< 15 May	17 May >

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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is Zealot?[edit]

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

The author seems to be writing his personal interpretation of a character class within the game StarCraft - Wikipedia is not for this purpose. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 00:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure this already well covered by existing articles. I would be surprised if there is not a redirect for this subject somewhere. Ridernyc (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a classic example of the way to not write about fiction: pure unsourced OR beyond what can come from direct inspection of the pwork. Clear violation of NOT GAMEGUIDE. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed a chunk of copyvio from the Blizzard site, and the paste from the intro to StarCraft. What's left is unsourced StarCraft WP:Fancruft (StarCruft? You decide.) If referenced content can be added to fill out Races of StarCraft#Protoss, fine, but there's no need for a separate article on this. Scopecreep (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per DGG. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAGAMEGUIDE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The page in question was deleted because the author blanked the page. However, the user proceeded to create a copy-paste replacement of this page at Zealot (Starcraft Unit). It's unclear how this discussion should proceed, given this. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disregard the above; the copy-paste move has been fixed. The article is currently located at Zealot (Starcraft Unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). elektrik SHOOS (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear WP:GAMEGUIDE violation -Rushyo ^Talk 14:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and game guide/trivia. Individual RTS units are not notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belongs on Team Liquid wiki. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xamin (Operating System)[edit]

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

I have no opinion. I am completing this nomination on behalf of an anon user, whose rationale for an earlier deletion attempt was "There is not any independent reference in this article." --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete I did a number of Google searches but could not find anything on Xamin. There is already an article about it in Farsi Wikipedia, and I am not sure that it has notability in terms on English language searches. NJ Wine (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why has no one asked/notified the creator? - this is something he could really help with as if that article can be properly sourced it would be notable. I've notified him and the other main article contributer and await their input before making a decision. If I fail to come back, my !vote depends on the sources - if they're there, even if they're in Farsi or whatever (but translated for us by the editors) then keep. Otherwise, userfy. Egg Centri c 21:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification is suggested, but it is not required [1]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources are found. Even less reliable sources such as linux.com, sourceforge.net and distrowatch.com do not have even a single mention of the word "Xamin", indicating this is indeed yet to be noteworthy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:41, 20 May 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 Entertainment One. (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 08:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E1 Music Publishing[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a music company. I can't see any evidence of possible online sources. Fails to meet WP:NCORP notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Entertainment One, not separately notable. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 22 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BitKinex[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. This software is non-notable. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep [2] shows that it is a 'recognized' software with many users. It also have 135000 hits on Google, plus major mentions on minor websites. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 00:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that shows notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, no indication of notability for this software (cnet and google hits do not establish notability, as mentioned above), created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, fails WP:GNG. WP:GHITS don't convey notability, and I couldn't find anything online that showed any notability. The CNet link is a download mirror; not independent for the purposes of establishing any sort of notability. - Sudo Ghost 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 22 May 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 - Nom not asking for delete, the purpose of AFD. Otherwise, WP:SNOW. Merge discussions belong on the talk page, not AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Jersey Institute of Technology faculty[edit]

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

Merge this article into the New Jersey Institute of Technology article. List of faculty is not that long that it requires a standalone list. NJ Wine (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 35 people. Quite enough by usual standards, and almost certainly expandable. If it were 3 or 4, there would be a good case for merging. It's not certain where the cutoff is, but 35 is way above it. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AFD is for deletion, not merger proposals. Warden (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Merges should be initiated on article talk pages, not AfD discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:51, 18 May 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 AFD isn't for merge proposals. WP:SNOW. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Jersey Institute of Technology alumni[edit]

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

Merge this article into the New Jersey Institute of Technology article. List of alumni is not that long that it requires a standalone list. NJ Wine (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 22 people. Whatever the cutoff is for a separate article, 22 is way above it--and probably expandable--we include very few of the notable engineers, less than 5% of even those in the National Academy of Engineering. So, even using that very high standard for unquestionable notability , there will be at least 400 qualified people. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AFD is for deletion, not merger proposals. Warden (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Merges should be initiated on article talk pages, not AfD discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. AfD is not for page merges. Lugnuts (talk) 16:49, 19 May 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) →B music ian 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate Greece[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Prod Reason was "Minor political party that does not demonstrate any particular notability, newly founded, and without any representation in national legislature." and had been Prod2ed by 2 additional editors. Prod decliner edit summary was "Added 5 third-party references. General elections in Greece remain a hot issue with new developments expected until end of June." Only got ~2.15% of the votes in the recent election(They had the 11th overall total and almost 90% less than the top vote getter). Wikipedia is not a promotional venue, so this party does not appear to yet qualify Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of the Prod2 seconding editors. The additional sources added by the PROD decliner do indeed add more verifiability to the article topic, but this party has participated in one national election, won no seats, and apparently has gotten no persistent coverage of it specifically, besides routine mentions in articles about the voting. Admittedly, I don't read Greek, so I can't evaluate the Greek sources. But it seems to me that it fails the general notability guideline and any claims based on new developments in the future are crystal ball reading. I will also note that I have no prejudice to recreation if/when there is another election and if/when this party wins so much as a single seat in the national legislature. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - by the wonders of Google translate it is not difficult to see the new party has been written about significantly in Greece. That, together with the inclusion in the UK and German news which shows it has been very widely noticed, makes me confident Recreate Greece is notable enough. Sionk (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the current political and electoral situation we should hasten slowly on this. But I agree with Sionk that the indications are that the party has already passed the notability bar, which is generally (and rightly) set fairly low for political parties anyway. Even if the party were to disappear in the next few weeks through merger with one of the other players, it has already made a mark simply by being there and expressing a point of view. --AJHingston (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A party that gets 2% of the votes in a national election is notable. There are Wiki articles for US political parties that get less than 1% of the vote, and have no elected representatives. NJ Wine (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notable as many other small political party articles. I see no reason to delete. —Nightstallion 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Party has fair amount of press notice. Yes it could merge with another party or be eclipsed in the upcoming election, but may as well wait until either happens before deleting.WashingtonMatia (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am not aware of any threshold in votes for political party articles, and there are many articles on parties that have only received a couple of hundreds of votes in their decades-long history. This one was one of the major surprises in the recent elections, was much talked about in Greece, and with over 2% did remarkably well for a new party with new people in Greece. Constantine ✍ 07:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another reliable source in English indicating notability. --Ferengi (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The party is widely heard around Greece and one could say that it might be gaining popularity. Dimboukas (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 by Acroterion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Smales[edit]

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

No indication of notability according to WP:ENTERTAINER and fails WP:GNG. -- Luke (Talk) 20:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a discussion is necessary. In its current form, the article certainly qualifies for A7. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence put forward to evidence notability under WP:GNG, no claim to notability via WP:NFOOTBALL. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicos Efthimiou[edit]

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

Recreated article after having been previously deleted via PROD. Concern was Unreferenced per WP:BLP, and not yet notable per WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't yet played in a professional match. While no longer unreferenced, the subject remains non-notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Recreate after he's earned a handful of caps in a fully professional league. – Kosm1 fent 20:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the most significant coverage I could find was a brief article noting he signed a long-term contract with Anorthosis. All of the other coverage is very routine - simple match reports (typically U21 or friendlies) listing him in the squad. I don't think the article passes the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above votes, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 08:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FOX 4[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event it's self will have any enduring notability. Any claim to such is at best speculation for an event still three months away. The coverage it has to date is limited to the routine type of event announcements. Mt king ^(edits) 20:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing to show this event is notable or that the coverage is anything but routine. I've stopped following the MMA discussions, but if there's an appropriate place to merge then it can go there. Astudent0 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks non-routine coverage and the event appears to be just another fight card. There's no indication of anything that would make this event notable (WP:EVENT). Mdtemp (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some editors dont like UFC and I think we should do what they say. Portillo (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 in UFC events. The article contains no prose as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT. It lacks diverse sources citing no non-MMA sources. The article pretty much contains only a routine fight card listing. No championship fights and no attempt in the article to establish notability. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a fight card with nothing to show this event will have lasting significance or anything but routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This event has not occurred yet to even establish any notability. BearMan998 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to 2012 in UFC events. Nomination is known to be disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see WP:SS). But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first. JJB 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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 2012 in UFC events. Many of the comments made in this discussion have either no basis in policy, or are not reasons to keep/delete an article. After discounting these comments, consensus is to merge this article back to the main article. If notability circumstances change after the event takes place, it may warrant further discussion. For clarification, the following (paraphrased) arguments were considered irrelevant/invalid and were ignored:

This event is an annual championship event (no indication this is true).
"Some editors dont like UFC and I think we should do what they say."
This article is part of a discussion at a current RfC, and mediation may be imminent.
Individual articles on UFC events have been around for a long time, and no one has complained until now.
Wikipedia is not going to be sued if this article is kept around.
The nominator is a "senile no hopper with no friends or future".
Notability policy requires that articles are allowed to remain for a couple of years before being deleted.
The event sold out, so it's notable.
This event features very popular fighters, and therefore it's notable.

The last two bullet points above is probably the one that is most often confused. Notability is not defined by what you think is notable, it is defined by WP:N and WP:GNG. If this topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it is notable. Otherwise, it isn't notable, even if Superman comes back from Krypton to fight in the main event. -Scottywong | babble _ 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event it's self will have any enduring notability. Any claim to such is at best speculation for an event still two months away. The coverage it has to date is limited to the routine type of event announcements. Mt king ^(edits) 20:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge This article was recently discussed for a potential merge/redirect on the talk page but was shouted down for many non-policy reasons. It makes sense to merge to a 2012 in UFC Events (or 2012 in UFC Numbered events). Hasteur (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete/merge crystal ball and routine coverage only, including likely only routine coverage after the event. These events occur every month, they are not way notable or of lasting significance, even within the sport. This event will be washed away next month by the next event. If something signficant happens in this event that recieves real non-routine coverage, then it should be split. not before. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using this logic, the NFL and MLB pages should be a long and unwieldy list of games, until some just happen to make it to some arbitrary threshold of non-routine. Worth noting nominator's definition of non-routine is approximately "changes the face of the world forever". Agent00f (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)— Agent00f (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This event happened to sell out, i'd say that makes it inherently notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of football, basketball, and baseball games sell out. Or more direclty analagous, boxing matches. That doesnt make that individual game/match notable. This one either. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this is headlined by a championship contest at the highest level of the sport. Agent00f (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)— Agent00f (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I would like to disagree. The championship clause seems to suggest that the entire game of the championship is the notable unit. To apply this to an event where the championsip is 1/9th of the entire event does not, in my mind, apply at the same level. I also note that the championship clause is for annual championships. The championship contest to headline the fight was already challenged once this year, so I do not think that the championship clause makes sense. Hasteur (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so let's start listing contests individually instead of grouping them by card/event. Then we can split out just the championship contest later (I'll make sure to watch it and write some "prose" about who hit whom and why, I ensure you I can produce TLDR prose). Or we can stop all this massive busywork for very questionable gain and leave a very clean and well designed format as it is. Also, it might be notable to someone not familiar with the sport that two championship contests is about the most a top level fighter can do per year. Two seems in the ballpark of one. Agent00f (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)— Agent00f (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Hint: You were not supposed to rebut that. In no way does splitting these out into the individual fights make sense. Your response only demonstrates a lack of understanding of how WP works. My response was polite, used modifiers to suggest it was only my thoughts, and explained reasonably why I believed the championship clause did not make sense. No response is ever necessary to this hint to you. Hasteur (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - With further introspection, I thank you for bring to my attention that these were separate contests between unaffiliated fighters mistakenly combined into this "event". Coincidental overlap in location (and not in time) isn't specified in the rules as a valid reason for combining distinct contests, and to fix this it may be best to break down these mistakenly created "events" into contest entries. Those seem up for individual AfD nomination since they seem to lack prose and fail GNG per broad wiki consensus. However, your request that "events" "make sense" doesn't take priority over the clear wording. Per nominator and many other editor's clear precedent on this topic we should carefully follow a consistent interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT. This is a polite request to respect clear higher level consensus instead of deferring to arbitrary inner-sport rules. For example, the words "champion of a top league" is quite clear, and 1/year limit is not specified. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) Please demonstrate (by quoting sources) that your claim that being headlined by this companies "championship" will mean it recives coverage demonstrating enduring notability. Otherwise it is just your opinion. Mt king ^(edits) 07:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please specify what would be acceptable as sources or evidence before goalposts start moving. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Looking at the rules more carefully: "Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following" seems pretty clear. Otherwise "championships" in sport generally show no "enduring notability" due to their "routine" occurrence and this rule is rather pointless. We should seek wider input from sports and event voices so that his ambiguity can be resolved with some clarity before rushing to conclusions. This exampleof nomination by same user for same kind of sports event seems to attract differing opinions (and likely different results) despite not even fulfilling any kind of WP:SPORTSEVENT requirement. These types of AfDs shouldn't just be arbitrarily decided in each instance or it would just be entirely confusing what belongs and what doesn't even in the same subject. Agent00f (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I ask again can you demonstrate by quoting sources that a UFC championship fight, which occur on average once a month, is such an event that receives coverage demonstrating enduring notability, because if you can't it is still just your opinion. Mt king ^(edits) 08:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your requests makes no sense since a very clear reading of WP:SPORTSEVENT describes certain events as inherently notable. Those words of the rule are not simply an "opinion" unless all wiki rules are merely "opinions". Please note this in the relevant rule pages if that's the new interpretation, though you may want to discuss such a change on their respective talk page. Agent00f (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the part of WP:SPORTSEVENT you are appearing to rely on is "The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final" so correct me if I am wrong by as the UFC is not a league this can not apply. So the question is relevant. Mt king ^(edits) 08:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your link carefully: "individuals to compete against "each other in a nonrandom order on a set schedule, usually called a "season," with the results of the individual competitions being used to name an overall champion". In the UFC, contestants do compete with each other, in a nonrandom order (for example, contestants win against opponents of their own level on the way to becoming title contender), the schedule are the events you're nominating, and the overall champion part is obvious.

It's really quite relevant to this page that an editor is delete warring against comments on this page in violation of wiki policy. This is the second time the editor's done this. Let's hope there's not a third. Agent00f (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} for the claim that the UFC is a League. Mt king ^(edits) 09:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text quote above is directly from your own link/definition, and the UFC clearly meets all those plainly stated requirements. Perhaps you should choose a different definition. Agent00f (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some editors dont like UFC and I think we should do what they say. Portillo (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge fails WP:GNG,lack of lasting effect,continuing coverage.Newmanoconnor (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 in UFC events. The prose of the article doesn't appear to be much more than thrown together blurbs about routine fight announcements. The article also lacks diverse sources as there is only one non-MMA source that goes beyond routine coverage (the USA Today source, there are two ESPN sources that contain only routine coverage). --TreyGeek (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MMANOT is currently under discussion. An administrator has been looking at a way of reconciling policy with keeping some MMA articles in a certain format. Pending the outcome of that bringing more and more examples to the fore by moving them towards deletion is not constructive. People have suggested that deleting so many MMA articles is going to cause irreparable harm. While the MMANOT essay is being worked out these deletions need to be put on hiatus. I encourage all participants on this page to move into a new phase of dispute resolution and I think mediation by MEDCAB is the best option. Moving from event to event is not settling this larger dispute. It is a waste of the WP resource of volunteer's time to keep disagreeing about what should happen in individual instances when the policy needs to be addressed on a more comprehensive level. These serial disagreements are not helpful because they bleed over into unhappiness in multiple spots on WP.Factseducado (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this time. As an outsider to this topic area, I observed that AFDs are being nominated out-of-process because there is an open RFC and an open RFC/U discussing these same questions, and MEDCAB is indicated but has not been opened yet. Thus AFD is the wrong forum to hash this out. As Factseducado pointed out, I have been discussing with admin Dennis Brown a way to resolve the conflict, within policy, that may well make this AFD irrelevant. Further, the alleged disruption caused by nominating AFDs when there is not consensus that AFDs should proceed is something I was once blocked for. As to notability, my policy argument is that, whether or not this event is notable (haven't looked), it should be kept in the same way we routinely keep other nonnotable breakouts of summary articles. This is based on WP:N recognizing that notable lists like 2012 in UFC events are unlimited as to content, and WP:SUMMARY describing how unlimited list content can be broken out into articles like the present one; so, rather than merge to 2012 in UFC events, my comment is actually equivalent to merge to self. While this has not yielded consensus yet due to a hostile environment, it is certain that since some reasonable editors countenance it as within policy and that the current nom may be considered disruptive. Further, as an inclusionist, I find Agent00f's argument in favor of championship notability more persuasive than the opposite; I also find that Agent00f correctly indicated there is evidence that Mtking is an SPA, and that Mtking deleted this statement twice (here is the second case), even though it is generally very poor netiquette to delete the comments of others, and (as Mtking should know from following the RFC/U) such behavior is specifically deprecated in RFC/U since it should not be considered a reasonable outcome there by any stretch. (There is an exception for BLP, but noting an SPA factually in clear cases is not a contentious, removable observation; it's quite relevant.) Not watching this page. JJB 18:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep We have had articles for every UFC event dating back to UFC 1 for as long as I can remember. I've been browsing Wikipedia for several years and it has never been an issue before. Having separate articles for each UFC event makes it very clear which fighters fought, what the outcome was, what the payouts were, etc. without excessive clutter. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia that have less information in them then each of these UFC events. The UFC is a professional sports organization that is rapidly becoming the #2 most popular sport in the world. I think the promotion's events are certainly noteworthy enough to have their own articles. Courier00 (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ To add to what I said orignally, a world title in a top organization is being defended at the event, making it inherently notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out double vote, but leaving rest of editor's comments. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. There seems be a large number of MMA related pages in the sports category that all basically have the similar contents, same AfD arguments and users making them. Why isn't the procedure for multiple deletions being used to nominate, say, all UFC events? Doing them all one by one seems to be a enormous waste of time (as evidenced by the last few months of this), and at least doing them all at once we can get some sense of closure and a consistent way forward instead of the incoherent mess that this space is left in. Agent00f (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case the original nominator is unfamiliar with the scope of that multiple-delete nom, here is the list of all 212 UFC events. Please follow the instructions in the page linked above to include them all so we don't have to keep going through this month after month. The consistency between entries is profound. Either this coherent and cohesive set of resource all fail the test, or it passes. Agent00f (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all UFC event articles discuss non-notable events. Therefore, nominating them all in one batch would not be appropriate. Also, it appears to me that Mtking is limited AfD'd articles to those events in 2012 and are/could be appropriately discussed in 2012 in UFC events. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A random sample of the list above shows that they are completely fungible with respect to the argument in the AfD nom. Even if we disregard this, Mtking's clearly stated arguments in numerous places against events without "enduring value" (ie change the sport/world forever), aka inherent non-notability apply to pretty much all of them. Disregarding even that, some basic criteria/filter of invalid AfD targets should be specified instead of arbitrary selection. Agent00f (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annother reason why all UFC events aren't being nominated is because it's highly disruptive to nominate lots of articles for deletion in batch as the arguments for each get lost in the churn (hrm... where have I heard that before). Start first to build precedent by nominating a single article to test it's viability in the deletion process, reference the outcome from the first AfD in the additional AfDs, slowly building up the amount that get nominated in a single discussion. Unless it will be uncontested, limiting the nomination set to less than 5 or so is a good way to keep the discussion on topic and focused. If you want to learn more about AfDs and how they work check out WP:AFDEQ which gives all sorts of interesting information. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"highly disruptive". I believe it's plain to see that the handful of nominations that's brought this subject on wiki to its knees is already "highly disruptive" enough. A brief look over the history shows they all clearly relate to the exact same arguments over the exact same material format. Even if a broad nom has a few corner cases, we can remove them as need be and continue to be efficient and effective as first priority instead of whatever's been going on previously. Finally, there's no need to link me to pages that I've only just linked above. Agent00f (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly disruptive is relative. To you any nomination is highly disruptive, to others, a highly disruptive nomination would be 25 fraternity organizations. The reason why the exact same arguments are working over and over again is because the precedent is set and has been endorsed by the community and administrators. Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply a matter of opinion that these nominations one by one have been highly disruptive over many past months. I'm simply arguing that because nominations are disruptive and content highly repetitively, let's just hold 1 instead of 200+ for the given promotion because 200>>1. IMO this reasoning is fairly easy to understand. Agent00f (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not all UFC events are non-notable, therefore nominating them all is incorrect. IMO, this reasoning is fairly easy to understand. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's easy to understand which is why I already replied to it just above. To reiterate, even if noming ALL is incorrect, can we get a list of the exceptions from the nominator so we know which ones are excluded from the 200+? Unless that list is very long, ~200 is still >> 1. Agent00f (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now without prejudice to re-nomination at a later date. Notability is the basis for this nomination; presently, the notability of martial arts subjects is under discussion. It would seem sensible to keep this article until some clarity can be gained on the subject of martial arts notability. If this were a controversial BLP then that would be different, but there is little prospect of the presence of the article damaging Wikipedia's reputation or rendering us liable to litigation. Besides, the inability to reach consensus in MA related AfD's might push the ratification of its notability guidelines along quite nicely. Just a thought... Pol430 talk to me 18:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so one senile no hopper with no friends or future decides that all ufc events should now be on one page! get a grip and let there be a new page for each event! the people want it! so let them have it! keep this page and every new event should be brought into line! the problem is with one person and their view on the rules! its not a general view of the community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.22.80 (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this link, when talking about secondary sources notability,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS#Secondary_sources_for_notability It states, "AFDs require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." It says right there, in plain English, that you must wait a couple of years before you can delete an article due to a lack of secondary sources. Just because the article is short right now and just because it lacks whatever sources you are looking for is NOT grounds for deleting it. It is grounds for IMPROVING it. Why would you keep going around putting things up for deletion instead of trying to IMPROVE them? Gamezero05 (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no indication that this will ever reach that standard. You are saying lets keep it on the off chance it becomes notable, like we do for all high school football players. Mt king ^(edits) 06:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't similar to high school football players. Irrelevant point. Gamezero 05 07:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Content should be kept. Whether it goes into 2012 in UFC events (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (2nd nomination)) or elsewhere matters not to me. It clearly matters to a lot of editors, though.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mtking, you keep stating that the UFC is not a league. Rather than simply argue with you as to why you are completely wrong, why don't you read this Wiki page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues Just scroll down to the mixed martial arts section. I assume this clears up the matter. Gamezero 05 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not a problem. MTKing just disputed it. Mazter00 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contrary to the "reasoning" used by MMA fanatics (a minority of MMA viewers), not every MMA event is notable enough to justify an article here; and not the vaguest hint of an actual rationale has been presented to show that this event is in any way actually notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, no evidenced claims of notability under WP:CORP. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post_Your_Book[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Post Your Book

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

Lacks Reliable sources. One of the sources is the website itself, another appears to be a blurb written by the author for some website. The third and final source is an school newspaper article, which though more reliable than the other sources, is simply not enough to stand on it's own. What's more, these sources are definitely not enough to cause the article to meet WP:N or WP:CORP Sjelin (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails WP:FIRM. I commend the resourceful college student who started this online business, and I wish him well with it, but it simply hasn't received the significant coverage from independent reliable sources that is required for an article here. Google News found nothing under postyourbook and only unrelated stuff under "Post Your Book." --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding coverage in reliable sources for this business; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Gongshow ^Talk 22:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Just barely passes A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could have A7ed but it holds little importance. Anyhow, not notable thus have to delete. It can be notable in future but for now, no reason to keep. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 08:39, 23 May 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 Snowball keep - Accepted convention on Wikipedia is that rivers are notable enough to sustain articles. Needing improvement is never a reason to delete an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

River Skerne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/River Skerne

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

Badly written original research Wikibusker (talk) 18:00, 16 May 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 May 16. Snotbot t • c » 18:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The nom has not provided a valid reason to delete this article, but only reasons to improve it. Significant river that the city of Darlington was built around. Has had incredible amounts of coverage. [3][4][5][6][7]. The AfD on the page was the nom's 2nd edit ever. [8] Socks anyone? --Oakshade (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm discounting Hot cake syrup's opinion, as it makes little sense. Sandstein 08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Army and Navy members in service in East Asia during World War II[edit]

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

A bit strange list. It is absurd to allow unnotable people or red links, but it is better to have a category rather than a giant list. Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category could be used to list notable members of the Japanese military who served in some theater in WW2. The only reason for a list with redlinks is that it might encourage someone to create an article about the presumably notable person. That seems doubtful in this case. A list of potentially millions of nonnotable persons who were in an army or navy during a world war is inappropriate. When a redlink name is included, are we to assume that the name was not shared by hundreds or thousands of other Japanese persons, or that these persons so famous that scholars of the war would know who is referred to (like Audie Murphy of the US)? Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this list is a magnet for people to include the names of their fondly remembered but nonnotable ancestors. Do we have lists like this for other belligerent nations and for other wars? Edison (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A category would be fair enough. This is a crazy list that will need to have a few million items to be completed, most of which will not meet WP:N for an individual article. KTC (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Akashiba Yaezo 赤柴八重蔵 ja article [9]; Otozō Yamada; Shizuo Yokoyama are currently the first three redlinks. This is not an indiscriminate list, and could easily be moved and/or split to Japanese flag officers of World War II or J~ Army generals ~/ J~ Navy admirals ~. Notable topic which we are notably undercovering. Those without articles can be pruned, but two of the three I linked were merely under different character/order. Dru of Id (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With its present title it an extremely indiscriminate list, since millions of persons qualify just for serving in that military force. Such a list should be limited to "notable" members of that military, and unreferenced redlinks are inappropriate. It is the job of the person wanting a name in the list to justify it with a reliable source, which some other Wikipedia is not. It is a magnet for unreferenced redlink names, and they appear to be the majority. Purge the list of unreferenced redlinks, clarify in the lede that only notable names are to be added, and the situation is better. Edison (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is a category, a list is justified also; it can contain more information than a list, helpful both for browsing and research--it needs to be added here, but that is a case for improvement, not deletion. Assuming the red linked names are equally notable , then the stimulation to create those articles is a very full justification for a list; helping articles about notable historic people get added to Wikipedia is the best of justification! DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "it can", "Assuming the red linked names are equally notable" - but first is only "can" and second is unverifiable Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can come up with some very good prose in the article to justify the list, I don't see the point of it. We don't have a List of Iraqi Army and Navy members in service in the Gulf War or List of Vietnamese Army and Navy members in service in the Vietnam War, and we shouldn't. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI am be greatly interested in this article, it should be keep.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I like it" arguments are irrelevant and contrary to Wikipedia notability guidelines and guidelines for lists. How is anyone to know which of the redlink persons who lived in the Japanese empire during WW2 who bore a particular name is the intended one? A list of unreferenced redlink names of people who were in a war where tens of millions fought is unencyclopedic and sets up the prospect of countless similar lists, with vandals free to insert their own and their friends' names, or their teacher's name if he is of the appropriate ethnicity. Do we really want List of Soviet military members in World War 2, List of German military members in World War 2 etc with millions of unrefrenced redlinks? If someone inserted "Fuji Kobiaji" (a fictional character from the McHale's Navy TV program), how long would the name remain in the list? I see no screen to keep out vandal entries and nonnotable veterans, and to keep it from being simply a memorial. Is it appropriate to immediately remove the unreferenced redlinks from this list? The obligation is on the person adding a name to at least include a reliable source as a reference, documenting that the person is notable enough to eventually get his own article. Edison (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any valid reasons for an infinitely long list such as this. A category serves the same purpose just as well and avoids any of the problems of including large numbers of red links or unsourced entries on this list. --DAJF (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of a series of bizzare lists of Japanese people of the Pacific War created during the very early days of Wikipedia. Based on the other such lists, some of these people will be very low ranking and entirely non-notable. This is much too broad a topic for a proper list (it would contain thousands of names if it was expanded an limited to notable people alone). Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate list that Nick-D does a very good job of explaining the reasons for deletion of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per others above, the scope is way too broad for a concise article. Them From Space 16:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG and there are few blue links also. There is no harm in keeping the list. This topic (list) is notable despite of majority of names being red-link. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 16:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It_does_not_do_any_harm Bulwersator (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are some benefits to lists (for instance, they are more likely to show up in Google searches; for some, they are easier to look at), there is a huge potential for abuse here. I have long been annoyed by the Wikipedia lists of alumni of universities, which often have unreferenced red links to people we know nothing about. At least a category only refers to people whose pages have been vetted. This list is also a mess: it is not alphabetized, name order changes throughout, and people are there (like Yamagata Aritomo) who weren't even alive during WWII. Michitaro (talk) 22:22, 23 May 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Deon Sims[edit]

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

An actor. His parts have been, "student", "student", "crowd member" and "busboy". Part of the article is a hoax... There is no "Jason Malvo" listed anywhere that is connected to Degrassi, little alone a "series regular". IMDb only list him doing a Degrassi movie and lists his part as "Jason". IMDb has him in one episode of Vampire Diaries and lists his part as "uncredited". The speedy was declined for some unknown reason. Article's creator said, "Everything that was on this page had reference to them. For some reason they felt that they could come on here and change." If you feel inclined, the Facebook and Wikipedia refs that were removed are found in the history. Absolutely no reliable, independent sources to be found. Bgwhite (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. IMDB is user created and not considered a reliable source, and Facebook is a far less reliable source. Edison (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no body of work to suggest notability at this time. The references are weak. The "hoax" assertion carries some weight as well. The future may bring notability but at this point; it appears to be a non-notable. Stormbay (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no record of the character he played on Degrassi ever existing, I would say that part of the article is a hoax, note that Inner123 (talk · contribs) also added record of the character to Manny Santos here. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His so-far minimal career fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on insufficient coverage in WP:RS. Feel free to ping my talk page if WP:RS with substantial coverage of the subject are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An actor whose credits are virtually all unnamed walk-on roles, and who has no independent sources to verify much of anything in the article, is clearly not notable enough at this time. If he goes on to achieve more success in the future, then he can certainly have an article when that happens — but as of today, it hasn't happened yet. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 22 May 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 -- nominator withdrew in light of WP:SNOW opinion to keep. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NKVT[edit]

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

Unreferenced very short article about a Soviet ministry. Speedy as test edit declined by EurekaLott. PROD contested by otherwise uninvolved editor with rationale "of course we should have an article on a government ministry in one of the world's largest countries." I agree with the basic principle of this - we should have information about such a ministry. But there's simply not enough encyclopedic content to justify having an article. Furthermore, even if that content is there, it's unsourced, and I couldn't find anything. What is justified is a blurb in the Council of the People's Commissars article on each of these little ministries, not individual articles at this time. Note to anyone else doing an English-language Google: I'd advise searching for "People's Commissariat for Water Transport" instead of "NKVT"; I didn't find anything useful about the ministry that way, but some interesting things about the people who've headed it popped up. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the article, and now it is a referenced stub. I am inclined to keep it, but if it is to be deleted please move the info into the relevant article, like Council of the People's Commissars.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Well done, it is much improved. Nonetheless, I feel that what you've done is brought it up to be verifiable. I still don't feel that it meets the general or specific notability guidelines. I'd be totally cool with merging your work into the Council article, or possibly (per User:My_very_best_wishes below) into Soviet Navy. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes's point is that this is distinct from the Soviet Navy - it is the former ministry responsible for civil shipping, not military. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely correct, I misread their statement. I would be in favor of the merge into the Council of the People's Commissars, then. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a department of entire Soviet civil fleet (right now Soviet fleet redirects to Soviet Navy). Expand. There are many sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here, and this is, per basic common sense, an encyclopedic topic. I would suggest that the nominator follow the excellent advice that he himself offers on his user page: 'before editors suggest keeping, deleting, merging, redirecting, forking, or creating an article, they should consider the very simple question: "Does this option improve and enhance Wikipedia more than any of the other possible options?"' Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I thank you for the compliment concerning my userpage mini-essay. I endeavor to follow that advice constantly. In this case, my opinion is that the best possible option in these conditions is to discuss this topic and closely related topics in a single broad article - the Council of the People's Commissars - because I believe that we can create a Good Article (possibly even an FA) out of that, versus however-many start-class or stub-class articles we could make for the individual Commissariat articles. I note that I did not nominate any of the others for deletion - that is because I happened upon this one in New Page Patrol, and the others by and large did not have their own articles yet. To sum up my tl;dr - I think that this is part of an encyclopedic topic, not its own seperate encyclopedic topic. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other users have significantly expanded the article and sources have been added to it, as of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An historical topic that appears to have received significant coverage in reliable tertiary book sources. The article is well-sourced at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000.Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 04:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. After this discussion closes, it would probably be best to consider renaming to People's Commissariat for Water Transport. Haus^Talk 13:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to withdraw in the face of clear snowball consensus to keep and an excellent WP:HEY improvement of the article. My personal opinion still leans towards a merge, but I no longer have a problem keeping it. Feel free to close this discussion at any time. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:21, 17 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naša TV[edit]

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

Notability unproven. SkyBon (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:39, 16 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Era Watch Company[edit]

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

It exists, but it doesn't appear notable. No coverage could be found through Google searches or Highbeam Research. Fails GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, Edox watches (Era's brand) are notable enough for inclusion based on verifiability and independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, but Edox redirects to Era Watch Company. At any rate, there are no citations in the article, though sources could be found. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Career statistics John Terry[edit]

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

I PRODded this yesterday; the PROD was subsequently removed and article moved. This is a massive violation of WP:NOTSTATS and has no place here. Giant Snowman 12:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:SYN. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, prod, and prod endorsment. The current article location is also just strange, the old one at least make some sense. KTC (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTSTATS. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a list of statistics with no encyclopedic value. JIP | Talk 15:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, per WP:NOTSTATS and per WP:SYN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Relevant playing stats are already included in the John Terry article. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we've almost always deleted such articles; to keep this one would make a bad precedent. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the article was nominated for deletion because of WP:NOTSTATS, I have added some explanations for the page and also added to the Category:Association football in England lists. Can anyone please check the page and tell me whether the page needs any more improvements? ZZ47 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The effect of your edits is simply to increase the overlap with the existing biographical article John Terry. However, it remains primarily a collection of statistics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I entirely agree with the spirit of WP:NOTSTATS as an encyclopaedia should only use statistics in the same way as images: i.e., for illustration. I've seen a number of these statistical pieces around the site as a whole and I can see no place for them. Should definitely be removed. --Brian (talk) 18:19, 22 May 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) →B music ian 01:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Wy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article about a place; but, however many attempts are made to tell our readership about where this place (should it actually exist outside of the fevered imaginations of the creators of the article) may be are met with accusations of violation of wp:blp; So, simply, our readership must be allowed to know where this entity? is claimed to be, or the article MUST be consigned to the dirtbin of nonsense Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Huh? I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Please explain yourself. The article has a lot of references (although they're not very well formatted) and the previous AfD last year showed clear consensus to keep as notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it purports to be a place (even with a specified area) but on pain of excommunication we are not permitted to tell our readership where on our planet this purported place resideth; if we be permitted to inform our readership of the Principality's location, then let the article remain; if not then the article MUST go. I would imagine intelligent readers see the article as a rather miserable attempt at commercial, or spam, usage of Wikipedia but that is hardly relevant Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assume this is a result of the page being updated to acknowledge the fact that the reference to a physical address cited on the Australian Trade Mark registry is no longer relevant: Australian Trade Mark link. The location of the principality is stated as being in the Sydney suburb of Mosman, and no references to an exact physical address seem to be currently readily available in a citable reference. The article has otherwise remained very much the same as it was when determined notable during the last proposal of deletion, so I can't imagine why it should be deleted now. Purpleorb (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)— Purpleorb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - So basically Crusoe8181 is upset because information he/she added to the page[10] was removed[11], and now he/she wants to retaliate by nuking the page? That does not seem very good grounds for deletion. There is no requirement for Wikipedia to list the street address of every place that has an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paul Delprat. Having a "micronation" is a fine hobby, but undeserving of space in an encyclopedia as a standalone article. If someone goes around doing silly things, and they get a splash of news coverage, it is more encyclopedic to cover them all in the article about the person. In the previous AFD even several of the Keep !votes and the closer called it silly and baloney. There are other encyclopedia-like websites for nonsense. Edison (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This AfD is a waste of time. The article is propery sourced and meets criteria for notability. From the discussion above, this appears to be an amplified, incorrect reaction to a relatively minor issue. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources:

Bloomberg Businessweek – Fed up with your country? Create your own
The Syndney Morning Herald – Urban prince poised for win over council
The China Post – Australia hosts independent micronations
Short subsection within an article in The Syndney Morning Herald – You're kidding

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to note that Crusoe8181 also nominated this for deletion the last time, when it was also kept. Unfortunately, Crusoe's nomination this time makes no reference to the prior AfD. For this reason, Crusoe MUST be consigned to the dirtbin of nonsense.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My own view is that this kind of garbage has no place in Wikipedia, and should be deleted. However, I recognise that this view is at odds with Wikipedia's policies and with widespread consensus among Wikipedians. It is well-sourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree entirely with James. The article does need a clean up though as it currently presents this as being an actual 'micronation' rather than the action of an eccentric. Australian householders can't secede from the rest of the country. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 17 May 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) →B music ian 01:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Mason (schoolmaster)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. The articles cited are not in depth about Mason but merely confirm his existence. LibStar (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dahliarose (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure how notable he is, especially in light of the major blanketing of Wikipedia with Doon School trivia, all in the last few months, all by one or two editors. There are many many schools in India, some much (see here for example). They all have lists of headmasters, some better known, but I don't see pages for them. This has come up for deletion only because someone imagined it worthy of a page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: since this is listed at ARS, I'll refrain from an early !vote, but I did already note some surprising mentions of this person in The Times of India, e.g., [12] ("renowned educationist John Mason"), [13] ("legendary teacher, John Mason"), [14] ("Imagine this: a school on a sprawling 40-acre campus, world-class facilities and — more importantly — with John Mason as its head (yes, the man who put St James' on top of the heap a few years back but then left for Dubai).")--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Mason was also "a member of the Standing Committee on Examinations at the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations and author of a number of textbooks published by Oxford University Press". Here are two more sources from Education in India. [15] [16]. Also the Google search terms used in this nomination are inappropriate as the search was done for "John Mason schoolmaster", hence restricting the number of hits. Dahliarose (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid being bounced around, from height to dizzy height, in the echo chamber of the Indian press does not constitute notability. Everyone is renowned or legendary, and every campus sprawling and world-class, until you realize it is Calcutta they are talking about, that ugly city, still full of filth, disease, and world-class poverty. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability depends on the availability of sources. One would expect notable people to be covered in the national press of the country where they reside. What other sources would you suggest are used? I think your derogatory remarks about Calcutta and the Indian press are quite uncalled for. Dahliarose (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he wants us to rely on the crap that counts as British journalism? I hope not. If The Times of India or The Hindu say someone is notable, we should not ignore that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Dahliarose) Use scholarly books and serious magazines, use feature articles in the better newspapers, but not giddy stories written by impressionable reporters. Doon has also produced many corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, men in power in India whose favors many in the press are thrilling to gain. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: John Mason has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", in which 'significant coverage' means that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There are several reliable sources here already, including the Oxford University Press, The Telegraph, and The Times of India. Despite the expression "the echo chamber of the Indian press" (which itself seems to echo around the echo chamber of Fowler&fowler's comments in India-related afds) and the claim that such coverage "does not constitute notability", all news media exist in an "echo chamber", and some publications in every country are respected enough to be treated as reliable. In India those include The Telegraph and The Times of India. Quite apart from all that, whether some editors like it or not, the Doon School is undoubtedly India's most important secondary school, and La Martiniere Calcutta, St James's, and Dubai Modern High School are also leading schools. The fact that they are all fee-paying is not exceptional: nearly all of the world's most notable secondary schools are fee-paying. A man or woman who has headed several important schools is bound to be a leader of his or her profession. The suggestion that education in Calcutta is in some way less notable than education elsewhere, due to its "filth, disease, and world-class poverty", is not based on any sound reasoning. Our policies on notability have nothing to say about such limitations. Moonraker (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please link to the particular articles or books , rather than to an article about the publisher. That wastes the reader's time trying to search for what you are talking about. Naming a newspaper does not prove notability. Edison (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Fowler's comments come through a prism of strong bias against the Doon School, which he has demonstrated in the past few weeks. It has sadly become his daily-task to criticize everything related to the Doon School. One can only notice this when he began commenting here for Doon ALumni Featured List candidacy. As for John Mason, he is a well-known academic in India and, obviously, it will be reported by the Indian press not The Washington Post. Fowler seems to equate notability with a mention in Foreign Press. If that is the case, I will have to pull down all the stuff FOwler has contributed to WIkipedia using Indian press references, as it's not reliable according to him. It is now the umpteenth time that Fowler has drifted away from Neutrality and one is only required to read his earlier bias-laden comments. Coming back to the point in case, the article should be kept as Mason is an important academic figure. --Merlaysamuel : Speechify 20:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has written a thing or two about India on Wikipedia, including large sections of the FA India, I couldn't be all that bias ridden. Why don't you, all of you bemoaning my bias, go to the Talk:India page and take me on? As an experienced Wikipedian, I can also smell out a deliberate program to promote one topic on Wikipedia, in this case one school, to the exclusion of every other, to highlight every trivial positive detail, to spin off dozens of related articles, and to whitewash all failings. As for the Indian press, not long ago, these same editors (Moonraker and Merlaysamuel) were defending an Economics Times (India) report, beginning with, "Back in the 1990s, the Economist (UK) reported that Doon School had the second-most effective alumni network after Harvard" (or words to that effect). It turned out that the Economist story was an end-of-the-year, tongue-in-cheek, joke in which Harvard wasn't even mentioned, and in which Doon was listed fifth. It was eventually removed. But the damage has been done. It is now being repeated by every site wanting to promote the school, including the school's own, which, in turn, is being cited in its Wikipedia article. I won't say much more here. I will, however, be bringing this up on WP:India, where there are many experienced India hands, most of whom know me to be a rigorous editor. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, Fowler&fowler writes from memory and invents what he or she wishes to remember. The actual discussion is here. It includes one of Fowler&fowler's many uses of "the echo chamber of the Indian press". Contrary to Fowler&fowler's memory, Merlaysamuel took no part in this discussion at all, and I did not defend the use of "the second-most effective alumni network after Harvard". On the contrary, what I actually said on the matter was "I believe "The Economic Times" is a supplement of The Times of India, which I wouldn't usually question as a reliable source, but the actual citation from The Economist clearly trumps it. Curious that Harvard doesn't even feature in the list "The Economic Times" was recalling.". Can you please stop inventing such falsehoods as your contribution above, Fowler&fowler? Moonraker (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The seminar began with renowned educationist John Mason speaking on the advantages of inclusion. Sounds like a great guy to me. Seriously, major news sources give him praise, then he must be someone notable. If reliable sources call him a renowned educationist and legendary teacher then that's enough to prove him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 23:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article satisfies the Five Pillars, the core Wikipedia policies. It does not include original research and the content is verifiable in reliable sources. John Mason is the author of four published books, and is a prominent figure in the educational world in India, as testified by the coverage he has received in the Indian national press. This is despite the fact that only recent articles from the last five years or so are accessible online from the Indian newspapers, during which time Mason has been retired. It is also important to counter the Systemic bias on Wikipedia by improving our coverage on people in countries like India. WP:BIO actually redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Mason's status as head of two of the most prestigious schools in India and one in Dubai easily satisfies this criterion which states that "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Dahliarose (talk) 13:13, 17 May 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. 05:37, 22 May 2012 Seraphimblade (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Bolivia–Philippines relations (Copyright violation, created by a user copy/pasting news sources.) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia–Philippines relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. the whole article is lifted from http://www.embafil.com.ar/Bolivia.html . No resident embassies, 2 minor agreements, embassy says actually 15 Filipinos in Bolivia. Those wanting to keep must show actual evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While there are probably closer to 150 than 15 Filipinos in Bolivia - the Filippino diaspora is everywhere hiding in plain sight - the two countries' relationship is still not notable. Third-party coverage is not likely to be directly about the two countries' relationship. They have been compared frequently - see, e.g., [17], [18], [19], and [20] - but I found nothing online about the relationships between their governments after several searches. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 17 May 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. All relevant information is already included in the parent article, consensus appears to be that this article is an unnecessary split and is not likely to be useful as a redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 16:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Headmasters of The Doon School[edit]

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

Article about Headmasters at school, not really notable Mjs1991 (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really needed? Not sure having an article about headmasters from a school is notable--Mjs1991 (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a spin-out from The Doon School, which is clearly notable as a very important school in India with a lengthy article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list is obviously a dependent subtopic of The Doon School, so the questions here are a) whether it is encyclopedic to list this school's headmasters and, if so, b) whether the list should remain in the main article or made into a WP:SPINOUT because of WP:ARTICLESIZE. All of the headmasters have their own articles, which suggests some significance in listing them, because the names are not informational dead-ends as they would be if they were non-notable. On the second question, the list is short and is already included in the school article, and accompanied by a substantive block of text that arguably more than makes up for the minimal annotations in this list. So I'm leaning towards redirect or delete. postdlf (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: as I don't think the list should be removed from the school article, feel free to interpret my !vote as redirect or merge; I said "delete" above just because I don't think there's anything from the list left to merge. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it should be added onto the Doon School's page, not in a seperate article.Mjs1991 (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This list essentially duplicates the information that is already provided in the article on the Doon School. The article already has a narrative section on the headmasters and a box with a list of all the names. If there is any content that is not included in the main school article then it should be added with the appropriate references. A separate page with a list of headmasters is not normally appropriate for a school that has only been in existence for about 70 years. Dahliarose (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Redirect~~ - The content is the same as The_Doon_School#Headmasters, and so this should point there. Not enough for a standalone article. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at this again, I see that any useful content is already in the article. Apathetic on a redirect, so moving to a straight delete. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 21:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as The_Doon_School#Headmasters. Not needed as redirect. --Stfg (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - agree with Nolelover above, this should be incorporated into the main article as it is not worthy of its own page. London456 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Merlaysamuel : Speechify 15:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to The_Doon_School#Headmasters. No need for redirect as it is an unlikely search item. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per P199's argument directly above. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence presented of notability under WP:GNG, as there's no evidence of him having plained in a fully pro league, there's also no argument that he meets the criteria of WP:FOOTBALL. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro dos Santos Calçado[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on procedural grounds, as the article had previously been deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be an article in the subject's future but the body of work to date does not warrant one at this time. Stormbay (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:11, 17 May 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. This article essentially ends up living in an overlap of two conflicting arguments, both of which have merit. Wikipedia is not a game guide advises us to avoid articles that simply describe and elaborate on how to play a game beyond mere encyclopedic coverage - and it has been correctly argued that this article comprises just that, even if the policy only explicitly mentions video games. Simultaneously and conversely, our manual of style and guidelines regardingglossaries of specific terms and, more generally, splitting out overly lengthy topics from otherwise notable articles, demonstrate how an article like this can be useful in an encyclopedic context, providing an easy way to clarify the jargon inherent in the notable game Magic: The Gathering. I cannot honestly say that either of these arguments 'wins' this discussion, either by volume of people or strength of arguments. ~ mazca ^talk 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is simply a guide to the keywords used in Magic: the Gathering (Wikipedia:GAMEGUIDE). All of the sources are "first-person" ones that were pulled from the Magic website and from the Magic developers, I see no evidence of notability of this topic (obviously Magic: the Gathering is notable). Bulwersator (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I hope that it may be moved to wikibooks or to other better place Bulwersator (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially a 76-kilobyte game guide. JIP | Talk 15:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Has anything changed since the last AfD nomination? I see no new reasons presented why this should be deleted. In the last nomination I think the same reasons were presented and the proposal was rejected. OdinFK (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears last time was a no consensus (originally closed as delete, overturned to no consensus in review). - Sangrolu (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is obviously a spinoff from the main article. If the game is notable and has significant jargon then a glossary seems reasonable - see glossary of chess and glossary of poker, for example. Note also that WP:GAMEGUIDE is specifically about videogames and this is a card game. Warden (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring the triviality of the GAMEGUIDE issue (in that it just only mentions VGs) - WP does allow glossaries, and given the age of topics like chess and poker, it's understandable for these topics, where probably 1000s of sources exist, to have such discussion. MTG is a rather new game (in relative terms) and while I'm sure there's plenty of articles about the game, it certainly doesn't have the same depth as these age-old games, questioning the need. Even as such - if this list is going to exist, it needs to follow WP:GLOSSARY, and thus be trimmed in description as per both examples above, and expanded to include all MTG keywords. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GLOSSARY is a glossary of Wikipedia terms. I think you were looking for WP:GLOSSARIES, which is another name for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries - Sangrolu (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regarding sources, all of these keywords have explanations on the cards themselves, and more than enough independent sources exist verifying the content of said cards, so I don't think any of the content here has sourcing problems. Given that the game itself qualifies as notable, descriptions of game mechanics seem acceptable as well. This page doesn't go into strategy or advice, which I would definitely agree does not belong. I also agree with the point that nothing has changed since the previous two AfD nominations, and I'd question why a third seemed appropriate. --Josh Triplett (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not claiming that it is hoax but that it fails WP:GNG Bulwersator (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be incorrect there. Most of the refs are from the Wizards website, but there are some third party sites. It could afford more, but I assure you they exist; Magic is big enough that multiple third party sites exist covering its nuances (Channel Fireball, Star City Games, etc.) Please consult WP:BEFORE before submitting an AfD. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Nominator cites WP:GAMEGUIDE, which does not cover physical games, and, even if it did, the content here would not run afoul of it ("An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right [...]. Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.") Beyond that, there is plenty of independent RS coverage of MtG which includes these keywords, such as ABC(au), Gamezone, and Wired--and that's just a sampling for trample, cycling, and unblockable. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The intent of GAMEGUIDE - and the policy around it - clearly applies to any type of game with rules. Unless the rules are of detailed examination (as with something like chess, a complete rundown of said rules is never appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 26 is also relevant to this discussion; an overturning of the second AfD vote to Delete despite the nominator attempting to withdraw the nomination, with a no-nonsense definition of GAMEGUIDE by PeaceNT that caused even Stifle to vote Overturn. Anarchangel (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as unlikely search term) and summary in main MTG article. Violates WP:GAMEGUIDE as well as probably concepts relating to WP:DICTDEF. (Technically this is a glossary, which can be allowed for broad topics that need a common point of terminology reference. This is not one of those broad topics.) Understanding that cards in MTG have these modifiers that affect the normal rule cycle, as well as an example or three, is completely fine in the body of describing the game. Plus, since we can also link to the official rules in the game article, this is extremely duplicative. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with extreme cleanup. Though I'm usually the first to cry foul when people cry WP:GAMEGUIDE, this is sort of close. It is really packed to the gills with fancruft at the very least, even if it's not really a strategy guide. And yes, folks, I agree bullet point 3 under WP:GAMEGUIDE is talking about videogames, bullet point 1 can apply to anything. But to me, the fundamental question is this: is it really within the scope of wikipedia to collect a comprehensive description of every keyword in the game? I'm thinking not, though I do think a shorter list of currently common keywords can be helpful is letting readers grasp the game and in the scope of wikipedia. I'm seeing the point of the delete folks, but am erring on the side of a weak keep here on the principle that AfD is not cleanup. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the WP:GLOSSARIES that Masem attempted to cite above is fundamentally what I am getting to here. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ugh. Falls foul of WP:GAMEGUIDE ("...avoid lists of gameplay... concepts, unless these are notable in their own right") and common-sense dictates that rule applies here. See also WP:NOTMANUAL. Zero independent, reliable evidence of the accuracy/notability. Zero analysis of the subject matter because such an endeavour is impossible for a list of "abilities" for a marginally-popular card game. This article is absolute crap and I see no possibility that it could be improved due to the subject matter being unencyclopaedic.
I'm sure it's very WP:USEFUL to Dungeons & Dragons fans and that they really WP:LIKE it, but that is no reason to prolong the life of this woebegone fancruft. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "marginally-popular" is rather poor description, this game is quite popular Bulwersator (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fine distinction is noted :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- marginally-popular!?? How many games are there in Category:Card games? And how many of them are more popular? Yes I know this is OT but I couldn't help myself from replying. --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the oldest and most popular (over 12M players[21]) among List of collectible card games. Enough?! --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing but a game guide, with practically no out-of-universe content, contrary to WP:WAF and WP:GAMEGUIDE. For the purpose of the delineation of our scope, there is no difference between video game guides and other game guides. Sandstein 08:05, 24 May 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1/0 (web comic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

My opinion has not changed since the last AFD over a year ago, so I'll just re-state it:

There is a long-standing precedent per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lackadaisy_(3rd_nomination) that the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is not a notable enough award to confer notability per WP:WEB. The only other sources in the article are three reviews from websites which do not appear to be reputable reviewers: one is credited to screen names and therefore inherently unreliable; one is a dead link; and one is openly admitted to be the personal website of a non-notable reviewer. I have looked for more sources but found absolutely nothing, so I have every reason to believe that this is a continuation of the precedent.

The last AFD had a mixed bag of !Votes: an WP:ITSNOTABLE, a WP:JNN, a !vote that didn't actually address the notability issue at all; a solid "delete" based in policy; a WP:JUSTAVOTE from someone who should know better; another WP:ITSNOTABLE and another "delete" based in policy.

So far, the notability hinges entirely on the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award, which has been determined insufficient. We can verify that it won the award, but there are no other reliable sources on the comic itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll see what I can find. Of the links on the article, I want to note that (minus the two that mentioned the award) one was a completely dead link, one only mentioned the webcomic briefly in a list of other comics (did not even talk about the comic itself), and the other did not appear to be what Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source, if anyone was wondering why I removed them. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assuming that there's been a precedent set that the WCCA is not notable enough in itself to warrant an automatic keep, there's just not enough reliable sources out there to show that this webcomic is notable. I've looked, but other than a bunch of non-notable fan pages, non-reliable blog reviews, and forum chat, there's just nothing out there that Wikipedia would consider reliable. It was popular, but popularity does not give notability per Wikipedia guidelines. It just makes it more likely that you'll find sources. If anyone can dig anything up or if they can prove that the awards are notable, I'm open to changing my opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

Striking vote in light of new sources being found. Haven't entirely made up my mind yet, but I no longer feel that it's a solid deleteTokyogirl79 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the first AFD, there is indeed a precedent that WCCA is not enough to warrant a keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I read that as "WCCA alone is not enough to warrant a keep". This would imply that WCCA in conjunction with other reliable sources would be reasonable, not that a WCCA award doesn't count at all. Veled (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yet again, you've repeatedly nominated a webcomic article for deletion, this time for the third time in a row. Regardless of what we determine for this article, I can't help but think that if this article were truly worthy of deletion that someone else would have cared enough to do so by now. Also, I fixed your links so readers can determine if the "precedent" set is actually acceptable, unlike your idea that third-party interviews are actually primary sources. Veled (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first AFD was closed as "no consensus", which seems like a valid enough reason to renominate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An amazon search finds a few mentions in The Metareferential Turn in Contemporary Arts and Media. (Studies in Intermediality) ISBN-10: 9042033703, published June 2011: pages 557, 558, 563, 568 and 593. Amazon only lets me see snippets so I cannot determine the depth of coverage here, but the book looks like a serious academic publication. -84user (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Update I see Google Books shows complete pages and the fact that the book also mentions 1/0 on additional pages: 556, 557, and a snippet-only views of pages 553 and 554. I searched the book for these patterns: "1/0", "tailsteak" and "Mason Williams". -84user (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that might be worth something, but I'm still finding literally nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If only it was able for a Kindle Rental, I'd look for myself... anyway, that's one source, now find one more! A quick Google Scholar check isn't showing much, but if it's cited in one textbook it's bound to be in another... Veled (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there has been ample time for someone to display some level of notability for this. Ridernyc (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can find AFDs in years past where the award was considered notable and ones where it was not. No reason to be cherrypicking. The award is notable. Web Cartoonists' Choice Award It gets coverage, even once in the New York Times column on webcomics. As mentioned the first time this nominator sent it to AFD, it meets WP:WEB, having won a notable award, and having been nominated for that award three times. Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability. Dream Focus 11:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a notable award, but winning it does not transfer to notability, as has been proven several times. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all. The award is notable, and those that win a notable award are notable. No matter how many times you say otherwise won't bend reality and change that. Dream Focus 18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The award is notable, and those that win a notable award are notable." That is not true. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've managed to look in the book mentioned above and 1/0 is mentioned quite frequently in it. As far as the publisher goes, it's a publisher where its works are peer reviewed, which is something that I'd consider reliable. But is this source along with the Comix Talk interview and two awards enough? I'm not entirely certain about that, but this is enough to make me strike the delete vote for now. I might unstrike it, but I'm going to try to dig a little deeper. Maybe I'll find something the second go round?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have only one source, who after 550 pages on metareferential art finally went to TV Tropes and looked at their list of webcomics with "No Fourth Wall." They describe this comic as "poorly drawn" "utterly incompetent" "inferior skill display" "scanty craftsmanship" "primitive and clunky" "these strips look cheap" "lack of talent" "only appeals to a niche audience." Just one reliable source means this definitely misses WP:GNG. It's debatable whether multiple sources describing this as an utterly incompetent webcomic with a niche audience would meet our notability standards. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like they only mentioned the comic to degrade its artwork. Looking at the snippets available on Google Books, they're clearly talking about more than just the art, especially when the book mentions it for the sole reason of pointing out that this artistic mediocrity actually makes it EASIER to break the fourth wall. Besides, I'm pretty sure that anyone willing to spend 4 pages in a textbook going on about a single comic's metareferencing is doing more than just bringing the comic up to tear it a new one. Veled (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending an official ruling that says WCCA is in fact notable (and I'm pretty sure it is). That plus the textbook source should satisfy WP:GNG. Veled (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling has been several times now that WCCA is not enough to keep an article. Look at the AFDs I linked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some AFDs it was determined fine, others not because they weren't sure about it. You just flipping a coin there, doing some cherry picking. The award is fine. Put it into Google news archive search and see how many times they mention it or someone winning it. Dream Focus 18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I said the WCCA plus the textbook source, not WCCA alone. I would think WCCA is at least good enough to count as a source towards notability. Veled (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

when something is actually notable the amount of sources is normally enough to prove it. IMHO arguing over two debatable sources endlessly is doing a good job of demonstrating that this fails the GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument here seems to be hinging on whether or not winning the WCCA is enough to establish notability. But as far as I can see, it didn't win the award. It was merely nominated in several categories for two years, but never actually won. That is what the article states, at least, and the sources provided seem to confirm that it was just a nomination. Am I missing something here, where it actually did win at some point? Because if its already debatable if winning is enough to count for notability, I can't see any way that just being a nominee would be enough. Rorshacma (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For something to be WP:NOTABLE enough for a Wikipedia article, it has to meet the WP:GNG or the subject specific guidelines, such as WP:WEB. As I have said, it meets WP:WEB, which clearly states "Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability." Dream Focus 22:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've nailed it Rorshacma. This "award" is not the sort of "well known and independent award" that might be considered a sign of notability, and this webcomic has never even won that. There is strong consensus on this, at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Web_Cartoonists.27_Choice_Awards for example. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on the arguments at the above mentioned discussion, I'm going to have to side with those saying that winning the WCCA, let alone just being nominated, does not confer notability to this particular webcomic. That really leaves very few soures, and only one that could be seen potentially as signifigant coverage. Thus, I'm leaning towards Delete. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The marginally-notable award alone can't be enough. The reason why we require coverage in reliable sources is to ensure that we have a basis on which to write a verifiable article. Award wins are nothing but an indication that such sources might exist, but here they apparently do not, so we have a clear failure of WP:V#Notability. Sandstein 08:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rangoondispenser. The only thing even remotely near a reliable source seems to be just mentioning this as an example of how amateurish and subpar webcomics tend to be. They could easily have chosen any of thousands of others. As far as I can tell, nominator TPH and several others in this discussion are wrong: it was nominated for a non-notable award, but didn't actually win unless I'm mistaken. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and Rangoondispenser. I don't see the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it appears that this did not even win the award. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this is too broad a topic, and the article maintained far too sparsely, for it to be any kind of useful navigational or research tool. The sheer volume of businesses that can be classed as "online stores" means that categories are likely to be the only feasible way of producing reasonable directories in this topic. ~ mazca ^talk 16:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of online stores[edit]

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

I'm not sure what the value of this list is. We already have a number of categories (that themselves need to be cleaned up), but trying to maintain a list including which products are sold and which countries are served just seems like a guarantee that this is going to be always out of date. KarlB (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might have been a good idea for a list 15 years ago, but unfortunately that was before Wikipedia was started. Per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value ...." That fits this list to a T. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scope is too broad. Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly broad list. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is intended of course, is list of notable online stores, and it is just as important now as it would have been when there were only a very few of them. More valuable actually; any red-linked ones need examination to see if there should be an article, and removed if not clearly notable. Strange group of arguments for deletion: first, that there will be additional entries (there will never be reason to remove them, because once notable the site remains notable no matter what happens to it), and that since this group is very notable and very well known, the list is not encyclopedic. Unless the list is so broad in scope that it is unmanageably long, which it currently is not, there is no reason to divide it. If someone works on it sufficiently to justify making multiple more specific lists, then it can be split, but that an argument for keep and split, not delete, and it would be folly to delete what wee have because we want to write something more extensive. My idea of a list too broad to be useful is "list of web sites". DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The criteria of the article has been changed to "This is a list of notable online stores" in the article's lead section. As such, the list has a discriminate focus, and serves to provide information about the stores as well as serving as a useful navigation guide for Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This list (and the other one, which I can't tell the difference between) purports to list the contents of these categories:
- Category:Online retailers 82
- Category:Online retail companies by country 339
- Category:Book selling websites 38
- Category:Online music stores 105
- Category:Online grocers 18
- Category:Commerce websites 181
- Category:Online music stores 105
If we add this up, it is about 868 articles which could conceivably be placed here. This does not even count *other* retailers which do some form of business online, allowing one to buy gift cards, mobile phone minutes, groceries, etc. I think it would be much more valuable to spend time sorting out the categories that exist, than to try to spend time maintaining this list which should technically have over 800 items in it. Finally the attempt to centrally catalogue what these sites sell, and where they sell to, is not encyclopedic or worth of a separate list; the list of items sold by any of these stores will change constantly; for example, 1-800 flowers, which is on both lists, doesn't only sell flowers; and the Amazon description of 'everything' is a great use of that term for marketing purposes, but also inaccurate; we might say amazon sells *a lot* of things, but they don't sell 'everything'. Thus, this list is too broad. I think a more interesting list might be notable retailers who do *not* have an online shopping available, since that is becoming more and more rare these days. --KarlB (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument made above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply Yes, but the argument is not that this should be deleted b/c of the category, the argument is that this should be deleted because it doesn't provide any additional useful content *over* the category. For example, this list purports to provide information on:
- products sold
- Headquarters
- countries served
I would contend that at least two of those are not encyclopedic, and we should *not* attempt to store them. Countries served could be broadly interpreted; is it all countries where they are willing to ship their products? If so, Amazon (and many other retailers) will ship almost everywhere, and the policies about where they will ship will change frequently, so storing this info in wikipedia is not useful. Secondly, in terms of products sold, the preponderance of 'everything' just illustrates the pointlessness of that section - in looking down the list, I haven't found many which are actually correct, and I don't think we should try - JC Penny sells BBQ grills, and patio furniture, and tote bags... We already have categories for the big topics these stores cover - music, books, retail, etc, and I'm sure other useful categories could be created - but we should not have a list of products sold, because it is just guaranteed to be wrong. Finally, headquarters can be captured by the category (e.g. Category:Online_retail_companies_by_country. Again, as currently framed, or in its full extent, the question is, is this list useful for the encyclopedia to maintain - imagine there are 800 links? What I would suggest, as another option, is that you look at merging into these articles with existing lists of retailers, and note as an attribute where a given retailer has an online presence (which, as discussed before, is more common than not) - like List_of_bookstore_chains and other lists here Category:Lists_of_retailers. Then, we could have useful, small lists, and be able to sort on whether they have an option to purchase online - rather than just having a two separately maintained lists, one which has JC Penney and the other which has JCPenney.com. But even that is not ideal - as it requires us trying to track, when a given retailer has moved from a brochure-ware website into a website where you can purchase things - and what if they just allow purchase of gift cards, or downloading of coupons but no ordering? is that online shopping? The whole thing is a maintenance nightmare - and the current extent and wrongness of these lists just illustrates the wikipedia hasn't done a good job of maintaining them to date in spite of best efforts by editors. --KarlB (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment one more thing - can the defenders of these lists at least explain what the difference is between the two? --KarlB (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment a recent report: [22], which suggests there are over 50,000 pure-play online retailers. Not all of them are notable, of course, but that's still a vast marketplace; hence the reason we believe this list is too broad.--KarlB (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of notable entries which go hand-in-hand with the categories, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad in scope for a discriminate list to emerge from the criteria for inclusion. Not all appropriate categories make for appropriate list articles. Them From Space 16:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are two main issues which need to be addressed: scope and content. If the list is to be useful, its scope must be clearly defined. I concur with the nom that a list of notable retailers which merely have an online store is basically indiscriminate. However, a list of notable online retailers (i.e., retailers that conduct business primarily, or perhaps even entirely, online) is, in my opinion, perfectly valid and discriminate.
In addition, the list must contain relevant content beyond what is provided by the category system. Such content might include: products (defined more tightly to avoid the false claim that any retailer sells 'everything' ... I don't believe that Costco.com, for instance, offers F-16s or investment banking services), headquarters, date of establishment, revenue and/or traffic (some measure of number of visitors, customers or registered users).
Currently, I favor keeping the list and renaming it to List of online retailers or perhaps List of online-only retailers. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am by all accounts a non deletionist and even I can't see a need for this one. Kumioko (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that deletionist/inclusionist leanings are overly relevant in this instance: for instance, I'm probably considered to be on the deletionist side due to my position on unsourced content, yet I've argued to keep this list (which can be sourced quite easily). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was being lazy so let me give a little bit better and more academic response. :-) I think that having a list like this of online retailers is irrelevent given that most major retailers are now online in some form. The list would never be completable and if it was would be thousands of rows long. I think the scope of this list is too broad and if kept it should be broken into more realistic and digestible chunks such as List of Online electronics stores, List of Online Shoe stores, etc. Even then I just think this amounts to an unneeded article that is not really very academic or encyclopedic. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed response. I agree with the first part, that a list of retailers which are "online in some form" would be too broad and lack significance. It is safe to say, I think, that every notable retailer has a website and a large number (perhaps even most) allow online shopping. I suggested, above, limiting the scope of the list of retailers that conduct business primarily or exclusively online. Although I'm changing my mind about the former (How does one determine what constitutes "primarily"?), I think the latter idea – online-only retailers – would result in a list that is quite narrowly defined. It would exclude retailers such as Costco, Sears, Target and Walmart, focusing instead on ones such as Amazon.com, Bluefly and iTunes Store. Of course, one's mileage may vary as to whether online-only retailing is a significant characteristic around which to organize a list; however, it would be significantly more discriminate than the current list. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, so I think limiting the scope would be a good start but I think we would have some trouble marking some since the cross multiple spectrums. Take Ebay and Amazon for example, both of them cater to multiple audiences, both cater only to online but are starting to seed into offline retailers. Amazon even has the multi million item US government NSN's (National Stock Numbers) for government goods so that the cheapest prices can be found. Using another example, and not trying to be too terribly innapropriate how do we define an "online retailer"? Would that include Adult sex sites, or porn sites? It could be argued that these are online retailers and it could be argued that these should have a list too since several make in the tens of millions of dollars a year. Even limiting to just Electronics online retailers I think we are going to get a very long list. In the end I just don't think that even if we spend the time to narrow down a set of definitions that the article/list would be very encylcopedic. What would such an article really be for? How would we keep it updated? How would we keep it referenced? I just think that there are too many factors that makes this a bad list. I hope that helps. Kumioko (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had proposed somewhere that this be made into a list of major retailers who do not have online shopping (ie they may have a website, but you cant' purchase anything from them online - like http://www.traderjoes.com/about/general-faq.asp). That would be a real research effort, and would be interesting, and probably quite small. we'd have to limit it somehow, so perhaps to retailers with $xM in annual sales? This reports suggests there are 50,000 pure-play online retailers: [23], so I don't think we want to maintain such a list...--KarlB (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are interesting points, and you've both given me quite a bit to think about. I've been thinking a bit about it – not ignoring it, I assure you :) – and will post a response in the next day or so. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice research KarlB! I was going to vote "keep" but with conditions to narrow the scope and improve the article as per Black Falcon and Kumioko. But when I saw the number of online-only retailers, its clear that such a list cannot be maintained. Therefore: delete. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a prime example of WP:LISTCRUFT. My primary issue: #6. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, and #1. The list was created just for the sake of having such a list. Now, if it were a list of the 100/1000 largest online stores, OK, but he only requirement for inclusion is notability. It's WAY too broad, hence, it's essentially unlimited.
Delete -- KarlB's research shows that such a list cannot be maintained and the categories do a better job of keeping up with future expansion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Mascara[edit]

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

This article has been around for about 2.5 years but doesn't indicate that she's notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The copious references given either 1) do not mention her, 2) mention her trivially, 3) are unreliable sources such as blogs, or 4) are dead links. A Google search for "Lena Mascara" -wikipedia brings up mostly unreliable sources like social networking sites, Flickr, entries in fashion model databases, and the like. ... discospinster _talk 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion per nom. The article indeed fails to prove notability and looks more as a self-promotion (for instance, it is written that she was invited to attend the academy - and then the list of notable alumni of the academy follows, none of whom has any relation to the subject of the article anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 16 May 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. While I think it's likely that he's notable, only 1 supersource has been presented in this article. One more (preferably two or more) would be helpful. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyun, Jae-Hyun[edit]

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

Article is about a Korean businessman. It was created by an editor who has made only two edits to Wikipedia, the other being a single edit to this page. The article is basically a CV (despite my tidying up today) and has been tagged for notability since December 2011 - nothing has happened since to suggest the subject is notable. External links are mainly about the company and companies he has worked for - these may well be notable - but notability doesn't rub off. Emeraude (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~This source~~ This source, listed in the article, gives good coverage of him. I'm leaning towards "keep", but I'd like to see another solid source before I actually decide, and I couldn't find anything through Google News or Books. Do we know what his name is in Korean script? There might be good coverage in Korean. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I got the wrong link before. Fixed it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ko Wikipedia article 현재현. Dru of Id (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like we need articles on both her and the company. The Google translation of the Korean WP article is remarkably useless even as Google translations go, so I can't help much to improve the article. But apparently the total sales was in the billions of dollars. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 17 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Novoselova[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for more than a year, with no improvement. INeverCry 03:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, for the time being I do not see sufficient notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Striking out, she might be marginally notable, and some sources have been added.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not usually interested in current models, the NY mag link on the profile looks like a good source with a lot of reasons for her notability. She's been seen around quite a lot too, including a couple of high profile covers 2, and I keep seeing the phrase "top model russe" and variations thereof in the Google news hits, suggesting that even if she doesn't have a lot of English language sources on her, she is rated quite highly elsewhere. The article itself is awful and needs revising, but as I don't read Russian or other foreign languages I'm not sure I would be able to do so. But it does seem to me that Masha Novoselova has notability in herself - she does seem to have a successful career over several years and a significant portfolio of work, so it's not like she is someone who's only just popped up... Mabalu (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's a notable international model. As for the nom -- "Tagged for notability for more than a year, with no improvement." - What? AfD is not for cleanup. Tagged for notability doesn't not mean actually not notable, some basic searching shows she is notable. We have articles on notable subjects that haven't been improved in well over 5 years, but they are still notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very poorly phrased nomination, this is not the article improvement workshop. Internet footprint seems sufficient to support a GNG claim. I guess that's a poorly phrased and weak response to a poorly phrased nomination, now that I think about it. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've looked at the sources in the article and on Gnews. There seems to be plenty of non-English media coverage of her and some of the hits do at first glance look like supersources. However, I can't be sure since I don't read any of those languages therefore a "weak keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 23 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce S. Allen[edit]

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

I think the subject is non-notable and the article hopelessly promotional. The very purpose of the honorary consulate is apparently promotion, I have had numerous communications including an OTRS complaint from the representatives of the subject trying to tailor the article to his liking. I give up on it. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke credentials and expel Helicopter-like attention from at least one and probably several COI-SPA's ensures that if there was anything notable about the subject, it would be in the article by now. One would think that an aspiring diplomat -- even an honorary one -- would know better than to embarass himself like this (or in the alternative, would know better than to allow his boosters to embarass him in this way). EEng (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with above - border line but if he's being a nuisance that would tip it for me. For his own good, of course Egg Centri c 21:22, 18 May 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. Both arguments to delete are not grounded in policy - just WP:JNN arguments. Closing as keep because there were actual policy-based arguments to keep the article. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 01:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naarot Reines[edit]

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

Not notable No refs INeverCry 01:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - not notable--Shrike (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have some english-language coverage in the Jerusalem Post[24][25] (I've added links). The first article mentions reviews in Hebrew-language publications, and you can see Hebrew coverage under their name "נערות ריינס" here[26][27][28] (use Google Translate). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG per the sources presented above by User:Colapeninsula, particularly:

Davis, Barry (March 12, 2009), "Singing it like it is." The Jerusalem Post.
Brinn, David (Feburary 20, 2012). "On the right side of the street." The Jerusalem Post.

Also, the nomination appears to base topic notability upon whether or not sources were in the article; hence the speedy keep. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of sources, not whether or not they are in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 17 May 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 01:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Welling[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Article was deleted and recreated numerous times by a sock puppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shawnwelling, but it still seems to suffer from the same lack of notability. There are a few more citations added in the current version. If you look at the citations closely, they are repeated multiple times, and a large percentage of them all rely on the same local author, Nick Nicholson. Of the 15 citations in the article currently, 7 are directly from Nick Nicholson. The others are a mixture of press release PR on business wire, local reporting of a non-notable festival, local reporting in non-notable local magazines such as C-47, and other passing references in local coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although lacking in a level of notability, the citations are coming from trustworthy sources nonetheless. Nicely presented article of a local film director from Texas who has had reasonable success in his works, and is currently busy with ongoing projects. Can still be worked on and updated to meet the requirements.Hiddenstranger (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 16 May 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, per the consensus below that this individual does not currently meet WP:ATHLETE. The article could be re-created at any point in the future if/when additional evidence of notability becomes available. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Gkolomeev[edit]

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

Per WP:ATHLETE, amateur athletes need substantial and prolonged coverage that is independent of the subject and clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. I can't find this level of coverage for this individual. West Eddy (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The athlete has won medal at european junior championship so is notable.I understand is still an amateur but many swimmers that are part of national team are amateur.The artcle needs to be expadend.User:Lucifero4

That doesn't confer notability per WP:ATHLETE. West Eddy (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A promising swimmer but right now fails WP:ATHLETE.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though if he participates in the Euro Championship next week this would of course change. Let us wait.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Moreover, it is more like a tribute or vanity article written by a WP:SPA who, based on knowledge of personal facts, must be closely related to this swimmer. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:53, 24 May 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 per WP:BLP1E. The arguments focusing on BLP1E were convincing, as the article subject seems to meet the 3 criteria given in policy. BLP1E is part of a foundational policy, and explicitly trumps the general notability guidelines: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." I anticipate that this close will be controversial, and I'm comfortable with having it reviewed. But as some of the commentators below argue, this is exactly the sort of edge case which WP:BLP1E is designed to address. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Lukyanova[edit]

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

The article fails to address the WP:BIO criteria. Being blond and a self proclaimed statement of notability that you look like Barbie is not sufficient even if sourced. Fæ (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has become quite the internet sensation:[29][30][31][32][33] and many more hits. Going purely by coverage she might pass WP:GNG, but it's hard to say that this is really encyclopedic content - is she a participant in a news event? a celebrity? an internet meme? someone who'll be entirely forgotten next week? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can write for the Huffington Post and the Daily Mail is not the best source when it comes to a slow news day and a big busted blond is demanding free publicity. Recentism should be carefully considered but if someone can pick out some quality reliable sources then this may well be a suitable article based on the level of verifiable international interest. --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately I think that this cute butchered face has made enough of a sensation to have an article in Wikipedia: Forbes, and if Forbes starts to talk about it, I think other top-notch papers will mention her, it's only a matter of days now .... Rubyface, d, 9 may 2012 17:56 —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- OMG, the main photo in the Forbes article looks like she's a 2nd Life avatar than has been photoshopped in. I agree, Forbes is a quality source, we just need to struggle over interpreting 'recentism'. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person has received significant coverage in reliable sources; thus the topic passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC:

ABC News: "The Real-Life Ukrainian Barbie Doll."
News.com.au (Website for multiple Australian newspapers): "Real-life Barbie doll Valeria Lukyanova has become and internet sensation."
New York Daily News: "'Real-life Barbie' heats up the Internet - but is she a hoax?"
Huffington Post: "Valeria Lukyanova Is A Real-Life Barbie Doll."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also: Soldak, Katya (May 6, 2012). "Deconstructing a Ukrainian Barbie". Forbes Magazine. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NA1000's sources are compelling. Clears the General Notability Guideline as the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage in published so-called "Reliable Sources." Whether we think being a blonde human homage to a sexist doll is a worthy achievement is pretty much irrelevant here, an example of IDONTLIKEIT. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical knee-jerk inclusionism that completely ignores WP:BLP1E. This women is an otherwise non-notable, non-public individual who is being gossiped about for a single issue, her unusual appearance. Many, many articles of this nature ("woman who walks into mall pool while texting", "man fired for drunken airplane rant") that had a hell of a lot more coverage than this person have been deleted in the past. A ballsy closer would discard the invalid !votes that do not address 1E policy and toss this article out on its ear. We'll see. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much bluster which neatly avoids the fact that this is a public figure, a working fashion model. See, for example: [34]. So no, she's not famous for "one event," although she certainly has recently received traction for working the Lukyanova=Barbie angle. Ultimately this is a question of sourcing, not personal opinions of worthiness of models in general, this model in particular, or what Wikipedia's BLP policy should be rather than what its notability policy actually is. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see sources at the bottom, and I think it qualifies the GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tarc, minus the snarc, has a point. I'm not seeing any coverage aside from a recent flurry, so it seems to be a true BLP1E. I often disagree with BLP1E arguments, but it seems to fit here. Plus, this girl is freaky, people! Holy schnikes! We don't live in Second Life!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I reserved comment on this to think for a while. This person's appearance isn't an "event". Nevertheless, I think our one event policies apply. If a person modifies their appearance in such a way as to draw attention, does that make them notable? Or, is the look notable? Valeria is not the only person to attempt to be a human barbie. In fact, there's LOTS of them [35]. Yes, there are references on the article. But, the references...every one of them...are titled regarding her manufactured look. The only reason she is famous is for the look. Otherwise, she's just another model among millions of models in the world. At what point do we draw the line in the sand? I think the line is; is the person notable for anything other than their manufactured appearance? If you want another case to consider, consider this case; a woman who describes herself as "vampire woman". Is she famous for anything other than her manufactured look? No, she's not. This look isn't unique either. Since this particular look is one many people have attempted, I would consider merging this, Sarah Burge and any other human barbie attempts to List of human Barbie imitators, or something similar. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence evidencing notability via WP:GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin DiSandro[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional bio for non-notable 'poet'/screenwriter/blogger in his twenties. Cited references are all non-WP:RS sources--imdb, blogs, and an apparently hoax (or might as well be) film festival (zero gnews hits, its couple of dozen ghits all appear to be to subject's blog, user-contributed imdb entries, this WP entry, or mirrors). Gnews finds nothing except some local suburban newspaper mentions for college football--he seems to have played for his small, non-NCAA, non-notable college team. Ghits find nothing better than what's already cited in the article. I will admit that this attempt to glom onto some buzz is a minor classic, in its way: "He is also a frequent collaborator with Charles Bronson's great nephew..." Fails WP:N, fails WP:NOTPROMO. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not demonstrated here. Coverage of DiSandro is trivial and not independent or reliable. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dawn Bard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 May 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a WP:Autobiography consisting of self-sourced claims and references that seem to be pass-throughs for self-sourcing. ("He is also a frequent collaborator with Charles Bronson's great nephew..." also got a chuckle out of me.) --Closeapple (talk) 23:11, 21 May 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) →B music ian 01:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L'CHAIM Vodka[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 9. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with extreme pruning - An obviously spammy article, and the sources are quite possibly the product of pay-to-play "journalism" but there's no getting around the fact that this satisfies notability with that kind of coverage. If anything negative about the product or company can be found in valid sources to balance the article out that would be good. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG:

Bloomberg (Associated Press article): Toast Hanukkah with kosher spirits
NY Daily News: Kosher vodka for Hanukkah toasts - L'Chaim makes kosher rum, wine and tequila
Jewish Way Magazine: A Toast to Diversity: L'Chaim Kosher Vodka breaks through cultural barriers and wins over sophisticated vodka drinkers throughout Florida

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hit someone with a banhammer. The article was an utter disaster, with OR by SYNTH throughout, and a substantial hit of misrepresentation of sources. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

was or is? DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was. I have no opinion on deletion, but I hope the admin who looks at this article realizes that WP:OR and WP:NPOV are policies that people can be blocked for violating, just like WP:CIVIL. Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If people ever actually got blocked for CIVIL violations. Silver seren^C 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources say more than enough. If there's any issues with advertising or OR, that can be dealt with by normal editing, which has already been done since the creation of this AfD. Silver seren^C 17:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been shown. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no deletion argument. Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...does that even work with articles sent to AfD from a DRV closure (and the closing admin then taking it to AfD per that decision, which is why he is abstaining)? Silver seren^C 22:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If AfD nominations are good for the encyclopedia, how come no one has ever set up a robot to methodically nominate every article in the encyclopedia for deletion? The procedural nomination was added by one editor about a year ago without any discussion. It continues to lack any evidence of discussion to support it. IMO, the provision is a failed experiment. There is no benefit to a procedural nomination, because there are only two possibilities for a DRV closed WP:NPASR. (1) Someone is willing to do the work to prepare an AfD nomination. (2) No one is willing to do the work to prepare an AfD nomination. In neither case is a procedural nomination an improvement. Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. Maybe we should start a discussion to get procedural nominations removed from the AfD/DRV rules? Silver seren^C 03:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case (i.e. DRVs on speedies), I think you may have a point. However, in general, for reviews of AfDs, there is a distinction between "overturn to keep/no consensus" and "overturn and relist." The latter option either expresses less certainty about overturning the close or suggests that the initial AfD itself might have been flawed. In that case, I don't really see the need for a nominator to rehash the same arguments, when the DRV closer can just start a discussion and link to the old AfD if people want to read it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that is not necessarily the case that for a 2nd AfD there was a legitimate nomination at the first AfD. Second point, if administrators can carry the nomination from the first AfD into the second AfD, shouldn't they also bring forward all of the discussion from the first AfD? How is closing "Overturn to no consensus WP:NPASR" not a better path? Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my facts, here is the diff that enabled the procedural nomination, in April 2011. Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (2nd nomination) is a relevant example of problems with procedural nominations. First of all, the nomination of the first AfD was by a banned editor. The procedural nomination is by an admin that in two other instances has protected the AfD nominations of banned editors. Next note that the closing argument cited previous deletion arguments. Editors cannot respond with the force of reason when closers bring in new evidence. This is not a unique example of citing previous AfD arguments in the closing of a procedural nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have the right & the obligation to discuss an article, if there is reasonable question about its suitability. Since I first came here 5 years ago, I have been nominating for AfD occasional articles I am not sure about--=the best way to see what should be done is not to try to exercise my own judgment, but get a community opinion. We discuss about 8% of the total submissions that pass speedy at AfD--we could probably get it down to 5% by more use of prod, and not nominating articles which are certain to pass. But if there is a good faith need to discuss, this is a good process--despite its susceptibility to lobbying, it's probably the best process we have of any. And when there is a AfD that gets contaminated or confused, the best way of clarifying it is a new AfD. I point out that if there is prejudice against an article or an article topic, a clear keep at AfD does the encyclopedia positive good besides avoiding the deletion. . DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Motherhood, apple pie, sliced bread, and AfD? Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—article passes WP:N because there are enough third party sources that cover it in a non-trivial manner. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:41, 17 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cherry[edit]

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

Note that this AFD includes the album Nothing Left To Fear.
Very minute evidence of notability. The charting is legit, but I have found no evidence of play on stations, and there appears to be little coverage for his music. The best refs are to Billboard and CCM Magazine, which do not appear to be legit. Otherwise, there is no evidence of notability elsewhere.Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Created by a repeated vandal a few months ago (since indeffed for socking). The Billboard refs don't contain any substantial coverage, the body of this article is all from the self-published sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song has actually gotten solid airplay on KLOVE, the charts are legit and the CCM Magazine source is solid as CCM Magazine is one of the larger (if not the largest) CCM-oriented magazine. It's a stub, sure, but it doesn't warrant deletion. Toa Nidhiki05 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Big Keep, I think Qxukhgiels56 does not know how to research anything. Just go and look at Mediabase, for the evidence of his false claims and asertions about no stations playing Andy Cherry's music. First song "Our God's Alive" is played by KFSH for the week of May 6 a total of 19 times and is at No. 11 on the list, KLJC played the song 26 times and is at No. 10 most played and WCRJ played his song 44 times and is at No. 3. On the subject of his second song "Nothing But The Blood" got played 23 times on WLAB coming in at No. 20, which it was not even played the week prior. So, two songs added to stations rotations is this enought for you Qxukhgiels56. The way you do is save the pdf file to your computer and search for Andy Cherry if you know how Qxukhgiels56!HotHat (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"two songs added to stations rotations is this enought"

I would very much hope our standards would be rather higher than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: For those uneducated about MUSICBIO go and make yourself very familiar with the criteria if you want to have or add anything of credence to this deletion discussion conversation. This man clearly passes under the Nos. 1, 2, 11, just to name a few, and I could probably get it to pass No. 4 as well because he is or was on the Grace Amazing Tour with Jimmy Needham, know him?HotHat (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

#1 & #2 - not adequately demonstrated by this article, by any of the sources that I can see.

#11 network, not just a single station. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we have to go through manually out of the 100+ Christian AC and CHR stations to see how many times his song got played? That is a laughable criteria - if you want to go to the trouble of finding that, go ahead, but songs don't magically just chart off of no airplay on an airplay-only format like the Christian Songs chart. According to Nielson BDS], he got 942 plays and 2.522 million audience impressions over just the last week. I'll also note that "Our God's Alive" is currently the sixth most-played song on the K-LOVE Radio station, which you can find on the K-LOVE website. The fact that he has had a charted single and album as well as verification from other sources proves he is indeed a notable subject. Toa Nidhiki05 02:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Air 1, Andy Cherry song "Our God's Alive" was at the peak position of No. 2 on their top songs for the week of April 28. On K-LOVE, the song was at a peak position of No. 4 on their Top Song chart for the week of April 8, which they have some gaps, so it could very well have gotten higher.HotHat (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per http://www.billboard.com/artist/andy-cherry/chart-history/1417659#/artist/andy-cherry/1417659 And @ Andy Dingley, the charting doesn't have to contain anything substantial. WP:BAND #2 simply reads: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" and the album has been charting for eighteen weeks, peaking at No. 19. If you would take one second to look at the source you'd see. Now it's time for you to make yourself very familiar with the criteria. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't know how to use the Billboard charts features. Three different entries there so I'm not sure what you don't see. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a charted single on Billboard is enough to meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:56, 18 May 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Srabasti Basu[edit]

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

I don't think any of the references provide the significant coverage that would be necessary for this person to pass WP:BIO, and I couldn't find any additional sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 resutls on google news, none in books. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per AroundTheGlobe. Not all referenced.--Chip123456 (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 17:49, 17 May 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.