< 20 May	22 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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Ortiz vs. Floyd Mayweather[edit]

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

The events fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. The sources in this article are from directly after the event with no follow up to demonstrate this event as being notable in the foreseeable future. BearMan998 (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— BearMan998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the other fights nominated for deletion this one was for one of the major belts, which is an indication of enduring notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger re. championship fight. -- KTC (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am withdrawing this nomination as this does appear to be a championship fight. BearMan998 (talk) 02:59, 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. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lumicall[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fork of another mobile phone app. No significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources. Prod removed when google play ref added - showing less than 1000 downloads although number of downloads does not establish notability anyway. noq (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources and fails the general notability guideline. →B music ian 00:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though this app is there in my phone, it is not notable. Also lacks proper refs and notability is not established. →TSU ^tp* 03:48, 28 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 What the hell was I on? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Ink[edit]

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

Deprodded with assertation that he's on tour, but the tour in question seems to be a single radio station's summer concert. The rest of the sources are just local incidental coverage with little substance. I think it's WP:TOOSOON at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a Washington Post piece showing in the footnotes and the web footprint seems large-to-massive for this artist. Not my thang, but clearly bigger than a breadbox... This is an excellent example of what I was saying at the recent dramaboard discussion, Mr. Hammer, a case where you need to be tagging for more sources rather than dragging to deletion as the first option. Carrite (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of tagging for more sources when I don't think it's notable in the first place? I was unable to find any sources beyond what's in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Most of the hits on Google News are a.) local, b.) trivial, or c.) false positives due to the searches picking it up on one site's "popular topics" sidebar, even on articles that have nothing to do with Kid Ink. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources:

McKynzie, Amber (October 19, 2011) "Kid Ink, Wheels Up." XXL Magazine.
The Washington Post – Kid Ink at Howard Theatre

He also has a profile at MTV UK, which also confers some notability in the music industry: Here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is just local fluff coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes requirements. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least two reliable sources - the Washington Post write-up and the XXL review - provide independent, significant coverage. Further, it's quite likely that the recent XXL issue (with Kid Ink as part of the "Freshmen" cover story) contains additional coverage. It's pretty clear our subject is an up-and-comer, but it appears enough coverage exists to satisfy WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 05:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how the Washington article is not just a local fluff piece covering an upcoming concert. That's all I see there, just fluff and promotion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, because the concert had already happened, it was not an "upcoming" concert. Gongshow ^Talk 06:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IT's still "articles that simply report performance dates" which is not enough per WP:NMUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates": I interpret that to apply to articles such as this one for the band We Kids Rock, or this one for the singer Xenia Rubinos. The tone, intent, and depth of coverage within these examples are quite different from the WashPost piece. Firstly, at 330+ words, it's difficult for me to classify the latter as "trivial" coverage. Moreover, while the first two examples read like "here's an upcoming concert on such-and-such day at such-and-such time for such-and-such price" promotions, the essence of the WashPost article is a "here's what happened" concert review - that's perfectly legitimate coverage, in my view. Gongshow ^Talk 07:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's one in-depth article from XXL, a live review from Washington Post, and smaller items on specialist hip-hop sites such as HipHopDX, which is a reliable source, since it is a commercial publication with a full editorial staff[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 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/snowball deletion, promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minidep[edit]

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

Contested prod. Can find no information on this anywhere. Nothing in books, nothing in scholar. Ridernyc (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No ref. othere than self-published, no google hits, and if you can patent this obvious series of questions as a diagnostic I'm going to patent my toenail clippings. And write an article on them. Promise.TheLongTone (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Promotional.--Dmol (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 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 Keep (nomination withdrawn). While there is one delete !vote, its rationale that the topic does not meet WP:ACADEMIC has been countered by several other arguments in the discussion that delineate why the topic actually does appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Topping[edit]

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

The only claim for notability is the Whitehead Prize. Yet there is no evidence that the Whitehead prize is a notable award, and that is the only claim to notability in the article. It appears that multiple people receive the Whitehead prize, which is one of multiple prizes given by one of multiple mathematical societies in the U.K. While this may be notable, I can't locate any independent reliable source coverage to establish such notability for it in this case. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The Whitehead prize is not a major award, and there is no evidence that Topping has any other claim to notability. NJ Wine (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Neither the nominator nor the previous commenter appear to have followed WP:BEFORE, and inappropriately assumed that the article in its nominated state said all there was to be said about its subject. As well as the Whitehead prize he also has the Philip Leverhulme Prize and a book. Google scholar only gives him an h-index of 13, which is on the low side for WP:PROF#C1, but this is a low-citation field, and his book has 132 cites, so I think he does barely pass on this criterion as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on above arguments. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - Thanks for the tip, Xxanthippe and David. I'm well aware of WP:BEFORE and WP:ACADEMIC though. I did complete a search for Peter Topping in many of the usual places, particularly looking for mention of him and the Whitehead prize. That did not turn up any notability in reliable sources. I also looked at his citation patterns and had found the book with 132 cites, and had counted his h-index as 12, which is not normally sufficient. The discovery of an international prize does help to pass WP:ACADEMIC, even though he appears to just be on the cusp of passing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with David...h-index of 13 for someone who primarily works in mathematics passes muster. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Nikolov (mathematician)[edit]

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

Article was deproded without addressing the concern. The only claim for notability is the Whitehead Prize. Yet there is no evidence that the Whitehead prize is a notable award, and that is the only claim to notability in the article. It appears that multiple people receive the Whitehead prize, which is one of multiple prizes given by one of multiple mathematical societies in the U.K. While this may be notable, I can't locate any independent reliable source coverage to establish such notability for it in this case. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The Whitehead prize is not a major award, and there is no evidence that Nikolov has any other claim to notability. NJ Wine (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. His citation record is slimmer than the other recent nominations for mathematicians Alessio Corti and Peter Topping, and unlike them he is still a reader rather than a full professor. It seems likely that he will eventually pass WP:PROF but I don't think the evidence for that is clear yet. And although he also has an impressive record at the mathematics olympiads, that's a high school student competition and I think we would need to find newspaper or other media attention for his wins there in order for it to count for notability. (Perhaps someone who reads Bulgarian could look for them?) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

José Carlos Cerveró[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; this player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Giant Snowman 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with GiantSnowman that WP:NFOOTBALL is not met. I looked up CD Castellón, Cervero's last team, and it appears that very few of the players are notable. NJ Wine (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - per nom. Since he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since 2002-03 he have played in Segunda División B, which is not a fully pro league, before 2002-03 I can't figure out which league he played in, but it doesn't look notable to me. So he fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Highest league played in is Segunda División B. KTC (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. →B music ian 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. →TSU ^tp* 16:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and WP:NFOOTBALL--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:17, 28 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) 20:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Castillo[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; this player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - have only played in Segunda División B, which is not a fully pro league, so he fails WP:NFOOTY in addition to WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mentoz86. KTC (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL --Kafuffle (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. →TSU ^tp* 16:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. →B music ian 03:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and WP:NFOOTBALL and wp:SNOW--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:18, 28 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 00:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming Indian High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Given source does not cover the basketball team. No evidence that the movie presented is about the basketball team of this school. No other sources present to prove existence and/or notability of the school. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources available and no reason why this page cannot be brought into line with WP:GNG. No evidence that the no nominator has carried out WP:BEFORE due diligence. TerriersFan (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- PBS' website confirms the documentary is about the reservation/school/basketball team [2], and Seattle Times confirms 7th state title [3]. Dru of Id (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a high school of confirmed existence, per long standing consensus. Dru of Id's cites emphasize why it's a good thing to keep high schools automatically — they generate sports teams, public drama performances, have alumni whose biographies need linkage on WP, etc. etc. etc. Carrite (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nominator Please mark dead links before starting a deletion discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or keep The "news" link above returns 58 hits and every hit on the first page is a good one, including:

Denver Post
New York Times
Seattle Times
Washington Times

Here is part of the snippet from the 2nd hit, "Denver Post - The Wyoming Indian High School Chiefs - owners of the longest basketball winning streak in Wyoming, the guys who rack up 50-point victory margins..." Here is another ref. The assertion that WP:GNG fails is a proof by assertion, and the argument that somebody should improve the article is not a deletion argument. Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. No question about notability here. I added a couple of sources to the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, everybody can invent his of her standards? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:15, 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 redirect to LGBT rights in Cameroon. Redirected by only contributor; with thanks to that editor. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ediage Valerie Ekwedde[edit]

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

I was alerted to this article by User:Bgwhite, who suggested that it is a case of WP:BLP1E. I agree, and I am not convinced by the creator's rationale on the talk page. If this information is worthwhile it can find a place in LGBT rights in Cameroon, but there really isn't a lot of information to merge (and claiming UNDUE for that article is pushing it). Drmies (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - As the article's sole content contributor, I won't contest. I'm updating another article at the moment but will merge this in an hour or so. (I'll put a note here when I've done so.) Khazar2 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar, you're the only contributor--you can copy the text to that LGBT article and leave a redirect (that's fair, I think). In the edit summaries of both pages, leave a note like "merged content to/from...", with links to the appropriate articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the content is already there--I missed it on my first look because the name was buried at the end of the paragraph. Making redirect now. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article is now redirect Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Khazar, I really appreciate your cooperation. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:32, 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 no consensus. The discussion hasn't managed to reach any real consensus around policy-based arguments for keeping or deleting. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination of the article, the first AFD should have been closed as no consensus or delete (two keeps, one of whom was the article creator with no policy based arguements). This article mainly consists of original research, what does "unbreakable" means, also despite having listed sources, almost all the sourcing is Baseball Reference, while it's a reliable source for stats, it's clearly an unacceptable source for the content listed here. Other sources are what sports writers consider in their opinion what may be unbreakable or not, which also isn't really acceptable per WP:NPOV Delete Secret ^account 19:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It goes against the manual of style, uses stats lists as references, and the content should be merged to other baseball articles. Either delete or rename and greatly revise. --Nathan2055 ^talk 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An WP:UGLY article does not mean the subject is not notable and warrants deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article is a strong as it's ever been, hardly worth an afd debate. The Baseball-Reference references are there for the stats when needed. The records themselves are compiled from multiple reliable sources. Everything checks out and I disagree with any assertion of original research. RoadView (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's lots of well-sourced, interesting content here but I just don't understand the point of the article itself. It can't ever meet WP:NPOV, since it's fundamentally an objective set of stats based on a subjective concept. At risk of falling down a slippery slope, what if we had 'List of Major League Baseball players considered the best' or 'List of Major League Baseball matches considered really quite awesome'? It's easy to see how these are subjective and not suitable (even if they meet WP:RS). It's a shame because it's a well-researched piece, but it just doesn't seem an encyclopedic topic. -Rushyo ^Talk 20:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe most if not all the list entries are sourced by at least one non-stat reference that supplied the POV that it was unbreakable. The stat refs are to provide additional context.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the best you can do with a topic that has a subjective element to it. Take multiple, reliable sources that indicate a reasonable consensus as to which records are unbreakable, then compile that information here to make it appropriately encyclopedic. This is similar to List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst. RoadView (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Describing points of view make the point, "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy."—Bagumba (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with WP:HEY attached - The article must have the "Life" references and some of the other references fixed. If it is, then there is WP:RS and I feel it passes WP:N. As a side comment, there might be an argument to move the article to a different name so that it is less of a WP:POV sounding title? - Pmedema (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:DEADLINK says "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." I saw the content of the working URL at one point and can vouch that it is not fictitious. Not sure if it is available as offline content.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found an archive of the LIFE slideshow I fixed the Rickey Henderson ref in the article. The other refs can eventually be fixed by going through the archived version of the slideshow and adding the archive urls to the article.—Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And I acknowledge that it could use some work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have posted a link here on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The concept of "unbreakable records" in baseball has extensive support in reliable sources (and not just stats site), some of which are in the article. The article should be expanded to cover records that were once considered unbreakable (e.g., Babe Ruth's 714 home runs) but were since broken, but that is not a reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nomination's premise about the original AfD being closed incorrectly. WP:SUPPORT and WP:POLLING are not substitutes for consensus. The article meets WP:GNG with references from LIFE, The New York Times, and The Epoch Times that discuss in prose the concept of unbreakable records. While I dont agree with the questionable math and liberal use of the word "unbreakable" in sources, my POV is not a reason to deny that reliable sources exists that subscribe to the view that unbreakable records exist. Editors can help improve the article to add neutrality and remove any record not verifiable, but an WP:UGLY article on a notable subject should not be deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a key factor is the wording "... considered unbreakable". There's an article about movies considered the worst ever. In both cases, that "considered" carries an assumption of reliable sourcing as opposed to editors making stuff up. If the article doesn't already do so, it might be worth distinguishing "unlikely" from "well-nigh impossible". The former is because the bar is set so high, as with Joe D's 56-game hitting streak. The latter is because the nature of the game has changed, as with Cy Young's 500-plus career wins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nominated this for deletion the first time, and in the last year I've changed my mind. The article needs a lot of work, but in baseball, the "unbreakable" records are an important part of the game's lore. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a lot of proper sources and is maintained a lot better than it used to be; meets GNG, which is what matters. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have spend some time thinking about this. I am a sucker for these types of lists, love to debate people about how "unbreakable" these (and other records) are, but I just can't agree that this is encylopedic. If some sporswriter or historian believes a record to be unbreakable, does that make it notable? I don't think so, because of the subjectivity of the word "unbreakable". I am knee-deep in love with baseball lore, but I believe that any record can be broken. As for the importance of these records to the lore of baseball, I disagree with that also. I am less than 40 (still!), and only one of these records has remained unchanged AND is steeped in baseball lore, DiMaggio's 56 games streak.Neonblak ^talk - 18:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe these are "unbreakable" as much as you do. However, the topic is verifiable and meets GNG. I dont feel we should be censoring information because we believe the opinion is wrong. We could add text to show that "unbreakable" records have been broken in the past.—Bagumba (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am of the opinion that WP:V is referring to "facts"; it is a fact that Nolan Ryan has 7 no-hitters and can be verified through many independent reliable resources. Although a historian may believe that his record is "unbreakable", it is an opinion. Whether he/she can be quoted in a independent, reliable resource or not, it is still only an opinion. For list purposes, it could theoretically be endless, as long as one historian or sportswriter is quoted in print that he/she believes a certain record cannot be broken. This list appears to me to be trivia more so than a list of facts. Kind of like someone creating "List of Scientific Theories that can not be disproved". Even if you can gather quotes made by well-known scientists from reliable resources, puting them together in a list seems unencyclopedic to me. If tonight, someone hits 5 home runs in a game, and some deep-thinking historian says that no one can hit six in a game, is that now able to added to the list?Neonblak ^talk - 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point regarding criteria for entries in the list was previously discussed on the article's talk page. While it is a concern regarding the article's content, I'm don't believe it is a basis for article deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Records are only highly unlikely to be broken given current conditions; however, conditions have changed throughout Major League Baseball history, and so virtually all records could be broken. As I recall, both Bill James and Baseball Prospectus have written about how records like 300 wins may become approachable again in the future. I don't believe there is a sufficiently well-founded central thesis for the concept of records that are considered unbreakable; each record requires its own explanation of the state of the game in the context of the achievement, why the record is difficult to break today, and what conditions would have to return (or be introduced) in order for the record to no longer be considered unbreakable. As such, I think the list is in danger of being a list of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. I suggest that the articles for each achievement in question be expanded if necessary to include reliably-sourced discussion of how the changing conditions of MLB over the years have affected the ability to set new highs/lows for the achievement. isaacl (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lists meets WP:LISTN as unbreakable records "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." The references from LIFE, The New York Times, and The Epoch Times support this. Opposing views can be added to meet WP:NPOV. While WP:SPINOFFs may be possible, it does not mean this article should be deleted now.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What make Life Magazine a leading expert in baseball records? This isn't a GNG issue, this is a original research and a NPOV issue. There's plenty of topics that would meet GNG but will fail our other policies. Secret ^account 22:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also considering GNG is being used here for an arguement to keep the article, it is only a guideline in the end of the day, I haven't really seen any policy arguement explaining that how isn't original research and NPOV, both of which is policy and trumps GNG. Again something that some media members think it's unbreakable or not is going to be subjective at the end of the day, and like Issacl said, baseball changed so much thoughout its jhistory, that something being "unbreakable" isnt really remarkable record. Give Bob Gibson earned run average for example, he had such a low earned run average that season mailnly because MLB changed the height of the pitching mound to counter the high scoring games back in the early 1960s, and that of course backfired. Cy Young won 511 games because he pitched in a era in which teams only used two starting pitchers and threw much softer, preventing the arm abuse that went on later. This is original research in the end of the day. If there's been some controversy about "unbreakable" records, that might meet Wikipedia guidelines, but there isn't much in sources, nor it's not really discussed in the media unless it's a human interest story. Secret ^account 22:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On a minor side note, I did not suggest that any spinouts be created, but that the information on, say, the approachability of the all-time win record can be described within the article on wins. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "There are some records that the baseball community considers unbreakable. I wonder if Wikipedia has a list of them. I sure hope so, because it would be real convenient to be see them all together in one place." ... "There is an article! Excellent! Wait, what? Considered for deletion! Why would anybody want to delete a beautiful list like that? Lemme see those reasons." ... "It's not encyclopedic? Sure it is. The list is subjective? Not really, if it's compiled from multiple sources. Looking over the list, I would agree that almost all of them are unbreakable, and probably most followers of baseball would, as well. Let's see those references: Hmm, 'Unbreakable records'... 'Unbreakable record'... 'not all records are made to be broken'... Looks pretty substatiated to me. The lists of unbreakable baseball records are out there, and have been compiled by sports writers for 120 years. How is that any more subjective than anything else we have secondary sources for?" ... "Anyway, I sure hope they don't delete this article, it would be a real shame if this list were gone from Wikipedia." Listmeister (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firm Keep (1) What needs fixing, clarifying, improving, or better sourcing needs fixing, clarification, improvement or better sourcing; none of the deficiencies are anywhere severe enough on their own (or together) to merit deleting the whole list. (2) On the trickier question of notability: the whole point (as I see it) of the list is to show why the records are considered unlikely to be broken (just as the 22nd Amendment makes it extremely unlikely that any U.S. President will serve the record four terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt). Almost all sports strive to exceed past achievements (the Olympic motto is Faster, Higher, Stronger), and American professional baseball is certainly no exception, from either the athlete's or the observer's point of view. (3) I might, however, be agreeable to a new title (with redirects from the current one), if that would make the list's purpose clearer to more readers while still easily found by those looking for unbreakable records. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage given, and the word "unbreakable" is even used in the headlines of many news articles linked to in the reference section. Dream Focus 09:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While I do acknowledge that this article does have to be cleaned up quite significantly, (1) refs come from a wide variety of reliable sources, (2) Baseball Reference is almost only used for stats and not to reinforce why a record is unbreakable, and (3) almost all records are backed up by multiple sources, not the opinions of one or two sports writers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:04, 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) 20:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Muldoon[edit]

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

Delete See Talk:Michael Muldoon. Tagged for notability for five years. Still hasn't been proved. Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To other editors considering this deletion discusion, first of all, don't be misled by the stubby nature of the current article, this was at one point a 7000-character article. I suggest editors considering this deletion discussion start with the talk page, Talk:Michael Muldoon, and with www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Michael-Muldoon (FYI, this domain is on the Wikipedia blacklist). Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems likely that at the heart of this internet maelstrom is a real person. There are definitely M. Muldoon's/Michael Muldoon's that play Gaelic football, ref. As per the talk page, the original author asserts that the original material was "presented in the humourous nature of the character himself". This "humorous" material lacks something we call inline citations to reliable references. Regarding technical information available in history revisions, I could not find www.irishgaels.com in web.archive.org. I looked up the ISBN for one of the two book references, and worldcat.org does not recognize it. The other book was identified on the talk page with, "To the best of my knowledge the book was merely printed locally, not published." So it may be sufficient to say as per the nutshell of WP:N that the "world at large" has not taken notice of this topic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources. He may exist, but we are lacking sources to establish notability, and in fact, we have some verifiability issues as well. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be an amateur, at best. Glad someone nominated it for Afd! Student7 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and five years are enough to prove notability if any --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:21, 28 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 00:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Valentine[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and general notability guidelines. No evidence of significant, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The lone sources are a few paragraphs in a local-news blog and a 2009 op-ed written by the article subject. Writing a single op-ed in a local newspaper doesn't make one notable, and the blog source is pretty trivial.

Article has existed since 2005 without adequate sourcing being developed. Could be re-created in a form that meets this site's sourcing and notability guidelines, should additional independent, reliably sourced coverage evolve. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is related to two other active AfD nominations: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tennessee Tax Revolt and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/An Inconsistent Truth. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article Tennessee Tax Revolt had led me to believe that this guy was the Nashville right-wing talk radio host who roused the rabble to drive around the state capitol, honking their horns incessantly, to bully the state legislature into not passing an income tax. However, it turns out that I was confusing him with Steve Gill. (Apparently, if I've seen one right-wing talk radio host, I think I've seen them all.) Accordingly, I conclude that the promoter of the Valentine articles has been trying to credit the guy with another radio host's accomplishments. No purpose in keeping the article... --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC) PS - I don't live in the Nashville radio market and I've never heard either of these men on the radio; all I know about either of them comes from the news media. --Orlady (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you guys serious? This guy is a nationally syndicated talk radio host with Dial Global Radio Networks on over 110 radio stations. He is consistently listed by Talkers Magazine as one of the 100 most influential radio hosts and was chosen by Talkers as one of the most influential radio talk show hosts OF ALL TIME. Orlady (entry above) should be banned from ever contributing to Wikipedia given his/her complete bias against anyone on the right. Yes, Orlady, it WAS indeed Phil Valentine who led the TN tax revolt and who wrote a book about it called Tax Revolt (Thomas Nelson Publishers). Just because you're a liberal gives you no right to delete the article. Grow up, will you? --The Authenticator (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC) — The Authenticator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - per MastCell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:PERNOMINATOR, where it's stated in part, "It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion." Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more inclined to take your comment seriously if you hadn't !voted the opposite way below. Please take "per nom" as meaning: "Fails WP:BIO and general notability guidelines. No evidence of significant, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as crossing both the verifiability and notability thresholds as a nationally-syndicated talk show host. He is ranked at #42 in the 2012 Talkers Magazine Heavy Hundred (and I've added a reference). I've added a few other references to reliable sources, scraped out some cruft, and added wikilinks and proper formatting. On the tax revolt, contemporary reports (like this one: Gettleman, Jeffrey (July 29, 2001). "Radio talk shows generate wave of dissent in Nashville". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Los Angeles Times News Service. p. 12A. Retrieved May 22, 2012.) list both Valentine and Gill as being leaders in the Nashville radio community. - Dravecky (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After Dravecky's improved refs. Has notability (though I've never heard of him, heh)Capitalismojo (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article is now notable due to recent addition of sources. Bravo Dravecky! – Lionel ^(talk) 22:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's enough to survive AfD, but the article still needs better sourcing and coverage of his actual radio career. - Dravecky (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic appears to pass WP:GNG, per: [4], [5], [6], [7]. There's also this article, which has some mentions: [8]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Radio host is not notable outside of Nashville. References in the article do not comprise significant coverage and do not establish notability, so this fails WP:GNG. He does get a mention in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but is not the main topic of the source material, only garnering a brief mention. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 01:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must a subject have notability beyond their metropolitan area? (Before you reply: remember that most of our 100000+ high schools and junior colleges have only local notability).– Lionel ^(talk) 04:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Lionel's point, the mayor of Nashville, Karl Dean, has an article and is certainly not notable outside of Nashville. The fact that Valentine has held high-profile jobs in Philadelphia and Nashville and is currently heard in over 110 markets including Flint, MI, Milwaukee, Savannah, GA and Pensacola, FL would indicate his notability reaches far beyond Nashville. --The Authenticator (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consistantly in the top 50 of the Talkers magazine Heavy Hundred — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.71.74 (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syndicated talk show host with sufficiently widespread coverage to justify claims to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems to be driven by a disdain for Mr. Valentine's politics. He is a nationally syndicated radio host. That seems to meet the notability requirements. I know from first hand experience that his show is available on the radio on WFNC in Fayetteville, North Carolina Gerry D (talk) 00:24, 26 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 merge to Ghost Rider (comics). (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoss (comics)[edit]

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

I found no reliable coverage of this character. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 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) 00:01, 11 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, -Scottywong | spout _ 18:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, no significqnt coverqge from independent reliable sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ghost Rider (comics)#Enemies, that is its proper place. Cavarrone (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ghost Rider (comics)#Enemies as per User:Cavarrone the info can be used there --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:27, 28 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) 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESP LTD EC-1000[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage of this guitar. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 5 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) 00:02, 11 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, -Scottywong | talk _ 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit No GNG. Dalit Llama (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced, non notable, no coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG →B music ian 00:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no refs are there nor can be found. Also notability is a question so it is not notable. →TSU ^tp* 17:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Bmusician (a musicians advice must be paid heed to)--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:29, 28 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 merge to USA Roller Sports. There are several candidates for the merger destination, USA Roller Sports is the most relevant. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USA Hockey Inline[edit]

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

This organization no longer exists. The Amateur Athletic Union along with USA Roller Sports is now the governing body. Since this page has been a stub since 2006 and most official information about USA Hockey Inline has been removed, this article has no chance in becoming more than a stub and should be deleted. Sources: http://usahockey.cachefly.net/Inline/InlineSplash.html linked from http://www.usahockey.com/ ChadH (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 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) 00:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything we have here and redirect to USA Hockey, of which this was a subsidiary. There is and will continue to be some secondary coverage of the league, but from what little I can find, I didn't quite see WP:GNG, and I suspect that the topic would benefit most from unified coverage. Please note that primary coverage also still exists at the Wayback Machine, e.g., [9]. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I have no objection to keep if notability can be shown, folks are right point out that notability is not temporary. The question is has this organization ever evidenced notability. Additional sources would sway me, since I found (and added) the one bit of secondary coverage longer than a passing mention. But that's still short of WP:GNG, and I haven't seen a keep rationale yet that argues otherwise. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | express _ 18:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Inline hockey as there is little to no information in this 1 1/2 sentence article. I honestly feel that merging this information would just be confusing, unnecessary and unencyclopedic. The redirect would be a viable search term. - Pmedema (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and reidirect to USA Hockey. Redirect is a viable search term, one looking for this term will probably be better suited to read the article on the organisation and not the sport. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Being defunct does not make something not notable. Being short is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason for merging if a good target can be found. Dew Kane (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that no longer existing is not a reason for deletion. We're not a directory of current sports organizations, but an encyclopedia of all that ever were notable. If material has been removed, it should be reinserted. Unless the current orgnaization is a direct official successor with just the name changed, it shouldn't be merged. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USA Hockey. Being defunct doesn't make something non-notable, but it also doesn't make something notable. Sources make something notable, and the one source currently in this article does not represent significant coverage. -Scottywong | comment _ 16:48, 31 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. Numerically speaking and overall, though after contributors began citing sources the discussion has clearly trended towards keep. Sandstein 04:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconsistent Truth[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable film, fails WP:MOVIE. Promoted with the ludicrous claim that it was the #1 box-office performer "per screen" (it played on exactly one screen, which speaks to notability).

Specifically, per WP:MOVIE: this film has not been widely distributed; has not been the subject of at least 2 full-length reviews by nationally known critics; shows no evidence of historical notability; has received no major awards (2nd place at the Appalachian Film Festival doesn't meet that bar in WP:MOVIE), and has not been selected for preservation or taught in accredited film programs. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even after repairing what I could, I don't find much reason to keep this article. Very difficult to find info on this movie, even its own website says "Now Playing! Nashville's Regal Hollywood 27", that's Phil Valentine's hometown, and I can't find it playing anywhere else. Checking the listing of that theatre, it's not listed. So even the movie's own website is wrong, it's not playing anywhere, nor is there any indication that there will be a DVD release. Not notable. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 17:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with storm and fire: Only ONE Google News hit, on a Nashville-based blog. [10]. No evidence of notability, no reliable sources cited. Fails WP:MOVIE going away. The article's creator is a SPA whose Wikipedia activity centers around this article and the Phil Valentine article, to which he's added a great deal of unsourced and trivial content. Ravenswing 18:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On that topic: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Valentine. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tennessee Tax Revolt. --Orlady (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the heads up. I'll get right over there and make sure they aren't deleted.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Sorry, I missed this entirely. I saw the coverage and assumed it met notability requirements. Upon further inspection, there is some coverage, but I not much. If someone wants to look for some additional citations, it may be enough to warrant a keep. I'll keep track of the page in the meantime to see if any improvements are made.JoelWhy (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE and any of the notability guidelines at WP:GNG. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. If it becomes notable for any reason, then it should be restored without issue. Collect (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:MOVIE outright. I think there's going to be a puddle on the ground regarding this one. - Pmedema (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MOVIE is surprisingly strict. a13ean (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MOVIE, sorry. No way this will be kept, I'm afraid. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phil Valentine#Film & Television (if Phil Valentine survives its current AfD). The claim that this film was the #1 box office performer "per screen" in its opening weekend is true, albeit much less impressive than the film's supporters might have us believe. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Valentine was indeed kept at AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the guy who couldn't find any Google hits on the movie he wasn't looking very hard. Check out the following links:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/08/an-inconsistent-truth/
http://www.indiewire.com/article/final-box-office-an-inconsistent-truth-tops-indiewires-weekly-box-office-chart#
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/an-inconsistent-truth-exposes-gores-agenda/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/an-inconsistent-truth-premieres-in-nashville-today-climate-change-agenda-is-toast/
http://www.tennessean.com/videonetwork/1418646927001/An-Inconsistent-Truth
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/feb/17/movie-industry-takes-notice-of-02/

And, by the way, the trailer has over 32,000 views as of this writing. Pretty significant and relevant if you ask me. --The Authenticator (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC) — The Authenticator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We're not looking for Google hits - we're looking for independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by that, MastCell. Is that the criteria any of you panning this article used to include the movie Thankskilling on Wikipedia? A $3,000 budget and never saw the inside of a movie theater yet there it is on Wikipedia. I have listed 6 independent, reliable sources above. They include The Tennessean newspaper, IndieWires (the premiere independent movie website), The Commercial Appeal newspaper from Memphis, WorldNetDaily.com. I can list many more but what's the purpose. If Wiki is listing a movie like Thankskilling with no track record of success or any evidence of being notable yet kills this movie then the motivation is obviously political. Is that what you really want to degenerate into? So you don't buy the position this movie is taking. I get that. But you're judgement on whether a film should be included is obviously being clouded by your political views. I would ask you not to go there. --The Authenticator (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be that the other film is not notable either but no one has though to bring that to AFD yet. In other words it may be possible that both article should be deleted. In short, The fact that Thankskilling had not been through AFD yet is irrelevant and this article needs to stand on its own.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of films less notable than this one that are included. This Is Not a Film is just one example. It played one theater (An Inconsistent Truth played at 4 theaters in 3 cities) and less box office gross. The fact that these films are included and this one is being considered for deletion is completely relevant. It is THE point. Ask yourself why this one is drawing so much attention. I think that fact that it is drawing all this fire makes it relevant and notable in and of itself. The last thing Wikipedia should want to be is inconsistent and discriminatory. --The Authenticator (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's drawing attention because another editor happened to come across it and found someone pushing a POV using the movie as a vehicle (see initial removed edits). Without question, there are hundreds, more likely thousands, of articles that should be deleted from WP, and one at a time, when they happen to be in front of the right person at the right time, they will no doubt get deleted as well. Feel free to open an AfD and nominate any that you find that don't meet the criteria as put forth in WP:MOVIE, just like this one. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 02:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MastCell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MOVIE, no evidence WP:GNG is satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not addressing the issue of this one. We have a legitimate film here. One that played in several theaters across the country. One that was the top-grossing film per screen in the country for two weeks. One that's one of the 50 top-grossing independent movies of 2012. It has won awards. It is written, produced and hosted by a nationally syndicated talk radio host listed by Talkers Magazine as one of the most important talk show hosts of all time. It addresses one of the most contentious issues of our time. It has garnered national attention from major news sources. How could anyone say this movie is not notable enough to be included on WP? --The Authenticator (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This movie satisfies ALL of the WP:GNG. It is sourced by many legitimate sources: The Daily Caller, The Tennessean, The Commercial Appeal, The Nashville Scene, Fandango.com, BoxOfficeMojo.com, IndieWire.com, WesternJournalism.com, Boston.com and many more. It's listed on IMDb.com. It's rated by the MPAA (PG, by the way). There are hundreds of independent films that are never rated. That's a major point as far as legitimacy. It goes far beyond satisfying the guidelines. --The Authenticator (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, The Authenticator has thrown up some sources. We should at least examine them.
1) Under no circumstances does a 75-word blog entry satisfy the GNG’s requirement that the source discuss the subject in “significant detail,” even were we to believe the blogger to be a reliable source.
2) This entry spends two sentences discussing the subject. Massive GNG fail.
3, 6) Not a reliable source as per WP:IRS.
4) Are you kidding us? Seriously? Why not see if Weekly World News has a bit on it?
5) Err ... where is the content in this link? Are you suggesting that a video clip constitutes a reliable source certifying the notability of a subject? Ravenswing 02:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider #6 a reliable source? The Commercial Appeal is the main newspaper in Memphis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Earth to !voters... Earth to !voters... Come in... Come in... I know saying anything untoward about the Patron Saint of "Global Warming"----I mean "climate change"---is a crime worthy of a topic ban, but this film is notable:

[11] Commercial Appeal is RS
[12] KPCC is RS and its blog passes WP:NEWSBLOG
[13] newsblaze.com is RS

Multiple sources Y
Substantial coverage Y

Winner winner chicken dinner! Closing admin please take into account most of the "Delete" votes were cast before I found multiple RS which establish notability. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newsblade is not an RS, it's a punditry site. Can't speak to the rest until I get home later. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's a punditry site or not is irrelevant. All we care about is editorial oversight. Newsblaze.com is cited extensively on Wikipedia. In fact 359 times. No issues raised at WP:RSN. The author, Prarie Miller, is an award-winning film critic, journalist and poetess. Sits on the governing boards of Women Film Critics Circle and New York Film Critics Online and is a member of Broadcast Film Critics Association. It goes without saying her credentials are impeccable [14]. Newsblaze is solid. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, editorial oversight doesn't give a website an automatic pass. That said, the authors credentials do appear legit, so I'll withdraw that complaint. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially impressed with the quality of these sources, Commercial Appeal aside, and I continue to feel that this topic doesn't have the requisite non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. My !vote above stands, and I'm unimpressed by the partisan rhetoric in this particular !vote. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I guess my !vote bucks consensus already, but there is an argument for borderline notability under WP:GNG for this pathetic movie, based on the sources cited above.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I can appreciate the support for keeping this article from Milowent I have to point out that calling this a "pathetic movie" is exactly what damages the credibility of contributors and editors. I have to ask Milowent, have you actually seen the movie? I rather doubt it. The accusation from many, specifically about this topic, is that people are allowing their emotions to color their editorial judgement. We need to try to eliminate any perception that entries are being deleted based on politics. --The Authenticator (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damages the credibility of contributors and editors with whom? World Nut Daily? I care not about the fringe left or fringe right of the internet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, The Authenticator, whether an editor has seen the movie or not is irrelevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first noting that most of the deletes above were added before a few editors found independent reliable sources providing significant coverage. Particularly, the [http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/an-inconsistent-truth-exposes-gores-agenda/ World Net Daily] piece is a full length article specifically about the movie, written by [http://www.wnd.com/author/runruh/ an author] who has written for multiple newspapers and the Associated Press. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WorldNetDaily has generally not been considered a reliable source. MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, perhaps, but not universally, and as I said, the individual author seems to have the necessary credentials to pass muster as a WP:RS. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those credentials are self-supplied on an unreliable website. As best I can tell, Unruh (the author of the piece) is not notable as a journalist or film critic, and most of his output seems to consist of questioning the validity of Obama's long-form birth certificate and writing articles like [http://www.wnd.com/2010/02/124704/ "Obama czar's 'homo-genda' proposed for U.S. schools"]. Call me crazy, but I don't think this is what WP:RS has in mind. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here are two articles he authored almost two decades ago when he worked for AP. So he's not lying about his credentials. Does a career as a journalist get negated by becoming a strongly opinionated commentator? Perhaps I'm incorrect in doing so, but it seems to me that there is a difference between saying everything written about an article's subject is 100% correct and saying some of that which is written about an article's subject is opinion, yet still carries enough weight to make it notable. Also, some of the other sources still seem to add up to notability. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "Does a career as a journalist get negated by becoming a strongly opinionated commentator?" It should when you reveal yourself as a nutball. David Lawrence had some absolutely kooky views, but his non-kooky work still carried weight. However, the fact that it was Unruh is who wrote something on WND is of no real effect.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "Does a career as a journalist get negated by becoming a strongly opinionated commentator?" Interesting question, which I think turns on editorial oversight. I'd say that his work under the editorial oversight of the Associated Press might be considered a reliable source. His work under the editorial oversight of WorldNetDaily, not so much. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film holds numerous positions of repute including having been the top grossing film per screen for 2 weeks running. Even if we were to accept the accusation of "bias" for the sake of argument, why isn't the same accusation applicable to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"? This film is an exploration of the "other side" of the argument presented by Al Gore in his movie. In the case of "Inconsistent", there are several testimonies given by experts in climate science, including major contributors to the very report Al Gore cites in his film. If Wikipedia's effort is to remain neutral and balanced, removing this page would be a direct action against that effort. If those who support Al Gore's message are allowed to have their say/representation, disallowing a film that explores the facts and opinions of the other side is anything but neutral and balanced. Wikipedia should also call into question the motive behind those wanting to delete the page. What could call for such desperate attempts to prove that "well technically it doesn't meet such and such a guideline"? I suspect that the effort to delete the page is less about maintaining the "integrity of wikipedia" and more about silencing a vocal opposition on a very divisive issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrsemn4 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) — Hrsemn4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "...having been the top grossing film per screen for 2 weeks running."
- I'm afraid you've fallen for their misleading promotion. It was the top grossing film per screen, because it was only screened at one theater. That's not impressive in the least. The rest of your comment is not helpful perWP:OTHERSTUFF and a failure to assume good faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While having the top per-screen average in the country was an accomplishment for this film, the problem is that it didn't gross much more after that. An Inconsistent Truth remained in release for only 7 weeks, never played more than 3 theaters, and grossed less than $70,000 in its entire run. By contrast, Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth remained in release for 23 weeks, played in 587 theaters, and grossed $24 million for its entire run. The Phil Valentine film just hasn't been paid anywhere near as much attention, whether favorable or unfavorable, as the Al Gore film. I would recommend that the supporters of Inconsistent see if the film can get more attention, maybe even go back into release and play in the rest of the country where it didn't play before, to get it established as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But...but..."numerous positions of repute"...non-News, -Books, and -Scholar Google hits...being panned by a critic whose "credentials are impeccable"...you're not being fair and balanced... Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)—has made, you know, a few edits outside this topic, but rarely in a satirical tone[reply]

Delete per nom.Fails WP:N. Extreme partisan blogs are not RS for satisfying WP:MOVIE. Edison (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Changing my delete to ambivalent. Some of the sources are unusuable, but I think there's enough to (perhaps) warrant a keep. If the page stays, however, we'll need to keep an eye on it to keep out the anti-science silliness.JoelWhy (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD has now been canvassed, not surprisingly, on Valentine's twitter and website. SÆdon ^talk 01:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine didn't even mention the phenomenal sources that I found.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, after reading both the twitter post and the website post, I have to wonder if that's the same kind of "journalism" that went into his movie, if so it would certainly clear up any questions I had concerning why it didn't last long. I particularly enjoyed the part where Valentine's website compared everyone here who votes to Delete to Holocaust Deniers, and those who reject the moon landings as real. Do I even need to type out my opinion on that? -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 15:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well where are they??? Phil has 2500 twitter followers! It's been over a day. I have my patented, copyrighted and trademarked welcome tamplate all ready to go: ((RightWelcome)). Has Wikipedia become that irrelevant that we can't even pique the interest of 2500 right wingers? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep – the topic has received significant coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. As such, the topic fully passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline:

Southern California Public Radio (KPCC Radio) – "An Inconsistent Truth" features Newt Gingrich (but probably not Gingrich's inconsistent global warming truth)
The Commercial Appeal – Movie industry takes notice of 'Inconsistent Truth'
Nashville Scene – Phil Valentine's An Inconsistent Truth No. 1 Movie in America by Per-Screen Average

There's also this article which is comprised of significant coverage; the source's reliability may be unclear:

Newsblaze.com – An Inconsistent Truth Movie Review: Tea Party Tirade Gores Al

Here's another short article:

The Western Center for Journalism – ‘An Inconsistent Truth’ Premieres In Nashville Today – Climate Change Agenda Is Toast

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with the "Western Center for Journalism", but a) its review is a brief capsule which doesn't address notability requirements, and b) any review which pronounces: "Al Gore and his one-world allies are beginning to lose the battle to destroy industrialized civilization" is unlikely to be useful as a reliable source for a serious encyclopedic article. I get that we're trying to dig up any and all sources to stave off deletion, but we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with some of these. MastCell ^Talk 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Western Center for Journalism is clearly a right-wing organization (you don't need to read past the headline to make that conclusion.) Nashville Scene appears to just be a blog. As you point out, Newsblaze is another right-wing cite. I did change my vote to weak keep, but let's not pretend this is some clearly noteworthy film. It may pass have enough to make it through the door, but not by much.JoelWhy (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the source in my !vote above for The Western Center for Journalism under revised heading "Here's another short article:". It appears that the synopsis in the article is quoted from the film's creators. The Nashville Scene source qualifies as a newsblog that is published by SouthComm Inc., which also publishes The Nashville Post and several other publications. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Commercial Appeal is reliable. I found the same exact article in HighBeam and the search engine only has reliable media. SL93 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Nashville Scene is not a blog. It's a weekly newspaper in Nashville. The following is a link to Climate Change Dispatch which IS a partisan site BUT it reprints a piece by Anne Paine from The Tennessean that also ran in the Detroit Free Press. Most of the Tennessean content is not found on the Internet because you have to pay for it. Here's the link: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9868-al-gore-is-villain-in-an-inconsistent-truth --The Authenticator (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... so climatechangedispatch.com is re-posting copyrighted material which the original source distributes only for a fee? MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and I thought that respect for property rights was one of the basic tenets of conservatism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources have been shown above, in particular by Northamerica1000, to meet the general notability guideline. The case for keeping this hasn't been helped by the battleground mentality, invalid arguments and junk sources shown above by some of the defenders of this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was not canvassed to be here, but found this on the delsort. While the article needs work, and should not rely on questionable sources, we do have enough offered above to show the film as meeting the requisites of WP:Notability (film). I note that a few of the above delete votes appear to have been based upon sources contained in the article at the time of their votes and not upon what is findable through searches. That's not how we determine a topic's notability. I have not seen the film and have no opinion one way or the other on its subject matter... but we do not sit in judgement over the truth or not of a topic. We instead determine through policy and guideline if it has, even in ignoring questionable sources, received enough coverage in enough reliable sources to be determinable as notable. This one has. And with respects to the nominator, those "attributes" you shared, are not requirements of WP:MOVIE, but are criteria that if present encourage more diligent searches for sources. As sources already exist, we need not even consider whether or not we need consider them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear: as best I can tell, the currently available reliable sources include a short piece in the Commercial Appeal [15], a couple of paragraphs in a Nashville-based newsblog [16], and a longer piece in a public-radio newsblog [17]? MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have enough to expect more. And, as was clarified further above, while a blog without editorial oversite is usualy far from being reliable, those edited and mainatined by reliable sources usually are. Added to Commercial Appeal, we have Nashville Scene and KPCC which are reliable enough for our purposes as being the offical news blogs (not personal blogs) of reliable sources. We naturally do not use the reader's comment responses to the news blog. I was more concerned with the WP:OENs being offered as if they were mandates. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly not the most notable documentary ever made, but the three sources discussed by MQS and MastCell just above, plus perhaps the Prarie Miller review, are enough to get over the notability hump. I'd add that the further development of this article may be subject to the concerns and guidelines set forth at WP:FRINGE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This film grossed under $70K and only showed on two or three screens, and seems to fail most of the criteria at WP:MOVIE, but it could just need more time to determine whether it is historically notable, seeing as it was released this year. Perhaps wait a year and try to recreate. Being listed in IMdB and receiving 2nd place (out of 4) at the Appalachian Film Festival doesn't establish notability. The sources used here that are reliable do not represent significant coverage of the subject, mostly being short write ups from Tennessee outlets, so this does not pass WP:GNG. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 01:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has a cool poster with a dollar sign over a couple of smokestacks uploaded by yours truly. File:An Inconsistent Truth poster.jpg Don't you think that's worth at least a "Weak keep"? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last I looked, we do not look to IMDB for reliability or notabilty... do we? We also do not use a film's budget as a measuring tape. Nor do we imply that minor awards at minor festivals mean it must somehow be non-notable. We also do not use meeting some of WP:NF's guidelines while missing on its others as a reason to delete. For a film that has screened and is still scrreening, we can determine it, even if just barelly, notable enough to wait for even more as it continues to screen. And while WorldNetDaily is conservative, they do have editorial oversight.[http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/an-inconsistent-truth-exposes-gores-agenda/] The Western Journalism Center may be conservative and promote investigative reporting, but does their being conservative mean they do not exercise editorial oversight? [18] Last I heard per WP:NPOV, we try to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If the sources being used were of a Liberal-bent, would we still be having this discussion? We accept ALL reliable sources whether they are conservative OR liberal in order to maintain balance. Seems that if a film article is felt unbalanced, it simply requires attention... not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Laughable. How could anyone with a straight face claim that a movie that grossed $20,000, in its best week, is notable? Will every short film played at the Cannes Film Festival get their own articles as well? Will a moron in a hurry mistake this for Al Gore's Oscar-winning film? Bearian (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability depends on coverage in reliable sources, not gross takings or laughableness. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can rule out the possibility that a film that grossed $20,000 in its best weekend is notable. It isn't guaranteed to be notable, but Wikipedia does have some articles about films that never grossed $20,000 in a weekend and had total grosses lower than that of An Inconsistent Truth (total gross: $69,394). Looking only at 2011 and 2012 releases that have completed their theatrical runs, we have articles about The Giant Mechanical Man (total gross: $7,396), Orgasm Inc. (total gross: $49,001), Margaret (2011 film) (total gross: $46,495), The Myth of the American Sleepover (total gross: $41,045), Louder Than a Bomb (film) (total gross: $40,362), The Son of No One (total gross: $30,680), Sarah Palin: You Betcha! (total gross: $10,935), and Janie Jones (film) (total gross: $6,840). None of these films ever grossed $20,000 in a weekend, and some didn't gross that much in their entire North American run. And they might all be notable -- I'm not calling for them to be deleted. But anyone who says that An Inconsistent Truth grossed so little that it couldn't possibly be notable would have to say that those other films must also be non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Bearian is a member of the Sierra Club. That's why he elevated his heading to an emotional "Laughable" rather than an objective "Delete" or "Keep." This is the kind of bias I've been warning about. Metropolitan is exactly right. There are tons of movies on Wiki that did far less box office business and tons more that went straight to DVD never having been shown in theaters. Bottom line: We have here a certainly notable personality (Valentine-#42 on Talkers Magazine's list of top talk show hosts) who did a movie that, so far, has done respectable box office, if not admirable for a self-funded independent. I think it's a no-brainer that this is a keeper. --The Authenticator (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there is clearly bias both ways, take off your own tinfoil hat and you'll see it. But the strength of the arguments is the key.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticator, you really need to familiarize yourself with Wiki guidelines before attempting to argue for inclusion. In just your latest post alone, you've ignored WP:OSE, WP:AFG, and WP:NOTINHERITED. These rules aren't intended to stymie debate, they are intended to exclude irrelevant arguments. You may wish to start by reviewing this page.JoelWhy (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MQS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like the nomination to delete the Phil Valentine article I believe this nomination is purely driven by a disdain for the beliefs espoused in the film. There are many topics I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Deleting this article would be censorship of a controversial topic and that is a path we should avoid at all costs. Gerry D (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I want to echo what JoelWhy said above about assuming good faith. I've !voted "keep" here but I have no difficulty understanding why good faith editors of long standing and experience might see it otherwise: when you come down to it, it seems that the film was screened in Nashville for a few weeks, and basically nowhere else, and some editors just feel that's not enough. In light of the multiple reliable sources that have covered the film, I see it otherwise, but the case is close, and I don't see any need to assume that the delete !votes here are driven by political philosophy, as opposed to the usual good faith disagreements about where to draw the line on notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to assume good faith when the guy slates his comment "Laughable." That's all I'm saying. If we want to calm the criticism of the Wiki editors let's act like grown-ups and rationally analyze whether or not an article should be included. I certainly understand those who question the reach of this film. That's a legitimate point. However, taken in its totality the film appears to pass all tests.--The Authenticator (talk) 12:49, 26 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 merge to Jim Rose Circus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Like Me (Real, Raw, and Dangerous)[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any coverage of this book. It does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG for that matter. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jim Rose Circus. I added one review, from Entertainment Weekly, and there may be others, but the article on the circus is basically an article on Rose, and therefore adding his autobiography fits. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 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) 00:11, 11 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, -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 17:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Colapeninsula. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Yunshui 雲‍水 08:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Evans[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, Just being on TV is not inherently notable. Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Article has been expanded since being nominated. A regular on the biggest business news channel is worth including. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't feel like this is enough, though it does make me wonder if someday she might warrant a page. I don't think you could call her a regular, I don't see any reference to multiple appearances on a show or being on a panel for most debates, etc. Also the claim that CNBC is the biggest business news channel seems a bit POV to me. Bloomberg isn't small, CNN has plenty of buisiness coverage as does Fox News. it's one of the lower rung news networks and she doesn't even appear to be on every week or even month. I still fall back on, in this day and age being on TV is not inherently notable.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the article that she was "a regular guest on various television news programs before joining CNBC" is cited. That was even before she joined CNBC where she is a regular on the largest business news channel in the U.S. Nothing POV about it. Thems the facts. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That statement does nothing to prove notability, also YOUR claim that CNBC is the largest business news channel in the US is not supported by any sources I can find, in fact CNN and Fox Business news come up on the first 5 pages when you google that claim word for word.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable and yes, I am serious per photographic evidence to that effect! --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)-Sock of community banned User:A Nobody[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) 00:06, 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) 00:18, 11 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, -Scottywong | gossip _ 17:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, NYT and Business Insider are in my opinion sufficient to give the atricle a chance, though higher expansion with further references is highly desirable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is meeting WP:GNG, per:

The New York Times – Wall Street Journal Co-Anchor to Move to CNBC
Business Insider – Here's Everything We Know About Kelly Evans, CNBC's Brand New Star Reporter

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage in reliable sources makes the subject of the article pass WP:GNG. →B music ian 00:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it does pass WP:GNG and as expanded since nominated, it is much better now also has coverage in WP:RS. →TSU ^tp* 08:20, 28 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 thorough analysis of available sources below shows pretty clearly that most editors involved in the discussion are not convinced that the organization is notable. While many sources that mention TTR were produced, few or none of them were deemed to demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG. -Scottywong | chat _ 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Tax Revolt[edit]

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

Almost completely unsourced since 12/2009. Lots of he-said-she-said assertions with no source backing up either side. Lots of uncited opinion. Even the article states It seems unlikely that the Tax Revolt group will succeed in enacting anything resembling its "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" on the statewide level any time soon, so I'm not sure the notability is there, even on a local level. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep · Certainly a poorly sourced article but there are more than a hundred Google News hits and a half dozen Google Books hits including mention in the Congressional Record. I keep seeing AfDs like this... seriously, if there are more than a hundred Google News hits WP:SNOW pretty much applies unless you have an extremely novel and well-argued deletion rationale. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The top GNews hit, "Others Copy Tennessee Tax Revolt" is dated 20 years before the group's founding. The fifth one, "Tax Rebels Need A History Lesson", doesn't mention the group by name. On page 2, "Memphis takes tax trophy" appears to be a reprinted press release, as do a couple of hits on the first page. Another article talks about "the Great Tennessee Tax Revolt of 2000", without specifically tying it to the Tennessee Tax Revolt group. Many quote Ben Cunningham as head of the TTR, but don't otherwise deal with TTR.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you can go out to the tenth page of results and find things like a 2005 article that is entirely about the group's views on legislative ethics reform. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to that link, it's an Op-Ed, and hence not a WP:Reliable source. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Reliable_source#Statements_of_opinion which is the part of the guideline that mentions Op-Eds, it says "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(Author) says...'" which is the qualifier the article I linked to has - "The group wants lawmakers to pass legislation in five key areas..." So, unless it's written by a member of the group (which seems unlikely as the excerpt returned by the Google search is referring to TTR in the third person) and therefore isn't independent (unfortunately that information appears to be behind the paywall) it's valid coverage for assessing notability. An Op-Ed isn't just a letter to the editor or something, it's normally a journalistic or other authoritatively-authored piece that isn't written by the publication's editorial staff. But I don't even know why we're talking about this, it's the hundredth search result and just a handful of them, not to mention the handful of Google Books hits, would probably be sufficient to establish notability for most topics. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is related to two other active AfD nominations: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phil Valentine and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/An Inconsistent Truth. --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is a very big difference between the use of the words "Tennessee," "tax" and "revolt" in any given Google hit, and the existence of an organized group which satisfies the GNG and applicable notability and verifiability criteria. I am rather curious as to what methodology Mr. Bandersnatch used to support his "hundred" GNews hits, because the one I just tried for "Tennessee Tax Revolt" produced just ONE hit: the website linked in the Wikipedia article. [19] Ravenswing 18:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hit the "Archives" link on the left, you'll see them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you look at the top of this AfD (as with all others that are created using the standard process) there are links to the various specialized Google search engines, including a Google News Archives search for the phrase "Tennessee Tax Revolt". --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no credible sources in article or google search Bulwersator (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that everyone's clear, these are sources like The Tennessean, The MetroWest Daily News, Chattanooga Times Free Press, The Jackson Sun, Nashville Public Radio, WMC-TV, what appear to be a large number of the local papers in the state, and a book written by an Associate Professor for the Institute of Government at Tennessee State University and an Assistant Professor in the Division of Public and Nonprofit Administration at the University of Memphis, which we are saying aren't credible sources, and I didn't even go through all the search results. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Two ~~whole~~ paragraphs. Obviously notable, what was I thinking?</sarcasm font off>--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you only found two paragraphs amongst all of those sources I think that you are being as willfully obtuse in pursuit of your desired outcome as Bulwersator is in claiming that he can see no credible sources. Trust me, I don't like this group's politics either: this spokesman and anyone who agrees with him were obviously proto-Teahadi dimwits. But for some reason all of the papers in Tennessee have kept going back to interview him and kept reporting on his group's positions on all kinds of different topics for a decade, with it already being referred to as a "leading anti-tax group" seven years ago. Groups who have received far less attention have been found notable under Wikipedia guidelines. I mean, look at WP:MUSICBIO - all that a band requires to meet notability is multiple items of independent coverage in reliable sources that aren't press releases, directory listings, or postings of show dates. You are pushing for a standard of notability utterly different from what has been used on Wikipedia so far and the way to do that is not through trying to lever AfDs through on higher strictures of notability: if you want to pitch this what you need to do is campaign to get the policies and guidelines changed. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 01:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary for the "two paragraphs" quote referred to the book you mentioned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you mean that before reacting to what was written I should have clicked on a few links to make some checks that take only a minute or two to perform? What a novel idea. </sarcasm font off> --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Tennessee Tax Revolt has become a huge force in the state of Tennessee and has been either partially or entirely responsible for stopping a number of new taxes in the state. It is regularly a go-to source on tax issues and has been featured or quoted in numerous newspaper and Internet articles pertaining to the issue of taxes in Tennessee. It should definitely be included on Wikipedia. --The Authenticator (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not eligible for WP:SPEEDYKEEP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per SoV Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Keep !voters: all you have to do is find substantial coverage in say 3 independent reliable sources and this whole AFD thing will go away. Please stop telling us how important the group is and just post some sources. Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 08:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great point, Lionelt. Here are some links for everyone to consider:

http://www.ntu.org/in-your-state/tennessee/ (look under Taxpayer Groups in TN) http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15311072/preds-propose-letting-insiders-concessions-deal-run-to-2043 (TN Tax Revolt quoted as a reliable source for this TV report) http://www.wsmv.com/story/16097272/some-want-tn-to-begin-traditional-retirement-plans (quoted as another reliable source for this TV report) http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100926/NEWS02/9260384/Tennessee-reaps-115-million-stealth-taxes (TN Tax Revolt quoted as an expert source for this newspaper story) http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2012/feb/06/tom-humphrey-study-touting-tourism-related-spendin/ (quoted as an expert source for another newspaper story) http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/nashville-gets-its-own-tea-party-branch

There are many, many more. I live in Nashville and each time there's a tax-related story the media folks go straight to TN Tax Revolt. --The Authenticator (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break the bad news to you, but "being quoted" does not count toward notability. We need a source to substantially discuss the subject itself. Please read WP:GNG and follow it carefully.. Of the sources you posted nashvillecitypaper.com is the only one that counts toward notability. Find a couple more of those... – Lionel ^(talk) 09:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's those favoring deletion who need to read notability guidelines and follow them closely. There actually hasn't been any argument made yet that would demonstrate a lack of notability for this topic. The nominator made complaints about how the article is written, which has nothing to do with notability - a poorly-sourced or poorly-written article does not render its topic non-notable; what Wikipedia has said about a topic has nothing to do with whether it's notable or not and AFD is not cleanup. The nominator then made an attempt at a WP:CRYSTAL argument, which would relevant if the article or anyone else was asserting that the importance of the topic is based entirely upon future events that are likely to occur, but that is not the case.

So, somebody ought to actually come up with a valid deletion rationale based upon notability or another valid reason for deletion. Being interviewed, quoted, and described by journalists from a wide number of publications seeking information, repeatedly over the course of a decade, is sure as hell relevant to the notability of an organization of political activists seeking to achieve authority and influence on tax policy.

If the argument that is (not) being made is that none of the hundred-plus sources which the nominator himself posted links to via ((find sources)) when he created the AfD, nor any sources that could be found elsewhere, establish notability, then you guys better get to work because you need to go through each one and explain how it either doesn't discuss the topic at all or only mentions it in a trivial fashion. I would start with the ones that have already been mentioned that Lionelt somehow missed, such as the one that explicitly asserted notability by referring to the organization as a "leading anti-tax group" seven years ago. Don't act as though the burden is on us to look into all of this for you: if you think that it's Somebody Else's Problem to actually investigate the topic of this article and obtain information about the nature and quality of the sources that cover it you shouldn't be asserting that it isn't notable. (Nor that it's notable, either way, if you can't be arsed to do any research on it even when the links are presented to you on a silver platter.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 10:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails cross the verifiability or notability thresholds with citations to reliable third-party sources. I've added one source about some of the 2001 protests but that's support for one sentence in a long essay/article. And it does nothing to assert the existence of "Tennessee Tax Revolt" as a formal organized group. - Dravecky (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To do a little bit of your work for you: Tennessee Tax Revolt, Inc. is a "Public Benefit Corporation" (evidently a state-level form of nonprofit) incorporated on 2001-10-22 which has filed its state annual report every year for the past decade and lists its current registered agent as a person named Rick Durham whose address is 4741 Trousdale Dr., Ste. 2, Nashville, TN 37220-1341 and their entry at the Tennessee Department of State Division of Charitable Solicitations and Gaming gives his phone number as 615-354-0719. Is that formally organized and existent enough for ya? Though besides that, just being an informal disorganized group doesn't mean something couldn't be documented on Wikipedia, especially with this amount of coverage in so many sources.

Certainly, most of the content of the current article may need to be deleted if it is not present in the hundred sources we have easily at hand and different information put in its place, maybe reducing it to a stub. Can you be more specific about your issues with the sources? Are you saying that the ones which have been discussed here are not reliable, not third party, or that every one of them provides only something like trivial coverage of the subject? --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 13:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I've made a good faith effort to find reliable third-party sources for this article and even added one to the article. The fact remains that it's the only such source currently in the article and it does nothing to prove the existence of the group. (It pre-dates the filing you mention.) If any part of this article is to survive, it must be properly sourced. Adding several reliable third-party sources to the article may help improve verifiability and prove notability. As the article stands, it's not salvageable. Dravecky (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly believe that you are speaking in good faith but you may misunderstand what's going on here: the rationale for deletion in this AfD, which your opinion/!vote is agreeing with, is based on the notability of the topic of the article. As I mentioned above, the way that an article is written or sourced has no affect on whether or not its topic is notable - the notability of a topic is completely independent of anything than happens at Wikipedia (except insofar as the "notability" we're talking here is, as a concept, a bit of Wikipedia jargon rather than the standard English meaning of the word.) Thus, an article being poorly written is not any justification for deletion. An editor participating in an AfD and assessing the notability of a topic is expected to investigate that topic outside of Wikipedia, which is why the ((find sources)) template is inserted by default at the top of any AfD created through the standard process, or ((search for)) might be added at an editor's discretion to provide easy links to an even wider variety of specialized search engines. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 14:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've only been editing Wikipedia for 5 years and an admin for 3.5 years so do please explain WP:N to me. Here's the second sentence of that guideline: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." So lacking these reliable third-party sources in the article, verifiability and notability are not proven and the article will likely be deleted. I said nothing about the quality of the writing in my !vote above, just that it lacked proper sourcing and that I had been unable to find any quality sources covering the subject in-depth. Fix that and the problem is solved. - Dravecky (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pet peeve: No, the high-quality sources don't have to be in the article, it just has to be established that they exist. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As SoV says. The AfD process is not cleanup, it is not a venue for some editors to goad others into working on an article. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 23:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment · I've noticed that there is an article for TTR spokesperson Ben Cunningham (activist). Since many of the editors here seem disturbed at how prominently Cunningham figures in the ample coverage of the Tennessee Tax Revolt group we have available, how about a merge of the two articles? This would be as acceptable to me as a keep. So, as an alternative to keeping the article of this AfD, let me propose that instead we could do a History Merge of the Cunningham article into the Tennessee Tax Revolt article, initially to appear as a subsection in it, and allow rewriting and pruning to occur as appropriate. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 14:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear since I realized that my wording above may have been ambiguous, I am proposing the the Tennessee Tax Revolt article itself remain and the Cunningham article be merged in as a new subsection describing the TTR's main spokesperson, after which any necessary rewriting or pruning may occur. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 14:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Struthious excellent suggestion. Will change to Keep if a couple more sources show up. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little evidence here that this organization passes WP:GNG. A search of archival news articles brought up mostly op-eds and did not reveal significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many out of the hundred-plus sources would you say were Op-Eds? I just randomly clicked on six of the links and got two editorials, one "local" news story, two "local/regional" news stories, an "editorial roundup" that the New England Cable News channel decided to do of Tennessee papers, and zero Op-Eds. But note anyways, as per the discussion above, Op-Eds and Editorials are not automatically categorized outside of independent reliable sources irrelevant to notability. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 11:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. According to HighBeam Research, it looks like the organisation had its heyday in 2001-2 when it got coverage in Albany Times Union, NPR Morning Edition, AP Online, The Washington Post and The Cincinnati Post. Since then all the HighBeam hits have come from local papers (Chattanooga Times and The Commercial Appeal). I'd support merging Cunningham into this, too. —SMALL JIM 12:52, 31 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.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press freedom and the Occupy movement[edit]

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

Weird list with an badly defined inclusion criteria. damiens.rf 16:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While interesting, and probably important, this seems more like WP:SYN and WP:OR. The Occupy movement already has plenty of articles here, as does Freedom of the press in the United States. Important info here, or that would be added, should be placed there. Borock (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SYN? OR? Seriously? Someone just invented the 52 citations, or pretended that they document arrests of journalists? If only half the articles at AfD were as well sourced. Anarchangel (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just said the events were important. But "WP is not news." Borock (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say this was of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT#NEWS), if only because news reporters are very keen to report stories about news reporters. It'll be around for a while. The WP criteria for inclusion in NOTNEWS is sustained coverage, whereas "interesting, and probably important" is not a definition of WP:NOTABILITY. Thank you for your (sort of) concession, but dropping both the SYN and OR arguments up here without acknowledging wikt:concession, and then reiterating the OR down below, is very close to Moving the goalposts, and not good WP:ETIQUETTE either, although I expect this was not intentional. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am trying to be polite. :-) Borock (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-documented. The synthesis has been made by Reporters without Borders, and their Press Freedom Index 2011/2012, including the precipitous drop of the US due to the Occupy media suppression, has been reported on by independent reliable sources, such as the Seattle Times, and even Fox News! Merging this information to Occupy movement or Freedom of the press in the United States would only create versions of these articles that scream for a spinout. --Lambiam 22:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two links are not to reports by those media but to the same AP story, which notes that "Freedom House marked down the United States slightly". That's not a whole lot. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP under WP:BEFORE A#1. Nomination brings no case to answer (WP:DEL#REASON). For the sake of argument, though, let's address "badly defined inclusion criteria" (I will not address "weird", for obvious reasons. And it is not a list, it is a a timeline). The title is almost a mathematical fit with the content: journalists=press, covering Occupy=Occupy movement, were arrested=hampering their freedom. And the article is meticulously and copiously verified.

I believe Lambiam's phrase, "The synthesis has been made by Reporters without Borders" has a problem. WP:SYNTH is not relevant to a description of non-Wikipedians' activity. SYNTH prohibits WP editors from jumping to conclusions, not experts in the field from creating the testimony we cite. Anarchangel (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locking someone up takes away almost all of their freedoms. Freedom of the press is such a fundamentally respected right that, because the press have been treated with enough respect in the past that the most restrictive practice of all, arrest, has not become as big an issue as censorship or protecting the identity of sources. So, ironically, freedom of the press is wrongly seen at this AfD as a term used to describe less obvious examples of protected behaviour, and arrest's restriction on freedom is termed "arbitrary".

Having seen that the topic is not arbitrary, then the remaining arguments are against the content, not the topic (content discussions properly take place at the page Talk, not AfD, where we discuss the deletion or redirection of the title of the page from Wikipedia). The content, it is asserted, is a "List" and "only news", both of which arguments have been addressed elsewhere. But these arguments are also, somewhat mutually exclusive. Roughly speaking, any prose summary of an incident long enough to be a news item is not a list item, and if it were a list, it would not be news reporting. These are instead, individually and substantially cited examples of police arrest infringing on press freedom. At the very least, this article fits very uncomfortably in the parameters given by WP:NOT#NEWS' examples, because it is not about a single event. Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the United States becomes a fascist state then the article will be entitled "Loss of press freedom in the United States" not "Press freedom and the Occupy movement." Borock (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite. However, if this is intended to be directly pertinent to my statement in some way, please elucidate. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Generally speaking, encyclopedias have articles about big topics. Freedom of the press in the United States is a big topic. So far, "Press freedom and the Occupy movement" does not seem to be a big topic, although the information the article contains is certainly of great importance. Borock (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lambiam, as well-documented in multiple, reliable sources. Besides, it is plainly not a list, but rather a series of incidents written in prose. Also, this does not fall under news; the text and citations cover several months. Finally, weird is arguably a valid outcome at WP. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! "outcome" of an article, you meant. For a second there I thought someone had made it a rule to delete odd articles. Anarchangel (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Incidents" sound like news, and putting them in a series sounds like "original research." Borock (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News stories are fine. They just have to be substantial, and of enduring notability. Blame it on the poor choice of wording for the hyperlink if you want, but I would be happier if you were to read NOT#NEWS again. And OR again, also. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both a number of times. I still think that putting together a list of events violates them. I am also very concerned about civil liberties, including freedom of the press. As well as, BTW, sympathetic to the concerns of the Occupy movement. There is a national election coming up later this year. That is a better forum to express our opinions about these issues than is an encyclopedia. Please also check out my profile and see that I supported President Obama last time. Thank you. Borock (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or maybe merge to Occupy). The burden for the very existence of the article is the one report. The list of arrests is a list (calling it a timeline makes no difference) and it's primary information. (And for instance "October 1 2011, New York City"--2/3 has nothing to do with the press in the first place.) Maybe some of the reporters got arrested for pissing on the sidewalk--that's not restricting the freedom of the press. (I'm playing devil's advocate, sure.) Those events may well be the source for the report's conclusions, but that still makes it primary information, based on news reports of the events--not reports on the freedom of the press or a study of the impact thereon. So, we have a report by Reporters Without Borders, and a ton of primary events listed chronologically. That is not enough to warrant this as a standalone article. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the one report a burden. It also seems unlikely to me that reporters just wait until there is a demonstration to go on a crime spree. Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article consists of whatever events editors have thought relevant to the topic. The criteria for inclusion in the list also appears to be arbitrary and decided by what an editor deems to involve "press freedom". Completely WP:OR and WP:SYN. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors decide upon and do a lot of things; that does not make them arbitrary. I like "deems to involve", it is very poetic, but unfortunately I can only guess at what it means. Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say that it is very clearly a list because the whole article is a list of discrete events. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you say to Bearian's argument that it is composed of paragraphs of prose? And if you agree that it is about many events, do you disagree with the delete argument that it is merely news? Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreleated snippets properly covered in the relevant articles, used here as a strange POV fork exercise of no long-term encyclopedic value. Also some of the sourcing is not actually WP:RS in the first place, or does not even support the claims made. Vide [20] used for the claim "Two journalists were arrested: Katelyn Ferral, of The News & Observer, and Josh Davis, a graduate student in Journalism at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill" wrtieen by one of the "journalists", arrested for obvious distructive "occupation" of a private building ("see Trespass), with the really big claim being A man told me that I “missed a pretty awesome dance party” in the space the night before, when they first occupied the building. I rather think that an "awesome dance party" is not actually a part of a "protest" nor does enforcing trespassing laws amount to "opposing press freedom." <g>. When such cruft makes its way into such a "list", I suggest the list itself is cruft. Collect (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your suggestion; an entire article should not be deleted on the basis of the nature of a single citation; but then, is that even relevant, as I also reject your characterization of the "awesome dance party" news story. I have an excerpt from it of my own I would like to share, which I feel characterizes it more accurately, and also has more bearing on the discussion:

"I attempted to step into a side alleyway while waving my press pass when a protester pulled me to the ground.

“They have weapons, man. Get down,” he shouted.

Sure enough, I counted at least five automatic rifles ready to aim at anything that moved. I stopped and hit the ground.

The officer who cuffed me was nice enough. Realizing I was a member of the press, he made sure not to damage my camera or escort me straight to the public Chapel Hill Transit bus being used to transport those arrested."

Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short - you reject my policy-based arguments on the basis that you know how horribly the government has treated the poor journalists at the Occupy events who missed wonderful parties by people deliberately destroying private property. Cheers - that holds no weight in closing this AfD discussion. Collect (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The original research and synthesis problems with this article are pretty clear and obvious to any neutral reader. Until there are true secondary sources which discuss this topic, this article needs to go away. Alternately, it might be appropriate to merge some of the better-sourced incidents to Law enforcement and the Occupy movement. -Scottywong | squeal _ 17:14, 31 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: nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). St Anselm (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II: The Movie[edit]

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

~~A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. Neelix (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand this poor neglected stub... but first correct the title to Pope John Paul II (1984 film),[21] or The Pope (film)[22] as it was never titled Pope John Paul II: The Movie. Sheesh... talk about an author's ill-chosen article title setting up an AFD template find sources doomed to failure for this pre-internet film. Directed by Herbert Wise, it received a WGA Award nomination in 1985,[23] stared Albert Finney, Robert Austin, Caroline Bliss, Antony Brown, and Alfred Burke... and IS sourcable.[24][25] There will be search difficulties inherent in Jon Voight being in the similarly titled Pope John Paul II (TV miniseries) in 2005. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Title corrected. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep per manifest lack of WP:BEFORE. See New York Times, Ottawa Citizen, The Milwakee Sentinel, The Milwakee Sentinel-bis, Boston Globe, The Evening Independent, The Phoenix, The Courier, The Day, Times Daily, The Southeast Missourian, The Telegraph-Herald, New York Times-bis, Sunday Union, Youngstown Vindicator, Lakeland Ledger, The Evening News and a lot more (no mention about the books!). The nominator is invited to change his search method, as it is not the first time that he nominates/proposes for deletion with this same rationale subjects that have literally tons of reliable coverage in support of their notability. Cavarrone (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NICE! Hope the nom realizes that needing work is not a valid reason to delete a notable topic, and that notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their not being used in an article. Now I will expand the thing and set up another DYK! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic obviously passes WP:GNG. See the !votes above for some the sources that proves this. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Using a few of the easily findable and readily available multiple reliable sources, the article has gone from the unsourced 160 character stub that was first nominated,[26] and become a sourced 3222 character start class article.[27]. Sure, there's more that can and will be done, but I think the lesson I offer here by a little effort is that the encyclopedia is vastly improved when editors actually and proactively address issues, rather than deleting something that simply needs some attention. And while AFD is not intended as a bludgeon to force improvemnts, such were easy enough to do and I would ask the nominator to seriously consider a withdrawal. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film's notability has been established. Neelix (talk) 22:23, 26 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rockett's New School[edit]

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

No references or indication of notability. Mostly a plot summary. I am nominating all of the games in the series as they have similar issues and likely should be addressed as a whole. Ost (talk) 15:36, 21 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) Ost (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All The problems, as stated above are lack of references and therefore no sources to assert notability. They are also very short. If a couple adequate references could be found, possibly grouping the series into one article would serve some purpose. Stormbay (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - BUT... I can find that two of the games existed...:

http://games.multimedia.cx/all-hail-the-moon-deity/ - Rockett's Camp Adventures http://ca.ign.com/games/rocketts-sleep-over/gbc-14196 - Rockett’s Sleep Over

The IGN coverage has really no content and the other one is not a reliable source. I can’t find any significant 3rd party references to allow the inclusion of all the linked articles to this computer game/novel. - Pmedema (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IGN link is for a game not included here, but which also seems off; It says it's a 1970 Game Boy Color game. —Ost (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, in my experience, I've noticed that IGN's database entries can be a bit off when it comes to release dates of games released in the 1990's and older... Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 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 keep. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Kelly Shore[edit]

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

An unnotable person, who has not won any awards, appeared in any big films, and who is just generally unnotable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the apparently many references aren't so numerous when you factor out the repetitions. Not in the least notable. --Stfg (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be notable from the mainstream coverage [28][29] plus the usual adult industry coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kelly is a huge transsexual star and activist and one of the top transsexual pornstars in the world [30][31] plus the usual adult industry coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertrose1982 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kelly is an active cam model and working on opening a new website. She has also been very active in the LBGT community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altstu2 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people are working on web sites. I'm working on one now in fact. We aren't Wikinews or an advertising medium. Please keep your arguments relevant to Wikipedia policy. Dismas|^(talk) 21:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable per the sources that Morbidthoughts provided plus the other industry coverage. Yes, it's industry coverage but it shows that she is known throughout that industry much the same as Hollywood press supports the notability of Hollywood actors. Dismas|^(talk) 18:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

The large amount of coverage looks like a fad that is fade away faster than it is apearing.
The activism seems smirks of self promotion.
At best this should be merged with the article covering transsexualism — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenBochman (talk • contribs)

Keep for passing, less or more weakly, GNG. In addition of sources cited by Morbidthoughts, she appears to have been the subject of a Watermark Magazine article in June 15, 2006. Now the page is a 404, but the first words of it, foundable via Google, are Volunteer coordinator and board secretary Kelly Shore is a transgendered. Not only is she helping bring her community into the mainstream, she successfully .... She does not pass ANYBIO or PORNBIO as Tranny Award is not a significant or well-known award, but the recent XBIZ nomination as Transexual Performer of the Year is, anyway, worth of notice. Cavarrone (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was much more information on her activism, before the papers archived them or they are no longer running as Cavarrone stated. I did try to erase a lot of the links that were repetitive and keep to the two main articles. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertrose1982 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 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) 09:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Piazón[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Player without games at senior level. who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is about a footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL, BUT he is one of the most promising players on one of Europe's best football-teams. The quality on the article is also good, even though there is a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage, my impression is that the article passes WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just promising. Will he ever live up to the promise and make his debut? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying he passes WP:GNG - are you saying that an article about a footballer have to pass both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL to not be deleted? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am saying that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. You don't inherit notability from your employer. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mentoz - so he is notable because he is "one of the most promising players on one of Europe's best football-teams"? WP:POV, I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 16:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, but yes - I'm saying he is notable by passing GNG. But the coverage he have gotten is because he is "one of the most promising players on one of Europe's best football-teams". Mentoz86 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has multiple reliable sources, footballer is one of the best young prospects in England. In my view the article is well-written. Footballer is young and has been on the Chelsea bench a few times, certainly will start playing games at senior level. He has won the Chelsea Young player of the year and will be rewarded for this. The article passes in my view. Cyber17 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that he never ever has played a single game at senior level. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails WP:NFOOTBALL but not WP:GNG, which is what matters. Player has received substantial non-routine coverage, not to mention a £5million+ transfer fee. I do feel that the the "Piazón is a Brazilian youth international. He is considered to be an up-and-coming talent with his potential, technical skill and creativity, drawing comparisons with Real Madrid and Brazil international playmaker Kaká." section in the introduction is inappropriate, however, particularly without a source. --Kafuffle (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This notion that he is notable due allegedly being one of the best young talents is clearly nonsense when you consider the wikipedia sense of the term notable. That being said, he has received signifcantly more coverage than even your average footballer who has played professionally, coverage which, in my opinion, is sufficient to meet the general notablity guideline. I may not like the fact that the media pay so much attention the youngsters of a select few clubs while effectively ignoring the rest, but I cannot also deny the fact that they do. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:10, 27 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 userfy to User:Jenjen1jenjen/Life in the Abyss. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life in the Abyss[edit]

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

100% original research. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that speedy-userfying is the best way to go, as this appears to be a school project. It could theoretically be a good article on an encyclopedic topic, but not with this tone and this title. Suggest a title along the lines of Ecology of the abyssal zone, as well as a complete re-write to encyclopedic standards. I am contacting the author, and if they have no objections I will userfy this article.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. None of the material is properly referenced, but referenced properly it could be added as a section within Abyssal zone, or even as a standalone article. It would be a shame to lose the good work that's gone into it so far. -- 202.124.73.119 (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - to allow the article's primary author time to improve the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 26 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 deleted as copyvio. Non-admin close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alton Cricket Club[edit]

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

Copied directly from the official website. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G12 and so tagged, blatantly copyright violation. Also delete as an advertisement and for failing to pass WP:GNG. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:59, 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 no consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Freak[edit]

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

May have had one possibly notable song, in 1998, according to two passing mentions, here and here. I can't find anything else, and the article supplies nothing. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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) 00:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable dj with multiple releases and international concerts under his belt. I'll find more actual links when I'm not at work, but if you search for his name, or his real name, and associate it with either Nosebleed, or event, you will find many mentions. The Undead Never Die (talk) 14:38, 16 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, -- Trevj (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment Undead warrior, did you find any further sources to add? -- Trevj (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did, but they are a bunch of local local newspaper ads about the old parties. I'll try to find them online, but the majority of coverage of DJs, especially from the time this guy was playing, was in print not digital. The Undead Never Die (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment The two sources, book sources, given above do prove some notability here by the way. The drum n bass guide is the kicker. It specifically lists him as a key genre originator. That alone should prove notability. It's not about how many sources, but what's in them. The Undead Never Die (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More info This is going to be a bit sticky to read through, but I found a few more images for you guys. They are clippings from older magazines and newspapers. Mind you, this is prior to the internet boom so most of this stuff isn't online. A few of these are in German, and one is in French, a few are scanned upside down, and sideways, but they get the point across. Juno review. You have to read the bottom of this one. He's been charted on Juno quite a few times. Magazine clipping originally for Lenny Dee, mentions DJ Freak midway through. Clipping detailing Freak's work with Industrial Strength Records. Clipping headlining DJ Freak. Flyer for an older event which headlined DJ Freak. Flyer showing the same as before. Hope this helps. The Undead Never Die (talk) 19:17, 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) 09:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersoft (magazine)[edit]

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

I only found a few reprints of this article. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 5 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) 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. I did a search as well and found nothing but mirrors of this "article." Millermk90 (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG ZachFoutre (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 15:22, 11 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, -- Trevj (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment The combination of the generic title and probable age of this publication make finding sources difficult. I've dropped a note at the creator's talk page, in case there are valid assertions of notability. -- Trevj (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources and the only WP:V that I can find are mirrors that point back to the wiki article or to James Goss (producer). - Pmedema (talk) 19:53, 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 redirect to Kid Ink. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up & Away (Kid Ink Album)[edit]

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

Not yet notable under WP:NALBUMS - this is a self-published, unreleased studio debut, and coverage is basically limited to displays of the cover. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least redirect to Kid Ink for the time being, as I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this soon-to-be-released album. The most I found was this, and on the whole the album does not yet appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 07:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can preorder the album on iTunes!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.195.77 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until notability can be shown. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OSGi-Tooling[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Tagged for notability and sources since December 2010, but nothing has been done to address the issues. Searches produce Wikipedia, blogs, passing mentions, mentions on pages dealing with applications, etc, but no substantial coverage in reliable sources. (PROD in November 2010 was removed without any explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 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) 00:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator that notability is not established here; I can't find in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:48, 16 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, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a list of computer programming tools that apparently have something to do with the Java programming language. This goes well past the level of detail appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment May be a subsidiary article to OSGi. I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter. Some (passing) mentions: [32]http://java.dzone.com/articles/dozen-osgi-myths-and. -- Trevj (talk) 14:25, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Be Here All Night[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Proposed deletion template removed by the article's author (also, self-admittedly, the film's producer (see Talk:I'll Be Here All Night)) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and speedy if there's an appropriate criterion, as non-existent crystal ball gazing. QU ^TalkQu 14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per TOOSOON. The now-blocked author states "a film that I am currently looking into producing", which indicates this article being premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When googled, few results where there but none were notable. The film isn't notable nor is the production house or any one associated. It fails WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 17:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per statemens written above. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NYF--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:36, 28 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 G7 - OP blanked the page. Alexf^(talk) 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry (2012 film)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Just a short film by a non notable film company. No reliable sources that I can find that indicate this is worth keeping. QU ^TalkQu 13:58, 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 Deleted by User:Malik Shabazz as G7 (author requested deletion). (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 03:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dance India Dance (season 2) finalists[edit]

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

An unsourced article without any significant content. Either merge it with Dance India Dance (season 2) or delete it. Both the articles are very short. I also have concern over the notability of the people mentioned in it. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for same reasons:

§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: All the finalists of both seasons are not notable. Their names are already included in respective season's articles. Some finalists also have their own biographical articles. This article would be just compilation of their biography wikilinks or would have repetitive information. The title "Dance India Dance (season 1/2/3) finalists" is not searched by readers. Readers would naturally go to main articles. Hence no need for redirect. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - A list of finalists are already covered in the season articles. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Zarboublian[edit]

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

Possible hoax - seems to be nothing in source. Operation Span, which is mentioned in the article, also seems to be unverifiable. Peter E. James (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find either Operation Zarboublian or Operation Span in the only reference on the page. Jncraton (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything sensible on this either. "Zarbouillon" seems to be a piece of French slang; Zarboublian may be a corruption of this along the lines of "bla bla bla", I don't know. Seems a clear hoax. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - chances are there of this being a misinfo. I'm not sure though that it is a hoax or not but sure that it fails WP:GNG with google not showing good results. →TSU ^tp* 17:15, 27 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. G7 as tagged by the author and requested here —SpacemanSpiff 14:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Mumbai[edit]

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

Education in Mumbai is roughly copied from List of colleges in Mumbai -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G7) - I understand now that I should not just copy and paste materials from other articles. I created those articles when I was relatively new and unaware of the policies. So my apologies. I in good faith tag it with G7. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 10:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please DO NOT add CSD templates to articles under AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Srikanth but the author can mark an article for G7, even if it is under AfD, and thus I have again tagged the article for G7. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Colleges in Mumbai. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 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 speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. If this comes back again, just tag it G3, no need for more AfDs. JohnCD (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niaz Ali Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was speedily deleted a couple of days ago as a hoax. Even if it is not a hoax, there is no notability demonstrated, and there are no reliable sources in the article. Now, it was recreated in exactly the same form. Obviously, the same deletion arguments are still there. Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's not a hoax. Niaz Ali Khan is a living person and is an Afghan Royal (HiwaruWatanabe (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

That is great that you registered just to remove the speedy deletion tag and to comment on this nomination, but notability must be demonstrated by reliable sources, which are absent in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the obvious hoax. Block the obvious sock-puppets. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 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 delete. I think consensus is clear enough that there is insufficient evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Stipkovich[edit]

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

A publisher, I think. Born in 1963, he has a reference in the article to him being a Chiropractor that was board certified in 1965. He has a IMDb reference] that he was a sound effects editor in TV shows and Video games from 1992-2001. I'm unable to find any reliable and independent refs about him. Bgwhite (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete No coverage in reliable sources. There is an Aaron Stipkovich mentioned in this article, but it is not clear if this is the same person. This interview has the interviewee mentioning him. That's all I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article has consistently referred to, uh, themself as "we". I wonder why. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgwhite, The creator did not state that Aaron Stipkovich is a Chiropractor. It states that his father is, which is verifiable on the California State licensing site. Just wanted to let you know. I will try to add this to the page. (New at this.) Maxinetheone (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added all the verifiable, governmental references and proof I could find. Every word on the creators page is verifiable. Is this all I do. Can I do this on anyone's page? Thanks! Maxinetheone (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Whpq, yes that's the same Aaron Stipkovich. The connection to Buzzine and The Elfman's is valid and verifiable. Thank you.Maxinetheone (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The primary concern here whether Aaron Stipkovich meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, more often simply called "notability". This is normally established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources such as magazines and newspapers. The references in the article satisfy requirements of verifiability but do not establish that inclusion guidelines are met. I hope this helps clarify the main concern in this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there any independent evidence for a claim that he's a photographer of note? -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: next to no independent write-ups. Let's try linking what the article now tells us. He's "become involved in numerous media endeavors including Buzzine, AND Magazine, and the intelligence community think tank, Think.us.com." All red. Try again: AND magazine, And magazine, AND (magazine), And (magazine), Think.us. Still all red. Just one of these is linked, to this, which tells us that As a member of Think since 1999, and with the subject of politics being substantive to Aaron, he decided to launch one publication that would be of interest to the mass of like-thinkers who travail, burdened with a painful void of culture and politics that plagues their every waking moment. / The publication that launched, laden beneath the weight of gnarl, was AND Magazine. (I hadn't previously encountered the notion of a subject being "substantive" to anybody; perhaps I am undereducated.) The result seems to be a celeb website, but whether or not it happens to be of interest to you or me, it seems to have made little or no impact on publications indexed at Google News. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prison cell pony party[edit]

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

Neologism? Badly written article. The one English source does not mention the term. Maybe Russian speakers could attempt to verify the other sources? Draco^E 07:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Игорь С. Кон, citation number 5, doesn't support any of this content, either. Citations 1 and 2 have been badly copied and pasted from either Bitch Wars#References or Russian mafia#References. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism in the form of a dictionary definition. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... -------> Carrite (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, guys. I think we got us a hoaxer. Have a look at this account’s contributions. I was unable to find any references in google books or news for their article on the Isle of Ming. They also inserted unsourced material into Republic_of_Morac-Songhrati-Meads, to which they then linked from their article on the fabled island. And they misspelled the Spratly Islands. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but it looks like User:Allenwhitefish could be one of professor Kelly's students. Draco^E 01:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as plausible, but, per Carrite, send it thattaway. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEO. I also have doubts about the veracity of the article: the NY Times ref (which can be read here) doesn't mention pony parties or anything of substance about prison life. There is also a reference taken "from the home library of Sergei Gorshkov" - would that be Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, former C-in-C of the Soviet Fleet (who also appears in an old NY Times here)? Another reference appears to be from a book about Russian literature. All very dubious. Gwen Chan 12:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no proper refs and no coverage under WP:RS thus fails WP:GNG. Also notability of the term as well as concept is at question →TSU ^tp* 17:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite and Draco--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:49, 28 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 G7 - OP blanked the page. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrie Soeterboek[edit]

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

Reason Billieegan (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Irrelevant[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 21. Snotbot t • c » 07:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7. Article creator and only contributor of substantive content blanked the page and created this AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 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 merge to Slashdot effect. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flash crowd[edit]

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

Deprodded since a merge target is at AFD, which does not seem to be a valid reason. This trope seems slightly disparate from Slashdot effect, at least enough to warrant separate discussion. This seems to be a permastub which, while sourced, has no hope of expansion beyond dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into Slashdot effect first (then move if needed) - The topic is mentioned by many reliable sources including many research papers and dissertations. I intended for the Slashdot effect to be merged into this article. The term "Slashdot effect" and other more specific terms (Farked, Reddit effect, Instalanche) generally pertain to the effect of traffic overloads from those respective sites, so instead of using a specific term with the site title in the name, the phenomenon can be referenced at this generic page, or even at a new article titled at Traffic overload with the existing section being moved and linked into that article as well. - M0rphzone 07:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if Slashdot effect is deleted; we definitely need an article on this phenomenon under one name or another, but I think Slashdot effect is a much more common and well-understood name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Slashdot effect, which seems to be a much more widely used term for the same kind of thing. Slashdot effect's become the defacto redirect target for all of these other phenomena (e.g. reddit effect), it would only seem appropriate to merge them together. Unless someone can explain why this 1 sentence concept of a flash crowd is somehow distinct. Shadowjams (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The term "flash crowd" is a more generic term that does not include a specific company name, such as Slashdot, or any associated name or idea involved with it. In fact, it's actually more widely used than "Slashdot effect" with 63200 results in a Google search for "flash crowd" -mob vs. 53500 results for "Slashdot effect". Many sources use the term "flash crowd", and the entry in the Jargon File says that the term flash crowd is a more appropriate term to describe the phenomenon. "In a perhaps inevitable generation, the term [Slashdot effect] is being used to describe any similar effect from being listed on a popular site, [but] this would better be described as a flash crowd." Originally the term "Slashdot effect" was coined because the Slashdot site was one of the more popular link aggregation/user-submitted content sites back in the early 2000s. We're in the 2010s and now that Slashdot isn't as frequented as before, and many other popular sites also exist that cause the same phenomenon, I believe it's a better solution to move the content to "Flash crowd" to prevent any possible "favoritism", and in consideration of future events as well. Slashdot effect is too specific and will become obsolete as the site continues to decrease in Alexa rank and fewer and fewer people know about the site, which is already happening. - M0rphzone 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with renaming "slashdot effect" to flash crowd or whatever (although I'm not seeing much suggestion that flash crowd is the primary term... but I could be convinced otherwise). But as a simply technical matter... it would be easier to merge in the smaller page (which as we've said, is almost non-existent) and then move slashdot effect to a new home. This would better preserve the edit histories for copyright reasons, and make everything easier to follow. That would require an admin deletion of this page and move, but that's a trivial technical task. Shadowjams (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better idea. - M0rphzone 22:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we've gone and made an infinite loop. "Keep Flash crowd because it might be merged to Slashdot effect; keep Slashdot effect because it might be merged to Flash crowd". Lovely. Each article is only being kept because the other exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, and that's not the point here. The main point is that the topic itself, regardless of article title, is definitely mentioned by reliable sources. They just have to be cited into the article. The title/merge issue can be cleaned up later. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My point was that there's clearly some phenomena where a website gets overwhelmed by recent notoriety from a much more trafficked site. I don't care what it's called... but I don't think "flash crowd" has a monopoly on that one either.... but whatever it's called it's all the same thing and we certainly do not need 4+ articles discussing the same thing because somebody was able to google news search their way there. It's all the same idea... so let's merge them all, then figure out the name next. The Slashdot effect is the most developed of them (as I can tell) at the moment and is the greatest redirect target. So Merge to it, then argue about the name later. Shadowjams (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so discussion closed: merge flash crowd into Slashdot effect, delete flash crowd, then move Slashdot effect to flash crowd. And this (or actually Slashdot effect) should be a speedy keep. I don't know why Ten Pound Hammer prodded these two articles. He didn't even attempt to find RSs for the topic, nor did he have good reasons for deleting Slashdot effect. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TPH does lots of deletion work. Maybe its the WP:Fastily effect - if you do enough of anything some of it will be wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 13:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep and ingeniously merge Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I endorse a merge to Slashdot effect, the more developed of the two. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should probably withdraw this AFD and ask for it to be closed as 'speedy keep' under WP:SK #1: 'The nominator withdraws the nomination, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. ' Robofish (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and suggest merge from Slashdot effect into this article, as while that article is more developed, 'flash crowd' seems to be the more general term. Robofish (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider expanding the article; I think this is the clearest title.. I agree with TPH that this is not the same subject as slashdot effect. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 31 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MARS model of individual behavior[edit]

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

Non-notable behavior model. No indication of notability based on media, book, and scholar searches. ^Bongo_matic 03:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 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) 00:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does appear to be a genuine and notable topic but seems to be a business school thing rather than a psychology thing. I'm seeing a handful of hits in business school texts in the Google Books search and it becomes more apparent if you do a general Google search for "organizational behaviour" "MARS model"; it shows up in many university course outlines and notes. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:38, 13 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 05:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent indication of notability — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See for example this hit in a book written by a group of Canadian academics and published by the University of Toronto Press six years ago or this Master's thesis and the citation it gives in the bibliography regarding the MARS model, "McShane, S. L., and M. A. Von Linow. Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2005.". Amazon page with author bios for the latter. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 01:16, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Corti[edit]

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

Article was deproded without addressing the concern. The only claim for notability is the Whitehead Prize. Yet there is no evidence that the Whitehead prize is a notable award, and that is the only claim to notability in the article. It appears that multiple people receive the Whitehead prize, which is one of multiple prizes given by one of multiple mathematical societies in the U.K. While this may be notable, I can't locate any independent reliable source coverage to establish such notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't think the award by itself is quite enough. But he also seems to have a personal chair at Imperial [33] and enough citations in a low-citation area to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - With the discovery of the named chair, even though I am unable to find any coverage of that chair, he appears to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Thank you for turning up that obscure fact, David. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:05, 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. Clear consensus, at this point. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Steps Waltz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable and unreferenced long after creation Greenmaven (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 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) 00:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- It's a stub, it's unsourced, it was ruled "not a hoax" by Ron Ritzman in the first AfD — in which, like this one, nobody participated. There seems to be no taste for deletion, nor any taste for working the Portuguese sources to flesh this out. So is Wikipedia better off with this or without this? The former, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the incredible-but-true department, 30+ years ago, when the world was young and I was in my late teens, I was a substitute drummer for a senior citizens' dance band called the Senior Rhythmaires. A terrible name for a really terrible band, but it was sort of hilariously entertaining in its way and I made 20 bucks a night for gas money for playing drums, so how bad could that be? The other three in the band were in their late 70s or 80s at the time and are by now long dead, so my presence no doubt made for a humorous existential visual... Anyway, point is, we played waltzes, foxtrots, polkas, and something called "two-steps," which were cut-time versions of foxtrots, which were played in a slow 4/4. I don't think that specific musical form has anything to do with this one — but there's nothing in WP about that either. Why? Up to now nobody knows, nobody cares... But it doesn't change the fact that there IS such a musical form or that it is something that a good encyclopedia should include. So I sort of feel the same way here. It's a bad article but a marker for future work needing to be done. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for a perfect example of the sort of original research which has no place in WP. See WP:ORIGINAL. The line has to be drawn somewhere. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your logic — a stub article marking an actually existing Portuguese folk dance, as I presume this to be, isn't "original research," it's the utter lack of research, original or otherwise. It assumes the sources are out there, in the Portuguese literature. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - "Nothing in Wikipedia"? We've had Country-western two-step since 2005. How on Earth were you looking? Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that CW2S piece. I refer to the original 1920s, 1930s, 1940s "two-step" that I was telling the story about. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Future work on what? I found literally zero sources in English or Portuguese. Google Books only turned up false positives in the form of "They had two-steps, waltz, etc. etc." Keep in mind I can read some Portuguese. Further searching with +Portugal showed only unreliable sources such as eHow, Facebook, Wikipedia mirrors and personal websites. It gets only 81 unique hits on Google. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not exist and no references could be found outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Yes, there is a "two-step" and yes, there is a waltz, but there is no two-step waltz—the waltz has three steps. This appears to be something made up one day. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It probably DOES exist but may well be misnamed here. Uncle G's diffs behind the writing of the piece (below) make it pretty clear that there's nothing here worth saving. One of these days I think I am going to write up a piece on the original Two-Step though. It was a distinct musical form for a generation, and there were some among them that stayed with "their music" to the grave... Carrite (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:33, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 04:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this article created other articles on Portuguese folk dances, but those articles had their actual Portuguese names, such as Corridinho and Bailarico. This article doesn't, and there simply isn't enough information to identify which folk-dance that editor was intending to write about. (Notice that part of the article that you might think to be context was in fact sheer (well-intended) guesswork.) There's no way to determine how to fix this article, because there simply isn't enough context to even pinpoint the subject. There's no Portuguese name, nor a location where this is danced. Is Wikipedia better off with this or without this? Without this, of course. It's an unexpandable sub-stub without even the name of the subject to give it context, and it conveys zero information to the reader, since its description is general enough to match that of the Corridinho (q.v.). Indeed, it is positively misleading the reader. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my Keep to clear the way for consensus. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking your keep. Relating to your earlier comments: references do not have to be in English, but some experienced editors, with a knowledge of Portuguese, have been kind enough to do some research and can find nothing to support this article with its current name. Perhaps there is some dance out there that is meant, but this article is not connecting with it. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 06:01, 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) 10:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Hernandez[edit]

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

A singer. No reliable refs (or almost any refs for that matter) that connect Hernandez and Insane Clown Posse (ICP). Refs were in the article about ICP, but they never mentioned Hernandez and backed up what was being sourced. Only find refs that connect him to Undaground Disciples, but they have self-released one album, Havoc Supreme, with another album yet to be released. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:29, 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) 00:00, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 04:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unreferenced BLP that fails to show its subject meets any notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False Information Hernandez DID NOT play on the Hatework "This is a holocaust waiting to wake itself" EP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazuzu79 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 28 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) 18:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

En vänlig grönskas rika dräkt[edit]

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

Article provides no additional information past what is presented in Carl David af Wirsén. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 03:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Carl David af Wirsén - it's a lovely hymn ~~but without more to say about it, the main article is sufficient.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added 4 sources from Sweden's major newspapers, with a 'Reception' section and an 'In public life'. The hymn is one of Sweden's favourites, oddly enough both to celebrate summer in that wintry land, and for funerals. This should be enough to keep the article; Per Rydén's 700-page book no doubt contains more material for the future. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – now a viable, albeit still somewhat stubby, article, supported by independent reliable sources providing nontrivial coverage. --Lambiam 21:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a bit stubby. Added 5 more sources and written it up a bit better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article is much better now, and no longer the same text as the article taken to AfD. Good work, Chiswick Chap. /Julle (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - improved a lot since nominated. I appreciate the efforts. →TSU ^tp* 17:18, 27 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)} 18:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential Art (webcomic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously kept due to addition of two interviews. One is now 404'd but saved here, and the other makes only one tangential mention of it ("My most successful creation to date has been the Sequential Art strip"). The other sources are a Greek comic blog which doesn't look reliable, and a podcast with the author which would be a primary source. The sources are borderline, but I feel that they just aren't cutting it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: you voted this a "Weak Keep" in its last AfD. Why the change of heart? Veled (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that TPH previously supported due to addition of two interviews. But one is now 404'd and the other makes only tangential mention. He says that the sources are borderline. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if the one is now 404'd. Sources merely need to exist, not to be accessable on the Internet, and notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say whether I agreed with TPH, I was just answering Veled's question. :) Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search of HighBeam for the comic and/or its author turned up no new sources. the wub "?!" 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and continued (likely insurmountable) sourcing problems. My opinion hasn't changed since 2008, and if anything the continued poor state of the article after its four-year second chance gives me no reasomable cause to believe that giving it a third chance will change it much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing problems, does not meet WP:GNG. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:33, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local Government ICT Network[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for web content or the general notability guideline. (Contested A7].) – hysteria18 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources and soon a book from the Gauteng Legislature with a paper from the Network will be published. As stated before the network is very relevant, active, well funded and participating in all public sector IT events in South Africa. I can really not understand why this should not fulfill the notability guidelines. Please don't make participating in Wikipedia harder than necessary Istvanst (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 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) 00:01, 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, →B music ian 03:33, 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 delete. WP:NEO and WP:COATRACK issues are the major causes for concern here. However, there is general agreement that the article contains some decent content which might be transferred to other articles. If anyone would like the article userfied for the purpose of distributing some of its content to other articles, please let me know on my talk page. -Scottywong | babble _ 17:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drop weapon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neologism, mentioned in passing in the news many years ago. Search for this phrase reveal almost entirely unrelated results. The term itself not not appear in most references, or appears only in passing. Neutrality^talk 15:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last time it was nominated, it read like a news article but the present article is just a dicdef. Dricherby (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a dictionary. Borock (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been restored with material that was already in it in previous incarnations. This material has been cited with citations, some of which were already in the article, some of which had also previously been deleted. So no harm done yet, but it would indeed be an injustice to delete an article because deletionists had deleted so much of its content as uncited, without due care and diligence of using the sources already in the article or history.

I agree that it read like a news article at last nomination. Specifically, an armed forces blog. That has all been cleaned up now; just the facts.

The article's content is valuable and notable beyond doubt. I am hard pressed to think of a different title, however desirable that might be. My best suggestion is, Planting of false evidence in the Iraq War, but you can see how that merely replaces one problem with its counterpart. The current title has the casual slang word instead of false evidence, but false evidence does not indicate the military nature of the term. And neither title includes the concept of Baiting. In the end, I think Drop weapon or Drop gun is best. Anarchangel (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the 'drop gun' suggestion, I retract that. It comes from this article about the related subject of police planting evidence (the 'ham sandwich'). Anarchangel (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move. It looks much better, now, but I'm concerned that, of the four sources, the Washington Post and Associated Press articles only mention the phrase "drop weapon" once each, the Time article doesn't even include the word "drop" and the letter from the congressman is essentially repost of the Washington Post article. I don't think that establishes the term "drop weapon" as notable and it seems to be only a small part of the wider practice of "baiting". I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss a rename but how about "Baiting (military)"? Definitely not "drop gun" because none of the sources uses that term. Dricherby (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this just create a new neologism? Wikipedia is not in the business of identifying trends, compiling examples, and then giving them a unity outselves under some new term. To me, this seems to come close to WP:SYNTH. Neutrality^talk 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as the media has already compiled these things under the term "baiting". So we wouldn't be creating a neologism, just using an existing term (which I accept may, itself, be a neologism) and I don't think we'd be synthesizing, either. Dricherby (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism The material in the article seems more aimed at showing usage of the term in the Iraq War than of expository material for its meaning - put the neologism as needed in the article where the events are mentioned, and not use this definition article as a COATRACK as it is currently. Collect (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the policy of the Asymmetric Warfare Group to advise snipers to bait Iraqis with "detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition" then kill them once they handled the items, and the use of drop weapons to 'frame' dead Iraqis, and examples of the practice of this policy, are of as much significance and have received as much coverage as the name for these practices. However, the three are inseparable, and there is no WP article I know of that deals with those incidents. And as policy, practice, and name are not separable, they are not coat and rack, but a single seamless whole. Anarchangel (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "For example, neither the Washington Post not the AP sources uses the word 'drop.' " Actually, both use "drop weapon" exactly once and the Washington Post uses "drop item" twice, too. Dricherby (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. Neutrality^talk 02:06, 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) 00:07, 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, →B music ian 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to false evidence and the article about this particular incident (I can't find that article but that incident would seem notable itself) and not this single-purpose WP:COATRACK article. The actual concept would be false evidence which has a nice train of redirects to it. That subject is more than sufficient to cover all of the slang terms people come up with for the same concept. As for this very specific use of the term, just because the newspapers used the same term doesn't mean that term is uniquely notable beyond what we already have at false evidence. Especially when it's clear that what this article really wants to discuss is a specific incident. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ: if anything, it seems to me this singularity of definition is a desirable attribute of this article; your portrayal of this as some stealthy attempt to foist PoV on unsuspecting readers is misguided (and if you did not intend that meaning, then be advised that COATRACK does have that meaning, and to be more careful when quoting that rule in the future). I agree 'drop weapon' is a "very specific use", but not "of the term", as that implies that, for example, "ham sandwich" could be used interchangeably with 'drop weapon'. They are indeed related concepts, but by no means the same. They have small but important differences: one uses AK-47s, the other, Saturday Night Specials; one is the breach of military law; the other civilian. And they have truly profound differences: According to baited Iraqis were in no way a part of military procedure until they picked up that bait (not a stop and search or a warrant), the direct superiors of the perpetrators are alleged to have ordered the use of baiting (hopefully, a big difference), and baited Iraqis were killed because they picked up the bait (again, hopefully a big difference, and not because they were believed to have drawn a weapon). And I am sure more differences can be pointed out.

And once again, as has happened so many times before in other AfDs and article discussions, I find myself confronted with the awkwardly inappropriate recommendation that material be moved to an article that does not exist (but this time, within the same AfD as my correction of another such mistake). There probably should be articles about the baiting and drop weapon incidents on Wikipedia, but there are none. It should be needless to say, and in fact I have said it already above, but it appears that I had better make it crystal clear (or at worst, repeat myself): there are multiple, widespread and systemic practices discussed in the Drop weapon article, of which the multiple incidents in the article are examples. Anarchangel (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." I feel this article does not demonstrate notability of the term and engages in WP:SYNTH, using tangentially-connected examples of false evidence in order to further the standpoint that "drop weapon" is a significant concept. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary source material?" Nah. Examples of the uses of drop weapons are "tangentially-connected" to the term "drop weapons"? Again, no further argument is needed to reply to these spurious claims of SYNTH. Unfounded assertions by editors at AfD would be fine if we could just delete them, as we do unverified statements in articles. Instead we have to waste time answering them.

Drop weapons and baiting in the Iraq War has none of the problems that are advanced by this wikilawyering, to be sure, but it is unnecessary. Furthermore, I believe the deletion argument's record of unfounded claims shows it is concerned with obfuscation, not revelation; if this were true, it would in fact be inconvenienced by a move to a more specific title. Anarchangel (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it astonishing that you prominently display "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement" on your userpage and yet repeatedly rely on a mixture of ad-homs, contradictions and long-winded rambles which attempt to filibuster deletion discussions presenting the appearance of an intense debate. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions, I will admit, such as "Nah". But it is rarely easy and never mandatory to do anything but contradict mere assertions (such as "primary source material"), as there is no argument to address. A contradiction in that case is just an assertion in return. Anarchangel (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drop bear. Confusion with a more notable subject. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent suggestion. Drop weapon contains no "In popular culture" section so it's clearly the more worthless of the two articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So much for relisting. Seeking closer who wants to do what is right, not wait for the AfD to be padded with enough votes supporting their opinion. Anarchangel (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you're seeking a closer who will ignore consensus and guidelines in favour of the little-known (but eminently enforceable) WP:ANARCHANGELISRIGHT policy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the total lack of consensus so far, it would take a long time for enough !votes to be cast to support the purported biased closer... Dricherby (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism - While the incidents mentioned in the article might well be notable, creating an neological coatrack such as this is not the way to mention them. Perhaps the practice should be mentioned under Asymmetric Warfare Group? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of expatriate Iranian football clubs[edit]

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

No proof of notability. Timbouctou (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of obscure, non-notable football clubs that have a vague link with Iran? Not notable. Giant Snowman 09:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Pure cruft. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list is based on a trivial intersection of characteristics with no clear inclusion definition (Founded by Iranians? Solely for Iranians?) or reliable sourcing and virtually all of the teams appear to be non-notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Barely any of the links in this list are blue (other than the weblinks). The intersection is trivial at best. Delete. Delete! – Pee Jay 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per 1981. →TSU ^tp* 17:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:56, 28 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mickaël Vendetta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

delete (2nd nomination) : Not relevant in terms of encyclopedic coverage, no impact on society, no achievement to claim, lack of real notability... (#genium ✉) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... notability is determined by available coverage in reliable sources. The relevance or impact and achevments of a someone determinable as notable to and in France, does not have to have relevance or impact worldwide. We curb our unfortunate systemic bias by recognizing that notability elsewhere is perfectly fine for us here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Michael ! Sorry but your last point is not relevant to me because there is an implicit rule on the French WP that is saying the same thing: "Hey, there is an article on the English WP, so this is good enought for the French one". Please don't be fooled, there is nothing notorious about him, no reliable secondary source, IMHO, we are talking about self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity here! The funniest thing is that French use some comments on its blog as a reliable source on the French article:) (#genium ✉) 11:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As nominator you are not expected to agree with those who disagree with you, and your response here about the "Hey, there is an article on the English WP, so this is good enough for the French one", and userpage claim of usually contributing to the French Wikipedia, might even indicate a wish to first get rid of the English article in order to then support your getting the French article deleted. I do not see the article nor the available even if unused sources [34] supporting your assertion of no relevance, no impact, and no acheivement. I do see it through sources in its French counterpart (fr:Mickaël Vendetta#Notes et références) and online as suporting meeting WP:BIO through media coverage. I also see that a 20-lifetime-edits-ever anon IP 69.250.235.28 added ((cite)) tags to the article last March which could be addressed through regular editing by use of French language sources,[35]... those which may be determined as suitable here. If we have significant coverage over a many years period, we have notability. We do not delete because we "feel" years-long-in-depth coverage is unmerited or unwarranted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see more references from mainstream media sources (either French or international) to demonstrate notability. WP:WEB requires evidence of coverage in independent sources, and most of the current references don't seem independent (i.e. they're trying to sell something using Vendetta). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you check the ones listed at fr:Mickaël Vendetta#Notes et références? Uncle G (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... again Notability requires sources be available, not that they be English nor that they be used. Kudos to User:Uncle G for his sharing. Notability, even if only to France or in French,[36] is perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia. And in a sidenote, I was actually pleasently surprised to see how well the fr.Wikipedia] article on him is put together and sourced, as other Wikipedias are not bound by our particular set of guidelines, nor we by there's. Sad that its original author appears to have been chased away over 2 years ago,[37], and sad too that the article had not received the attention it needed. But something needing work does not mean we delete in its lack... and the French article is offering some fine sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additional sources added by Schmidt during the course of this AFD firmly establish notability.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 17:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azhagi (Software)[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable software product. All of the references are self-published or promotional sources which are closely linked to the software vendor. Salimfadhley (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is the online link to the article from The Hindu, which I have added to the Wikipedia article in question. This is difficult because the field that this topic would be notable in, Indian-language transliteration tools, is so narrow, but between mention in The Hindu as one of the tools that "stands out" and the fact that general Google searches turn up Azhagi mentioned next to other notable tools like Baraha or general Unicode tools I would consider notable such as BabelPad, I think that this topic fulfills GNG and notability criteria for software as proposed in the essay Notability (software). --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find some more support from secondary sources. There must have been some reviews of later versions of this software. If we could add more sources that would pretty much guarantee that this article would be found notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a specific field that I don't think we're going to find more sources for this or any other tools of the same type... even Baraha doesn't seem to be exactly the same thing, or is a broader set of tools. It's essentially a component that makes up for a deficiency in the computer's operating system for working with Indian languages. Even the most notable software in this category will be unlikely to have better sourcing than this. And notability is not temporary, so if it was notable in 2002 it's still notable now. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I may have been proven wrong by the author of the software himself: here (original) is his list of media mentions of Azhagi, including a commendation and interview from a site that seems to be some sort of Microsoft-sponsored project about Indic-language computing. Adding to the article... --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even this project seems to be a part of Microsoft-Sponsored Projects, but the notability is very high among Tamil People, since it is first and very comfortable transliteration tool and got popularized through the leading Tamil medias like Sun TV, Jaya TV, The Hindu and lot more. Unfortunately, I cannot provide all the links for the same. This article is already in Tamil, see அழகி (மென்பொருள்), -- Dineshkumar Ponnusamy ^Discuss 08:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. I have added necessary details and references to it. -- Dineshkumar Ponnusamy ^Discuss10:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough reliable sources to establish general notability and verify the facts. Steven Walling • talk 23:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steven Walling (but move to Azhagi (software) per WP:DAB#Format). --Lambiam 22:16, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Xue[edit]

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

A filmmaker. No reliable, independent references that actually talk about him. Has made short and student films. His award is for a student film and it was awarded in 2011, so he is just out of school. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He might become notable in the future but at the moment the evidence does not meet WP notability standards and I don't think that a person currently of notable stature in the film industry would be entering these sorts of competitions. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:34, 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, →B music ian 03:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Ray Xue seems interesting, I agree with ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ that Ray Xue is not yet notable. WP:CRYSTALBALL prevents us from creating articles based on future predictions of notability. NJ Wine (talk) 04:13, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FlyFM[edit]

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

This is a non-notable student radio station. I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as web-only "radio station" that apparently fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No sources to indicate notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Girl[edit]

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

Not sure how this one has been around for so long. Can not find any sources for this one at all. Ridernyc (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No available sources. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even on IMDB, can't find sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any coverage or verifiability through reliable sources fails WP:NF.[38] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, not sourced, the crew or associated persons are also not notable and thus fails WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 17:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable and lack of sources online --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:52, 28 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) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Stacey[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Part of a long series of articles created by a series of sockpuppets all dealing with the independent films Sparrow and The Island. Ridernyc (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name does get a few search engine hits, including an IMDB listing... do you have any evidence to back the sock allegations? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keith1234The main contributor to the article after User:Lalifgray created some non-notable articles and stopped editing. Take a look at how many of the articles on this small group of people were created by socks of one account of[39]. I nominated a bunch of these yesterday and nearly every one was an article created by the same set of socks. WP:DUCK Ridernyc (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements (either major roles in notable movies, awards, or significant press coverage about him specifically). An IMDb page isn't considered sufficient. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cola. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information technology in Pakistan[edit]

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

No additional information available other than what is already available in Economy of Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepsikha (talk • contribs)

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 2. Snotbot t • c » 00:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, indeed, there is more information in the Economy of Pakistan article about IT in Pakistan than there is in this article. Ducknish (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic and the article can be expanded with plenty of available sources. If time permits me, I would be willing to give this article some attention and expand it. Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: general coverage articles on countries are defacto notable. Should be tagged for appropriate clean up if required. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable topic with fairly large amount of content available online that can be added and Mar4d (author) says he will expand it, I will also like to expand it when I get time. Even with little content I don't see how it satisfies the Deletion Policy. --SMS ^Talk 19:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Economy of Pakistan#IT industry until there is actual content to support a spinoff article per WP:SS. Articles such as this should grow organically out of each other, there is no point in creating two-sentence stubs. Sandstein 05:03, 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, ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 15:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Sandstein. Not yet clear what this article is about.--Kvng (talk) 16:46, 13 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, joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisted in view of changes made to the article since the last comment in this discussion. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no longer a two-sentence stub. Too large to merge into Economy of Pakistan. --Kvng (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This version really was worthy of being thrown away, but the nominator would have done better to redirect it than to come here. That being said, this version shows that Smsarmad and Mar4d have put a lot of useful work into it. As TopGun said, "[important topic] in [country]" articles are pretty much always article-worthy, so a decent article on such a topic should never be deleted at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone involved in IT IRL I can readily say that this sector of the Pakistani economy is internationally notable of its own accord and the reliable sources which have been added to the article so far are only the tip of the iceberg. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 15:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. IT in Pakistan is notable, much as Nursing in Pakistan was and is. I can't help but wondering why people continue to nominate "X in Pakistan" articles without doing any online searches per WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is obviously worth an article, and this has developed enough since the nomination that a redirect would no longer make sense. --Stfg (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is worth keeping regardless the length of the article. If the article is not big, it can be made big, you don't have to delete it. I'll be working on it as the topic is obviously very notable →TSU ^tp* 17:26, 27 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) 17:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Lorilla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A losing finalist from Philippines' Next Top Model has failed the notability criteria and thus this article was deleted before back in 2010. The speedy deletion request (G4) declined. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Losing contestants are not necessarily notable (except [usually] for American Idol contestants), unless they have received much reliable coverage post-contest. She is no exception. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -No lasting notability, not like a fourth-place American Idol contestant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 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. Doesn't seem useful as a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West Hitchin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, and doesn't seem to be a recognised name for the area; Google search doesn't find anything that could be used as a source. The first AFD was closed as speedy delete, and then the article was undeleted but discussion was not reopened. Peter E. James (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a commonly-used toponym or a distinct administrative area. Reads like it was created by an estate agent for commercial purposes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hitchin until some one can provide contnet to establish that this is an independent entity, bit merely the west side of the town. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does just seem to be estate agent spin.--Charles (talk) 21:00, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Stehr[edit]

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

A finalist in Philippines' Next Top Model hasn't won and does not meet notability requirements. This newbie user has add PNTM contestants have failed to notify the requirements of notability. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Losing contestants are not necessarily notable unless they have received much reliable coverage post-contest. She is no exception. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Naruto. Has no reliable sources about her post-competition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 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 Speedy close. I was extremely tired when I nominated this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot effect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the sources don't even mention Slashdot, making this OR. "Cause" section is OR, "extent" section is mostly built on broken sources that I couldn't find backups of. Last AFD was in 2006. Article has been around since 2001. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's notable enough, receiving coverage on Wired,[40], Business Week,[41], The Register,[42] the USGS,[43] O'Reilly,[44] and even a Ph.D. thesis.[45] Here the influence of Oprah on the web is being compared to the Slashdot Effect. There's also a mention on CNET.[46] Regards, RJH (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of the problem in finding sources is the multiple names - the article is really about the common theme behind Slashdotted, Farked, Drudged, etc., without really needing to be about any one of the news aggregator sites. It's a common and reasonably well-covered phenomenon as RJH noted. -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into flash crowd - "Most of the sources don't even mention Slashdot" - this was the problem. The article was going to be moved/merged into "flash crowd" for a more generic title since the term "slashdot effect" is a bit too specific even though it was coined to describe the original effect from the site linkings. (This was the reason why the Slashdotted template was moved to High traffic). Also, there are many research papers and dissertations on this topic, and one of the citations refers to a Microsoft research paper using the generic term "flash crowd". - M0rphzone 06:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just updated the dead links with archived versions. "Most of the sources don't mention the word 'slashdot'"? I counted 5 out of 8 links mentioning slashdot at least once in the url or page itself. "'Extent' section is mostly built on broken sources that [you] couldn't find backups of"? That section only had 2 dead links out of a total of 5, and one of the dead links had a mirrored link provided. - M0rphzone 06:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: And if still not convinced, this phenomenon has been attested and has caused effects to Wikipedia in the past. On 26 July 2001 Wikipedia suffered from the slashdot effect and posted the following message: "We have been slashdotted, so we are having a highly busy day. If you get an 'edit lock' error, please just wait a few minutes and submit again. Our system isn't accustomed to this much progress this quickly!" See the archive talk on previous articles that were "slashdotted". The effect of slashdotting was why the Wikipedia Volunteer Fire Department was created. This phenomenon has also been occurring as we speak, with high traffic and page hits on the Robert Moog article due to the Google Doodle and resulting search result hits. Definitely notable... - M0rphzone (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The news sources are a weak argument, but the presence of a Ph.D. dissertation specifically on this subject is convincing — you can't write a dissertation without extensive primary sources, and (1) the dissertation is a reliable secondary source, and (2) the existence of extensive primary sources makes the existence of other reliable secondary sources very likely. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well established term, more than neologism, has RS. Maybe nom would like to withdraw per first AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot effect Widefox (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a real, well-attested phenomenon, and the name is more widely used than flash crowd. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well known, plenty of sources avaliable Egg Centri c 12:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I think it's time to coin the Wired rule: Any phenomenon covered in Wired (magazine) will be found to have sufficient online reliable sources that it will be found to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 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 no consensus. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barenaked Ladies demo tapes[edit]

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

Demo tapes are not usually notable. Many of these had individual articles that were deleted or redirected. Bunching several non-notable works into one article does not help the notability any. The only sources are quotes from BNL members in a documentary, which I believe is a primary source. I couldn't find any reliable coverage at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like way too much fan detail for an encyclopedia. Listing these demo tapes in either the band's article or a list of all their works should be fine. Borock (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there were an individual article for each tape I'd vote merge, but as one "omnibus" article for this notable band's entire pre-fame discography I'd say it's fine. If the documentary is used as the source, it's secondary (the interview itself would be the primary source).Test piggy (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Would normally suggest a merge as not sufficiently notable, but the resulting article would be too long. A documentary is probably a reliable source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The band's article really is too long to merge the viable info into so I'm not opposed to the page's content in itself. The issue is a lack of sources which makes the article look like primarily original research. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is little coverage to establish that the body work encompassing their demo tapes is notable. The lone exception the Yellow Tape (I no longer have my copy alas) which really propelled them on their way to stardom, but that already has an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barenaked Ladies discography. These warrant at least a mention, although an individual article on the demo tapes is too much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The band has multiple articles covering its discography, this omnibus tape article is completely rational organizational work. We did the same after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taboo VI: The Homecoming closed with no complaint.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent and Test piggy. I have no particular concerns about this kind of articles. Cavarrone (talk) 13:03, 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 no consensus. Borderline case, there's no strong agreement on her notability at this time. -Scottywong | communicate _ 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamilah Kolocotronis[edit]

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

Not particularly notable fiction writer, no significant coverage in reliable sources or news outlets, only some specialist websites and blogs. Athenean (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a meaningless contribution to AFD. There are essentially two outcomes that can result from this AFD discussion: keep or delete. Which are you opposing and why? Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many Muslim sites mention her ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.27.81 (talk) [reply]
    - You're not properly signed in. Sign in.
      Mention? Not document, with enough information from which a biographical encyclopaedia article can be written? If there are places where such in depth biographical documentation, from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, can be found, please point to a couple of them. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Strange -- his (un-commented !vote) was delete and when you asked for a reason he gave "Many Muslim sites mention her" as a reason to discount her notability rather than to assert it. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:04, 27 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, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Benoit (talk) Hello, I'm the author of this article. I hope that by being an editor of SISTERS Magazine (the only international English-language publication exclusively for Muslim women) I would be considered an identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Interestingly I recently read that wikipedia is hoping to encourage and increase articles by and about women and minorities, yet this conversation seems very unsupporting of that. The citations for this article are not from blogs or specialist websites, they are from THE preeminent Muslim-based publications in the US. Azizah is an award winning magazine whose founding was encouraged by Gloria Steinem. Islamic Horizons is the longest continually running Muslim Magazine in the US. So am I correct in understanding that you would like to see other reliable contributors to this piece as well as other worthy citations? ~Brooke

Keep There is apparently coverage in print publications Azizah, Islamic Horizons, and Islamic Ink[47], though none of those are actually online. I found one article about her: Pamela H. Sacks: "Keeping the faith; Muslim writer reaches out to young men of Islam through novel". TELEGRAM & GAZETTE (Massachusetts), August 23, 2005, Pg. C1. She is mentioned in a few places on Google Books too (half a page in Peter Caram, The 1993 World Trade Centre Bombing: Foresight and Warning, Janus, 2001, p39; some mentions in Carol L. Anway, Carol Anderson Anway, Daughters of another path: experiences of American women choosing Islam, Yawna Publications, 1996; a paragraph in David K. Linnan, Enemy Combatants, Terrorism, and Armed Conflict Law: A Guide to the Issues; a brief mention in Mathias Rohe, Das islamische Recht: Geschichte und Gegenwart, p 491.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Kolocotronis is clearly not notable as she satisfies none of the criteria laid out by Wikipedia:ACADEMIC:
- 1) There is no evidence that the subject has made any significant impact upon his discipline.
- 2) There is no evidence that the subject has received a prestigious award at either the national or the international levels.
- 3) There is no evidence that he has been elected to any prestigious scholarly societies.
- 4) This person clearly has not made any impact upon higher education.
- 5) The subject does not hold any distinguished titles or academic positions.
- 6) This subject has not held a "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post" at any universty.
- 7) The subject clearly has not had any impact, let alone a substantial impact, outside of academia.
- 8) There is no evidence that the subject has been the editor of any journal.

Her main work, Islamic jihād: an historical perspective, is, despite having had twenty years to accumulate citations, cited a mere six times by Google Scholar which is practically nothing. Kolocotronis made no impact in her field, so she merits no bio in WP. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be far from reaching wp:n.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline, but I give it the benefit of the doubt in order to correct our cultural bias DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 31 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Wilbanks[edit]

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

Non-notable actor who seems to have never made it above extra work. Ridernyc (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lone reference seems to imply that Mr. Wilbanks had something of a notable career in football. Maybe not up to our notability standards for college ball, but might add to the overall notability picture. I'm concerned about the different dates of death, though - and the lack of an obituary is telling as well. Not sure about this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMDB shows that Wilbanks appeared in 43 different movies and TV shows, and the roles he plays are significant. Clearly meets WP:CREATIVE. NJ Wine (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those roles are "significant"? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am concerned about our ability to verify the content of this article. There was a Don Wilbanks who lived from 1901-1984, from Oklahoma, and who served as a state legislator in the mid-1930s, but I don't see a link to prove its the Don Wilbanks who was an actor. IMDB puts the actor at a 1926 birthdate --- a rough educated guess is that we have a father/son issue here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:50, 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 merge to Shendurjana Ghat. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shendurjana[edit]

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

There is an article named Shendurjana Ghat which is more extensive and is actually the same town FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - By the coordinates these articles do seem to refer to the same place, but I want to note that this book, a 2008 edition of The Columbia Gazetteer of the World, lists another place several hundred kilometers away called Shendurjana. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:02, 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) 00:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 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 merge to Salsa (dance). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa dance (New York Style)[edit]

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

Not a notable dance or style, as far as I can tell--article seems to exist mainly as a link farm for Eddie Torres. The article lacks any referencing (and see the history for the Eddie Torres spam I removed). Drmies (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Salsa (dance) all four: Salsa dance (Cali Style), Salsa dance (Cuban Style), Salsa dance (LA Style), Salsa dance (New York Style). Tag as OR there. Failed attempt at WP:SUMMARY breakouts without any refs. JJB 05:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- [Pardon my copying from the Cali style AfD:] Sure--but merge what? Where is the verified content worthy of merging? I'm not even convinced it exists as a notable, independent style--and I'm setting aside the claims of the people teaching it. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 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) 00:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Salsa (dance). I found a number of websites[48][49] that discuss the New York style of salsa. NJ Wine (talk) 04:21, 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 merge to Salsa (dance). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa dance (LA Style)[edit]

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

Unverified--mainly a promotional vehicle for someone named Johnny Vazquez. See also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salsa dance (New York Style)What is NY style salsa?

New York  On 2 salsa is a style of salsa where the dancers take their break step on the second beat of the measure (“on 2”), as opposed to the first beat, as in On1 salsa. ... New York style salsa is known for its smooth and elegant turn patterns and footwork sequences, as opposed the flashier LA style.]], different yet the same. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Salsa (dance) all four: Salsa dance (Cali Style), Salsa dance (Cuban Style), Salsa dance (LA Style), Salsa dance (New York Style). Tag as OR there. Failed attempt at WP:SUMMARY breakouts without any refs. JJB 05:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- [Pardon my copying from the Cali style AfD:] Sure--but merge what? Where is the verified content worthy of merging? I'm not even convinced it exists as a notable, independent style--and I'm setting aside the claims of the people teaching it. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This should convince you that it is a verifiable, recognized style:
    Salsa dance is generally classified as one of six styles: ballroom, New York, Puerto Rican, Colombian, Cuban, and Los Angeles. […] The Venezuelan dance style is not commodified on a global scale and hence is not generally included as one of the six principal salsa styles. The styles that have become the most prominent as a result of their widespread circulation in dance schools, in practice videos, and on websites are ballroom, New York, Cuban, and Los Angeles.
    — Pietrobruno 2006, p. 64
    Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pietrobruno, Sheenagh (2006). Salsa And Its Transnational Moves. Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739114681.
      - Maybe--but that does not yet independent notability make. Thank you for the diligence. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Salsa (dance). I found a number of websites[50][51] which discuss the Los Angeles style of salsa. NJ Wine (talk) 04:25, 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 merge to Salsa (dance). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa dance (Cali Style)[edit]

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

Unverified--no reason to assume it's notable in its own right. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Salsa (dance) all four: Salsa dance (Cali Style), Salsa dance (Cuban Style), Salsa dance (LA Style), Salsa dance (New York Style). Tag as OR there. Failed attempt at WP:SUMMARY breakouts without any refs. JJB 05:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sure--but merge what? Where is the verified content worthy of merging? I'm not even convinced it exists as a notable, independent style--and I'm setting aside the claims of the people teaching it. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 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) 00:03, 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 delete. Soft delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assaf Abu Rahhal[edit]

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

This appears to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. This journalist was killed in a border clash, but even the newspaper he worked for calls him "an unfamiliar name".[52] Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:04, 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) 00:03, 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 redirect to The Fall of Troy. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Erak[edit]

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

no independent notability shown for this bio. Nothing significant outside The Fall of Troy. His other bands The 30 Years War, The Hills Have Eyes and Just Like Vinyl are not notable. Closest he gets is the AP mag Guitarist of the Year but it is not a major award and is for his work in The Fall of Troy. Nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fall of Troy, as WP:BAND recommends. He's a member of just the one notable group, and there does not appear to be enough coverage of his activity independent of the band to warrant an separate article. Gongshow ^Talk 23:27, 16 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) 00:03, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Senkom Mitra Polri[edit]

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

Does not pass the notability guidelines for organisations — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 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) 00:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in reliable Indonesian newspaper and news sources, thus passing WP:GNG:

Significant coverage: (in Indonesian) Asked to Participate Aceh Senkom Help Fight Drugs
Significant coverage: (in Indonesian) THANK SENKOM REGENT PARTNERS BANYUMAS POLICE
Significant coverage: (in Indonesian) Police Help Secure Partner Senkom Christmas & New Year
Ample coverage: (in Indonesian) Police and Partners Tokobagus.com Senkom Degree Post Mudik Lebaran
Ample coverage: (in Indonesian) Binjai Mayor Welcomes Establishment of Branches Communications Center
Passing mentions: (in Indonesian) Members of the Communications Center hacked\

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources above, it is notable and passes WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 08:24, 28 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit Check[edit]

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

Contested prod. No indication that this company is notable. Google Books only gives directory entries for this company,no discussion of the company in any books, sources are trade magazine articles and don't discuss the company itself. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 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) 00:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article was/is close to meeting the deletion criteria, but disagree about the company's notoriety falling below the cutoff threshold. Two references have been added since the initial nomination, one being specifically about the company, and being written by a huge, highly-notable industry figure. RCHenningsgard 18:43, 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bashar Abdulah[edit]

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

This is a technical posting I'm doing for another editor. That editor, User:Ragheb.araby thinks this individual notable because there are insufficient independent sources, more specifically. and will explain in more detail below. I don't however think I agree with him, so this is not my delete !vote; I will give my opinion separately. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "User:Ragheb.araby thinks this individual non-notable"? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the technical help in proposing deletion, DGG. I will copy-paste the issues I raised in my own discussion page. These are the reasons that I believe the article should be deleted:

The author of the article is also the subject of the article. His intention appears (in my opinion) to be self-promotion.
The article is a biography of a living person and does not have reliable sources.
The article fails to establish the notability of the subject with reliable sources. All of the references are in Arabic and are limited to: a) a page in the opinion section of alwatanvoice.com which appears to be the author's work, with a one-line mention at the bottom that he won the Naji Naaman Literary Prize in 2005. Said literary prize is apparently a competition to promote "gratis culture" and the subject of the article, along with his co-author, was one of 32 laureates in 2005 alone. b) a broken link to www.azzaman.com. c) A Wordpress blog post that contains the same text as the first link. d) Another broken link to www.azzaman.com. e) Yet another broken link to www.azzaman.com.
The the deletion of the equivalent Arabic-language article and determined that the content was the biography of a non-notable figure. It stretches credibility to assert that an Arab author in an Arab country is more relevant from the perspective of an English-language encyclopedia than from that of an Arabic-language one, IMHO.
A web search of the author's name, in both English and Arabic, does not return reliable sources. Indeed, it does not return many results at all other than duplicates of this article on Wikipedia mirrors. There is a Kuwaiti soccer player who shares the same name, who returns many more results.--Ragheb.araby (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article makes only two significant claims of notability: that the author won a literary prize, and that his book "has influenced modern literary writing and reading techniques in Iraq". Only the first of these claims is sourced, though if what Ragheb.araby writes is correct, the prize is not important enough to confer notability. In addition to being unsourced, the second of these claims is quite vague. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:42, 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 redirect to Ed, Edd n Eddy (specials). If it keeps getting turned back into an article ping me and I'll protect it. Jenks24 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Eds are Coming, the Eds are Coming[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources - the existing sources are credits from the production itself, a trivial mention, and a link to a retail site to purchase the production.
Suggest converting to a redirect to ~~List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Special episodes~~ (see update below, content was moved), and restoring the summaries that had existed at that location and which were recently removed. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the suggested redirect target which contained the summary has been removed from the "list of" article, to now be at Ed, Edd n Eddy (specials). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and maybe protect. There are a lot of Ed Edd n Eddy fanboys who do this kind of thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fanboys? Really? - I just thought it would be a solid article, and you can't say that I'm really bad at making articles. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. The EEnE articles get hit with people who are just rabid about making sure the show's got as much content as possible on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect Gimmick episode with a 'type what I see' unsourced recap, one verbatim network press release disguised as a source on an animation news website, and another one which takes article readers to the show's iTunes page and throws it right into WP:ADVERT territory. Par for the course for an animated series, the one paragraph about it in Ed, Edd n Eddy (specials) should satisfy most interested readers just fine. Nate • (chatter) 04:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This most certainly shouldn't be deleted. I'm getting tired of all this AfD notices when a redirect would serve just fine. Anyway, I guess I support a redirect if third-party sources can't be found.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The problem is over-inclusionists have figured out that unless they get a declaration through this process they'll keep re-creating, no matter what. AfD was never intended to be used as a check to solidify a redirect/delete decision, but this seems to be the only way at this time in the process to set an article's direction in stone. Nate • (chatter) 01:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nom errs by saying there are no reliable sources rather than no reliable secondary sources, which is really the complaint here. The production itself is a reliable source for its own credits, and its own content generally just as any primary source is. That aside, redirecting could have and should have been attempted first per WP:BRD rather than through WP:AFD (per WP:ATD. QED). postdlf (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Clearly not notable enough for its own article; I've found nothing. J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 17 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) 00:01, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Jordan[edit]

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

Fails to show why it is notable, fails WP:GNG. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete - Her books seem to be found in some libraries and there is a bit of coverage, but I don't think enough to warrant inclusion. West Eddy (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to keep. The book is carried in a number of libraries and there are a number of reviews of her work. [53][54] [55] West Eddy (talk) 00:26, 17 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) 00:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article (now) has a claim of notability; specifically, that the author was nominated for three awards and won a third. I'm not familiar with the awards in question but at least some of them are used to establish notability for other authors' articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:36, 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 prejudice against re-creating as a redirect, if deemed necessary as a plausible search term. -Scottywong | chat _ 17:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E&BV Subdivision[edit]

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

I found no notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I presume this is about a railroad, probably a branch line, but a subdivision of what? What is the expansion of the abbreviation? At present this article is gooblegook, but at present I cannot understand it. It may be that notability can be established (knowing that every station in UK seems to have its own article), buty in its present state I cannot judge that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Subdivision of CSX, I guess. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found and added five print sources from Google Books in about as many minutes. Haus^Talk 16:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that those sources show notability. SL93 (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subdivisions of railroads are only occasionally notable; this isn't one that is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 18 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) 00:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Isn't there a larger section of track that this should or is already included in? I would suggest merging in whatever's there, but no need for the redirect to stick around either (I guess you could history merge if it mattered...) Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines - This is surprisingly well-referenced for an article that is tagged for deletion. From what little I've found, it seems to be a segment of some old railroad line that was bought out by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway. ----DanTD (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The refs were added after it went to AFD, although they are all general refs - none are inline. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, I still think it would be better off redirected, if it's not kept. ----DanTD (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think it's a rather unlikely search term, but would not object to redirecting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:01, 31 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.