Kansas City tea party protest took place at the Liberty Memorial speaks volumes. And based on the number of tea party protests that have taken place, is there any indication that the KC protest was important and notable? None that I can see. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 March 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) 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the potential for improvements. I agree with Carrite that the bar for political organizations should be kept very low, and for religious organizations also, These are areas where lack of knowledge and sometimes prejudice often come into play, and we need to be especially alert to represent all schools of opinion. It hs become conventional here to say that notability is just a matter of sourcing, but it isn't really true, and very rarely do we decide only on that basis. We do take the importance of the subject into account, using various rules like LOCAL and NOT TABLOID and NOT NEWS to keep out the relatively trivial no matter if there are sources--sources that would be enough if the subject were actually considered important--we've deleted tens of thousands of articles on such a basis. We've kept many thousands also, when the sources are marginal and the subject important. We are humans, not reference-counting software, and are expected to use judgment. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've poured through the entire set of references available on the subject. Please describe exactly what kind of "potential" improvement is possible, because I don't see anything to add or improve. On what basis should we keep this permastub? Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete; although the subject clearly exists, the amount of coverage does not yet appear to be significant from what I can find. Perhaps this should be created as a sub-section (Merge & Redirect) in the Tea Party movement article as it maybe too soon for it to have its own article. If new reliable sources can be found to denote its notability the redirect can be restored as a standalone article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 23 March 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, Sandstein 19:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits is hardly signfiicant coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGGs and Carrites reasonings. A very low bar for the inclusion of political organizations on Wikipedia should be held. And per that this article is within the inclusion criterias.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. B music ian 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Hurt[edit]

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

This subject does not pass WP:GNG because there is no substantial coverage by multiple, reliable third parties. The coverage I found is mostly in low quality sources and in passing mention, aside from interviews that don't really indicate notability. This subject also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSIC: he has apparently played with more notable artists, but cannot be said to have joined those ensembles (nmusic #6) or shared in any awards (anybio). Previous versions of this article were blatantly autobiographical, and while that's not a reason to delete, it tends to explain why the article exists at all. This artist exists, but it's WP:TOOSOON to call him encyclopedically notable. JFHJr (㊟) 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a fair-sized discography in that interview that is the only given ref. It's in French, and as interviews go, fairly good. I have a feeling that he could be notable - but I'm commenting here as feelings don't merit 'keeps'. Peridon (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added refs to his album and gig reviews from "All About Jazz" and to his (admittedly short) Allmusic biography. These pieces involve two well known critics, Jason Ankeny and Jim Santella. I think these plus the French interview and an album under his own name on a major label (Blue Note) are sufficient for notability. AllyD (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Discography and biographical details aside, allmusic is not a reliable enough source on which to base notability. See here. JFHJr (㊟) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and for that very reason I would never rely on an Allmusic discography in seeking to establish notability. In this case I referred specifically to a biography bylined to Jason Ankeny. (Similar for All About Jazz: the Musician pages and news items are effectively user-submitted content, but the bylined reviews are reliable.) AllyD (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: album released by a notable label (Blue Note), notable collaborations, played on a Grammy nominated album, sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as far as I can see, a decent coverage about him. - Cavarrone (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let's go over WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Allaboutjazz, a jazz advocacy site, gives some substantial coverage as one source. It's not that great a source, and is the only one. No other sources give substantial coverage; the sum total of another is "Keyboardist James Hurt also sat in on the evening’s final number" and "...surprise guest James Hurt (keyboards) set up his small synthesizer keyboard..." The substance of others is comparable: passing mentions. Any interview is exactly that: the subject talking about himself. The publisher does not generally vouch for any content, but simply that the subject has made those statements about himself. The subject's mere participation with other notable individuals or in award nominated (not won) albums does not help him inherit notability without actually associating with the band. I'll concede this may be a borderline case, but I think votes so far overestimate the value of the coverage pointed to. JFHJr (㊟) 15:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with material on a jazz musician appearing on a "jazz advocacy" site; if I were looking for material on a rugby player, I would look to a sport/rugby site, a French politician or writer, I start at Libération, etc. It is simply how one establishes whether a subject has notability in their field. Conversely, though, if I fail to find anything substantial on AAJ or Allmusic about a jazz musician (especially an American one, given cultural/locational bias) then the warning bells ring that their notability is questionable. In this case, I've now added two more refs to the article, from articles by Steve Loewy at Allmusic and Peter Watrous at the New York Times. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two more sources [13][14] (subscription needed to view the latter, a 541-word piece in which ~150 words are spent reviewing Hurt and his solo album). Considering all the article's sources I believe there's enough for the subject to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CAPSULE[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. No ghits found for the product's full name (capsule is a term widely used with Linux) apart from a socialbuddy.in post. Appears to originate from a company called Foonix Inc, one of whose founders is apparently still a student. ~~PROD declined by author.~~ Peridon (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Prod was removed by Harry [15], but original reason still stands - no reliable sources. Appears to be the work of a COI interest editor and non-notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made an assumption there as he'd removed so many speedy tags... Peridon (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion above. Note that the user is currently blocked for disruptive edits, with an expiry of sometime on Sunday. I smell promotional and conflict of interest in this work. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have re-blocked the user, this time indef. And the article has gotten no less deletable. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: though it doesn't clearly fall neither under WP:CSD#A1, nor WP:CSD#G1, the rationales behind these criteria apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyright infringement (CSD G12) by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). B music ian 06:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Cool People[edit]

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

Non-notable? Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 17:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio from http://www.verycoolpeople.org/about/ -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be a general agreement that the article should be merged elsewhere, and I'd suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page regarding this. —SW— ^babble 16:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Milktruck[edit]

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

Not at all notable - can't find any other sources (beyond non-notable blogs and about.com) that have discussed what is really just a very basic Google Earth mod (edit: in an encyclopedic way. As Ridernyc points out, there are notable references that mention it in passing, and possibly one useful reference which is currently down). The parts about the game's educational value ("People using the software can also embark on independent studies that compare the way that milk was brought to consumers in earlier years as opposed to today.[1] They can study more about milk trucks and their appointed routes.") seem like, at best, crufty nonsense or at worst, an advert. Only links are in List of freeware video games, List of browser games and the "See Also" section of Google Earth. Smurrayinchester 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral just want to point out that it has coverage in notable sources [16] PCWorld is far from a blog. Not much coverage but the nominator is overstating the lack of coverage a bit. Ridernyc (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PC World link doesn't work, it just sends me to a 403 Forbidden page (the article also seems to be just an piece on a blog hosted on the PC World website, rather than a full article). The only other notable ref I can find is a single mention in The Telegraph and an article in the German magazine Computerwoche which just uses it an example of the Google Earth API in use. Neither of these actually discuss it in any terms beyond "this is a thing that exists". Smurrayinchester 19:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link works fine: [17] The post mainly describes the plugin features, and the game did get a mentiom, but not sure if it's enough. A background description of the plugin function using the info from the post might help. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and that Technology Week article, though that's discussing another game based on Monster Milktruck that uses the Wii Balance Board. Smurrayinchester 20:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no other notable references for this mod, it should become a redirect into the main Google Earth article. After all, a mod is just a modification of the original program - and the original program is probably more notable than the mod. GVnayR (talk) 23:13, 17 March 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) 14:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 19 March 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 14:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't look particularly exciting - and may give kids in the USA the idea that milk trucks could teleport. As to 'earlier years', I get my milk delivered in glass bottles by a chap with an electric milk float - very green. (Not the milk...) I don't get the impression that this is an actual Google thing, but is someone's freeware designed to work with Google Earth. This might, if I am right, be an obstacle to redirecting to the Google Earth article. I also don't get the impression that the refs are very brilliant. All in all, not a lot going for it. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sufficient significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is +- ok. Approved. --Hydao (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename and Merge - An app developed to showcase the capabilities and API of the Google Earth plugin. Some sections could use some pruning to remove over-specific detail, but the plugin is still a distinct example of a Google Earth function (browser plugin). - M0rphzone (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article should just be merged into an article on the Google Earth plugin. It can be renamed into Google Earth Plug-in and then the background info about the plugin can be the main topic with sections for examples such as this one. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a change of heart. After realizing that this app was capable of showing the full potential of the API present in Google Earth plugin, I decided to change my vote to keep. GVnayR (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Google Earth - unfortunatly the sources provided are either primary sources or unreliable sources, and what remains is, IMHO, insufficent to establish independent notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 2 April 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. B music ian 06:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School, Cuckfield[edit]

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

Small, unremarkable primary school. It claims the school dates from 15 - but that is a school of a different name in a different building elsewhere in the village. Bob Re-born (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Cuckfield#Education - as per nom this is a new school, with a new name, on a different site to the original. Sure, there has been a school in Cuckfield since the stone age or whatever, but it is not the same school as is there now. What is notable is that the village has had a village school for hundreds of years, and that notability should be acknowledged in the village article. Fmph (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name was changed to maintain links with the village church with which the school originally shared a site. All local historians,including the local museum, consider this to be the same school. The school even has the list of headteacher's plaque dating from 1512 and running to the current date hanging in its entrance hall. The diocese of Chichester consider it to be the same school which is why they are holding a special service in June this year to mark the school's 500th anniversary.smcculley (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick check strongly suggests that the Cuckfield School founded in the 16th century is notable and I disagree with the nominator's claim that this must be a different school because it is in different premises and now has a different name. All that can be reasonably required is verifiable substantial institutional continuity between the Cuckfield School of the historical sources and Holy Trinity Primary School - which would be the case if most of the teachers and pupils were the same immediately before and immediately after a change of name, premises or official type of school. However, all the evidence for continuity we have at the moment is unbacked assertions on the school website and mention of unnamed local historians - we really need something more reliable. PWilkinson (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you have got that almost completely wrong. In England, should a school change it's name, it is almost impossible that it is the same school as previously. Changing a school's name is one of the most difficult things to achieve legally. It requires a unanimous vote of the school's governing bodyGttL - Ch 3 Sect 64, and is the only matter for which proxy votes are allowed under school governing body voting rules. It almost never happens. When you find school's which have apparently changed name, what will usually have happened is that the original school will have completely and legally closed (a much easier legal step) and a brand new school will have opened, with a new governing body, possibly a new sponsor (perhaps a church or trust), where all the staff will have had to re-apply for their own jobs. Sometimes you also see an change of age-range - Junior -> Primary perhaps. Inevitably, it will have most of the same children, if it continues to serve the same community. But it will be an entirely different school.

And if the new entity has acquired a sponsor, foundation or trust, the new name will often reflect that - in this case the "Church of England" explains that. But often it may just be the use of the word(s) 'voluntary', 'aided' and/or 'controlled', or the term VA or VC, in the name. That will indicate this. Significantly, I can't find any mention of any of these terms in relation to the original Cuckfield School. This is now a voluntary aided school, where the CoE is the sponsor. That means that the church will appoint a majority of the school's governors. If the predecessor was a bog-standard community or county school, then it's GB would largely have been elected by parents or appointed by the local authority, and no individual stakeholder group would have had a clear majority.

That would be a very significant change, which taken together with the location and name change would mean that this is an entirely different entity to its predecessor. Fmph (talk) 13:19, 23 March 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 14:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I have no particualr knowledge of this school, but Fmph is wrong about the immutability of schools. The article lamentably short on the history of the school and how it came to become a C of E aided school. There were procedures in the 19th century for independent schools to opt in to becoming schools subject to the education authority. the fact that the school moved to a new building in 1990 is neither here nor there - if the whole school staff and pupils (other than pupils who had just left) relocated to a new building it is clearly the same school, probably with the same governors. I normally recommend that primary schools should be merged with the place where they are. I am not suggesting that here, as there is clearly a lot to be added about the history. One should not assume that, because a change is difficult to make today, that it has always been difficult. If there is a consensus, the education authority or the Secretary of State would, I am sure, be able to amke the changes. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since writign the above, I have added a "history" section to the article, which explains how a school founded as a grammar school ends off as a Church of England voluntary aided school. This may be an unexpected course of events, but is appears to be true, according to WP:RS, which I have cited. If the outcome is not to "keep", the article must be merged with Cuckfield where it is; deletion should be out of the question. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing school names isn't that big a deal - the closing/reopening thing is mostly when special measures have failed to lift a failing school sufficiently, and a change of staff and image is the last resort, or when two schools are being 'merged' by being closed and a new site used for the new named school - which won't have continuity of staff or premises. In this case, as I see it, the old site had to be given up, and a name change was decided on at the same time. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I would take it that the head and staff all moved with the kids to the new site. It's not that hard for all the governors of a school to agree on something. From my experience, quite a few governors are rubber stamps for the Chair anyway... Peridon (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I'm not sure what is meant above by Junior to Primary being a change of age range. Primary is the umbrella term for Juniors and Infants, which in many cases are together in one school. It used to be the case that Juniors and Infants - Junior Boys, Junior Girls, and Mixed Infants even - were separate schools with different heads on one site, but that is rare now - and the boys and girls segregation on a single site is history in primary education, so far as I am aware. It may be different in a different part of the country. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the age and history of the school make it notable. And I agree it is still the same school, even though it has moved to a new building and changed its name. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable - see here and here, for example. Warden (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are multiple reliable sources to establish the notability of this school and to write an encyclopaedic article in line with WP:N. I'm not clear on the present composition of the building but the original grammar school building and the 19th-century addition are listed buildings. See this entry on the Images of England website. The Victoria County History provides further background information. See here. There is also much useful information to develop the article in this council report on the history of Cuckfield. Dahliarose (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on 500 years of history. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a point above a Church of England aided school only nominates two members of the Governing body and exercises no control over the school. Other than an inspection of Christian ethos every five years or so the church exercises no significant influence over a school it aids. Holy Trinity Church in cuckfield always had a strong influence over the old school - in fact the orginal school is in the church grounds about twenty feet away from the church front door. As stated in the article when the school moved - taking its governing body, headteacher and the majority of staff and pupils with it - the name was changed to maintain that link with the church.User:smcculley (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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 article blanked by author. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragoş Popa[edit]

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

Coverage of this individual in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is sharply limited. We have a blurb in his local paper, and from the national papers, two briefs on the festival he's running and another (complete with an e-mail address where readers can send money) about his lofty ambitions. Maybe in the future, but if right now this is all that's available on him, I don't see him meeting either the general biographical criteria or WP:CREATIVE. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Grossly promotional, entirely non-notable as far as independent sources bother. Dahn (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really tried to make this article to be good. That's not my mother language and I tried to do the best when I translated this article, took me a lot of time. Now, I also added the translation for his project. I appreciate this kid and I think that he deserves all my respect, for all what he did and for what he want to do. Also I see him meeting WP:CREATIVE, because he is artists / singer. CristinaStroe72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC). — CristinaStroe72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In order to meet WP:CREATIVE, the subject must actually pass one of the five criteria. Passing them is not just a matter of opinion; evidence in the form of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" needs to be presented to confirm notability. So far, we simply don't have that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion Dragos Popa meet the crietria number 3 and 4."The person has created a significant or well-known work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either has become a significant monument." For exemple here it's a video created by a Romanian Television in which says that this young boy made history for his city and for Romania. Also I can raise a lot of articles with this subject, unfortunately all of these are in Romanian.CristinaStroe72 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the biography doesn't seem to be complete, but for sure can be improved and also I think that this article can be included into WP:CREATIVE , as I understand Dragos Popa is tenor. EdwardMa (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — EdwardMa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Where are the independent sources that make more than trivial mention of this subject? And how does it begin to matter that he is a tenor or a baritone when it comes to his notability? And how is it, "EdwardMa", that your only edit on wikipedia so far is casting a vote on this discussion? Dahn (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just a Wikipedia reader, not writer. A discussion led me to intervene in this matter and it is my right. Originally I'm romanian and that does't mean that I'm lower than others. EdwardMa (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For me, after looking at the article and the refs, the main problem seems to be that it is not quite in "correct" English. There is no deadline. I don't speak Romanian, but if this article is kept then I will personally go through it line-by-line, possibly aided by Google Translate, to render into WP:MOS text.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National Papers? Non-notable coverage? Really? Maybe we should leave this to those who have Romanian as their mother tongue? :-) --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "references" are a promotional piece in a local newspaper with a circulation hovering around 2000 copies; a blog post; another blog post; and a promotional piece complete with an e-mail address where readers can send money. The main problem, the fundamental problem, is not the grammar, but that the subject simply isn't notable, as we define it.
- I'm not quite sure what you were driving at in your last comment, but if you're implying that mere mention in a national newspaper implies notability, this is patently false. I plucked three random articles from the front page of The New York Times; are Steve Budin, David Baime and Chris Schlesinger notable? There's a reason why we ask for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gilderien, both Biruitorul and I have Romanian as our mother tongue. Dahn (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, as I see you are Romanian or you just speak Romanian. Well, a newspaper, two newspapers maybe can’t be trused, but there are much more sources, all of them are Non-notable coverage ?

I think you know that the ‘Jurnalul National’ it’s one of the biggest newspapers from Romania. I saw that you don’t like that the article it’s completed “with an e-mail address where readers can send money”. That was a fundraising campaign to achieve that cultural project. Dragos has not received money from that campaign and he decided to create the project by gathering money from his allowance, as he declared to an interview and for that the people from Romania and not only, appreciate that very much. Meanwhile the Cultural Virtual Information Center, became a department of a association accredited at the Chamber of Deputies at Romanian Parliament.(How I checked that? Well I read here, then here and I made the connection). If necessary, as a former journalist, I will send a letter to Parliament and I will prove that the subject is notable, because was one of my subjects.

I want to say that is something impolite to say that NovaTV is represented only by blog.If you go to this page and then click on the “Video” , there is the reportage made by this television. We can’t say that isn’t notable.

Here is another important newspaper from our country. This article represent the winner of the festival, with Dragos Popa, the president of the festival.

I also found in YouTube a lot of videos from the festival, means that was realised.And another interviews, where I think that you can understand what says.(interviews with the composser Mihai Vanica, another old singer, Ilie Micolov, the mayor etc.)

Also I saw the official website of the festival. It is hosted by City Hall Zarnesti. Searching on it , I found here, Dragos Popa as founding president.I can’t say that the IT Team of City Hall Zarnesti are liers.

In ‘Adevarul’ newspaper are a lot of articles in which the subject is Dragos Popa or the festival.Here it's one, and here another one.

Also, BrasovPress here, CoronaPress here (soprano Felicia Filip and the festival, another official Brasov county website here, Monitorul here and many others.

And one of the best notable it’s the City Hall Zarnesti WebSite here.

Well, there are a lot of natable sources. Dragos Popa is not a subject like “Madonna will mary with Brad Pitt “! , it’s a cultural subject.He at his early age represent for me, for some of us, a man of culture, an artist. I don't understand why this article could hurt the encyclopedia. Also I rember that I saw somewhere a diploma of Dragos Popa from a music festival contest, which represent that is a singer. How much I would like to be again a journalist. CristinaStroe72 (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's look at those sources one by one. It is absolutely irrelevant if the "Cultual Virtual etc." Center is or isn't "accredited" by the Chamber of Deputies - in itself, the information means absolutely nothing, especially not for the entry we're discussing; and this aside from the fact that even this claim is traced back to what "Centrul" says about itself. I still don't understand which part of this is supposed to source the article, but I gather that we're talking about a one-time mention in a second-rate local TV station report - Nova TV's, that is. Of course we can say that isn't notable - it isn't notable enough for wikipedia, not even Romanian wikipedia. This is a local edition of a national newspaper, where Popa is quoted with a statement about the winner of his festival, and shows up in a picture. This is the same, only less so (even in a local context, he is but briefly mentioned); this is in fact a duplication of just that article. Ditto. A trash collector and a policeman who was assaulted with a bottle receive basically the same "honor". The YouTube hype is entirely dismissible (and in fact easily concocted). This, I gather, is the festival's own homepage - I would find it strange if they didn't mention Popa... This is a local newspaper, this is a news aggregator, this is an entirely irrelevant primary source. Dahn (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I was canvassed by CristinaStroe72 by email about this AfD. I have had no prior interaction with CristinaStroe72 as far as I can see and remember, nor have I edited this article, nor is this article within my areas of interest. CristinaStroe72, please read WP:CANVASS if you haven't already. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Someone has recommended you as administrator.Thanks for being here. CristinaStroe72 (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Also canvassed by email. Delete on principle. — foxj 11:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Probably too harsh, I'll agree. I'll retract all involvement. — foxj 11:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree with WP:CANVASS, CristinaStro72 is a relatively inexperienced user, and we should not expect all our editors to instantly know all our (ever expanding) policies and guidlines. Voting against this on principle of this violates (IMHO) WP:BITE.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 11:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also contacted by CristinaStroe72 via email about this AFD despite not having any dealings with the editor before or editing any similar articles. I won't comment on the article but this behaviour is a case for concern. (Emperor (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I feel that this topic harms my health. Please let me know which is the method to remove it and I will do that today.CristinaStroe72 (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the e-mail canvassing is by now public, I may also point out another issue: CristinaStroe72 has also contacted me by e-mail, and her message attempted to persuade me that we should keep this entry not because of coverage in the press or wikipedia rules, but because the subject of the entry is basically a good guy, and he's trying to make a name of himself in this harsh world etc. In other words, I was being asked to ignore wikipedia rules, and the user in question was essentially showing a sickening, and disruptive, conflict of interest. When I declined to respond to the e-mail, and publicly asked the user (at the very least) not to use sockpuppets for her questionable goals, she responded with what I take to be a legal threat: here. I won't embarrass the user by publicizing the e-mail message, unless I am called upon to do so, but I will note that, if she really wants to contribute to this project, she might need serious mentoring. And only then will WP:BITE begin to matter. Dahn (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Eccellenza season[edit]

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

The sixth level of Italian football (amateur, not professional) does not warrant stand alone articles for individual season. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloudz 679 20:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual seasons for amateur leagues are overkill. Giant Snowman 09:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~Feedintm^Parley 13:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clearly fails WP:V, WP:NOR. Sandstein 07:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Jahania[edit]

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

Unverifiable, seems mostly original research. None of the sources given are reliable, and many of the people in the family tree (such as Syed Abu Al-Fateh Safiuddin Muhammad, for example) are not mentioned in any of them anyway. Searching for him via Google produced not a single non-Wikipedia result. Huon (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability, references probably self-made.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, The google is full of information regarding "Jahania" which is also spelled as "Jehania" or "Jahanian", where the family of Jahaniyan Jahangasht is described. I have provided the links whic refer to Syed Jalaluddin Bukhari the grand father of Jahaniyan Jahangasht and other members of the family. In this article i have compiled the entire information and constructed a family tree. This family tree is present at "www.Jahania.org" in urdu and Sindhi language, I have just translated it on WP. For the family tree You can search for "Jahania" instead of "Family tree of Jahania" on google. I think this will address your concern. therefore please remove the tag for deletion on this article.See also Syed Jalaluddin Bukhari, Jahaniyan Jahangasht and Tando Jahania Thanks.--Shahenshahkillz (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean http://jahania.org/sajro.htm - while that may indeed be an Urdu or Sindhi version of this family tree, Jahania.org does not strike me as a reliable secondary source. What makes it more authoritative than any other random website? If I uploaded a modified version of that family tree to my own website (or if I registered Jahania.pk for this purpose) and then claimed that mine is correct and the one at Jahania.org is wrong, how would our readers be able to tell whether I'm right or not? As an aside, the other articles you refer to seem to have some problems regarding reliable sources too, but I expect those can indeed be suppported by such sources (though Tando Jahania currently doesn't have any). Huon (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, You are absolutely right and I appreciate your concern but the readers must know, even roughly, about the family tree of 12 major personalities;

This is the only family tree that links the ancestors and descendants of a Sufi Saint Jahaniyan Jahangasht.The first point is that, the internet is full of information regarding family of "Jahania" which is also spelled as "Jahaniyan" or "Jehania" or "Jahanian", the conflict in the pronounciation is based according to the regional languages due to this family is extended all over the South Asia. Secondly Jahaniyan Jahangasht is a Syed which means the descendant of Muhammad via Hussein ibn Ali. I shuld be encouraged because I have proved the relationships by constructing a Family tree of Jahania and linked 12 major Personalities including Jahaniyan Jahangasht and Muhammad according to their generations. This was my research which I tried my best to prove it and i think that this article should not be deleted. Let the readers research and contribute on this article. Finally I would say that I will always appreciate your concerns and try to address them as you and I together will help the history because "History always wins". Thanks.--Shahenshahkillz (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only Family tree of Naqvi Syeds in Jahanian Family. This article should not be deleted because this is the authentic family tree of Jahaniyan Jahangasht,. I have provided enough references and reliable sources and i am also trying to improve it, so please let this article be free for the wikipedians. Actually I live in a backward area Tando Jahania Hyderabad, Sindh, where internet and wikipedia is new to people, so please donot delete this article untill people discover it on the internet to debate on the issues and your concerns. Thanks for the encouragement.--119.155.25.151 (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.46.240 (talk) [reply]

Strong delete - both because it is original research and synthesis, and because the subject is not notable. We have hundreds of thousands of biographies in this encyclopedia; we cannot clutter it up with hundreds of thousands of genealogies as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sir, for your kind information this is not an [:WP:OR|original research and synthesis]], because i have provided references which are completely neutral. It is quite notable on the web specially on its official website "jahania.org". The family is linked to 12 major personalities therefore i thought it would be a very unique and interesting article for the readers of the sub continent. I have given all the references. Therefore this article should be improved not deleted. Thanks.--Shahenshahkillz (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The family tree is not notable just because it has its own official website. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Furthermore, I am having a bit of difficulty finding this kind of coverage of the family tree. Google Books searches for "Jahania family tree", "Jahaniyan family tree", "Jehania family tree'", "Jahanian family tree", "family tree of Jahania", "family tree of Jehania", etc. all bring up nothing. Also, the family tree is not notable because it has notable members. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jugu Head[edit]

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

No reliable evidence confirming that village of this name really exists. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and unverifiable. Huon (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, no references and has little content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no source to support the notability or even existence of the place. --SMS ^Talk 20:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete: notability might be established (and not needed in the typical sense) if existence is first proved per this discussion as wikipedia also works as a gazetteer (WP:FIVE #1 "gazetteer"), but delete till then. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LinkOnardo[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Vrenator ^talk 09:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources at all, so fail to see notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability; could go as a CSD A7? AllyD (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above as unnotable spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Le Congo, quel cinéma![edit]

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

non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Coverage in multiple sources.[18][19] We do not punish the article's author through means of mass nominations of stub articles on arguably notable topics. We instead look for sources and engage in discussions to encourage improvements over time and through regular editing. We do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge and redirect without prejudice toward it being spun out later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, among those two Google search links I cannot see any bona fide WP:RS. Am I missing something? Articles like this show that the whole area of Congolese (and African) cinema is woefully lacking here, so it would be great if we had a Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo parent article to merge this article to, as this film and its companion, La Mémoire du Congo en péril seem to explore very significant chapters in that country's history of cinema. But I don't have the time to create such an article, even in stub form, unfortunately. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 11 March 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) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual suggestion: Shawn in Montreal gave me this idea above. Why not merge this film and La Mémoire du Congo en péril into a single new Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo article? Create the parent article by merging the premature daughter articles. It may just be the solution here... - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a very rough start at Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo using content from these two articles. I will expand it if not sidetracked. These two titles could be made redirects to the parent, I suppose. They do not seem particularly notable documentaries. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm but just merging the one or two films would make it UNDUE.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not particularly notable, but certainly notable enough - discussed by many sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Dr. Blofield: Yes, it would make it undue. But it would be undue as a start - I'm sure editors could also find information about other films from D.R. of the Congo and about the film industry in general there. I'm not advocating limiting the article to these two films, but rather using these two films as a jumping-off point for that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I think it just meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2x !vote? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck on Dr. Blofeld's behalf, but left his comment. Not being something he normally does, I feel certain his second "keep" was unintentional. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 20 March 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, Sandstein 08:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Destorm. Merge can be done from history if desired The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally Free (Song)[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment by IP. No sources found, fails WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:No reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 11:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Destorm - appears to fail WP:NSONG. -- Trevj (talk) 09:39, 19 March 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, Sandstein 07:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Destorm - the song is not notable but the artist is. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn [20] / keep. In addition to Ryulong's intention to withdraw the AfD, there is also a majority consensus in favour of closing the discussion as keep. Roughly half of them actually argued the merits of keeping the article; the other half argued for a procedural keep despite the previous closing admin's "no prejudice" close. Either way, the discussion below has established that the community does not want another AfD for this article, therefore a slightly early "keep" close would be appropriate. Der yck C. 13:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Aziz Shavershian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Aziz "Zyzz" Shavershian is not an individual who is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Shavershian is only known to the general public for one reason: the way that the Sydney Morning Herald, his local newspaper, turned his untimely death into a field day and kept going back to his death for months. The first reason he was mentioned by the Herald was because his brother was arrested for possession of anabolic steroids a month prior to his death. It seems that from that point on, whenever the Herald, or other Australian news media, want to discuss steroid abuse they reference Shavershian. While I am aware that there are a large number of references on the article, most of the sources are about his death and are being used as citations to minutiae about his life, such as his college grades or his family's history. This whole thing seems like a rerun of the Corey Delaney debacle, in which another person gained a lot of press in a short period of time, but it was ultimately decided that the things that made him get mentioned in the press did not make him notable. To quote a reason from 2008, the "sources merely establish the facts in the article. They do not establish notability."

In the previous AFD, it was also stated that Shavershian is an Internet personality, and his large number of Facebook fans/friends is a metric by which we should include him (WP:ENTERTAINER was cited). If he was truly notable for his Internet following, the English Wikipedia would have had an article on him prior to his death in early August 2011. Instead, his death, and the undue weight it was given in the Australian press was only used as an excuse to make an article two weeks later. In addition, being the 6th highest death-related searched name on Google Australia does not seem like it is any actual sort of achievement.

Another thing brought up to support his notability was that he has a book, a protein line, and appears in a web series. As far as I am aware, anyone can publish a book. The protein line using his image as advertising does not seem like it's truly something to use as a metric for notability. And this web series he appeared in is in production hell and has never seen the light of day except for a 3 minute pilot/preview. He is a model who represents nothing, other than the strip club he worked at. He is a bodybuilder who never won any competitions.

It's been two weeks since the first AFD closed. The only thing that's changed since then is that MelbourneStar found a news article on some German website that he believes is a reliable source to change the word "celebrity" to "personality" in the lead paragraph, and that I removed excessive categories that he frankly does not fit in.

As I know I have written 4 paragraphs on the matter. I have done this so I do not feel the need to flood the page with comments. So here's the short version. The individual known as "Zyzz" is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia because:

He is only notable for one event, and that event is his death. And his death is not a notable event unto itself that would require a re-haul of the article.
None of the sources used in the article actually establish the fact that "Zyzz" is notable. They are only used to establish the information in the article. Yes, he received a lot of news coverage. But coverage does not beget notability; i.e. Corey Delaney.
The internet following "Zyzz" has is not a metric by which we determine notability. If "Zyzz" was truly notable for this reason, we would have covered him before his death.
Anyone can publish a book. A protein line is not a means of determining notability. A television/web pilot does not show notability.

"Zyzz" had no lasting impact on society, or the Internet. It is only because of his fans that his name lingers around, and because he is an easy example for the Australian press to use so they can say "don't use steroids". —Ryulong (竜龙) 07:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, to those of you who may be notified of this on BodyBuilding.com, 4chan's Health and Fitness board, or one of the multitude of Zyzz fan pages on Facebook, decisions are made on Wikipedia based on merit of the comments and not a majority vote.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Keep Notable enough for major news sources to cover his death. [21] [22] [23] [24] Other things about him include [25] "The death of Zyzz, a 22-year-old amateur bodybuilder and showman from Carlingford with a cult online following, was only narrowly out-searched by the death of Apple founder Steve Jobs." And he did get coverage BEFORE his death. [26] All the news sources say he had quite a cult following which means he meets the second item of WP:NMODEL "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Dream Focus 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the last one ended at 12 March 2012 with 17 people saying keep and four agreeing with the nominator and saying delete. Dream Focus 13:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its actually rather ridiculous that this has been nominated so close to the original one. I agree with the rational given by Dream Focus and also at this time he is notable and as notability is permanent he always should be.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's subject meets WP:GNG. I dispute the nominator's rationales. Point 1 is not correct, but it is correct to say that most third-party coverage of various events in his life began at his death. The reporting itself was not primarily on his death. For point 2 I think that the information in the article establishes notability in several ways, such as how Dream Focus describes above. Point 3 includes two rationales which I do not see as related. I agree with the first one - general Internet popularity is not supporting evidence of notability. I disagree with the second rationale - a lack of coverage before death is not a legitimate reason for deletion. If a person gets significant media coverage about their life at the time of death that does not mean that the person is only notable for their death; factors defining notability over a long period of time but which are only published at one time because of a particular event do not count as a single transient event, but rather describe persistent notability. His death notices include information which indicates a history of meeting notability criteria for reasons unrelated to his death. I agree with the nominator's point 4 - the self-publishing is not a factor in determining notability.
I will say that the article's subject did not have enough media coverage to indicate notability before his death - the nominator is correct about that. I would say that before his death he failed WP:V and therefore could not be tested for WP:N, but once he passed V then he passed N for reasons unrelated to the death event. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I initially planned to keep away from responding to people, I find that in this situation it is warranted. Edinburgh Wanderer and Dream Focus, there was no restriction on when I could start a new AFD. The last one closed as "no consensus...No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND," and I am attempting this here. I waited 2 weeks instead of re-opening one immediately.
The individual known as "Zyzz" has not had any sort of persistent notability in life. So why has it been afforded to him in death? Why are we, as the English Wikipedia, allowing this individual to have an article, when we have in the past forbidden articles on people who are only known for one particular event? The coverage on "Zyzz" lasted for a week and a half. For whatever reason, he received a mention in this opinion piece about steroid abuse in September, another in this steroid abuse article in November, and equally passing mentions in these two "Top Searched Items of 2011" articles (#1, #2), and this general look back on 2011 article, most of which concern his local city's newspaper. Even though Dream Focus points out the various Australian news sources mentioning he has died, I still find it extremely disconcerting that he was in no way considered worthy of news coverage by anyone in Australia prior to his death. There has been a lot said about him, but none of it says what he did made him important. His death was not unique. If his brother had not gotten arrested a week or two before, no one in Australia would have known about him.
Again, why has the coverage of his death afforded him notability? This is by definition, WP:1E, and, again, I bring up that this is an unfortunate repeat of what happened with Corey Delaney in 2008. He was the subject of a media field day, but we determined that even though what he did garnered coverage at the time, he had no impact overall. The same can be said of "Zyzz". He did not do anything in life that made him notable. And his death is not a unique enough event that it is notable unto itself.—Ryulong (竜龙) 16:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for re-opening this. I support your decision and I appreciate the time you took to organize such a good case for deletion. All of what you presented are reasonable arguments which I think are better presented now than they were in the first AfD. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does an AFD from years ago about a guy only notable because of a party he threw, have to do with this case here? If reliable sources state he had a "cult following", then he passes WP:ENTERTAINER, as I pointed out before and then again in this debate already. I honestly see no reason to just have the same discussion again, everyone already saying what they had to before hand. The fact that you and one other guy argued back and forth constantly, filling the page with length, should not be a reason for the strange closing statement of that administrator. Dream Focus 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because Delaney and Shavershian have the same level of importance and notability, as far as I can determine. There is no restriction on when AFDs can or could be filed. This is going to be a new discussion. I have made all of my statements regarding how I feel that the article is not worth keeping, which I clearly did not in the first discussion. Just because you don't like the closing administrators remarks does not mean I am not allowed to enforce policy on this article. And I stated in my arguments, a "cult following" and a month obsessing over a death does not make notability. If he truly had a cult following that made him notable, he would have been notable for inclusion before his death. The fact the Australian press mentioned him should not be the excuse to have this obituary on Wikipedia. The article does not say he did anything to make him notable because there was nothing he did that was notable, except, apparently, for his death. And, I think I missed this, but just because information can be verified does not mean it makes the subject of that information notable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may be no restrictions but whats changed in two weeks the answer is nothing. Also replying to every single comment isn't helpful. You appeared to do that in the last one as well. You mentioned WP:BATTLEGROUND thats what will happen, take a step back and let it play out either way. I never took part in the original one but the subject perfectly notable to me.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have only made this one comment tree to create discussion on the !votes that seemingly say I should not have another AFD so soon. I have put forward an extensive argument on the matter, and my argument has been dismissed because it is too soon since a no consensus decision that allowed for a renomination. I have covered all of the bases from the previous discussion, and now the opposition is based on the fact I have waited 2 weeks instead of a month or a year.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He appears to pass WP:GNG based on sources cited in the original AfD. Several newspaper references. --LauraHale (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article nominator contacted me on IRC to discuss merits of WP:GNG and how the nominator feels the topic does not meet that as they have a connection to the person involved. I'm not invested in this particular topic. I'm not going to be really inclined to change a vote because beyond what I did for my original vote, I don't feel a need to do more research. I did feel it worth noting the nominator did. I told them twice I was not interested in discussing this further and the Ryulong replied back to offer me evidence of some one's odd actions. I thought the article pass WP:GNG the first time and I see no reason to do much more research beyond that. --LauraHale (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I admit I had this discussion, I do not know what you mean by my "[having] a connection to the person involved". I certainly did not state that in the messages I sent you, nor did I even imply that.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I voted delete last time, and stand by that: this guy doesn't meet the notability criteria. However, re-listing this article for deletion within days of the last discussion being closed as 'keep' is pretty pointless, especially as any off-Wiki canvassing will still be active. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I won't write an essay as to why this article should obviously be kept, however that said, this article satisfies WP:GNG; according to sources has merits to pass WP:NMODEL (#2) - and those news sources have given him overwhelming coverage, and ultimately notability. It's one event - minus the videos; the drug story prior death; bodybuilding; cult following; book; protein line; webseries, and so on. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 22:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using WP:ATD, an argument for deletion must explain either (1) that the topic would not be kept as a redirect at RfD, or (2) that there is objectionable material in the edit history, including the current version, that should be removed from public view. I have examined the nomination statement and see none, so we start without an argument for deletion. It is pretty well conceded that there are sufficient reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:GNG itself explains that a multiplicity of sources does not make a topic "worthy of notice". But having conceded that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, the many arguments about ways in which the topic is not "notable", fail to address the key remaining point which is, is the topic "worthy of notice". This is the point at which the nomination argument must be read in the spirit in which it was intended. But I'm not buying it, this is one of the reasons that we use WP:GNG, to avoid second-guessing people who get paid for having opinions, as to whether the topic was really "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I'm not sure I follow your logic. You first suggest that because I do not provide any alternatives to deletion, that means I do not have an argument that the page should be deleted. I believe I have provided said arguements to this fact, as well as consistent phrasing that claims that the subject is indeed not "worthy of notice", another statement you seem to say that I have not included in my proposal. Would you mind clarifying? Because it would seem that you are implying that anyone who receives any amount of coverage in news media qualifies for WP:GNG, and therefore examining their notability under the more specific guidelines (such as WP:1E, or others) is invalid and unnecessary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of that response would be to quote text from the nutshell and lede of WP:N, but also the part of WP:GNG that says that passing WP:GNG is not sufficient to satisfying WP:N. I consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/33550336 to be an interesting case in which the community agreed that the topic passed WP:GNG, but still rejected keeping the topic as a stand-alone article. Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of what I was asking for clarification on, but there's also the other statement you made. To me, it seems that because I do not suggest that the content of this article cannot be put onto another article, because it cannot be used as a valid search term for another article, or because it does not contain objectionable material, the article should not be deleted. Surely, you must know that just because I provide no alternates (or I do not suggest that there are no alternates) that this page could still be deleted. Sure, everyone is automatically seeing the 27 references and dismissing my proposal on the basis of "if it meets WP:GNG it must be qualified for coverage". I believe that this article is an odd case, akin to the Corey Delaney article from 2008. He was picked up by news outlets that, apparently, would garner him an article in the current atmosphere that this discussion is showing. However, we must still examine the sources used, and ask if they really show he is notable. Merely being the focus of a week or two of coverage in a local newspaper (or being a human interest story in a national paper) should not be something to say "he must be notable".—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed "Corey Delaney" and see a long history, but since the articles have been deleted, I don't know what the issue was. I looked at this source, which by itself is half-way to establishing notability. Once you have two articles in reliable sources about a topic, or multiple sources that are the equivalent, you need to look for something in WP:NOT or a copyright vio to get it outright deleted. With 27 reliable sources, WP:GNG is easily met, and even an argument that the topic is not notable because it is not "worthy of notice" just gets you to a merge, unless you can convince others that there is no place to merge the material. Do you really think it unnecessary to analyze the alternatives to deletion? That all the work that went into that article can just be put in a body bag and dropped off the side of a ship and declared "buried at sea" due to lack of notability? I'm not sure that I can even characterize what it is that troubles you about these sources. Possibly yellow journalism? That "the world at large" has not taken notice "over a period of time"? That the newspapers are quietly giving attention to something related to the apparent topic, including their own self-interest, so that the notability (that which attracts attention) does not directly inure to the bodybuilder? It feels like you are trying what is known by lawyers as the "shotgun" approach, throw everything you've got at the target and see what sticks. Anyway, I recognize that the closing admin closed the previous AfD as No consensus WP:NPASR. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Delaney was an Australian youth who had a house party that caused A$20,000 in damages. Naturally, this garnered press attention. It was ultimately decided that the party and the individual were not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia and the articles were deleted, and recreated and deleted ad infinitum. This led to our development of the current WP:1E and WP:BLP1E guidelines. It is under these guidelines that I am suggesting, per WP:NTEMP, that we have a "re-assessment of the evidence of notability" of Mr. Shavershian. Most are only looking at WP:GNG, when the more specific guidelines should be used to assess the page, as it is my opinion that Mr. Shavershian is only widely known because of his death and because of his connections to anabolic steroid abuse in Australia (his alleged use and the arrest of his brother for possession). None of this truly makes him unique enough that garners him any coverage on Wikipedia, but from what I can tell it is your opinion that just because the page does not have content that is deleterious to the project (copyright violations, libelous material, etc.) or if because there is no where else on the project to cover the subject matter, that we should not delete the page. Why is it that because the page is not harmful to the project or because there are no alternatives to deleting the page that we should delete this page?—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that WP:BLP1E is applicable to the living person's death? Doesn't that by definition mean that the "living" part no longer applies? If you look at WP:1E, you will see that you are arguing that we should be covering the death of the bodybuilder instead of the bodybuilder. And also regarding the WP:1E part, did he get 80,000 fans because he died? As to using SNGs instead of GNG, if you read the lede of WP:N, you will see that if a topic satisfies WP:GNG it doesn't matter if it satisfies a SNG and vice versa. Not having a place to merge a non-notable topic is a reason to delete both the reliable material and the redirect/title. I don't plan to respond further here. Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that WP:BLP1E applied in this situation (although it might, considering BLP itself affects the recently dead). I said that it and WP:1E were created as a result of the similar situation in 2008 where a lot of news coverage popped up for Corey Delaney. Also, I am not suggesting that an article be made on Mr. Shavershian's death rather than on himself, as it is in my opinion that neither subject is worthy of a Wikipedia article based on the guidelines we have. If he had not died, this article, essentially an article about drugs and steroid abuse in Sydney, probably would have been the only reliable source to ever cover him. Why should the coverage of his death, or his continued usage as an example for steroid abuse in the Sydney media, qualify him for notability?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again. This is what I wrote last time, "Just look at the references already used in the article. The guy has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and the coverage is for more than just his death. Meets the general notability guideline with ease, and probably a bunch of SNGs to boot." My opinion has not changed in the two weeks since the last discussion ended. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dream Focus and others. If someone was notable for even just one day, he's notable forever. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I see an article nominated for AfD a second time, especially within two weeks, I expect to see a detailed explanation of what has changed since the last time to justify the second nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nomination was closed as no consensus, so that shouldn't be an issue so long as this one can come to a consensus one way or another. Indeed, the closing admin specifically said 'No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND', so... well, you know. Only thing that really needs to have changed is what's happening on the nomination page itself, and with any luck the battegroundness should be over now. — Isarra (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per WP:DEL, " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Warden (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden, if you read Isarra's comment directly above yours, a comment I made earlier on in the discussion, and the close on the previous discussion, TParis stated that there was "No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND" because he closed it as "no consensus", not as "keep".—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This again? Subject clearly passes GNG. A412 (Talk • C) 22:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've had more than a little interest in this article for quite a while since MelbourneStar, an editor from my adoption programme, worked so hard to get it into a decent state. At the start I thought he was wasting his time, because I too thought the subject non-notable. However, having reviewed the sources provided, I do think that he meets the GNG and is deserving of an article.
Interestingly, the area that he has found fame - "internet personality" - is something I think we handle badly on wikipedia, because the concept is so new. With actors and musicians, we've seen so many rise and fall over the years that we can clearly see what it means to be notable, but with new internet celebrities we have a much more difficult job. If we did have an "internet celebrity" criteria, Zyzz would fit very well into it. He did have a cult following - especially in Australia (remember we're a worldwide encyclopedia). All in all, I'm persuaded by the merits of the article that it should be kept. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I think the claim to notability is rather tenuous, the fact remains that he easily passes GNG and there is a credible assertion of notability in the article. That alone is enough to get him over the line. The fact that he passes one or more loosely-applicable guidelines (such as WP:ENT)) is icing on the cake.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per massive public interest in this person, and per extensive coverage, passing GNG several times over. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: On grounds that wikipedia is here forever, 2 weeks is not enough time for "no consensus" to change. Write 100 articles, come back and test this one then after a year or two.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Snow Keep -- for a whole whack of reasons:
- Nominator asserted in the very long nomination: "...It seems that from that point on, whenever the Herald, or other Australian news media, want to discuss steroid abuse they reference Shavershian." Well heck, that sounds like a good reason for the wikipedia to cover him. Wikipedia readers, who read a Sydney Morning Herald article about steroids, and wonder who this Shavershian guy is may look him up, and see if our article can explain why Australian newspapers keep mentioning him.
- With regard to WP:1E, I'll see your Corey Delaney and raise you a Chesley Sullenberger. Nominator argues that it Aziz had been notable, prior to his death, he would already have had an article. If you look at the first 50 edit to that article you will see deletionists arrived early and were determined to get that article deleted, as merely a "one event". I spent about an hour and a half looking for references to Sullenberger that predated his heroic landing on the Hudson River. I found references to four elements that supported Sullenberger being considered notable, prior to the landing. So, were they sufficient? Maybe. But if they merely brought him to the borderline of notability, the massive coverage of him, following the landing, clearly pushed him over. Not ever person who would pass our notability criteria already has an article and I am surprised that our nominator would suggest differently. Furthermore, there are lots of individual who are of borderline notability, or slightly below borderline notability, who will be boosted well over that borderline, by a sufficiently well covered event. Sullenberger may have been one of them, and so was Aziz.
- No offense to our nominator, but I think I have seen similar arguments before. It seems our nominator is arguing not so much that Aziz is notable -- rather that he shouldn't be notable -- without regard to the significant number of WP:RS that have covered him. No offense, but it seems like one big example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Capt. Sullenberger played a major role in a major event, and it would not be helpful to fill US Airways Flight 1549 with information regarding Sullenberger's life. Shavershian is a so-called Internet celebrity/personality whose status in that field did not warrant him coverage prior to his death, which is the only event he was involved in and that most certainly does not warrant its own coverage. I can't see anything in the article, as written, that explains why he is notable. It just makes a claim that he is, and uses the 20 news articles made that are about or reference his death to hide behind WP:GNG. What is it about his death that makes him notable?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you weren't able to understand my point about Sullenberger.

Didn't you assert: "If "Zyzz" was truly notable for this reason, we would have covered him before his death"?

Do you really think we have articles about everyone who meets our notability rules?

You didn't look at those first fifty edits to the Sullenberger article, as I suggested, did you? A bunch of dedicated deletionists gathered at the newly started Sullengerger article, trying to get it deleted, claiming the exact "one event" justification you claimed.

Sullenberger was a counter example to your claim that we already have articles on everyone who meets our notability criteria. I found he had already been notable -- prior to the historic landing.

Australian newspapers refer to him using terms like "popular", "well-known", etc.

He has had "on-going coverage". That RS coverage was in sufficient detail to flesh out a long and well-referenced article.

I am not totally unsympathetic to your position. There are topics I hate too -- homeopathy and iridology for instance -- But I am a grown up, and realize there are RS that cover those topics. So I keep my hands off.

You didn't acknowledge the first point I made. That Australian newspapers keep referring to Aziz, whenever they cover steroid abuse, confirms his notability, rather than eroding it as you claimed. Becoming the poster boy for steroid abuse shows he transcended that "one event". Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, I did assert that, because before his death he definitely was not notable, and I find that the coverage stemming from his death does not really change that fact. 2) No, do I do not think that. I just think that in this case "Zyzz" was never notable and the general notability guidelines are forcing us to keep a subpar page. 3) At the time, those actions were probably warranted. 4) The same has not been said of "Zyzz. 5) Subjective. 6) The ongoing coverage was for a few days after his death and passing mentions in various articles months later. 7) I do not necessarily hate the topic. I just find it hard to believe that the community as a whole apparently believes that the coverage he received means anything, considering we have deleted articles for players in such minor events before.

I also don't truly believe he's really a posterboy for steroid abuse because it was only alleged on his behalf, considering he died from a congenital heart defect and not his heart exploding from all of the HGH and/or synthetic testosterone he allegedly used. This piece from January discusses him for a total of 4 sentences and is used because it says he has a Facebook following. This piece from November has the exact same level of coverage and is used to cite a similar statement. This radio story uses him as a jumping off point for discussing abuse, and this is an opinion column that is being used to source someone alleging he used steroids. Does this really constitute becoming a poster boy for the dangers of steroid use? And do these 4 entries extend his notability beyond the 16 articles that just say he died?—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Placing "definitely" in front of an opinion does not convert it to a fact. This is an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT

You don't believe it, but you did write it, didn't you?

Nope.

We have a fuzzy boundary for notability. If someone had tried to creat an article on Aziz, prior to his death, using the references then, there would almost certainly have been challengers who said "These references are sufficient for him to merit an entry in List of Australian bodybuilders, but are not sufficient to merit an article of his own." But if, for the sake of argument, he only approached notability, prior to his death, wouldn't the substantial coverage of his death at a surprisingly young age have pushed him across that fuzzy boundary?

You write "subjective". Yes, these are judgment calls. The subjective judgment of writers in WP:RS count, your personal judgment and my personal judgment don't count. This can be galling, when we think the topic is something we know about, and we disagree with professional writers and commentators. But living with the judgment of RS when we think they are dopes is one of the costs of participating here.

In the nomination you wrote "turned his untimely death into a field day and kept going back to his death for months." But in your response above you wrote "The ongoing coverage was for a few days after his death and passing mentions in various articles months later." Aren't you contradicting yourself?

You write "I just find it hard to believe that the community as a whole apparently believes that the coverage he received means anything" -- isn't this classic WP:IDON"TLIKEIT.

Again, didn't you write "turned his untimely death into a field day and kept going back to his death for months." That is merely one of your comments which I think it is fair to paraphrase you as complaining newpapers made him the posterboy for steroid abuse. Again, sorry, but it seems your complaints all boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I don't think his death warrants him inclusion. The coverage that lasted for a couple of days after his death, garnering 16 news stories, and 4 mentions months later that use his alleged use of steroids as either a jumping off point (only in one article) to discuss steroids or give him as an example even though nothing was proven seems to define WP:BIO1E. In life, he was a nobody who posted on some bodybuilding forums and had thousands of Facebook friends. It just seems that if he had not died, he would have remained under the radar and never received an article. His death is not a polarizing event in history or a world-renowned event, unless you happen to be a member of a couple of websites. I will admit that I do not like the internet persona that is Mr. Shavershian. But my arguments come from the fact that I just do not think our guidelines allow for an article on him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 16 comments to keep. Maybe 2 to delete (including nom). Can we SNOW keep yet? A412 (Talk • C) 02:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been 72 hours. If that happens I will go to DRV so fast heads will spin.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previous AfD was closed by the administrator with the hopes that any future ones would be less of a battleground. However, given that all of the previous participants (even the sock IPs) have been notified of this discussion, and multiple participants have chosen to ignore the admin's comments about NPASR and incorrectly call for a speedy keep, I don't think this one stands much of a chance of going anywhere either.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it disconcerting that Dream Focus decided to notify everyone that the AFD was restarted (including all of the one-shot IP addresses who came by because of the other websites; why the hell did he do that). And even moreso that we're getting the anons and newbies trying to sway things because "he was a god" who deserves coverage. If I had waited a month, would that have even been enough time to start this discussion fresh?—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internet celebrity with over 189,438 fans on facebook http://www.facebook.com/zyzzthetics and 380,447 views in 4 days on youtube which celebrates his birthday. Aziz Shavershian aka Zyzz has become a luminary, within the spectrum of worldwide fans he has attained, that avidly follow fitness models and bodybuilding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenoxxx (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you can delete this down there is a whole generation of zyzz fans. He died show the man some respect, cant treat a god like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.251.123 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, OSE - but the above claims about being sydney-centric are bogus. Even if it's just the same rationale behind a lot of internet famous people - Tay Zonday :| - 400,000 hits in under a week! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdBoybKnzZw&feature=g-logo&context=G2bd1e95FOAAAAAAACAA. Not to mention the spread of the Philosophy of Zyzz as an influential global socio-cultural phenomenon (i.e. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/zyzz). Please respond, watch out your comments, and stay safe.Twyn3161 (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources to back up your claims, particularly as to this "global socio-cultural phenomenon"? Also, KYM is not a reliable source unless they made an episode about an entry within, and particularly if the entry has not been accepted as an actual meme (I see it's still in "Submission" status).—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Chuck Testa?Twyn3161 (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you're not going to take this seriously. If you're not going to contribute constructively, don't contribute at all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let's bury this issue already. I don't particularly admire Zyzz, but like him or not people just won't stop talking about him. For better or worse, he has become a legendary bodybuilder on the internet, and the article doesn't lack for sources both attesting and adding to his renown. He is notable. Whether his notability will persevere remains to be seen, but he's been a big deal for years now, before and after his death. And frankly, Ryulong, you need to let it go for now. This seems to be personal to you, as is evidenced by your re-dredging this issue two weeks after the last unsuccessful attempt to get rid of it and your constant posting. It's a blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT crusade. Get over it and try again in a year. You are thoroughly out-voted. Milhisfan (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Must it be stated a 5th time that the last attempt was not "unsuccessful" and it closed as "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination"?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone stated what they felt last time, and no one fills like repeating themselves again. The administrator made a ridiculous close, which has never been done before, and hopefully will not be repeated. Consensus was for a keep, then and now. Please stop dragging this out needlessly. You aren't convincing anyone of your point of view. Dream Focus 10:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is only because you made it your mission to notify everyone who participated in the debate, including the one-off IP addresses who only came because of notifications on other websites, that this new debate was occuring. How can a consensus be determined if everyone restates their opinions on the matter without any sort of new input such as that from Geo Swan or Worm. This debate has only been flooded with statements that "THE OLD AFD STANDS" or "RYULONG IS BEING DISRUPTIVE".—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should listen to them instead of arguing with everyone constantly. And under the rules you can't notify some people without nominating all of those that participated, so that's what I did. Its rude to ignore what everyone said previously, and start over again hoping to get the results you want. Dream Focus 00:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmemorable, not a celebrity, this page is written for and by internet [redacted] Please end this debate and just delete this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.128.161 (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'"Keep"' he was an internet celebrity and had a very large following across the globe. Is a fairly well known person among many communities, both online and offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.81.243 (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — 174.116.81.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep- he is still an inspiration to many worldwide, page is not hurting anybody or offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.3.162 (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — 96.237.3.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Ryulong- please read the previous close. As TParis stated, he closed as NC because of your battleground mentality.

To be frank, it's actually quite impossible to determine the real consensus of this discussion (which appears to lean keep) because of the badgering attitudes of two participants; one on either side. AFD is meant to be a discussion and badgering every opinion until you get your way is disruptive and unhelpful.

Please stop commenting on every single vote with essentially the same argument. A412 (Talk • C) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping my comments to a minimum rather than arguing with everyone.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~- The general consensus seems to be obvious, alas Ryulong will disregard this post with the renowned bold statement ' lack of wiki posts is synonymous of irrelevant and dubious input on topic-Aenoxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenoxxx (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aenoxxx has already commented on this debate as his first and only edit prior to this one.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A quick read of the last close shows this little gem... "AFD is meant to be a discussion and badgering every opinion until you get your way is disruptive and unhelpful". The editor this statement is targeted at is not important, what is important is the meaning behind that statement; If you harass the votes against your viewpoint then you can easily be seen as having a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and that is never a good thing to have! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also... The comment of "Oh come on. I thought the Rescue Squadron was eliminated" was totally uncalled for and IMHO shows a very strong deletionist mentality. What is your problem with the ARS anyway? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the "Article Rescue Squadron" was in the past used as some sort of vote garnering farm full of people ready to keep anything on the project. Particularly when the "rescue" template was thrown onto an article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true and was disproven on many occasions. Most found their way here without the ARS, and not everyone who uses the ARS list votes keep, seldom more than a handful of people from there showing up at any AFD anyway. Please focus on this article, and don't try to blame others for the fact that the overwhelming majority of people believe the article should be kept. Dream Focus 11:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage from reliable, third party sources. It passes the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why don't people get it??? The nomination was WITHDRAWN by the nominator! This means that it is a SPEEDY KEEP BY DEFAULT as the nomination is null and void! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator can not close it if others have said delete also, which has happened. You have to wait for the 7 days to end, and then an administrator will close it. Dream Focus 11:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barts, Dream is wisely taking a long view. The best way to protect this article is for the AfD to close as Keep as per overwhelming concensus. Otherwise, deletionists are free to attack the article again after waiting only a few months, and next time there might be less reasonable folk around to save it from destruction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete for the two books. I've closed this by speedy G11. they each of them are merely advertisements for totally non notable books that are not even listed on worldcat. the asserted refs seem completely irrelevant. I am relisting SBCs of attraction; it should not have been part of the group nomination. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was in the process of deleting the first two concurrently; same reason. No comment on the third. Kuru (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I Retire?[edit]

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

Advertising; non-notable. Book is sold through Amazon but extremely low-rated, with all 5-star reviews posted within days of each other mostly by people with no other reviews, indicating advertising in other places. References are not about the subject. Article was proposed for deletion but tag was removed with no changes to the article. KarlM (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The first is virtually identical to the original article - a book by the same author, citing the same references, none of which can be accessed but from their titles do not appear to refer to the subject. The ABCs article formerly contained a large amount of advertising material; when this is removed (as in the current state) there is little left and it almost completely overlaps with JT Tran, the owner of the company. All three are mostly edited by User:Adotrde, who has a record of creating promotion-related pages. KarlM (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unambiguous advertising (isn't that cause for a Speedy?). Remarkable that the two books are so extremely similar. Perhaps the way to retire rich is to write one book about retiring rich, and market it to the gullible under multiple titles... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll be working on ABCs of attraction, rewriting it so that it is worthy of remaining like other articles similar to it. It is notable, and its workshops have been on various popular TV shows, being viewed by over 4million people, so notability is not an issue. I'm sorry about the two books, and I can add where the books have been featured (in numerous newspapers, radioshows, etc), because they have both become popular locally, but I understand if they won't stick. If I'm allowed some time to gather these sources, though, I would try to rewrite them and make them better. For the record, the sources do mention the books. Thanks. Adotrde (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the sources are news articles, dated 2003, 2004, and 2006; the book was published in 2011. One of the articles is titled "Katonah Museum goes `Back to the Future'", which doesn't sound like it has anything to do with retirement or financial planning. The fourth is a list of 'Make A Wish Foundation' directors, cited as a reference for the contents of the book chapters. KarlM (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Advertising. "your personal guide" raises an eyebrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Crown (Vanderbilt)[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced, and I can find no indication or evidence that this organization has been covered in any publication. This stands to reason -- they are a "secret society", and publication would mean they are no longer secret. Orlady (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another secret society is currently nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of the Elm and Key. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any useful sources that discuss this organization, which I guess should not be surprising because it's supposed to be a secret society. But with no sources -- and none are provided in the article -- the content of this article is effectively unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junai kaden[edit]

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

Google search turns up no sources, and is quite spammy. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non notable and spam and I have tagged for CSD A7 and G11. Safiel (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that this is original research (or unverifiable due to lack of sources) with respect to most of the people listed here is very strong. The "keep" opinions are weak in that they maintain that the article could be improved, but per WP:BURDEN it would have been up to them to actually make the necessary improvements. Sandstein 07:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheist Nobel laureates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was one of seven lists nominated for deletion last week under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates; the result was "no consensus ... for a deletion of all of them together". Consequently, I'm renominating only this one, which appears to be one of the more problematic lists in that nomination. Although this list's title says it is about atheist Nobel laureates, the first sentence says that it includes not only atheists, but those who self-identified as "agnostic, nonbeliever, or secular spiritual". Thus, the conflict between the title and the scope is likely to misrepresent some of the listed people. All but two of the names on the list are completely unsourced and no indication is given as to whether the individual specifically considered himself or herself to be atheist, agnostic, or what. One of the names that is sourced is Albert Einstein, yet this article also says that Einstein rejected the label "atheist".

Several of the other names listed are likely to be inaccurate as well. For example, Naguib Mahfouz is on the list, yet this profile of Mahfouz at the official Nobel Prize website refers to him as "a pious Moslem believer".

Ferid Murad, also on the list, discussed his religious background in his autobiography submitted to the Nobel Foundation, writing, "[M]y brothers and I grew up with considerable freedom .... This was also applied to our religious choices as my father was Muslim, my mother Baptist and we were raised in a Catholic community. Subsequently, my brothers became Catholic when they married Catholic wives and I was baptized Episcopalian in college. My wife of more than forty years is Presbyterian, two of our daughters married Jewish men and one married a Catholic man." Considering this discussion of all the religious persuasions among his relatives, one would expect that Murad would have mentioned it if he had since become an atheist, but he says nothing along that line.

Yet another name on this list is Étienne-Émile Baulieu. Whether he is an atheist or not, I have no idea, but he doesn't belong on the list anyway because he has not won a Nobel Prize. Consequently, I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I note that the 2nd nomination of this article back in 2007 ended in a delete; the article was re-created only 10 days ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though you seem sensible!it seems your nomination is again going to start a bad debate and lots of bad arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, rather you should give warning for bad logics and few sources used in the list,atheists are always obsessed with Einstein and so,it's not new,however,he should not be here and should be deleted anyway!you should focus on sources and their impartiality, rather than deleting the article altogether.By the way, I am neutral in this case!Skashifakram (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These lists run into a problem with WP:SYN since other sources have not, AFAIK, made an issue of Nobel winners' religions. This one especially seems to have problems. For instance I clicked on Anatole France. His article does not say he was an atheist. BigJim707 (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW many scientists living in the Soviet Union and other communist countries have won. They were, of course, required to support atheism to keep their jobs. But we have no way to know what they really thought. BigJim707 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than convinced, if during the discussions, the problem with poor sources remain, we have to delete the article, we can't let it pass without reliable sources.Skashifakram (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I regret to say I have found insufficient time to work more on this article and that it is currently under consideration for deletion. I have created User:Pereant_antiburchius/List_of_atheist_Nobel_laureates in my own userspace to work on it further, because I cannot improve this article in a reasonable timespan without further help. If the article is more ready for prime time, I'll recreate it. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Although not independent, search results on The Official Web Site of the Nobel Prize itself shows that some recipients addressed it directly in their acceptance or later remarks. While religion is not a criteria for the award, this grouping (and the related religious articles) show that it is their work they are awarded for, the Nobel Committee either not discriminating for or against any, as opposed to criticism of it for perceived language bias in literature, for example. Dru of Id (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Paul D. Boyer is quoting Harold Kroto, and a reviewer is stating how Jean-Paul Sartre's The Flies helped the reviewer understand their own atheism, not a declaration of Sartre's own. Dru of Id (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Dru, you have to understand,we are not opposed to keeping this article if reliable sources are available, the references given are contestable as well as naming of the table.People are playing Richard Dawkins' game to include all irreligious and nontheistic people in Atheist category,which is an unnecessary misuse of the term Atheism.Skashifakram (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that, having followed the previous bundled nomination, although I did not participate, not having looked into it at all. In their own words, on the Nobel prize site, are as reliable as possible, unless someone can show otherwise (hacked, misrepresented, misattributed), although I noted not independent. While unnecessary (and unencyclopedic), it is a common failing of "other" that less frequently occurring things are often grouped together, which can be addessed in the introduction, retitled, or separated, which are content issues, none of which require deletion. Dru of Id (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Metropoliton, your concern has already been dealt with, so please have your say in the ongoing discussionSkashifakram (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to wait and see what happens to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The creators of the article are requested to fix the title-content issue as soon as possible,this will help to lessen the chance of deletion of the article and have your say on Einstein's atheism on talkpage!Skashifakram (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research WP:NOR. Nor does the list seem to have a neutral point of view WP:NPOV --User:Warrior777 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clicked at random on Jane Addams, Ludwig Quidde and Wole Soyinka: none of the articles mentions atheism. This is Original Research and should go. Tigerboy1966 00:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after you remove the unsourced names, and einsteins, you have 7 or 8 people. grouping agnostics with atheists makes the inclusion criteria too vague. if its "list of atheists" it should be avowe atheists, even if forced to avow it. 8 is a trivially small number, not deserving of a list. if the article creator or anyone else wants to painstakingly research all the laureates, add comments on their religion to their article, then recreate this if its not a trivial number, fine.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think references should be two-fold,wheter list entries are actual Nobel Laureates and whether they are avowed atheists,the article should be retitled List of Nontheist Nobel Laureates comprising agnostic and atheist Nobel Laureates.Thank you....Skashifakram (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Imo the title itself smacks of POV: I'd expect it on conservopedia. There might be a case for an article listing Nobel Laureates & their beliefs. If you allow this stand-alone article there is the risk of a multitude of silly pages, such as a list of Nobel winners who skateboard or are Anabaptists.TheLongTone (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are about 70 names on the list. I have looked at all the articles. Most do not mention atheism. Some mention the topic ambiguously: others mention the topic but lack references. I found only nine where there was a properly sourced, unequivocal statement that the subject was atheist. There is even more "Original Research" (to be polite) going on here than I thought. Tigerboy1966 09:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. At least one source talks about how many Nobel laureates have been atheists. This seems like a notable topic.VR _talk 02:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Remove the unsourced, debatable, and simply wrong entries (Einstein, for example, was not an atheist) and there would be nothing left. -- 202.124.73.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Really? Hmm, I suggest you read source again. Einstein personally stated he does not believe in a personal God Albert_Einstein's_religious_views#Disbelief_in_a_personal_God_and_the_afterlife --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein rejected the personal God of Judaism and Christianity, but he also stated "I believe in Spinoza's God" and "I'm not an atheist." There is a whole book on his religious beliefs: he was not an atheist. Similar problems arise with other people on the list with nonstandard religious beliefs. -- 202.124.74.183 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The four nominations for this article, and the two mass nominations, prove that forum shopping WP:FORUMSHOP is not only alive but thriving on WP, and that there is an unreconcilable contradiction between WP:OTHERSTUFF and the citing of previous deletions of articles. Anarchangel (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. Others and myself have put effort into improving the sourcing of this article. Although I agree further improvement can be made, at this point, deletion seems a step to far. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. The nomination demonstrates only that the page currently contains inadequately sourced information. No one has really demonstrated that a proper page could not be created, after revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the sourcing improvements are positive, they do not address the confused scope ("atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever or secular spiritual"). These are not at all the same thing (a person may be a nonbeliever in the dominant religion of his/her milieu while still having religious beliefs), and several people on the list (like Einstein) indeed had their own religious beliefs (often some form of Pantheism). Secular spirituality in particular seems to overlap with Buddhism. Furthermore, although the lede restricts membership to "self-identified" atheists, the sources in many cases simply reflect labelling by somebody else. A fundamental difficulty is that gaining a religion generally involves joining an organisation, while many atheists take no overt self-identifying action. This makes the list inherently WP:SYNTH in nature. -- 202.124.74.183 (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a trivial intersection with probably unsolvable OR problems. That this has been the subject of several prior deletion discussions makes the charge of forum shopping prima facie plausible but a closer look shows that they aren't really terribly relevant. This was kept as no consensus in 2007, deleted as part of a mass nom of laureates by religion in 2009 and kept as part of a no consensus close of a mass nom just this past week with leave to refile separately as is common in mass noms where the element in common turns out to be less dispositive than the nominator thought. The common thread I see running through the discussions is a lack of consensus among the Wikipedia community as to whether lists of Nobel Laureates by religion are appropriate at all, combined with particular concerns that a list of atheist/irreligious winners is particularly difficult to circumscribe and source. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damian mascitti[edit]

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

Delete. Has not played any AFL matches, fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Australian rules football, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lower level Australian footballers are only notable with significant coverage in independent, reliable sources of their significant achievements. Fails on all 4 counts. The-Pope (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The-Pope. Only played a handful of VFL matches and doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a BLPPROD, as the article has no sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article kept. — east718 | talk | 03:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future (rapper)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP; no reliable assertion of notability Orange Mike | Talk 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE anyone? Allmusic, SOHH,MTV, MTV, The New York Times, Pitchfork, Pitchfork, MTV, BET, Prefix. Just looking at Future discography should make notability obvious here, even after the nominator removed the 'unsourced' forthcoming album for Sony/Epic, apparently without noticing the 26 sources in that article. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)...also worth noting that this article had 17 sources until 2 days ago.--Michig (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Michig, those appear to be the music of Future the Artist, who used to be known just as "Future". This new "Future" is a different entity.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, all of the above sources are about the Atlanta rapper known as Future who has an album called Pluto out next month on Sony, rather than Future the Artist who is from Nashville. The discography should be merged back into this article. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Please note that there are two rappers known as "Future". The one who appears in most reliable sources recently changed his name to "Future the Artist". This individual known as "Future" is not notable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage above suggests otherwise.--Michig (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the Allmusic biog (which I've referenced into the article) and press coverage identified by Michig above. I'd agree that the need for a distinct Future discography article is questionable. AllyD (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear constructive, insufficient!!--UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage exists in multiple sources - [27][28][29][30][31], plus those provided above by Michig. Further, some of the artist's songs have charted. Subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 16:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1989 and 2011 eh? I think that listing has two rappers named "Future" conflated. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears so, but at least there's no question that the 2011-2012 chart info (e.g., for songs such as "Tony Montana" and "Magic") relates to the rapper in question. Gongshow ^Talk 23:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Allmusic bio appears to indeed be about Future, Epic Records artist. It also verifies that he has a charted single on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop songs, which is good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two rappers named "Future." The very first source used in this wiki shows the picture of the other "Future" who recently changed his name to "Future the Artist." Inaccurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.59.174 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think this should be deleted because there are two rappers named Future and because one source has the wrong photograph in it? Seriously? --Michig (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The artist has had a single chart on the US Billboard Hot 100 ("Magic", at #79; source: [32]), as well on other Billboard charts, such as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (indicated in the sources listed above). Based on this, the artist definitely satisfies the notability criteria. Holiday56 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway the original Future changed his name to FYUTCH to avoid confusion between Atlanta-born rapper Future.--5.68.210.131 (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2015 (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.