< 7 March	9 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. I'm sorry ~~Mattythewhite~~Jorgath oops but the other !voters are right. You can't just be "on the list" you have to play. Find a source that shows that he played in a game and we can reconsider. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Benzale Guerrero[edit]

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

Does not play in a fully-professional league, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom is incorrect: Atlético Venezuela is a team in the Primera División Venezolana, which is listed at WP:FPL as one of the fully professional leagues of Venezuela. Therefore, he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. This took me approximately two minutes to figure out. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But is there any evidence that he actually made any appearances for Atlético Venezuela? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The [1] Footbalzz.com link, with a little navigation, says that he was on their first squad during the 2009-2010 season. If that site is reliable (and I don't actually know), then he did. Also, the enotes website for CRKSV Jong Holland, which plays in the Curaçao League, says he's on their main team. That league isn't listed at WP:FPL, but the league's Wikipedia article says that it's the top association football league in Curaçao, which is a "constituent country" of the Netherlands. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That site makes no reference to him making any appearances, which would be necessary for the article to pass WP:NFOOTBALL (merely being on the squad list of a club in a FPL isn't sufficient). Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence he has actually played in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete "votes". Eluchil404 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LMS Sentinel 7164[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An individual steam locomotive that does not appear likely to meet WP:N. Already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Sentinel 7164, now recreated with different offline sources. If these books only mention the locomotive in passing, as appears likely given that there does not seem to be anything special to say about it, that's not enough to meet our notability requirement. Sandstein 22:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was in capital stock of a major company; that makes the class notable. From that perspective it is just as relevant as any other unique class, e.g. LMS Turbomotive, the only difference being size and cost. I can see a genuine issue with inclusion covering the fact that you can have one class of 842 engines covered by one article, and one class consisting of a unique engine covered also by one article. One is inevitably covered in more depth. I have a list, List of LMS locomotives as of 1947-12-31, List of LNER locomotives as of 1947-12-31, with the others to follow when I get time. So yes Wikipedia should cover every class inherited by British Railways. There is enough research on the subject. The problem with merging is (1) it's not clear to where it should be merged (2) if it is merged anywhere, it ends up biasing that article. Photographs will eventually follow; have faith, I have copies of at least two copyrighted ones. Details of liveries can be derived from them. I have a date of renumbering to BR if I can find the book it's in. From an engineering point of view, it's fairly unconventional compare to the more conventional Stephenson-based locos owned by the LMS. So to conclude, it's one of those articles that isn't especially notable, but is required for completeness, otherwise there's a redlink in List of LMS locomotives as of 1947-12-31; "we're not going to tell you about that because we don't want you to know about it". That's really not a helpful attitude to take, is it? Tony May (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PS The aim is to cover all of the LMS/BR locomotives, not all of the Sentinel ones so the comment "We can't reasonably add descriptions of every individual locomotive this company ever built to its article." has got it the wrong way round. I'm not going to do down industrial railways, but I don't have the books to cover that. We can however cover the few classes that were in capital stock of the mainline railway companies. That is entirely reasonable and entirely feasible. Tony May (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PPS - it meets the somewhat arbitrary criteria laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) as it was a "type" (i.e. class) unique to both the LMS and BR (all other sentinels were to different designs). Tony May (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the article we discuss here is an article about one individual locomotive, yes? I I've nothing against articles about classes of vehicles, but even the essay you cited says: "Almost all individual vehicles are not notable". I do not understand how being "in capital stock of a major company", whatever that may mean, makes it notable according to WP:N or its subpages; no such criterium is mentioned there. Sandstein 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons given by Tony May. I would also point out that the previous deletion proposal was on the basis of alleged copyvio. However, the present article is derived from Wikibin, which is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, so the copyvio allegation does not seem relevant. Biscuittin (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Sentinel locomotives for other, similar, articles. Biscuittin (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is Wikibin GFDL, but it's GFDL sourced originally from WP itself. Mind you, one of the teenage admins will then just delete it as a CSD#G4 Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't just an article on one loco (which might indeed have notability issues), it's an article on a class that only had one member. It's a generally accepted goal that WP coverage should expand to an article per class, even for the single member classes. This much was recognised in the very first nomination, although the article title didn't make that nature as clear as it might have done. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the article does not say that it's an article on a class that only had one member. There's nothing about it constituting a class. And even if that is so, a class as I understand it cannot have one member; the defining feature of a class is that it consists of several vehicles built to type. This is merely an individual locomotive that does not seem to have been covered in any detail in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:N. I can't find the "generally accepted goal" you refer to in any notability guideline or policy. Sandstein 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good article at present, that's for certain. However it is listed in the standard references on the subject. 7164 was (AFAIK) a unique type within the LMS fleet (although I don't know how close it was to other non-LMS Sentinels). Compared to the other LMS Sentinels, it was a smaller and simpler (single speed vs two speed) design. A peculiar indication of the attention paid to it is that someone has considered it worthwhile producing a replica of it (one reason that I think this type was a standard small single-speed Sentinel, sold industrially in some numbers).

As to classes, then a class is merely an archetype. This doesn't matter whether a hundred, a singleton or even none of a planned class are built. I ought to do the GWR Hawksworth Pacific and the L&YR 2-10-0 when I get a chance, neither or which were built. What matters is that notability was paid to them, which is the case in all of these cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the future I'll probably merge this to Sentinel BE locomotives, once I can source that it was indeed the standard 19 ton version of this widespread Sentinel class. Of course someone also needs to write that article. Balance really would have the LMS example as a redirect to and a section within an article that really is on "the class", per Sandstein.

In the meantime though, this article and its scope is the best we have, and there's certainly no reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it quite clearly said "...but unique to the LMS, though the LMS did have other Sentinels of different types". Tony May (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources now listed in the article and Tony May's arguments. The Steve 06:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whereas we don't have articles on individual locomotives, unless those locos have been preserved, or were somehow significant in their own right, such as a technological advance, we do have articles on locomotive classes. The maximum and minimum size of loco classes are undefined: therefore a class of one can exist. If the LMS had bought a second loco of the same type, that would be covered on the same article and not given its own article. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 10 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alain[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. "Recognized internationally for his work on a number of best-selling video games, including the popular Grand Theft Auto..." seems like quite a strong claim to notability until one follows up the references, which don't tend to bear this out (for example, the Red Dead Redemption one lists Mr Alain [as Patrick Jamaa] as one of 16 terrain artists). The references are generally peripheral, irrelevant, non-RS or all three; one that does cover Mr Alain in detail is an interview by the magazine he works for. The article appears to exist at least in part to promote Mr Alain's book (also up for deletion); both were created for payment by blocked socks of the same editor. EyeSerene^talk 22:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 9 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). — Frankie (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of exotic alien species[edit]

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

No sources, no criteria for what "exotic" means in this context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Erm, I thought lists didn't necessarily have to have sources? But anyway, the criteria are stated up front "This list is limited to races and groups of genetically related extraterrestrial organisms that exhibit physical features or forms far outside the normal range for a typical terran species while excluding specific individual alien characters." - which seems clear enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is a subdivision of a much larger set, as the template on the article indicates. It therefore makes little sense to consider this in isolation. The term exotic is obvious in this context - it means a species unlike any familiar earth form - feline, insectoid, &c. Warden (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I would think this article and its related articles should be renamed/reworded to add fictional into their titles, unless y'all know something I don't. :P OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I have to take a strong stance against the claim above that lists don't need to have sources. To pick an explanation of what exotic could mean, in this case "genetically related extraterrestrial organisms that exhibit physical features or forms far outside the normal range for a typical terran species while excluding specific individual alien characters" and then pick which characters potentially fall under the category is pure original research. If someone can find any substantial independent and reliable coverage of the notion of "genetically related extraterrestrial organisms that exhibit physical features or forms far outside the normal range for a typical terran species while excluding specific individual alien characters", then my stance may change.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try

Vivian Sobchack. Screening Space: The American Science Fiction Film. Rutgers University Press, 2nd Ed, 1997.

Christine Cornea. Science Fiction Cinema: Between Fantasy and Reality. Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

Annette Kuhn. Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema, Verso Books, 1990.

I think you'll find there are plenty more. Remember this is fiction, and there are plenty of authors with a lot of imagination out there (and quite a few critics who like to write books on the authors who write books on the aliens...) Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - A totally useless list. Thousands of alien species enter the science fiction literature each year, so the list cannot claim to be exhaustive. Can the list claim to be a "Top 100 Exotic Alien Species" list of any sort? Top in what sense? Most exotic? Most populous? Most dangerous? In the end, this list does nothing more than document a few science fiction fans' reading, television-watching and movie-going habits. Such lists can be fun, but they do not belong in an encyclopedia. Besides which, this list completely misses a lot of my favorites. :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being Exhaustive is no reason to remove an article, there are hundreds of articles that list things that could /never/ be listed 100% like List of extrasolar planets for example. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a list is not exhaustive, it has to be selective according to some well-defined criteria. For example, the list of extrasolar planets that you cited, whose correct title is "List of multiplanetary systems", is a list of multiplanetary systems only, and presumably at some point will need to be trimmed or otherwise reorganized as the list grows into the thousands. Wikipedia is not a database for the storage of random information. There are other wikis where your contribution might be suitable. For example, check out scifi.wikia.com. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way. Suppose I made a List of Women in Fiction with 2000 entries sorted by occupation: doctors, lawyers, goddesses, housewives, and so forth. Would that list be suitable to upload to Wikipedia? Would it even be useful? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being exhaustive isn't a criteria to delete, I didn't put fictional in the title because I forgot to and figured it wouldn't matter until we actually find real alien species. Regardless, the inclusion criteria /is/ inclusive, references aren't needed for a list of notable things (Most everything in the list is blue-linked.) If it's notable enough to have it's own article, it's notable enough to be listed (blue links imply notability) I wouldn't mind removing everything but the blue links, but however. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything that's not anthropomorphic would be "exotic" in the context of fiction. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's plainly not true - fantasy books frequently use ordinary animals such as horses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't be aliens then. 70.49.126.147 (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better example- Avatar's Navi are cat-people that ride six-legged horses. Clearly alien, but about as "exotic" as vanilla ice cream. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 10:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely subjective "This list is limited to races and groups of genetically related extraterrestrial organisms that exhibit physical features or forms far outside the normal range for a typical terran species while excluding specific individual alien characters." Virtually all little green men (Vulcans, Gorns, Tribbles, Wookies, Ewoks, Jedi, Martians, etc.) qualify.....or not, since Spock looks a look like a human and are his ears "far outside normal range"....who tells us? Shall we phone ET? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Warden mentioned above, this list is part of a larger attempt to categorize all fictional organisms, and should be assessed in the context of this greater effort. The term "exotic" should be best understood as "lacking a clear earth analog", as most other lists under the alien subcategory are defined by relation to real-world earth creatures (arthropods, mammals, ect.) All of the examples givien by Carlossuarez46 fit comfortably into the humanoid category, and would be excluded. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is quite clear within the genre. The organisms are either modelled on real ones, or otherwise. and this is the article for the otherwise. Where any one particular entitty goes would be subject to discussion. Not all lists have clear boundaries, but the distinctions are still clear enough if there are two center groups, albeit with some overlap. fuzzy sets are sufficiently sets for our purposes. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 17 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of a Small Town[edit]

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

Not notable, no sources, never picked up for series. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable television pilot.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TV series that hasn't been made and never will be made, coverage is minimal and not enough to confer notability. Hut 8.5 19:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Television pilot articles are unnecessary on Wikipedia. What's the point? 68.44.179.54 (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammarly[edit]

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

Promotional article created by a now-blocked sock of a paid editor. The sources don't appear to either meet WP:RS or establish notability: most are passing mentions, peripherally relevant to the content, blogs, or non-independent of the subject. Article has been deleted previously. EyeSerene^talk 20:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Del, Adv then. Can we see the previous AfD discussion? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were none, otherwise I would probably have speedied it as WP:CSD#G4. The deletion log has one deletion (October 2011) as an expired prod, and another (speedy G11) that happened after the prod was belatedly contested and the article restored. This is all related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pay_for_edits_in_Wikipedia; to save you digging through the links, the editor concerned may have been employed after the previous deletions to create a version of the article that didn't get speedied... or may equally likely be another sock. The current incarnation isn't much better than the previous ones though. EyeSerene^talk 21:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may actually be G5able with MooshiePorkFace being a sock of a blocked user. Amalthea 21:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it probably would. For some reason I thought that only applied to banned users - I don't do much deletion work so I'm not as familiar with the criteria as I really ought to be :P EyeSerene^talk 22:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doc talk 06:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"*Keep. I am a user myself and think it's a solid product. 125,000 fans of Grammarly on Facebook are an additional indicator of notability. Librarianmom62 —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: I see no reliable sources about this at all, even with side mentions. In fact, if this software was indeed that significant, it would be covered in reliable sources, so I conclude that this article should be regarded as an advertisement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:59, 15 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. I was half tempted to supervote a keep based on Drmies's slam dunk rock-solid argument :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Leader Phrase Book[edit]

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

Contested prod. Promotional article created by a now-blocked sock of a paid editor. The sources don't appear to either meet WP:RS or establish notability: most are passing mentions, peripherally relevant to the content, or non-independent of the subject. EyeSerene^talk 20:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Paid COI editor, socking to avoid scrutiny. Not what WP is about. This is not a way to establish notability. Doc talk 06:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I expect the company to send me a free copy (hardback, please) of this "indispensable tool to help [me] become quickly fluent in phrases that put [me] ahead in the marketplace." Otherwise, the book is of course not proven notable and the article a PR effort. Still, EyeSerene, you're just being defeatist and we have way more work to do than time left. Also, it's not because we don't agree on everything that we can't agree on anything! If you want to be a leader like me, look at this (bottom right). Drmies (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the risk of belaboring the bovious I'll register my impression that Drmies' "keep" is meant as irony. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "belaboring the bovious". The phrase didn't make the book, but it was created by Bart Simpson as a derivative of "beating a dead horse" and "Don't have a cow, man!" It means something like, "What I'm repeating seems obvious, but I concede that it's remotely possible I misunderstood; don't get upset with me if I have done." - OhioStandard

Clearly we all want this negotiation to succeed and I'm glad we were all able to contribute in a positive way, but I think it's time to shovel dirt on this topic. Am I the envy of all I meet yet? EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notability (books). The CBS Moneywatch blurb is a WP:RS, of course, but it's very abbreviated and appears to come straight from a press release; it can't really be described as "substantial", and it's clearly not even a review, per se. The other two potential sources currently on offer fail as reliable sources: Pinnaclebusiness.com seems to be a site set up by an individual to promote his own services as a "business coach", while Industry Leaders Magazine is, according to EyeSerene's research, the author's own employer, whose over-the-top description of him reads, "Patrick Alain is the founder of the business communication warehouse LeaderPhrase.com, which is one of the top business, communication, and Leadership strategy source (sic) worldwide." I hope my "delete" !vote doesn't mean I'll never "attain a charismatic presence" or "be the envy of all", though. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohio, forget it. You are the old guard, and oblivion just tweeted that your presence is required. You should probably try to be more like me. BTW, I'm wireless as well. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another book collection of platitudes to help you win friends and influence people while you make money fast on the Internet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:58, 15 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team Solomid[edit]

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

I don't see how this group of gamers is notable. No reliable sources verify any of the information. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any RS coverage besides some news articles about their general involvement in gaming competitions. Nothing to verify the information in the article. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 9 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). — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. They're pretty much all fansites or forum posts. Fails to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - References link to offical website for Team Solo Mid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.158.71 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, but not a reason for keeping. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the official website would be considered "first party", which could be used to verify facts, but not to establish notability. For that, you need third party (unrelated/unconnected) coverage on this topic. (For instance, websites like Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 15 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.

Don't Delete They won the Ign pro league 4 (ipl 4) 25.000$ its one of the most famoues Gaming teams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.86.186 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 06:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Khadjenoury[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Only promotional websites, various model listings, and similar stuff can be found; no critical reviews, awards, or other mentions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NN and reference is WP:SPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmajeremy (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Withdrawn. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KnockoutJS[edit]

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

Relatively recently created software platform. Trivial third-party coverage, such as blogs and tech advice sites. (Undeleted after proposed deletion has been challenged.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note that as a JavaScript library, it is used by web developers, which implies that there will be more web sources than usual. This is not a problem, since these sources are reliable, and still serve to demonstrate notability. I have given two print articles.

The following reliable sources discuss the library. Note that per the software notability essay, "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources[3] for free and open source software, if significance can be shown.":

Rapid and responsive UI development with Knockout.js. .NET Magazine

Ease HTML5 Web Development with jQuery, Knockout, and Modernizr Libraries in DevProConnections magazine

Knockout Javascript with Steve Sanderson. Third-party interview with the lead developer about the project

Building HTML5 and JavaScript Apps with MVVM and Knockout. Training course on the product. This indicates it's stable and there is a perceived desire to learn it.

Into the Ring with knockout.js at .NET Tuts, a tutorial provider

Learn how to use Knockout in an ASP.NET MVC 3 web application to handle real-time UX updates.

The below are hosted or published by Microsoft. Steve Sanderson, the main Knockout developer, is currently employed by Microsoft. However, he started Knockout before working there, and it is not a Microsoft product.

Getting Started with Knockout. First time I known of in the paper MSDN magazine.

Knockout's Built-in Bindings for HTML and JavaScript. Second time in the paper MSDN Magazine

Knockout JS: Helping you build dynamic JavaScript UIs with MVVM and ASP.NET.

Building JavaScript MVVM apps in ASP.NET MVC using KnockoutJS

Note that I undeleted it earlier per Wikipedia:PROD#Undeletion. Superm401 - Talk 00:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board#Elementary schools. Wifione ^Message 06:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Eugene Catholic Elementary School[edit]

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

This school is fundamentally non-notable, failing to meet WP:ORG. It was created as an attack page and has been a vehicle for vandalism throughout its life except for a brief period as a sub-stub. The last version is typical. The page was properly redirected to Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board#Elementary schools. I recently protected this redirect but, on reviewing the history, I was surprised to find that it was never taken to AfD. I am therefore bringing it here to regularise the redirect action. There is nothing mergeable in the history so I recommend delete and redirect to Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board#Elementary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as protected redirect per nomination. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Can we speedy this as part attack page, part blatant hoax (not the school's existence, but most of the claims made about it)? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support speedy delete and redirect per nom. To answer your question, we should just speedy it as attack page, since that's by definition as untrue as a hoax (barring RS, which wouldn't be an attack). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure foolishness. If desired, recreate and redirect. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect and protect if necessary. This schools is not notable. It lacks substantial coverage by reliable sources. The article content is nonsense that needs to go and stay gone. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attention for closing admin: An editor (User:HWCDSB) has reposted the content of this article under St. Eugene's Catholic Elementary School (notice the "'s" added). This would be part of why an AFD was needed for the original redirect, because I can't speedy-tag the new one without a closed AfD. Furthermore, I suspect a conflict of interest: the username of that user, in this context, clearly stands for Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I realised that this page hadn't been through AfD I fully protected St. Eugene Elementary School (which ongoing protection is dependent on the result of this AfD) after this recreation by the same editor. TerriersFan (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I've redirected the alternative to the same place you redirected this article to. If you could protect it for now too, that'd be good. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done; pending the result of this AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say speedy the St. Eugene's page as a blatant hoax and recreate it also as a protected redirect. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:09, 14 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polyester[edit]

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

DeleteI am aware this is a very important subject. But it is full of original research and the whole page only has 2 references and 4 "cititation needed" tags. That is more "cititation needed" then references. Delete then rewrite without all the original research WOLfan112 (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 8. Snotbot t • c » 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is an editing matter. I agree the sourcing is crap — the article needs to be flagged and tagged until somebody gets on the case to fix it. Raise hell on the talk page. But there's no way on the big blue earth that WP is gonna delete a page on polyester on the basis of OR concerns and insufficient footnoting. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The procedure for a "full rewrite eliminating the original research" which you seek is simple: WP:BE BOLD, dive in do it! Start busting it up paragraph by paragraph, replacing unsourced and sketchy material with sourced content. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Topic is immensely notable, one of the most common plastics on the planet earth. The article is also well written except lacking sources. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Poorly_written_article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. Subject is definitely notable and the issues brought up by the nominator point to an editing issue, not a deletion issue. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Woodward-Smith (Irish Rugby Player)[edit]

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

Possible hoax. The only link relates to a different person. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Ghits at all for "Scott Woodward-Smith" (in quotes). No player of that name on the Irish Rugby website. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An asserted 25 caps for the Irish rugby team - a not-insignificant acheivement - and yet managing to be completely unknown to posterity? The irishrugby.ie database isn't complete (I was able to find the non-inclusion of someone I knew had a cap), but 25 appeaarances for the international rugby team is a different matter. Tis a hoax. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete BLP issues around sexuality and no sources from the creator, per WP:BURDEN. Any admin with a pair who can do their job? Lugnuts (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn after copyvio concerns were addressed by editing. No outstanding Keep !votes. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Chandra Poudel[edit]

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

Appears to be largely copyvio from here. Not sure if there is any clean version far back in the history. Stefan2 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took some 10 seconds to remove the copyvio. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OK, no issue any more. Not sure if old revisions should be deleted, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 06:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Hotel[edit]

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

individual episode of a cartoon series, no RS references, no notability, left talk message two months ago asking for sources/expansion, with no result. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep This animated short film is notable per Wikipedia:NOTFILM (significant involvement of several notable persons: Jack Mercer, Max Fleischer, Dave Fleischer and Adolph Zukor) --Bensin (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are these people involved only in this particular episode, or the entire series? In either case, these facts would need to be backed up by WP:RS which is not the case in the article currently Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the actual criteria from notfilm is "The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. " and the part after the "AND" is not met in this case I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The film is notable regardless of the series. I suppose we could debate for a while what is a reliable source or not. I would argue that imdb combined with bcdb is reliable enough, unless someone knows of any reason to doubt the facts at the film's entries in this particular case. I did however also add two book sources I found. In short: This film, and I'm pretty certain I would argue that any film, from Fleischer Studios by Max and Dave Fleischer and distributed by Paramount Studios is notable. --Bensin (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my original question, are the notable individuals involved in the film, only involved in this episode, or is all episodes? Similarly, are the book references you added discussing this particular short, or the series in general? IMDB and BCDB are definitively NOT RS, as determined by innumerable consensuses and discussions. In any case, being included in such sources does nothing to establish notability. You also did not address my previous statement regarding the policy you used for justification of notability, specifically the "and is a major part of his/her career" portion, which I think this case hinges upon. The default policy is WP:NOTINHERITED, so just the fact that they are involved in this film is not sufficient. I am more than willing to give the benefit o the doubt to the entire series (particularly considering your inclusion of the two book sources), but unless it can be shown that those sources are discussing this particular episode, or that all of these notable people were all special guest stars for only this episode (and other episodes did not have similar notable guest stars), then I think it is collective notability, and not notability of this particular short. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hrm, mixed bag in looking at the book sources. TRex is talking about this specific episode, but has a one sentence inclusion "In Granite Hotel (1940) a sauropod turns into a prehistoric firefighter's vehicle". I am unable to get inside the other book to see what its ref is, if you have access, could you illuminate us? As it is, I think the T.Rex reference fails the "In Depth" restriction of notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for certain if they were involved in only this film or all of the films in the series, but I think it's safe to say they were involved in all.
The book references are referring to this film in particular. If you search on Google for books '"granite hotel" fleischer' you can verify the sources.
Again, imdb combined with bcdb is reliable enough sources at least to establish that the film exists but also with some certainty who were involved in the process. If/when better sources become available they should be added to the article.
I would classify any artistic work released by a large studio and credited to either Fleischer-brother a major part of their career.
WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay and it clearly states at the top of the page that "Essays are not Wikipedia policies". It is nonetheless a very sound essay, but it also says "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances".
If for no other reason, I believe that

involvement by Max and Dave Fleischer via Fleischer Studios
voice actor Jack Mercer in a starring role
distribution by the major studio Paramount

combined qualifies the article for inclusion. --Bensin (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of these things are reasons for the series to be notable to me, not this particular episode (with the exception of the two sources, but as stated, the one that I was able to confirm was just in passing) I think you and I are not going to be able to convince each other of our positions, ,so we will need to see if anyone else chimes in. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the argument is valid for both this short film (I avoid calling it an "episode" so as to not confuse it with an episode of a TV series) as well as the series, my position stands firm. More opinions on the matter would be welcome. --Bensin (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — at least this topic is not of a TV series. WP:N is nothing more than a guideline, as well as other notable guidelines; per WP:V, this is truly a short film. Otherwise, strong merge to Stone Age Theatrical Cartoon Series. --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear on your logic. re "otherwise merge", what is the criteria that leads to THIS otherwise THAT? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus Data[edit]

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

I don't think the information that it has sometimes been cited shows notability DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (as creator of the article). As I wrote in Talk:Abacus Data to contest the initial nominiation as a speedy:
Mentioning that this company's polls and surveys are cited by Canadian news media (Google shows many examples) is an implicit assertion of importance. In addition, polls by this organization, among a number of others, are cited in Wikipedia articles such as New Brunswick general election, 2010, as well as Ontario general election, 2011, and 42nd Canadian federal election. Basically, I created this article to replace redlinks there with bluelinks. An organization that is notable enough to be a source of citations within other Wikipedia articles is probably notable enough to have at least its own stub article. This doesn't come close to meeting the requirements for speedy deletion, it would need to go to AfD if you wish to pursue it.

Although it is a recently-created small company founded by a person under 30, this does not in itself disqualify it from notability. A Google search on "Abacus Data" (in quotes) returns a sizeable number of hits. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side point re turning red links into blue links and so on: except in very limited circumstances, polls should not be directly cited in articles because polls are primary sources -- though references, in secondary sources, to poll results can often be used, though with caution. EEng (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So good, as you suggested we're now at AfD. Unfortunately, being cited by Wikipedia is positively useless in establishing notability. Citing of its polls by news sources, without discussion of the company itself by those sources, is only slightly less useless, but nonetheless useless. The company's own "Media" page [2] seems to have nothing but pages and pages of the same -- long articles which begin "A new survey from Ottawa-based Abacus Data finds..." or, somewhere in the middle, say "The new Abacus Data poll, released Friday afternoon, indicates that..." but nowhere else mention Abacus. That the company itself doesn't list any coverage of itself is the best evidence possible of non-existence (nonexistence of the coverage I mean -- the company certainly exists). EEng (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polling firms are a bit unusual in that nearly all media coverage about them involves discussing their poll results; very little is about the company itself, and usually only policy wonks or political insiders will care about the companies. I have found one article profiling the company at The Hill Times, but such profiles are hard to pick out from an endless stream of search page results discussing polls themselves. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting WP:NOTABILITY, which says: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (emphasis mine). So a news story about a poll, in a major publication, which mentions the company in the lede and has a paragraph or two of quotes and analysis from the company CEO, represents coverage of the company even though the topic of the article is about the poll and not the company itself. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's you who misunderstand. No matter how you slice it, A company...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject (WP:CORP -- which I suggest you read carefully). That, as you correctly point out, the company need not be the main topic of the source material just means that it's OK if e.g. the title of the source is "Five Polling Companies Reshaping Politics" instead of e.g. "Abacus Corp. Is the New Go-To Company When Polls are Needed" (I just made those up). And there's no relaxation of the in-depth coverage requirement for companies which, because of what they do, wouldn't normally get much coverage. No coverage = no notability (and by the way, no coverage = there's no way to write more than a stub anyway, so that's another reason there can't/shouldn't be an article). Maybe if you go carefully through the company's Media pages (linked above) you'll find the right kind of coverage -- I certainly didn't look at it all. EEng (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just realized you did say you found a profile in Hill Times -- that would help, though please note that A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. EEng (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree about what "coverage" means. Reporting on a company's activities or work is coverage; you are known by what you do as much as what you "are". This is particularly true of companies, which are rarely known to be flamboyant or "famous for being famous" à la Paris Hilton; companies are pretty much defined by what they do. As WP:CORP states, Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." When entire newspaper articles in major national newspapers are written, on many separate occasions, for the sole purpose of reporting on some work your company has released, then you have attracted notice. WP:CORP further seeks "verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources" (emphasis mine); elsewhere it ways "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." and "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." In several separate places, WP:CORP asks for "attracting notice", "being noticed" and "receiving attention"; there is no requirement that the notice and attention has to be specifically in the form of writing a profile about you, rather than reporting on your work, activities, and products. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: you and I disagree on what coverage means. We'll see what others think. EEng (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page about a September 2011 conference organized by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association may help informally establish notability, in that the company is treated as a peer to the more established Canadian polling and market research companies Harris-Decima, Ekos, Environics, Leger Marketing, Ipsos Reid, Angus Reid Public Opinion. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly a notable polling company within Canada. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree with P.T. that stories mentioning Abacus as the source of poll data show *some* notability in that the news organization used that firm, but as per EEng, I have to say that I give such stories much less weight. ~~However, I actually checked the google news results, and a good number of them were, in fact, about Abacus Data and not their polls.~~ Ok, I checked more closely, and there is also Abacus that Doubleclick merged with and Abacus Data Systems, which are NOT the same company... Company (just) meets the GNG. The Steve 07:54, 10 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5Rhythms[edit]

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

This has been speedied and prodded several times, and it would help to get a community decision. Myself, I have no opinion on whether the movement is notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually a rather large worldwide movement, a google search will bring up countless class listing from many different countries, and brief press listings (I got to page 30 and all the links were still on topic). There are some more extensive press sources NYT Aug 2010, Sommerset Life, The Independent 2005. There are a couple journal articles eg [3] and a PhD thesis[4]. Much positive but little critical has been written but thats not a reason to delete.--Salix (talk): 16:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more press source Evening Standard April 2011.--Salix (talk): 08:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No case to answer. Warden (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - big worldwide, and also spreading beyond London in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parr Mike (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag I speedied this and Gabrielle Roth mainly because neither article made it particularly clear that this was a notable subject. Both used mainly SPS and promotional sources. I see now that there is more interest in this than either article suggested, so I'd say tag the pages as needing improvements in the sourcing dept and keep. Famousdog (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 06:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Sin[edit]

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

I'm not exactly sure what's going on in this article. Samantha Sin is a real porn star, but she appears to fail WP:PORNBIO, as she has never even been nominated for anything. Moreover, contrary to what the article says, she was discussed in Penthouse a few times but she was never actually a Penthouse Pet; plus, the way the article is written, it kind of feels like a bunch of other articles were thrown together to make it (complete with much of it written in the first or second-person). And as far as the references, they are either dead links, dangerous links, or they don't mention Ms. Sin at all. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 15:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 15:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I dont know why Samantha Sin no appears in Pornbio. But for AVN Awards she was nominated in 2009 fot best oral sex ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2395806/awards), she won a group AVN awards for the best outrageous sex scene( http://avnawards.avn.com/past-shows/past-winners/2009/ ). She had her own TV show in RudeTV ( http://www.xbiz.com/news/96935 ). And about links don't mention Ms. Sin at all, because its about aliases (many). She was a penthouse pet in the channel Penthouse HD (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Penthouse_HDTV). Greatings Glavior (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, she dont win AVN for the șost outrageous sex scene ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1388785/awards ) I correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glavior (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

Believe it or not, IMDb actually isn't always a reliable source for awards (I found that out the hard way here, and ever since that point, I have sought out sources directly from the award websites).
The AVN Awards 2009 link you listed doesn't mention her at all.
None of the references in the article mention her supposed aliases either.
Having a show on RudeTV doesn't exactly establish notability (that might just be my opinion though).
Being a supposed Penthouse Pet on the Penthouse HD channel is not the same as being a Penthouse Pet in the print publication (I'm not even sure they call the women "pets" on the channel).

As far as the wording in the article, well...I understand you're a new editor, and I'm pretty sure English is not your first language, but in any event, don't think we're here to gang up on you. We're just trying to help you get a handle on why this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a horrid BLP violation. No reliable sourcing, and the article seems to have been cobbled together from various promotional pages regarding porn performers of similar appearance and/or name, with no RS/BLP-compliant evidence that the various performer aliases are actually used by the same person. And, as the nominator accurately points out, the subject clearly fails PORNBIO, and there's not a shred of evidence indicating she meets the GNG, even if the claims in the article could be documented. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WPPornbio reclaim :

1.Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award.
2.Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years. (AVN Awards Nominee in 2009)
3.Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. (Main actress of Plucked then fucked directed by Melissa Lauren)
4.Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media (Dirty Divas on RudeTV).

So Samantha Sin accomplished three terms. It s our own rules. So ~~KEEP~~ Glavior (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Double "keep" !vote struck out. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical crap sourced vapid porn bio. The following is utterly unsourced which would fly for about zero minutes in a normal WP bio: "Samantha Sin was born with mixed origins, with Cherokees blood, German and English." Actually, BLP concerns aside, maybe illiteracy needs to be added to the laundry list of complaints... Here's another unsourced BLP gem: "In June 2005, at 20 years old, she turns in her first porn scene directed by Ed Powers in the film Dirty Debutantes # 322. Since it will only hardcore. The same year, Samantha Sin signs with Red Light District Video, and it turns in their productions. Samantha loves to play the scene and anal lesbians (Samantha Sin is openly bisexual). In addition, it also performs creampie scenes." Let's just gracefully call that paragraph "the original research of a porn hobbyist." At a minimum, assuming it is not defamatory. WP:NOTCOMMONS is applicable here, there is no whiny "Wikipedia is not censored!" rationale to defend a photograph of your dick... At En-WP article subjects must be the subject of multiple instances substantial, independent published coverage in reliable sources. This, as is the case for 99.93% of porn bios making their way to AfD, fails the clear the bar miserably. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Carrite, please don't bite the newbies. The author of the article has been on Wikipedia for only about one month. In addition, it is fairly plain that English is not the contributor's first language. Judging from his contributions, it appears to me that the contributor is making good faith edits to improve Wikipedia. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ERASE IT, I DONT WANT TO WASTE MY TIME TO DEFEND A GOOD ARTICLE ABOUT GOOD PORNSTAR, SHOCKING, OF COURSE IT S NOT A SAINT.Glavior (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:45, 10 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' SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Water Sports[edit]

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

No assertion or explanation of notability. Refs are either to advertisements, the company's own website or to similar unreliable sources. Google search reveals little in the way of reliable sources, especially given the international prevalence of this choice of business name. Also possibly paid for. Claret Ash 14:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what a collection of refs that actually say nothing! Self referrals, blogs but not a thing of any consequence or reliability. Good (bad?) example of WP:ARTSPAM. No merits at all. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability per WP:CORP, no coverage to satisfy the GNG. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability was paid for and creatively invented, meaning it most likely wasn't notable to begin with. Hopefully contractor and clients will understand that paid COI editing can come at a heavy price when detected. Doc talk 06:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. Appears to fail WP:GNG:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy advertisement.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:45, 15 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Hadden[edit]

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

Unremarkable reality show finalist. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than a self-published stuff (books, website, blog) and biggest loser promo material there doesn't seem to be anything to establish notability here.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 15:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete simply appearing on a TV show and then trying to self promote a career is not meeting WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete SmartSE (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny Deerin[edit]

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

Not notable. Assertion of notability founded on establishment of "WINGS". Refs fail to establish that notability. Other refs are very peripheral or, in some case, make no mention of the article subject. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable advertising. Claret Ash 13:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Weak refs and tenuous claims unfortunately seem to be typical of the work of this sockfarm. EyeSerene^talk 22:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and above related article. Doc talk 06:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I see that she has been mentioned in newspapers and such, so she may be notable enough for an article, in which case I would change my vote. Doc talk 00:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I lean to delete, but the article does include some claims that, if verified, might suggest a case for notability. In particular I note the mentions of the Jefferson Awards for Public Service and the Order of the Palmetto. I haven't been able to confirm the fact or the circumstances of the Jefferson Award: some of those awards are quite significant, others in the local categories maybe not so much. (I did find a source indicating she was one of several dozen nominated for a local award in 2007.[5] If that's all there is, it's clearly not enough.) There are a number of sources to confirm the Palmetto, but I haven't found a list of recent recipients so I am not sure just how many of these the governor currently hands out each year.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dunno if this article helps, maybe? It says, "Ginny Deerin was honored with the Order of the Palmetto at a special celebratory luncheon this past Tuesday, December 7, at High Cotton restaurant in downtown Charleston." And has a picture of the woman receiving some type of award. [6] Hope that helps. OldGeorgie (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)— OldGeorgie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note. I found this article at Edutopia.org that features Ginny Deerin: Ginny Deerin edutopia.org article.OldGeorgie (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You might see from my comments above here that I've been watching this article for some time now. In my opinion, the subject easily satisfies the WP:N for people. She has been mentioned in multiple, verifiable secondary sources like Skirt! magazine, The Charleston Gazette, Edutopia.org, Island Eye News (an article written entirely about Ginny Deerin receiving the Palmetto award). If this person doesn't meet WP:N, who does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldGeorgie (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so what? If the subject was truly notable she would not have had to put out a classified ad for someone to write an article about her.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:11, 15 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. Wifione ^Message 06:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creeping fascism[edit]

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

"Creeping fascism" is not notable in its own right; it's just used occasionally as a label - in a different context each time. In other words, it's another Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group. Content is inherently non-neutral because it just collects together different instances where political ranters have labelled different things as "creeping fascism"; most of the article concerns one youtube rant about the American government. We could google up somebody saying that "global warming hysteria" is creeping fascism, but that doesn't mean we need an article which says so. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV essay about a neologism — more or less an advocacy piece. There are encyclopedic approaches to examine the expansion of wiretapping, email scouring, the multiplication of the number secret intelligence agencies, or the monetization of the political process in modern capitalist societies in historical context. This isn't it. This is clearly a take on the 1960s political epithet "creeping socialism" — about which, it should be noted for what it's worth, there is no WP article. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like you're implicitly denying the antecedent with your mention of creeping socialism; maybe I'm misunderstanding? Anyways, the subject is an abstraction which on behalf of it's speakers attempts to draw on the similarities between phenomena not examine or explain them in detail for (our convenience to create) encyclopedic reference. Secobi (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm gonna add a new rule to my list that "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Carrite (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good rule. One of these days I'll write a bot to find other cases... bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided to increase the stack just to organize future citations to flesh out better in body of the article. I'll remove the stack after I find time to improve the article hopefully fast enough to suit bobrayner's standards. I would urge everyone else to please extend more patience towards this article. Secobi (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. In fact delete any article that is based on the presumption that fascism is a pseudonym for authoritarianism rather than a specific ideology. Keresaspa (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So ordered! The Minister of Propaganda will burn all such articles forthwith! 03:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, EEng. Keresaspa (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did. In the last few days the ~~~~ has been acting strange. One time it substituted my username but not the time, and here it added the time but not my username. I presume the WMF elves have noticed this and are working on it. EEng (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, just playing with you :) Keresaspa (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an emergent concept. Bobrayner is using a false attribution and a continuum fallacy in order to further his false dilemma of 'improve it according to how I want it or stop editing' and escape all dialogue regarding the particulars of the content or anyone's editing. What started out as a back & forth over a redirection and ignored recommendations for creating a WP:RFD has in an instant been brought here for discussion without there being any changes in the content whilst continually with-holding any and all details of the guideline(s) by which he alleges they violate. Secobi (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say whether the above is an intentional parody of rhetorical drivel. I can only say that I hope it is. EEng (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blinded by italics! 173.175.26.155 (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - With regard to what Carrite has said, the article is written with NPOV ("Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides") and being construed as a neologism means it should be categorizated not deleted. Please, quote the instances of POV bias by the editors, if I'm failing to recognize them, so they may be corrected. With regards to Keresaspa, the use of fascism in "creeping fascism" is loosely referencing a set of incremental acquistions of power, legal priviledge, and legal jurisdiction (typically of an ad hoc nature) by those in government or affiliated with government (read corporations: federal, public, private, municiple, etc) as opposed to a static, defined form, state or exact methodology of government. Perhaps the article could be written to better address that upon further review and discourse over the details of the cited material but this is merely an example of one of the many things which should have been brought up for discussion in the article's talk page before coming here. Secobi (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment just above. EEng (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carrite. Also delete Slowly creeping fascism, Fascism lurking around the corner of your child's school, and Greenish-hued fascism. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the articles cited are about a creep towards fascism. None of them define "creeping fascism" as a specific concept but rather simply use creeping as an adjective to describe the onset of what they are seeking to portray as fascism (and which in most cases is "fascism" being used erroneously as a pseudonym for "authoritarianism" but that's a side issue). If the articles cited were all arguing "creeping fascism is a distinct phenomenon that we have identified" I would have voted keep but they none of them do that. They are just talking about fascism that happens to be coming in slowly and could as easily be called crawling fascism or incremental fascism or any other word in the thesaurus. A similar title for some articles does not automatically indicate that a phenomenon is being identified. Keresaspa (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment is much appreciated. The correct usage of the word fascism is a nebulous subject. While I disagree with fascism in the article being equivalent to authoritarianism (this is not about the centralization of power or authority) I can agree with the article lacking an appropriate attempt to disambiguate; however, even if fascism is ultimately, in every way a usage error the subject matter is similar between speakers and authors and that is what matters. Secobi (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I decided to use your idea which I think is a beautiful approach to disambiguate common language among notable sources: I created incremental fascism, increasing fascism, incoming fascism, shift to fascism. That should help to create a widened body to work from which our budding linguists can help address and disambiguate from to create an NPOV if they are genuinely diligent enough to review any and all material. Secobi (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comment is much appreciated. Based on your initial argument the reason for keeping was that the sources all happened to mention the phrase "creeping fascism". So surely all of those redirects are just neologisms created by you? Keresaspa (talk)
Delete per nom., Carrite & Keresaspa. Fails WP:NEO.--JayJasper (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, as per WP:NAD#Good_definitions, we are dealing with one topic with a plethora of secondary sources. The primary source could be reasonably disputed but Noam Chomsky the linguist, not the political commentator as some might limit him to being, looks to be a good start. Secobi (talk) 00:30, 10 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Kopatich[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. The article was PRODed, but I declined it as the article has been deleted via PROD before. SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial local political figure in small suburb. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Only seeing trivial mentions, no substantial coverage of him. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coredase[edit]

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

no credible independent or profiled sources. To me it also fails notability. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:47, 9 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). — Frankie (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail basic standards of notability Shii (tock) 07:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish game's notability - just blogs and developers' sites.Dialectric (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my findings don't differ from those above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:12, 13 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 by RHaworth as "(G3: Blatant hoax)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrento Gangland Wars[edit]

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

Unreferenced article of dubious content, lots of which looks like completely original research. I originally PROD-ed the article but the template was removed with the reason given as "Content is verifiable but from sources who must remain anonymous for their own safety". I do not believe Wikipedia is the place for this article as it stands. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete lovely piece of creative writing but about the only factual elements in it are the postcodes and the names of the local parks do. Nuke it quickly. The-Pope (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terrible attempt to create a fake gang based on Underbelly (TV series), of which a pulled version of that article exists on the bottom of this one. Nothing factual here. Nate • (chatter) 14:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of exotic aliens[edit]

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

Original research, list with no clear inclusion criteria (WP:IINFO): It is not clear what "exotic" means as applied to fictional extraterrestrial life-forms. Sandstein 11:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to other Lists of fictional extraterrestrials, possibly List of exotic alien species - I believe the inclusion criteria is that it does not fit in any other of the lists of aliens. Salvidrim! 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is over, ~~nominated it for speedy deletion.~~ I redirected it to List of exotic alien species#Individual characters. Inclusion criteria is (was) supposed to be something along the lines of Fictional extraterrestrial characters who exibit forms, abilities, traits far outside what would be considered normal for terrestrial species Merging to List of exotic alien species would defeat the purpose of the original intention of the article. (to separate the individual characters and the general species lists into distinct articles). For each species article I created/started a complimentary article covering individual characters that fit the bill (but don't belong on the list of species) Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find very many examples. Maybe I should just add a section in the list of species for individual characters that are "exotic" and move them into the article space when it gets long enough. Thanks for keeping up Wikipedia though. =] Don't always agree with everything but I honestly do see the other side of this particular fence. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red calaveras[edit]

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

Online web comic. Not finding anything for notability. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Prison Visiting Policy[edit]

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

This looks like a summary for general guidelines for visiting an inmate in any prison within the state of Missouri in the United States. This is one of the things that we are not a repository for. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per nom. This is not even an article on a topic, it is a facility's statement of some of their policies. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for speedy deletion say that reasons based on WP:NOT are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. See non-criteria, number 1. James500 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article does not consist entirely of instructions. A statement that a public authority has adopted a policy (i.e. taken a decision) to do something, or that it has a legal duty to do something is not an instruction, it is a fact. Those sentences that do look like instructions could probably be rewritten without great difficulty. So, for example, the sentence "keep in mind that clothing cannot be revealing or tight" could be rewritten as something like "the MODOC has adopted a policy that visitors are not allowed to wear clothing that is revealing or tight", if that is indeed the case. I do not think that WP:NOTMANUAL is relevant. James500 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response This article is a reprint of a bureaucratic memo that tells visitors what to do and what to expect when visiting prisoners. A such it is a short guidebook or instruction manual. It is entirely unreferenced, and probably consists of a copyright violation of a government document that is not available online. State government publications are usually subject to copyright. A rewrite as suggested by James500 above would not change the basic character of this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The suggestion that this article is a reprint is pure speculation. James500 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - We will see, I have just sent of a mail to request a copy of their policy. And if not electronically available, if they can take a look on the article itself. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. James500 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nominator please be more specific as to which part of WP:NOT is actually satisfied? James500 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single hit on the internet that the policy even exists. The text itself looks like a copy of a leaflet. It fails Notability requires verifiable evidence and WP:GNG as there is no coverage in the media or elsewhere. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about it, it may be a synthesis of data - or at least, a compilation. Still, it provides a guideline on how to do this. Wikihow would, frankly, be a better home, at best - but even then, I'm not sure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrugi[edit]

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

Just a dictdef. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has never evolved beyond a one-liner since it was created 5 years ago. It looks to me like it qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:A1. I would have gone straight for CSD or at least PROD rather than bringing it up here in AfD... —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 03:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced dicdef. Emeraude (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters. Wifione ^Message 06:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Bertram[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Miner (The Office). This article was bundled with several other articles on The Office characters; the previous discussion showed that the issues were too complex to be handled as a single discussion. As such, I closed the bundled discussion as no consensus and am procedurally renominating each individually. Note that I have no opinion on the article itself; however, I do wish to remind all participants that importance is not judged based on (your opinions of) the character's relative importance in the show, but on coverage of the character in "real world", independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This particular article does include references to reliable sources which cover the character. Several of the cited sources are borderline between covering the actress and covering the character, but enough of them cover the character in first person language that I think this one is notable enough. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of office characters. Per WP:ATD, deletion isn't even really a viable outcome: either we merge it (primary sourcing only...) or we keep it as a separate entry (Sufficient RS exist). Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters. Sources discussing the character based on the one or two scenes from the "Search Committee" episode that suggested she could become a cast member don't justify a separate article. If the character did become a permanent part of the show then the separate article could be restored. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:04, 7 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this thinking the time was up but was in error so reopened and relisted to ensure a full discussion period.

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. Wifione ^Message 06:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Anshun incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is but a news item more suited to Wikinews. There are in excess of 90,000 civil disturbances in China each year, and aside from the news reports already cited, there is little other information and commentary. Nine months on, it's not even remembered. Therefore little indication that there is any long-lasting impact of this incident.Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are just feeding the trend. Instead of looking for more editors, you are yielding to the fact that no one wants to contribute to it. Remember this is severe enough to involve flipping police cars and fighting with police. Even HK macau haven't had a riot of this scale. So how small can this really be? Not as small as you think. Benjwong (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HK or Macau are developed societies and there are established civic safety valves. There aren't usually any civil disturbances, which would make for a notable event whenever there are any. It's quite different when disturbances number in the thousands. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable event that has generated minimal news coverage and has no long-term impact. Google news search returns no results except the Wikipedia article being discussed here. --Zanhe (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I outline my reasons for deletion over at my previous nomination at deleting this article. Colipon+(Talk) 04:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Refs added by User:Gongshow led to consensus that notability established. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cost (band)[edit]

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

Not enough independent, significant coverage. I've been unable to find anything but the single SF Chronicle interview. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've added a few sources to the article, in addition to the SF Weekly piece that had previously been in the 'External links' section. I found a review at Pitchfork and two brief Allmusic reviews here and here. Not an abundance of coverage to be sure, but there's just enough I think to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 07:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 1 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) 01:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The cited coverage in SF Weekly, Allmusic and Pitchfork is enough for WP:BAND criterion #1, even if not strongly so. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references now included in the article indicate that WP:MUSIC is met. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Can be recreated with sources without being subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Fletcher[edit]

I believe this article should not be deleted. Carrie Fletcher has appeared in three West End productions and has numerous acting credits in several fields. She is a singer/ songwriter signed to Universal Records currently working on several projects and has recorded the Official Olympic Mascot song which is currently being performed in schools across the country. http://www.london2012.com/games/mascots/mascot-song/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spytalk (talk • contribs) 17:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indications of notability. Some acting experience in London's West End, but no indications that anyone noticed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Some acting experience in London's West End" rather understates her CV. Any acting in the West End is a major achievement, and I note that she has played major roles in some productions and appears on the recordings. Article could do with some improvement (references for a start), but I see no need to delete it. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 13:30, 1 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) 01:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see the need. We're not here to promote people who haven't been covered elsewhere. Tagging db-promo. EEng (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; insufficiently notable. We're not here to provide a directory of everybody on stage. bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't see much coverage. Tried Google and searching The Stage, Daily Mail, This Is London, but only the merest of glancing references[7][8]. She apparently performs on an official song for the 2012 Olympics[9] but even this hasn't got much coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 08:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Marek[edit]

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

Seemingly unnotable animator. While various searches do bring up hits, they are pretty much only to personal sites and other wikis, thus failing WP:RS. While this doesn't effect the article's notability, I thought it might be important to note that the page was initially created by a user who has since been indefinitely blocked for creating multiple inappropriate pages, and the PROD was removed without explanation by a second user who was later blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the page creator. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 1 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) 01:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've not found anything that supports notability aside from what nom mentioned. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:45, 10 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. Wifione ^Message 06:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handle-o-Meter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertising without relevant content. The previous afd was about merging but I can't think of or find any page where the content might be of any value. (Basically a stray article left over from times where sourcing and notability was handled more liberal.) TMCk (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being the nominator.TMCk (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 01:44, 1 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) 01:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails WP:GNG Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect or merge to Johnson & Johnson. Per above, fails WP:GNG, is not sourced sufficiently to merge, but is a product of a notable company. If someone is searching for this particular product, it only makes sense to redirect to the company that makes it, and include a sourced one-or-two-sentence blurb about it there. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching Google Scholar brings some references. I give you: Orin C. Hansen Jr., Leon Marker, Karl W. Ninnemann, Orville J. Sweeting "Relationship between dynamic modulus of thin films and stiffness, as determined by the Handle-O-Meter" Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2003 [10] Several other journal articles mention the tool, and it's also mentioned in a lot of patent applications[11] --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but are those references about the Handle-O-Meter, or do they simply mention the Handle-O-Meter? It doesn't seem like it to me. Its verifiability is not the problem. Its notability is. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources exist to keep: this journal article directly details, this journal does also, Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. Lots more available for perusal. Ghits don't by themselves count, but 6,250 Book ghits seems pretty impressive for a non-notable item. BusterD (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't do that. It's clearly discussed above that existance is not in question so links that just show it exists, as the first and third do, aren't useful. The second is slightly better but only marginally so. Can you imagine building an article from the material that you just located? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:47, 16 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. Wifione ^Message 07:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination[edit]

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

This 'space currency' was a corporate publicity stunt, with no realistic prospect of entering into use. It only received transient news coverage at the time and has shown no long-term notability, with no significant coverage since the initial announcement. Essentially this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. Robofish (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while kind of interesting, this pretty clearly never got off the ground, if it was even actually meant to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree completely with Andrew's overview of the situation, but given the press coverage there's no argument on failing NOTE - this was mentioned around the world in major newspapers and news outlets. The upside is that this article clearly identifies it as s stunt, something that was definitely not the case at the time (see the History). I suggest this gives it some PSA value. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep once and future history. Who knows, it may become the forerunner of the equivalent to the Euro. See WP:NTEMP: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Montanabw^(talk) 21:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Follow up: here is amusing coverage in 2011.[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) 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, referenced and worth keeping. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunate keep worthless cruft, but clearly passes GNG :( Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but kind of amusing cruft! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 10 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. Wifione ^Message 07:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landmap[edit]

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

A web service. No attempt made to demonstrate its notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landmap buys datasets from leading data providers and supplies them free-of-charge to the UK academic community via Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards for maximum interoperability. Also it empowers users through the Learning Zone to access and apply Landmap data in an efficient and effective way so powering high quality research, teaching and learning. This is not just a web service, but a full fledged service based at Mimas, University of Manchester, United Kingdom Dulcet bg (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Going just from the name of the business, they sell map data. If this is in fact what they do, this description qualifies for speedy deletion as patent nonsense as well as being nothing but puffery: high quality spatial data download service which is enhanced and supported by a range of learning materials. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no selling of anything. All the spatial data and the learning resources are provided free to the UK academic community. Quite annoyed to be considered for deletion when it is a non-profit making service, purely for academic purpose. Dulcet bg (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Dulcet bg has already said, this is primarily a service funded by a consortium of a large number of British universities for use by British academics though, like a number of similar services, it is probably also available not only to the British government but also commercially to third parties (it won't be allowed to make a profit but any money it gets would reduce the subscriptions from participating universities). At the very least, the article should be selectively merged to Mimas (data centre), which hosts Landmap. However, a quick glance at GScholar shows a large number of hits relating to both its development and use - while some (particularly from non-British sites) are simply coincidental and a number of others will probably be mentions in passing, I suspect that quite a decent article (if rather differently focussed than the present one) could be written by from what is left once these have been sifted out. PWilkinson (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So can the message be removed that the page is ready for deletion? Dulcet bg (talk) 08:56, 6 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) 00:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching Google Scholar gives lots of hits. This is a major academic initiative. Did RHaworth make any effort to establish notability before posting this? Clearly he/she didn't ask on the article talk page. Kindly don't AfD things without proper investigation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The writing is pure incomprehensible crap (loaded with unexplained insider jargon) that shows no empathy for the reader. But the topic looks probably wp:notable and encyclopedic. North8000

Update.....the discussed wording has been removed. North8000 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've stripped this article down to a (referenced) stub, taking out a section that was copied straight from the project's website and another which was linking to a "Who do you want do snog?" site. But as people have said, there is a basis for something better to be rebuilt. AllyD (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The data is primarily for students and researchers and can be accessed only through Shibboleth or Athens or similar UK university/institution authentication. So there is no scope of data being available commercially or to any government organisation. Can you please explain the reason of calling the writing "crap"? This is not understandable and sounds rude for a national data center academic level free service. Also the best information has been written about the service on the website, so copying it seems quite reasonable. We will work on getting more information adhering to wikipedia standards. Thanks. Dulcet bg (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the crap writing has been removed. But I called it crap due to being loaded with and relying upon unexplained internal organization-specific jargon. In the context of an enclyclopedia article, to me such represents incomprehensible writing, poor communication, and arrogance rather than empathy towards the reader. The "arrogance" part leads me to use a nasty characterization, something I never say when people simply try to do their best. But that stuff is gone and my recommendation was and is "keep" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, though usage of such words sounds inappropriate. Dulcet bg (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the rough language, particularly now that I see it came about as a result of two innocent things rather than deliberately written that way as a wikipedia article. ......creation of the material elsewhere, suitable for that venue, and then just bringing it over to this article. Doubly so with you being new. Sorry. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can the message be removed which asks the article to be deleted? Dulcet bg (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will run it's course (probably a couple more days.) (It appears near-certain that the result will be "keep"). And then all of that will get taken care of. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind response. Much appreciated. Looking forward to the removal of deletion message. Regards Dulcet bg (talk) 09:38, 14 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. Wifione ^Message 07:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Blanco[edit]

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

No indication that this football player has played in a professional match and fails WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Sir Sputnik. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Playerhistory confirm 47 apearances in the Cypriot First Division, which listed and sourced at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:49, 5 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) 00:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sir Sputnik. Player has played matches in the Cypriot First Division, which is the official highest-ranked national football league or division in Cyprus. Therefore, he does meet WP:NFOOTBALL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sir Sputnik. Very good point that should override all of the previous !votes. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sir Sputnik. The info on how he is notable should somehow be added to the article. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:35, 14 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. Wifione ^Message 07:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Torn[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG; no relevant nonpromotional GNews or GBooks hits. Article is horridly lacking reliable, independent sources and would arguably be a BLP violation if the subject weren'y a semi-fictive persona. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. 'Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.' BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 04:06, 5 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) 00:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails any notability guidelines you wish to apply to it, be that WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:PORNBIO. I'm not seeing the "multiple times in notable mainstream media" that User:BaSH PR0MPT mentions above, links would be good if they exist. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Porn bios are a never ending source of hilarity. "Cherry Torn is a American pornographic actress who started her career with scat porn. She currently lives in California with her longtime boyfriend Moebius Torn whom she married in 2007." Unsourced, of course. So we are to believe that the former Cherry Bigglesworth married Moebius Torn and thereby assumed the most fortuitous name for her particular industry, "Cherry Torn." HAW HAW HAW, these idiots slay me!!! NPP should grow a pair of testicles at the front gate and send this crap packing. Then again, I wouldn't have had my laugh of the day... WP:NOTCOMMONS — subjects at En-WP must be encyclopedic, which is to say the subject of multiple, independent, substantial published appearances in reliable sources. A little short in that department here, eh? Missing such incidentals as real name, birth date, actual biographical background... Ha ha, details, details. Delete and salt so the porn hobbyists have to jump an extra hoop to recreate. Carrite (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 07:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Angrave[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Given references show he has a phd and works at the university of Illinois. Claim to award is for a local University of Illinois award. Google searches show few hits and very little at google scholar. noq (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Attack page apparently set up by someone intent on showing how un-notable the subject is. EEng (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:PROF. Not sure about claim of attack page, per WP:AGF - if that's based on :-) in the edit summary, I'd have expected ;-) in the case of sarcasm. -- Trevj (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The citation counts are too low for criterion #C1, and a local teaching award isn't good enough either. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EEng. Tradedia (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 07:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War on Women[edit]

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

A quote farm that does not demonstrate the topic exists, short of extracting a phrase from the quotes. Description of the "topic" is WP:OR. SummerPhD (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure synthesis and attempt to create a neologism Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unquestionably an ongoing political meme. See Culture of life, Culture of corruption, Silent majority, etc. bd2412 T 01:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Culture of corruption moved to 2006 Republican party scandals. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good move; I wasn't sure how that should be played yesterday, but it was pretty clearly a bad name. Culture of life is also a POV subject phrasing, in my opinion. Silent Majority is a clearly encyclopedic topic with a correct title. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionable? Guess what: I'm questioning it. Yes, those other articles exist. If this is a notable "ongoing political meme", we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, not random quotes. Yes, some people have said "war on women" in various contexts, some of which are mentioned in the article. However, we need reliable sources discussing the idea "War on Women". We don't have that. We have some OR and a quote farm. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News shows over two thousand articles including the phrase "War on Women". I've only looked at the first few pages, but so far all of them are about a political meme wherein Democrats are asserting that Republican policies constitute an effort to reduce women's rights. Without evaluating the propriety of the accusation itself, the evidence clearly shows that the phrase is being used widely in this manner. bd2412 T 01:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current (neologism/recentism) use of the the phrase seems to match the lede of this would-be article. However, your Google news results are sorted by date. Dig further back (all the way to -- gasp! -- all of 5 to 10 years ago) and you'll notice that many of your would-be sources are for "Bush's war on women" or the "Taliban's war on women". By 1994, your sources are for the "war on women's cancer". 1991 gives you sources for "Louisiana's war on women". Part of your results from 1939 are discussing the Allies' "war on women" (according to Hitler). I'm not sure if he's a Republican or Democrat, but by 1902 some of your "over two thousand" articles are discussing Lord Kitchener's "war on women". - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that any of these uses can be presented as a single coherent and independent concept, it absolutely should be the subject of an article. bd2412 T 02:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, to the extent that independent reliable sources provide significant coverage of these uses as single, coherent subjects, the absolutely could be. Without that coverage, we don't have a notable concept, we have some OR tacked on to a quote farm (as in the present case). - SummerPhD (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quote farmy synthy OR-y mush. It's not an encyclopedia's job to chronicle every attack or phrase used a few times.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to 2012 U.S. birth control insurance coverage mandate controversy‎; term is related to that parent article, and is not independently notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV essay. Here's your big lead, for the record: "A "War on Women" is what U.S. Democrats say Republican policy amounts to, particularly in regards to women's health." Ugh. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is typical political rhetoric to say that the other side has a war on this or that, but until it becomes a generally accepted concept, it lacks notability. TFD (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails the first three points of WP:SOAPBOX. It is non-neutral advocacy (point 1), an opinion article as previously noted (point 2) and it's attempting to create an issue out of thin air (point 3). Wikipedia must not be used as a political tool. --McDoob AU 93 06:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a POV soapbox to attack Republicans. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly an essay, unencyclopedic. Fails WP:NPOV & WP:SOAPBOX.--JayJasper (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: please allow me to userfy this. I'll work on it more by myself and see if I can fix the problems mentioned above. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems something of a WP:POVFORK of other, more neutral articles on the same subjects. It's true that we have articles on similar political phrases (War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror, war on Islam, war on Christmas...), but this one hasn't yet achieved such lasting notability; the events in question are far too recent to say this term has passed into common use. If it does, a more neutral article can always be created. Robofish (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 112th United States Congress since we don't have an article on these Republican efforts specifically, which would be the better redirect target, and since the article should be updated to include material on what actually happened in this session. (It's used in older material, but seems to be principally used in reference to this Congress.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that option ... that would almost be like a wiki version of the Google bomb. --McDoob AU 93 00:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't get a response to my userfication request, so I went ahead and did it myself (see User:Ed Poor/War on Women). But I didn't blank the page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a neologism used as a slur against another political party; these are rather common in the American political system and very few are even worthy of a page. This simply isn't. Toa Nidhiki05 23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's not an important enough neologism on its own, then maybe a few of the ideas can go in the Contraceptive mandates article. The contending sides there are accusing each other of waging a "War on women" (libs/dems re: cons/reps) and a "War on religion" (cons/reps re: libs/dems). --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:08, 14 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.