< 2 May	4 May >

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

The result was delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bond Books[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage in reliable sources and this company fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Often mentioned in passing in blogs and promotional announcements as places to get help finding unique and children's books and as locations of author book signings but I could not find any independent source of notability, May be a case of WP:TOOSOON if these stores thrive while bigger chain book stores close locations but I can't justify a 'keep' based on WP:CRYSTAL. DocTree (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SL93's comments. I don't see any independent sources discussing this bookstore chain. Debbie W. 03:55, 12 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Sukta of Atharvaveda cited in Shabda-Kalpadrum[edit]

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

Basically amounts to a WP:POVFORK of Allopanishad. The creator of this article already created Allah Sukta, which was eventually redirected to Allopanishad itself. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a joke and violates numerous Wikipedia Policies. Even the title is not per norm - "Allah Sukta" is written as "A Sukta"? And that too as cited in a book of 19th century? Non-OR and non-synthesis content from the article should be merged with Allopanishad. Yojakanaaman (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not call it a"joke" but rather a soapbox of an essay. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 5 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. I think that there's enough participation to show that consensus hasn't changed from the first AFD. Let's wait 3-6 months before beating this horse again. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

common type murder-suicide, run of the mill case. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse. It has received substantial national media coverage. Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still a run of the mill case. Unfortunately, completely common in US-society. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reason people said to keep it a few months ago at the last AFD. Lasting coverage over months, not just for the event, but for his honors and memorials received. [1] Dream Focus 23:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was kept just a short time ago at a AfD. Nothing has changed since to convince me that this article shouldnt be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice trick, a speedy non-admin close, but I don't agree with that. It is still a run of the mill murder that only got publicity because of the place where it took place. The scope hunting media where there streaight away, but even a lot of coverage does not make it notable. Coverage is not a guarantee for notability, it only helps. This is also a typical case of the pro-US-POV. A double murder like this in Japan, Mexico, Great-Britain, India or Germany (to name a few countries) will never make it into Wikipedia, just because it did not happen in the United States of America. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be. But I do hope you realise the slim chance of this article being deleted at this time.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 5 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. Considering who the nominator is I was tempted to supervote a redirect to Hell Freezes Over Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blonde bombshell (disambiguation)[edit]

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

~~Nominating for deletion because it has no purpose, the only blue link listed is to an actress who was one of many referred to as a blonde bombshell. Dream Focus 21:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)~~ withdrawing nomination since it might have a purpose now. Dream Focus 03:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since none of the other entries have pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is invalid. There are more blue links there. I sugest the voters, befor voting, to refresh their knowledge of the rules related to disambiguation pages. The entries do not have to have pages; blue links suffice. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you plan on linking to every single person ever referred to as a blonde bombshell? What about redheaded bombshell? I found a 66 year old news article with the headline mentioning a redheaded bombshell. [2] When people are looking for this term, would they be looking for any particular person called that? Dream Focus 22:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Persons removed. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After a deliberation, point taken back: I've noticed that nicknames are valid items in the disambig pages, see eg Crazy Legs, Sparky, Sarge, or Doc for some. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This isn't Wikitionary. Redirect (and drop the disambiguation) to Bombshell (sex symbol). --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 22:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, the redirect is already there, exactly as you like it. And you are right. This isn't wiktionary. This is disambiguation. Staszek Lem (talk)
  - Then Delete. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note, if someone takes time to find sources proving the two films or the book is notable, and creates an article for it, then this page makes sense. Disambiguation pages exist to make certain people get the search results they want, so they don't end up in the wrong article instead. Dream Focus 22:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note back; we have thousands of song and book titles in disambig pages without articles about these titles. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because people will likely search for them. Is anything on the list something someone will likely search for by typing in "Blonde bombshell"? Dream Focus 00:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Wonderful idea...cobble together subpar articles to save some disambiguation page. No, that's a terrible idea! Just wait until the articles get created. p b p 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bombshell or Bombshell (sex symbol) with no recreation precedent if the redlinks are created p b p 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as some of the redlinks have been solved, I'm striking my redirect vote p b p 21:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Give some time:The article needs some improvident (adding exact links, creating articles. Give some time. --Tito Dutta ^Message 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some searching with my fancy new Highbeam account, I found some references, and created an article for the first formerly red link. The Blonde Bombshell I'll look through the others. Dream Focus 03:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator, I withdrew my nomination and changed my vote to Keep after doing some news searching, and finding enough coverage to create two new articles from two things on the list that were red linked. A third thing listed might have enough coverage (a lot of news results to sort through to determine that though) to have its own article as well. New things have been added to the list also which some might actually search for. The disambiguate page now has an actual purpose, aiding in navigation, helping people find what they are searching for when they enter this term. Dream Focus 11:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep this now that the nom has been withdrawn? Bearian (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered closing it as withdrawn, but there are still Deletes on the board that haven't clearly been addressed, so I'm not inclined to close early. That being the case, I would say to keep it since it has obviously been fixed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now perfectly respectable dab page. PamD 21:29, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wainwright Gridiron Challenge[edit]

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

This article appears to be a hoax. If it's not a hoax, it is full of dubious content and is not notable. SchreiberBike (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. That Mr. Wainwright sure is good; he holds all the records. —Al E.^(talk) 14:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious BS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax or real, it isn't notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:16, 5 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. Keep both. Two arguments in favor of deletion were rebutted by WP:NOTDUP, many concerns also appear to have been addressed via normal editing. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians from Bihar[edit]

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

Six items is hardly a "list". This is not linked from anywhere, nor is it necessary due to its shortness. (Side note: An IP tried to nominate this.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for same reasons:

§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both - These are incomplete list articles that can be easily expanded. Their focus is discriminate, and with improvements can be a useful guide for Wikipedia's readers. I've already begun improving the List of politicians from Bihar article by expanding it, adding sources and cleaning it up. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been significantly expanded from the state it was in at the time of its deletion nomination. The article has also been de-orphaned. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: Category:Bihari politicians and Category:Kerala politicians already exists. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the existence of categories lead to the conclusion that the lists should be deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna propose to convert the list into category. But a category already exists. Hence opted for deletion. The current "improved and organized" List of politicians of Kerala is just giving their DOB-DOD. When a category exists, do we need to make an article just to keep maintaining it? In that case we also need to have articles for other 26 states and 7 union territories, (the UTs can be clubbed as one article). §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your creation List of Marathi films there exists the category Category:Marathi-language films.By your reasoning the list should be deleted. Please consider to nominate the list for deletion.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That list has more information than just names of films in it. Aren't other columns visible on your screen? Also majority of the films don't have their own articles. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Also, per WP:NOTDUP, a Wikipedia editing guideline, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Since a new article has been nominated here, revised my comment above to "keep both". Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – List of politicians of Kerala has been improved and organized. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lists and categories both can co exist.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per shyamsunder.Pectore^talk 15:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the last few years there has been very strong consensus that duplication is not a reason for deletion, and there seems to be no other valid reason. I don't know how many items it takes to make the absolute minimum size for a list, but it might depend upon the expandability of the topic; not only is this is clearly expandable, but I think 6 is enough in any case. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 10 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. Nominator now feels it should be kept and there is no dissent. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Kullander (physicist)[edit]

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

Not Notable Bhny (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this person may meet WP:PROF criterion 3, as a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences assuming that can be referenced. Perhaps the nominator could elaborate on why they think the subject is not notable. 137.43.188.224 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why being member 1344 of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is notable. He doesn't seem to have published much and the 2 current thin references are obviously not enough. Bhny (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because this is what is written in WP:PROF criterion 3, as noted above.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean I'm not qualified to say whether the Swedish Academy is "highly selective and prestigious" like the Royal Society. If it is then we should keep. The biggest problem with the article is there are no links to anything significant he's done. One link was to an article he wrote about fringe science and the other to his dissertation. Bhny (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit of info of this (from the official bio provided by the Nobel Foundation). Yes, Royal Swedish Academy is fine as a prestigious institution. The problem is that he seems to got involved into cold fusion which is clearly marginal, and this is what all post-2010 references talk about: some praise him as an academic scholar supporting cold fusion, and others critisize him. I have chosen not to add this bit at all since this can easily get me in trouble in real life.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks ok now, I guess we keep it Bhny (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With a GS h-index of around 35 clearly passes WP:Prof#C1 as well as WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep High h-index, member of the Swedish Royal Academy: obviously meets WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Also, as professor emeritus at a highly-respected university, he would pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 5 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer University School of Medicine[edit]

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

I suggest that the information in this article be merged into Mercer University and this article redirected there. The School of Medicine does not appear to be notable on its own per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There are no independent and reliable sources that represent significant coverage of the school itself, only notable affiliates of the school and university or the university itself. A Google News search provides two articles that, in my opinion, do not represent independent and significant coverage. A Google News archive search produces coverage from local news sources and per WP:ORG, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." OlYeller21^Talktome 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merger seems appropriate. This is normally proposed by the use of mergeto and mergefrom templates and talk page discussion though, not AfD. Is there a reason you didn't do that this time, OlYeller? LadyofShalott 01:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the proposition for the merging of this article with the article for Mercer University. As author of this article, I believe that it represents an organization that has notability sufficient to warrant address with an independent article. To begin, I believe notability is inherently warranted due to the fact that this organization is an U.S. allopathic medical school, of which there are only 131, and has trained over 1000 licensed Doctors of Medicine who currently provide healthcare in the United States. Please visit the List of medical schools in the United States article and notice that most schools have an independent article. I understand that this institution is relatively young, at 30 years of age, and as such has less media coverage due to less abundant translational research being performed there, but I do not think this fact precludes the development of an independent article nor does it imply lack of notability. I noticed that "OlYeller21" alluded to a lack of media coverage in his Google News archive search, but I believe he is interpreting the WP:ORG too liberally in regard to his interpretation of "local media". As MUSM is a state school with a primary care mission it is not surprising that there is not more attention received by the lay press outside of the state of Georgia, but it should be noted that the attention in Georgia is not localized to areas only surrounding the school, but that the school has been given attention by large journals such as the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Additionally, as MUSM is an academic institution, a more accurate measure of notability might be a Google scholar search rather than attention from lay press, as this implies notability in the academic environment. Also, since the initial proposal for deletion of the article, I have added a reference to another external, notable, and unbiased source (The Journal of Academic Medicine, published by the American Association of Medical Colleges) to the reference list. • emc7171
As a note, the initial proposal was and is not for deletion. Merge and redirect is simply a possible outcome of an WP:AfD.

You've pointed out that the school itself doesn't not receive national coverage. You've also essentially pointed out that it's expected due to its size. You go on to to say that we should ignore this. I simply don't agree that we should. To me, that would be directly contrary to WP:N.

I'm not suggesting that there is no important information about the school itself, simply that the school is not independently notable from the university and that the information found in the article can be placed in the university's article instead.

At this point, I think the best way to establish notability would be to investigate the school's publications. Again, if they're published by the university and not the school, this would further indicate that the school itself is not independently notable. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To note, I neither stated nor implied that the school is small, but merely that it is relatively young--although not nearly the youngest to have an independent article attributed to it. It is actually a medium-sized medical school. Also, I did not imply that the school does not receive national attention, but only that it is not in the form of attention from the national lay press. If you reference the google scholar search I posted above, I believe you'll note a myriad of publications by the school (not the University at large) that were selectively included and published in both national and international journals, a fact which I believe addresses the issues of notability you introduced. • emc7171

It's becoming more clear that you may not be familiar with our inclusion guidelines. Your arguments would better recieved if they cited one of our inclusion guidelines that you believe the school satisfies. I'm starting to think that your connection with the subject of the article may constitute a conflict of interest. That doesn't make you incapable of arguing the school's notability but you're making arguments that don't address the inclusion guidelines I've linked in my previous post.

The search you pointed out has several hits but you haven't pointed out how any specific articles in that search satisfy and specific inclusion guideline. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merely clicking on the news link in the above AfD Find sources heading shows that there is more than enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Mercer University School of Medicine to maintain a stand along article on Mercer University School of Medicine. Clearly meets WP:GNG. As for the argument that the topic does not have enough fame, importance, or popularity notability for a Wikipedia article, that argument doesn't jive with all these reliable sources using their time and resources to write about Mercer University School of Medicine. The article is far from need for a Blow it up and start over solution. While the article could be improved (e.g., info on accreditation problems,[3] etc.) need for improvement isn't a basis for deletion and there's no reason to merge a topic that can stand on its own per WP:GNG. I added ((Main)) to the Mercer University article,[4] which I think takes care of this issue. See Wikipedia:Summary style#Basic technique. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone actual argue that a need for improvement was a reason for deletion? I certainly didn't and don't.

As I pointed out in my nomination, I have looked through those sources and I can't find any national coverage of the school itself. Per WP:ORG, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." If you can find national coverage, I'd certainly be convinced of the school's independent notability. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you again ignoring the google scholar search, which as I stated earlier, links to multiple national academic articles covering Mercer University School of Medicine? emc7171
Please read my last post. I don't know what inclusion guideline the publications would satisfy. Do you? OlYeller21^Talktome 05:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uzma Gamal's arguments, and also per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which notes that separate articles about medical schools are generally kept. Ample coverage exists about this school. Since no real argument is being made for deletion (as opposed to merger), it could be argued that this AfD should be closed on procedural grounds. Having said that, it is fair to note that at the moment, the discussion at Mercer University#School of Medicine is just about as substantive as this separate article; however, it's also apparent that more can be added, as Uzma Gamal notes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The essay you've linked is just that, an essay and not an accepted policy or guideline. Furthermore, when it says "schools", it's specifically referring to elementary and middle schools. Citing someone else's opinion as generally accepted fact is irresponsible. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above, OlYeller21 references WP: ORG. The full quote from the section he referenced, "audience", is as follows: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." As the AJC has been demonstrated to cover MUSM, and is not in the same city, it would be in my estimation considered a "regional" reference. Also, regarding independent verification from outside sources, the WP: ORG designates that any publication can be used as evidence for notability, barring some exceptions. As the many publications on the google scholar search I posted above are both national and international, and don't meet criteria for any of the exceptions, they are thus valid national and international sources, and lend even further evidence that MUSM is indeed independently notable. emc7171

Looking past the needlessly complicated fashion in which you made your argument, they may be national and international but certainly are not independent. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Young or not, schools of medicine at universities are separately notable entities; i think we almost always handle them as such. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the school is an important provider of medical professionals; the state of Georgia provides significant funding, which boosts its importance to the people of that state; the school is a part of the new Mercer University Health Sciences Center with locations throughout Georgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea2006 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 9 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in Vietnam[edit]

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

There is only one party in Vietnam, the Communist Party of Vietnam. Vietnam is a one-party state. Secondly, none of these parties are strong in mainland Vietnam itself; they all exist outside of Vietnam. This article is superfluous; its waste. Another problem is that of expansion; there is only one party; literature on the other parties are scarce... My last point is that this information can easily be merged into the Vietnamese democracy movement.. Even so DELETE :) --TIAYN (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid, useful list including multiple bluelinks, also part of comprehensive list structure for List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme. --19:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs)
Keep per Arxiloxos, and because it satisfies WP:LISTPURP as a navigational index of articles relevant to a notable topic, which is complementary to Category:Political parties in Vietnam per WP:CLN. The nom's criticisms are all irrelevant; it doesn't matter that there is only one legal party, it doesn't matter that "none of these parties are strong in mainland Vietnam itself" (obviously a consequence of their being outlawed); and it doesn't matter that "literature on the other parties are scarce" if they are nevertheless notable, an issue that should be addressed if it's a problem in each article on the individual parties rather than this list. postdlf (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - No valid rationale for deletion has been stated, per the section WP:DEL-REASON of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Despite Vietnam being a one-party state, other parties do exist, and it's honest to present this factual information to Wikipedia's readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, not "all" of the parties exist/existed outside of Vietnam as stated in the nomination. See Vietnam Populist Party and Democratic Party of Vietnam for starters. I propose that the article is retitled as: List of Vietnamese political parties (which currently redirects to the article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedic and useful navigational list. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. Entirely reasonable list of notable subjects. This is what lists are for, regardless of the current political limitations in Vietnam. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:21, 5 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Gogna[edit]

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

An author. Unable to find any reliable reference on him. Can't find where The New York Times mentions him at all. Unable to find how/where/when the books where bestsellers. The books are self-published thru Author House. Prod was contest for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two self-published books of 47 and 64 pages - nowhere near the standard required by WP:AUTHOR. No independent reviews cited, none found; online reviews are a suspiciously uniform 5 stars. Google search shows energetic self-promotion, but Wikipedia is not here to help with that. JohnCD (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 16:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soul of K3G[edit]

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

Song does not pass notablity of WP:NSONG BollyJeff || talk 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Song fails WP:NSONG and ought to be redirected to the artist's article. Ducknish (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or to the films article, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., since the artist (composer or lyricist) do not have many individual songs listed on their pages. Same comment applies to all six song articles based on the film. BollyJeff || talk 01:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or Redirect to the movie article. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Not worth redirecting also. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Bollyjeff, as a google book search seems to give satisfactory results, including a separate book published on the song itself. The film article would be the best target. Secret of success (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The google 'book' description says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" My original vote was for delete. I would say redirect on a few of the songs, but not this one. BollyJeff || talk 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah! Even the description gives same lines written in the lead of the article. But i wonder what they wrote in 72 pages. Maybe they use large font. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:45, 11 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 Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.... Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say Shava Shava[edit]

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

Song does not pass notablity of WP:NSONG BollyJeff || talk 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Song fails WP:NSONG and ought to be redirected to the album's article. Ducknish (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or Redirect to the movie article. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Bit famous song. But not notable enough for own article space. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:09, 10 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 Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.... ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Hua Maddham[edit]

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

Song does not pass notablity of WP:NSONG BollyJeff || talk 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Song fails WP:NSONG and ought to be redirected to the album's article. Ducknish (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Either Delete or Redirect to the movie article. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Bit famous song. Some unsourced statements in the article if sourced would be good to have in an encyclopedia. But not notable enough for own article space. Better redirected to film's article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:08, 10 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 Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.... ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Are My Soniya[edit]

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

Song does not pass notablity of WP:NSONG BollyJeff || talk 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Song fails WP:NSONG and ought to be redirected to the album's article. Ducknish (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or Redirect to the movie article. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Bit famous song. Some unsourced statements in the article if sourced would be good to have in an encyclopedia. But not notable enough for own article space. Better redirected to film's article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the movie Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham...-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:08, 10 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 Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.... ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bole Chudiyan[edit]

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

Song does not pass notablity of WP:NSONG BollyJeff || talk 19:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Song fails WP:NSONG and ought to be redirected to the album's article. Ducknish (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Either Delete or Redirect to the movie article. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Bit famous song. But not notable enough for own article space. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:11, 8 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. Looks like it's not walking away Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Walk Away[edit]

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

Claims to have been subject of many reliable sources. However, the sources in the article are either primary or tangential mentions in the context of something else — they just name drop it in the article and talk about something else entirely. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. (Full disclosure: I removed TenPoundHammer's prod from the article.) There are at two references, already cited in the article, in which major national media outlets devote several paragraphs to this company specifically - the New York Times and Time Magazine. There are also citations from lesser outlets such as the St. Louis Business Journal. Google News Archive finds more: ABC News, San Diego Union Tribune, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT, St. Louis Business Journal and San Diego articles only mention You Walk Away for one whole sentence before talking about something else. Tell me how that's non-trivial coverage. Oh wait, IT ISN'T. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to the others here to look at the references - particularly the ones from the New York Times and Time - and decide which of us is describing them correctly. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. I've taqged the article as it feels generally promotional and seems to have some violations of WP:PEACOCK therein, but the references check. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources MelanieN name comprise multiple instances of direct coverage, and the subject to very strongly associated with the thrust of the story - they are not incidental mentions. This is sufficient.
While the several mentions look promotional, I don't think it represents paid advertisments. The multiple coverage reflects actual interest in the background subject, and independent journalists here seem to want to promote this company, more to be useful journalists providing a useful service to their readers than from a financial connection to a company. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 9 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. Impossible to judge consensus of this discussion since the event actually took place in the middle of the discussion, so half the discussion is pre-event, and the other half is post-event. No prejudice against speedy renomination. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 16:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fox: Diaz vs. Miller[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This ~~yet to happen sports~~ event fails ~~WP:FUTURE,~~ a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC This especially applies since it takes place in two days, and there is still just general sports coverage, nothing notable. Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SUSPEND, PLEASE The exact wording on WP:Future is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The event is in two days, is on national television, and is a major sporting event. It clearly meets the "almost certain to happen" criteria along with every other UFC event you've AfD'd for that matter. As for notabilitiy, that is still in discussion as you very well know at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability As such, I ask that you please withdraw this until discussion is settled. Beansy (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most ridiculous suggestion for deletion I've ever seen. There are articles for Super Bowls going clear to Super Bowl L which is in 2016 and an article for the 2028 Summer Olympics and it violates no policies.--Rockchalk717 19:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment The Summer Olympics are covered because of the competition leading up to site choice and the level of prep, the UFC is in no way as notable as the Olympics. while I do sort of see your point about the Super Bowl, again the city chosen is part of the reason, and it is a single annual world championship game for football. Though I can think of a few super bowls I would nominate for AfD if it were more than a snowballs chance....Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt king ^(edits) 00:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every UFC PPV and all both of the previous UFC on Fox events have articles so if this gets deleted then delete them all. I'm not a UFC fan either I'm only interested in this event because I went to High School and was on the wrestling team with Tim Elliott who fights tomorrow night.--Rockchalk717 00:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise Since this proposing deletion of every single UFC would take a long time, I say keep this and all other previous UFC Event pages but don't allow future ones to be created--Rockchalk717 00:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors who know nothing about UFC or MMA are trying to ruin the coverage of UFC on Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements. The only sources cited are from MMA media and the UFC which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader or to assert why the event is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what sort of silly drama Wikipedia is having over MMA these days, obviously there's something going on from having a quick look around; but for what it's worth, I was looking for information on this event and I ended up on this page which then provided said information to me. I'm not a wikipedian, but that seems to me like a case of Wikipedia fulfilling its purpose. 114.77.213.154 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE. Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc. The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights. They involve notable fighters. They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions. They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons. Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide. These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-Sock of community banned User:A Nobody[reply]
Keep by default as no fact based or honest reason is likely to ever exist for deletion of this obviously notable event. Suggest topic ban of all accounts saying to delete from any and all MMA related discussions per WP:TROLL and WP:VANDAL. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-Sock of community banned User:A Nobody[reply]

Keep The MMA haters are as bad as the Scientologists. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The three users vocalising their support for deletion have crossed the threshold into fanaticism. User:MtKing has spearheaded a campaign against these pages for whatever reason and has deliberately made discussion on this topic as disparate as possible in the interests of obscuring an overall consensus about the pages, presumably in order to have them deleted one at a time. This behaviour ought to be investigated. User:TreyGeek's impartiality has also been compromised in that through his pushing of the Omnibus page, he (unfairly) received abuse and threats from MMA fans, he now clearly holds a grudge. He has repeatedly claimed to have left the debate, but in fact, he is just posting support for deletion on individual pages. Rather underhanded. User:Newmanoconnor has been found to have made a false sockpocket allegation in his attempts to unfairly sway the opinion of impartial editors. These deletion requests are nothing more than a vendetta. This is clearly evidenced by how widespread, how regular and how fervent their postings have been on the subject. This is contrary to Wikipedia:Don't_be_a_fanatic and I recommend warnings and sanctions be applied for their collective unconstructive editing and moderating of discussion pages. I also recommend a 'No consensus' tag until the debate Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability is resolved. Suggesting AfD's until such a time as this debate (which all three parties I mention are clearly following) is unequivocally in bad faith, and frankly, in bad taste. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to respond to other people's AfD comments and trust the admins will do what is correct. I do have two points for you though. First, is your rationale for keeping the article have any grounding in Wikipedia guidelines or policies? If so, I would suggest presenting them as that will hold more weight for the admin who closes this AfD. As for behaviors of myself or others needing to be investigated potentially leading to a block of editing privileges and/or a topic ban, AfD is not the correct avenue for that. You are welcome to go to WP:ANI if you wish to pursue that discussion. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no interest in your advice. It's not offered to be helpful. I saw your little movie quote on MtKing's page. That's not the act of a productive, friendly member of Wikipedia who deserves my time. It's beneath anyone I'd consider communicating with in any capacity other than this little paragraph. Good day. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI... AN... Y? I'd speculate that SSS is aware that this is not the appropriate venue for action to be taken against all the users mentioned. I'd also speculate that SSS is more interested in working on content and preserving content than on the administrative process of taking action against any given user. Still, since actions haven't been taken against these users, the SSS's comments should perhaps be taken as only an indicator that there is a history regarding these users in these discussions, rather than indicating community consensus against their actions. As such, the comments perhaps could only serve to help educate those of us jumping in late to the discussion. They might also serve as a warning to the users involved that SSS has put some thought towards taking this to ANI. Note: By warning of intention to take it to ANI, I don't mean to suggest that the users have in fact done anything wrong because I haven't taken the time to educate myself regarding the background of this dispute. Users involved I'm sure know what they've done and have made all attempts to comply with policy. Still, I find portions of this comment helpful to let me know there's more to this that I might read before forming an opinion. That is, I take this comment not to be an indication that users' actions actually are in bad faith or taste, but that there is a dispute on this matter beyond this AfD. I sincerely hope that the users involved can resolve these issues prior to taking this to ANI, as I'm sure we can all make better contributions to the project by spending our time on the project rather than spending time at ANI. It's better to try to settle before you go to court. (And to again restate, I take no position on the validity of either SSS or TreyGeek's comments, and my position on this AfD is already stated below.) --Policy Reformer (c) 20:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sense does it make to keep some event pages but delete others? Like one user said before me, you might as well delete them all if you delete some. I can understand not following notability guidelines if it was a small organization, but the UFC is the biggest MMA promotion in the world. Having the event pages is necessary in documenting the history of the organization, seeing as every single event features fights important to divisional rankings and contenderships. Xtheblademaster 19:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (talk • contribs)[reply]

Keep WP:FUTURE no longer applies. Event is occurring at this moment. Referring back to previous MMA event nominations recently on notability grounds. I would argue that MMA events are more comparable to tennis events than NHL, NFL, or MLB events where WP:NOTNEWSPAPER would apply. There are 1280 regular season games in the NHL, so I see we shouldn't have 1280 articles to cover each game. There's maybe... 70 Tennis events... much more comparable to the number of MMA events. While the comparison doesn't establish notability, I hope this points out that there are different standards for different sports, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER should be considered in light of the individual sport rather than sports in general.--Policy Reformer (c) 20:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your tone, argument and participation, I have struck the WP:Future reference as it is in fact no longer valid. I'd also like to note that I will withdraw this nomination if a reliable independent reference can be found to show lasting effect, and notability, other than routine coverage. I would agree that it is not comparable to individual hockey games over the entire season. it is comparable to playoff games and the last two months of hockey games all of which decide playoff spots, awards, contracts, free agency, etc. just like the NFL, the NBA, soccer,or any real sport.

Let me be clear here, I think MMA fighting is one of the realest of sports, I also feel that just as every afc game doesn't have a single article, every title fight does not deserve a single article either, unless it is shown to be notable beyond routine coverage. This fight may have that coverage later this week, I would implore anyone to help find it and write a prosaic article that demonstrates lasting effect. My concern is we can't even get editors to do that for UFC146? The event where Overeem failed drug testing, and I found sources for them, that are WP:IRS. Again if this can be shown to be notable beyond basic fight stats and who fought and won, what lasting effect it may have, I'll withdraw AfD. however, if it's just this guy won the title these fights happened, it should be deleted as it will be adequately covered in the UFC Events in 2012 Omnibus article or a subsidiary omnibus.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis events are multi-day events often lasting the whole week, each game lasting in some cases longer than this whole event, the competitors in which compete in multiple games during the course of the event so it is not comparable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER clearly does apply to this and Editors are not free to chose what wiki-wide policy to apply to a page.Mt king ^(edits) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be serious and at least attempt to make honest arguments. Everyone gets that you're a deletionist and that you hate MMA. Well, there are plenty of topics none of us care about, but we don't go around dishonestly claiming their are "non-notable" based on some loony personal criteria that makes no rationale sense. We should not even be humoring such ridiculous AfDs as these. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not arguing that I can feel free to apply whatever policy I choose. Nor am I arguing tennis' policy should apply to this. Tennis events are multi-day events vs. these are one day events. But just like WWII has a page, so does Columbine High School massacre. If we're comparing apples to oranges, as we're comparing one sport to another in terms of notability, I just want us to be honest about it. Note also you claim, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER clearly does apply to this and Editors are not free to chose what wiki-wide policy to apply to a page, while I claim, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER should be considered in light of the individual sport rather than sports in general. No where did I suggest WP:NOTNEWSPAPER should not be considered in relation to this article. I simply suggested it should be considered in light of the relevant sport rather than comparing Obama to Adam Yauch. Along the same lines of your argument, I would argue that because competitors compete in single bouts which can last only moments, like boxing, or horse racing, that perhaps those are better comparisons than to NHL, NFL, and MLB, where players participate in multiple plays. In the NFL, the event is approximately the same duration while players participate in a few dozen plays, each lasting a dozen seconds or so. There are 256 games in a season while there are perhaps a quarter of those number of UFC events, where an individual is equivalent to a team in terms of wins and losses. Rather than having 32 teams, you have hundreds of competitors, and each event could have a notable instance for one of those competitors. Rather than trying to backfill information, which could prove quite challenging, we document as we go, filling in the basic information about the event before someone takes the time to fill in the WP:PROSE. Rather than leaving those editors with nothing, we leave them with the framework to fill it in. Continuing the sports analogies, MLB has ~2400 games a season. Going back to the ~70 events for tennis, UFC events seem to be much closer to that. You argue that the competitors play for longer, but that's not a requirement for notability, otherwise other sports would be equally non-notable (boxing, horse racing, etc.) Just as we don't have an article for every match in a tennis tournament, we also don't have an article for every match at a UFC event. It's not entirely comparable, as it suffers some of the same flaws as the MLB and NFL arguments.::: Bottom line, I've contributed my thoughts on the matter, as have you, so I'll just wait for the closure and won't respond further here. Feel free to respond as you see fit. As I looked further into the existing dialog on some of these articles, I see that this has become a very important issue to you. I'm glad you have such passionate feelings towards the project. Unfortunately, based on the one response I've received, I don't know that I can engage in a dialog, as I felt somewhat attacked by my very first comment responding to me on the issue. I wish everyone the best of luck at resolving the dispute, and so that consensus can be reached, and we can all go back to expanding the project rather than deciding on how many pages will fit in the book. Thanks everyone for the time, and good luck! --Policy Reformer (c) 01:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" I use these articles all the time because they're the cleanest and most accessible articles for them on the internet. It's different than hockey or football or other sports where there might be one article for a season, but those events aren't structured like MMA. I don't know why you would want to get rid of this. --geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.17.213 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major event on mainstream TV. Will have lasting effects on the future of the sport because two title shots are potentially on the line --Pat ^talk 21:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countless other sports events will be on mainstream TV that part is just routine and by your logic every NFL game is notable as it helps decide who will make the Super Bowl. Mt king ^(edits) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes literally no sense whatsoever. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except not every NFL game decides who goes to the Super Bowl. There's only one game for that and that comment proves you are willing to stretch information to fit your arbitrary agenda against MMA. Rollinman (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come this article is under deletion process when its a huge event with verifiable sources. Use common sense pls Razredg (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and give this deletion request victory for the Wikipedia community by submission. Notable event from a notable franchise, and note that whenever the UFC actually has an "event", they actually mean it as an event. And Diaz won, the coverage coming in about his defeat of Jim Miller will surely make it notable now. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and please ban MTking and everyone else who keeps shoving their idiocy onto MMA pages. UFC events are notable, and I think you know exactly why they're notable. If you somehow don't know why UFC events are notable at this point, you either lack reading comprehension, or are completely ignoring the dozens of people who have told you why they are notable. 174.70.148.183 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't believe this is even up for deletion. All other UFC events have Wikipedia pages, and this is one of the biggest ones since it's on Fox. Aoa8212 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator has said, "anybody wants to close the AfD's I support it, as long as we can move forward with discussions at WP:MMANOT, without the obstruction that occurred last time.". --24.112.202.78 (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event should be considered notable for the long term effects it will have on the divisions contested. In the post fight press conference, as discussed here (http://espn.go.com/blog/mma/post/_/id/10851/the-other-diaz-makes-most-of-his-platform) via a source which fits the bill as reliable from what I can see, it was revealed Nate Diaz will be waiting to challenge the winner of the eventual Ben Henderson-Frankie Edgar rematch for the UFC Lightweight Championship. Johnny Hendricks, with his win over Josh Koscheck, is also being considered for a shot at the UFC Welterweight Championship which would also be directly related to this event. Along with the keep on this article, I propose that within the current articles a place should be made for the "Aftermath" of each event, so that the notability can be more explicitly explained and thus avoid these arguments in the future. Events like UFC 143, which has now had its page deleted, would have benefited from such a section as the issue of the controversial decision in the main event (an interim UFC Welterweight Championship match) that was set to garner a rematch coupled with the news of Nick Diaz's subsequent failed drug test were (and still are) major happenings (http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/7679348/nick-diaz-challenging-suspension-positive-test). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.32.14 (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. 131.151.190.175 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You called it (Justinsane15 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep -- There are articles for every single Olympics, every single Superbowl and individual seasons for different football teams. There are NFL game articles that are not Superbowls. The entire move towards consolidation just makes it more difficult to navigate UFC events on Wikipedia. Honestly, what is the harm in having a page for every UFC event? Is it actually hurting anyone? Wikipedia is the cleanest and best organized resource for this information and the clean-up Nazis are ruining one of the things I rely on Wikipedia for most. Feel free to clean up lesser promotion events but the UFC is the Superbowl of MMA. Fighters spend their entire careers trying to make it into the UFC and once they get there, every fight is potentially a step towards a championship fight. I agree with other posters that MMA is a different animal and doesn't follow the same rules, but the more important fact is that the UFC is the Superbowl of MMA. If you want to mass consolidate the UFC events, please also mass consolidate all Superbowls as they are routine events as well. There will be another one next year, just like clockwork. Also, if MMA's pinnacle event merits deletion/consolation, somebody needs to get to work on mass-consolidating all boxing events. And the eventual significance of any given event is often unknowable. For instance, Jon Jones debut was at UFC 87. As luck would have it, there was a title fight on that card, so the event's significance is obvious. But what if somebody on the UFC on Fox card or any given deleted article is the next Jon Jones, a fighter who may very well be the greatest fighter in the history of his weight class? Had Jon Jones debuted on a less significant UFC card, that could have potentially been deemed "not significant enough." A few years later and it is now the debut of one of the greatest fighters in the history of the sport and the significance of the event increases drastically. Ultimately, the reality on the matter is that MMA has more folks ethusiastally willing to contribute for the UFC and other MMA events than most other sports fans. Is the laziness and general lack of contribution by the fans of other sports grounds to punish/police the sport of mixed martial arts? I really hope that is not the case. Godofthunder9010

Keep the 2012 in UFC events is cluttered, non-user friendly, and infrequently updated. I have tried to keep it up to date myself, but if the article itself is cluttered you can imagine what the edit page looks like with all the links and references. There are seperate articles going back to UFC 1 in 1993 that were not considered against Wikipedia's guidelines until now. Keep all of them or keep none of them. Rissx (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the NOM that the standards are not met. Yes, any Super Bowl has a page, and there are individual pages for any particular FA Cup Final and AFL Grand Final. These are very major sporting events that crown a season-ending champion. Every UFC event does not rise to this level. It would seem that the best place to draw a line is that event with a title on the line have an article and ones that do not are placed into a page such as 2012 in UFC events. In the NFL, every Sunday or Monday Night Football game does not get an article despite typically being between successful teams with playoff impact, having good ratings, and being on network TV (before the move of MNF). Conversely, championship games and the like do have articles. In boxing, a fellow combat sport, the line seems to be drawn between a title fight (keeping Vitali Klitschko vs. Tomasz Adamek) and deleting a non-title fight (deleting Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Daniel Ponce de León). Seems the standard is an event with a title on the line or otherwise seeming to meet GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This particular event's main event was generally considered a number one contendorship match and was five rounds like how title matches are accordingly. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All main events are now five rounds, so I do not think that fact makes this notable. The 2011 NFL week 17 match-up between the New York Giants and Dallas Cowboys was to determine the NFC East champion and who would go to the playoffs. Thus, it could be considered a 'contendorship' match since the winner would advance to the playoffs. Yet no article exists for this game. Having a contendorship match does not appear to be enough to make the whole even notable. Look at other combat sports. In boxing, a number one contender bout does not merit its own article. In wrestling, the Olympic Trials/World Team Trials do not merit their own article (e.g., an event to determine who can compete for the gold and thus could be equivalent to the 'contendorship'). This is not an anti-UFC/MMA argument. I follow all combat sports and an event such as this is not sufficient for its own article.RonSigPi (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't really provide any reason as to how deletion improves or benefits Wikipedia and its readership. If we keep this factually verifiable information about a notable event as covered in multiple reliable sources that is significant to the history of Fox television, the UFC, the fighters on the card, and MMA in general, we benefit thousands, perhaps millions of readers who come here for that information. If we delete it, we benefit no one and instead of having an article that is at least of value to someone, we keep a discussion here about deleting that article that is of value to no one. I would much rather we keep a non-hoax article that as this discussion alone shows the readers fine helpful than keep a discussion about that article. If this discussion is worthwhile on the paperless encyclopedia, then surely so too is the actual article, because otherwise we are left with a discussion about something that readers of the discussion cannot even see! Lol! Which makes the discussion even more useless. So, the way to go is clearly to keep and continue to improve the article per WP:COMMONSENSE. And for the record, I would be totally okay with keeping NFL contendorship matches as well. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, try not to get to worked up, while I agree with RonSigPi on most points, this article probably isn't going anywhere right now, even if it does, the coveage will move somewhere else.Hopefully we can come up with a proposal to take to RfC at WP:MMANOT and some addendums for comment to address the POV from fans concerned about "readership" and how much they like the current format. I think this will eventually mean the removal of some individual UFC fights, but probably not nearly as many as one might think, and the bottom line is, getting something to RfC will ultimately lead to not having to go through this again, unless something violates the new policy. I encourage both of you to join the discussion in a productive way, remembering that this si about developing new notability guidelines NOT reinventing WP:POLICY as a whole.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V#Notability. Article contains no references to coverage in reliable sources (I'm assuming that mmajunkie.com fails WP:SELFPUB). The "keep" opinions, to the extent they are not personal attacks, do not address our inclusion criteria. Sandstein 05:07, 11 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. Arguments to keep are not based in policy. Individuals' definitions of what is or isn't notable don't apply here. WP:N applies. I'd have no objection to userfying this article for the purpose of merging some of its content to the omnibus article. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 16:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt king ^(edits) 00:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mtking does not like UFC and I think we should all do what he or she says. Portillo (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements. The only sources cited are from the UFC and MMA media which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader or to explain why the event is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very obviously. The criticisms of this page are quite honestly terrible and biased. The event does NOT fail WP:FUTURE, not even close. It's 100% happening. It's an event featuring dozens of notable fighters in the most notable MMA organization of all time, and the previous trip to Fairfax, VA for a UFC Fight Night card was one of the most successful Fight Nights ever in terms of attendance and gate - http://mmajunkie.com/news/17524/ufc-fight-night-20-a-sellout-with-near-record-730000-live-gate.mma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.99.41 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The trolling of MMA articles should not be allowed and the people requested they be deleted should be banned. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. 131.151.190.175 (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are hundreds of articles less notable than this one, deleting them all generally goes against the spirit of Wikipedia IMO (Justinsane15 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete/Merge This is a second or third tier event for UFC. Articles fails multiple notability policies and especially fails WP:ROUTINE. Merge contents into omnibus article. Ravensfire (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge This is another event with no indication it meets WP:EVENT or is anything but WP:ROUTINE. I have no problem with it being merged into an omnibus article. Astudent0 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event has some notability in the fact that the fight between the Korean Zombie and Dustin Poirier is a very important fight for the Featherweight division. Following the event we could see one of them named contender to Aldo's belt following his fight with Koch, which would definitely get coverage for the event. With events like these though, I would agree that it would be better served in the omnibus until the Event actually happens, so long as the omnibus gets updated a little more frequently than the single pages do. At the moment, it seems to get updated rather infrequently and inconsistently. THEDeadlySins (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the vague claims of 'very important fight" does not seem to indicate anything real. The reason it is given as very important is that it is possible for one of the people to possibly become able to challenge the champion, and that's about as weak a basis for notability as I can imagine in any sport at all. And though I agree that there are probably indeed a hundred or so even weaker articles on this subject, the conclusion I draw is that we should delete those also. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague assertions of notability not supported by sources. Neutrality^talk 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding "non-routine" coverage, as the nature of this event changes--fighter replacemets--the coverage is based on specific events and circumstances; this is not simply press releases that just provide hype or information-free publicity.

Fighter replacements are significant, as the entire content of the event is based on these specific fighters. It is not minor as would be the injury of a single player on a baseball, football or hockey team, etc.--it is more like an entirely different team is taking the field. Likewise, the information about who is replacing who reveals a lot about the rankings and momentum of fighters which is siginficant beyond the context of this specific event.

The coverage is global in scope, as the fighters are international and the sport has global reach.

The claim of failing WP:SPORTSEVENT are also misguided since these are top-level pros. The analogy of "regular season" for MMA does not really hold; in "regular season" events, the individual games don't really matter except in total at the end of the season, whereas in MMA, every match is a sink-or-swim proposition where the fighter might arguable get cut from the promotion if his or her performance is not up to par, and likewise, a fighter might prove his or her suitability to be a title challenger as a result of his or her performance.

The claim of failing WP:MMAEVENT is particular ridiculous, as UFC is explicity listed as a Top Tier organization.

The claim of faliing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is marginal, although only if you ignore the stated policy, "information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", as that is the bulk of the information in the article and is not "emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", so it is in fact following policy.

The most relevant suggestion would be to include this information 2012 in UFC events article. However, the fighter replacement information is not contained in that article, so it does not serve the same purpose. More importantly, from a usability perspective, that is a terrible suggestion, as the amount of conent on the page is too much--the list of citations are already nearly 100, and we are only a third of the way through the year. How many other articles have that many citations? While the basis of this discussion is nominally WP policy, note that all policies are ultimately defined so that WP is a useful resource. When following policy creates a bad experience, slavish adherence to policy is not a good idea, and in any case, it is a matter of interpretation whether any of these policies are being violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.123.73 (talk) 10:07, 11 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 The Ultimate Fighter: Live. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fighter 15 Finale[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt king ^(edits) 00:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mtking does not like UFC and I think we should all do what he or she says. Portillo (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements, sports [results]. Of the three sources two are from the UFC and one is from MMA related media which is does not appear to comply with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article contains practically no prose and does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. Courier00 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Ultimate Fighter: Live. While I think that mostly all UFC events are notable with lasting effects and coverage from the UFC, ESPN, Bodog, and many other sources per WP:MMAEVENT, I think that TUF Finales should reside within the season's respective pages. These events are generally non-notable despite the media coverage. Rarely do these events have title fights, determine number 1 contenders, or anything of significance beyond awarding the show's contract. The point of these events in the first place is to televise less prominent fights, headliners here would most likely be dark bouts at other events. That's why they're also held in smaller venues which generally hold less than 2,500 people. I recall that including finales in the season's page generally was the practice until the past couple years. For instance, The Ultimate Fighter 1 Finale was created 4 years after the event actually happened. I realize that TUF:Live could be interpreted as being different from other seasons -- and it is -- but considering the venue for the finale is the same as last few seasons, I don't anticipate this being any different.

I acknowledge that there is an obvious mass deletion effort of MMA event pages that may be retaliation for talks not going favorably on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability as has been mentioned in deletion discussions for UFC 147 and 148. Despite this, under the existing advise of WP:MMANOT I still think TUF finale pages don't stand well on their own as separate articles. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 15:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Ultimate Fighter: Live This is the last episode of the season and should be kept with the rest of the season's article. Astudent0 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Ultimate Fighter: Live I see no reason why this shouldn't be part of the article on the rest of the season. There's nothing to show it's notable on its own. Papaursa (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Ultimate Fighter: Live This seems pretty obvious to me. There's not enough for an individual article, but it would be foolish to delete the content. It belongs in the season's article. Mdtemp (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE. Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc. The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights. They involve notable fighters. They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions. They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons. Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide. These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 16:00, 11 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. Arguments to keep are not based in policy. Individuals' definitions of what is or isn't notable don't apply here. WP:N applies. I'd have no objection to userfying this article for the purpose of merging some of its content to the omnibus article. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 16:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage, of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt king ^(edits) 00:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mtking does not like UFC and I think we should all do what he or she says. Portillo (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements. It contains only one non-MMA related source which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of "significant coverage" in sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article contains practically no prose and does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by default as no fact based or honest reason is likely to ever exist for deletion of this obviously notable event. Suggest topic ban of all accounts saying to delete from any and all MMA related discussions per WP:TROLL and WP:VANDAL. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-Sock of community banned User:A Nobody[reply]
Keep The existing pages for past UFC events have been of enough relevance to be included on Wikipedia for many years. Keep all, or keep none. the "2012 in UFC events" page is cluttered and infrequently updated (signed- User: Rissx)

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. Courier00 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every UFC event in human history that occurs is a significant sporting event. Obviously other people have sketchy agendas against the UFC. J Savage 666 (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Jsavage666 (talk) 2:16, May 7 2012— Jsavage666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete/Merge This is a second or third tier event for UFC. Articles fails multiple notability policies and especially fails WP:ROUTINE. Merge contents into omnibus article. Ravensfire (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I don't see evidence that this article passes WP:EVENT or WP:ROUTINE. However, merging it into an omnibus UFC event article makes sense to me. Astudent0 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I agree with the reasoning of Ravensfire and Astudent. Mdtemp (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE. Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc. The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights. They involve notable fighters. They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions. They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons. Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide. These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 16:00, 11 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. Discounting the SPA votes, there still doesn't seem to be strong consensus that this event is as non-notable as the rest that are currently up for deletion. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 147[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep. What is up with this mass AfDing of UFC Event articles? This event clearly meets WP:MMAEVENT. It's an event held by the most prominent MMA organization in the world and the main event is a fight to determine a number 1 contender for a title fight. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SK doesn't apply, a standard keep and rationale does. However, if you read the WP:Sportsevent and WP:MMAEVENT criteria that elaborate on WP:GNG,the article as it stands is not notable, it needs more than general sports coverage and has to demonstrate lasting effect. It is also an event that has not happened, and fails WP:FUTURE. I would suggest moving it to your sandbox to build until it can be properly sourced with independent coverage that demonstrates lasting significance and notability, once the fight has happened.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete Every MMA event is not notable. entire seasons of other sports/years have individual notability. This is something that happens on one night, and will be quickly replaced by the next MMA event. Nothing of permanence or significance is determined at these events. There is no significant coverage other than base statistics. Move to consolidate year/season/whatever articles. 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt king ^(edits) 01:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mtking does not like MMA and I think we should all do what he or she says. Portillo (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm neither !voting keep nor delete at this time. The article contains a good deal of prose discussing what has lead up to the event thus far. It manages to do more than cover just routine fight card announcements. However, it only cites two and a half non-MMA media sources (the half is the BleacherReport.com which I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia may not be a reliable source). Better sourcing from non-MMA media would lean me towards keep on this particular article. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Nintendude64 as no fact based or honest reason is likely to ever exist for deletion of this obviously notable event. Suggest topic ban of all accounts saying to delete from any and all MMA related discussions per WP:TROLL and WP:VANDAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.19.130 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. Courier00 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Obviously Trey hasn't competed much if at all in fact in real life. Every UFC is a huge sporting event, which is why they now have a deal with fox. J Savage 666 (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC) JSavage666 (talk) 2:38, 7 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. Not even one argument to keep the article is based in policy. Individuals' definitions of what is or isn't notable don't apply here. Perceptions of witch hunts and personal agendas don't influence the decision to keep or delete an article (and this really isn't the right forum to discuss those types of accusations). I'd have no objection to userfying this article for the purpose of merging some of its content to the omnibus article. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 148[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per witch hunt and personal agenda by a handful of people. This is a completely relevant MMA event WP:MMAEVENT and is far more notable WP:NOTABLE than any of the America's Next generic reality show clones and fake sitcoms which have pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.72.167 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion. Every UFC event from 148 to 1 has an article here on Wikipedia. Every UFC event that gets announced has an article several months ahead of time, just look around. It has never been a problem before, I have no idea why this user is flagging this article for deletion now. You're breaking a routine that's been in place for several years and has never been a problem before. It's even more surprising that, of all the events you would flag, you would choose this one which is going to contain 2 championship bouts and one of the biggest and most hyped rematches in the history of the sport. Courier00 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep. What is up with this mass AfDing of UFC Event articles? This event clearly meets WP:MMAEVENT. It's an event held by the most prominent MMA organization in the world and the co-main events are two title fights. This AfD is patently absurd. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a witch hunt or personal agenda. Here is your independent and reliable source with all the story around this event: http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/7850229/anderson-silva-vs-chael-sonnen-moved-ufc-148-las-vegas. You people should think about improving 2012 in UFC events before deleting all those articles like there were no tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.32.2 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage, the ref listed by the IP above is just another example of the routine type of coverage all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt king ^(edits) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per witch hunt and personal agenda. Portillo (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to contain only "routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements". It contains only one non-MMA related source which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of "significant coverage" in sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article does not "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" or to assert why the event is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Portillo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.46.128 (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most notable events in UFC history! Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mtking you need to stay out of these. You are ruining a very long history of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShane39569 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Fails multiple notability policies, fails WP:ROUTINE. Merge into omnibus article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Mixed Martial Arts events, especially those promoted by the UFC, are notable beyond the scope of team-sport coverage which has hundreds, or thousands of games every season. There exists a seperate Wikipedia article for every scheduled event on the Senior PGA Champions Tour. Every currently scheduled official UFC event will receive greater coverage and more notability in the media than the Greater_Hickory_Classic_at_Rock_Barn which has it's own article and is not AfD. The only referenced sources on the article about the aforementioned golf article, are the event's own webpage, and pgagolf.com, which is no different than referencing ufc.com Rissx (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That article has nothing to do with the notability of this one. see WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, I have tagged it to be merged to the Champions Tour page and will do so after a week of discussion, unless magically consensus is against it. I would nominate that page for AfD too, but to do so in reaction to another WP:OTHERSTUFF would be pointy. WP needs maintenance, you are going to find alot of examples that shouldn't have a stand alone article, if you are that concerned with them, nominate those articles to AfD. Otherwise focus on this article and what makes it notable. After all, it's WP:NOTAVOTE.Newmanoconnor (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE. Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc. The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights. They involve notable fighters. They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions. They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons. Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide. These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 16:04, 11 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. Arguments to keep are not based in policy. Individuals' definitions of what is or isn't notable don't apply here. WP:N applies. I'd have no objection to userfying this article for the purpose of merging some of its content to the omnibus article. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 16:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt king ^(edits) 00:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mtking does not like UFC and I think we should all do what he or she says. Portillo (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements. The only sources cited are from MMA media and the UFC which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader nor does the article contain prose which asserts why the event is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious trolling with suggested deletion of multiple MMA-related articles. Please stop this. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. Courier00 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Courier00 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Who put the "canvassed" warning after my comment? I've been following the UFC for several years and have been using Wikipedia for several years as well. How dare someone accuse me of canvassing with absolutely no proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courier00 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Us fighters and especially the sport itself would appreciate it if that single person would mind their own business and leave the MMA pages alone. --------------------J Savage — j savage 666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep Can't understand why someone wants to ruin Wikipedia by deleting these MMA articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.75.138 (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — 91.154.75.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete/Merge I don't see how this event meets WP:EVENT or that its coverage will be anything but routine sports results reporting. Astudent0 (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in the article that shows lasting significance or anything but routine sports coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE. Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc. The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights. They involve notable fighters. They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions. They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons. Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide. These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:57, 11 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. Concerns that the article has been completely unreferenced for nearly 5 years, and that the article consists exclusively of original research seem to trump the idea that an acceptable article could be written on the topic. In the absence of someone willing to rewrite the article, the other option is to remove unsourced OR from the article. In this particular case, that would mean removing all of the content from the article, which is indistinguishable from deleting the article. No prejudice against recreating this article with appropriately sourced content. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosticism in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion nearly 5 years ago, but the result was keep but cleanup. Here we are, after all this time, and it has not been improved. In fact, a side-by-side comparison of the day it was originally nominated and today shows that the content is nearly identical. All the same problems persist: lots of original research, no references, and an indiscriminate list of "examples" based only on the opinions of editors. This is not acceptable. Four years and nine months is enough time for this to have been improved. If this were edited today, most of the content would have to go. But, that is what AfD is for. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could make for a good article (I know nothing about the subject matter, so I'm just guessing.) But, as pointed out above, unless someone wants to do the work, just delete the page. If someone makes substantial improvements, please note on this page and I will be happy to change my vote, if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs)
Delete Unsourced OR that I see no way of cleaning up. Every example is either not trying with verbiage such as "X has gnosticism in it" or so mired in OR that it should be removed on sight. No one gives a damn about the article, so it won't be missed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play devil's advocate, there is theoretically a way to clean it up. I took an apocalyptic literature class in college. I also took a class on postmodern culture. Trust me, there are all kinds of journals out there with these types of comparisons, so if someone wanted to go through and find such articles, I'm sure it's doable. I just have zero interest in doing the legwork, and it looks like noone else has either for the past 5 years. :)JoelWhy (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People clearly do care about the article because it gets a steady 30 hits a day which is a lot better than most. It has been kept before at AFD and here we are again caring about it. TPH routinely offers a counsel of despair and is routinely proven wrong when editors find sources that he was unable or unwilling to find. Warden (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is chock full of unverifiable content saying that this or that has Gnostic themes, with no sources backing it up. One could theoretically try to source these things, but most of it seems like it's simply editor's opinion. Ducknish (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup and we don't have a deadline. It is, on the other hand, our explicit policy that articles may be incomplete or otherwise in need of development. 99% of our articles are in this state and there seems to be no reason to pick on this one. The topic is notable and it doesn't take long to find a substantial book about it such as Forbidden Faith: The Gnostic Legacy from the Gospels to The Da Vinci Code. Now what usually happens in such cases that that these IPC articles are spinoffs from the main topic. If one doesn't care for the spinoff then you just merge it back into the main article. Warden (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current article contains virtually nothing of value. This article isn't in need of a clean-up -- it's in need of being written from scratch. For 5 years, no one has done so. As the only thing we'd be preserving is the title of the article, a delete is warranted. However, as I indicated above if someone wants to draft an article to replace the current text, I will happily change my vote. I'm sure the other editors would do the same.JoelWhy (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination rationale is bankrupt. Wikipedia rules that tell us that articles that can be improved, must be kept, are not temporary. There is no WP:DEADLINE. I would say 'speedy keep' were it not for 10lb's rationale of OR, which has to be addressed, I guess. I mean, he has not done anything but assert it, so whatever. I (also?) occasionally return to the point of frustration past resignation, because of rubberstamped delete votes and nominations. As for improving the article, it is just as simple as picking a name for the list, putting it in Google Search with "gnosticism", and copying the URL. I found sources for all I have seen so far.

Harold Bloom

Jorge Luis Borges

John Crowley

Anarchangel (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator notes that no one has cleaned it up... but has not himself cleaned it up! Just because no one has cleaned up an article suitable for cleanup does not mean that deletion is an acceptable option. The topic is clearly notable, even if I agree that many of the examples are both currently unsourced and likely unsourceable. Thus, a deletion is not a policy-supported option per WP:ATD, even though cleanup is clearly appropriate. Oh, and per WP:IPC, merging much of this content back into Gnosticism would be a less-preferred option, but with more policy support than an outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. It certainly is a bad article, but that's not a reason for deletion - the issue is the notability of the subject. Actually, plenty has been written about Gnosticism in popular culture. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (NB, I have several of the relevant sources - including J. M. Robinson's The Nag Hammadi Library, which contains an analysis of the literary significance of Gnosticism - and though I don't see myself making a last-ditch overnight attempt to rewrite this article to prevent it being deleted, I will be happy to work on it at a slower pace, sometime over the next week or two. This is the sort of thing that can happen if articles don't get deleted just because they aren't currently perfect). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree that the actual topic is probably valid, and a decent, sourced article could probably be created on the subject, its current state is such a unsalvageable mess of original research and unsourced material that it would just save a lot of time to just delete the whole mess and start over, per WP:TNT. Rorshacma (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is mostly unverified original research; which has no place on any Wikipedia page. Most of these points are not sourced to bridge the connection with Gnosticism, and the few where the connection is obvious are not relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of Gnosticism. Them From Space 18:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. If we agree that the article is a mess, and has not been cleaned up in years, then there is no reason to expect that it will be cleaned up any time soon. It's better to have no article than to have one full of OR, especially given that a cleanup would amount to a full rewrite anyway. Sandstein 05:12, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Utama FC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Amateur club in a village, not playing in a natioanlly sanctioned professional league.No reliable sources. Alexf^(talk) 17:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:33, 3 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R20 Regions of Climate Action[edit]

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

No real indicia of notability, other than the organization's own statements. There is still a claim of notability, but there isn't substantial evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep – the nominator should strongly consider doing source searches prior to nominating articles for deletion, per WP:BEFORE, section D. The topic passes WP:GNG per:

Kahn, Debra and Climatewire (November 17, 2010). "Can Regions Rather than Nations Lead on Climate Change?". Scientific American. Retrieved May 3, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
"Schwarzenegger in Geneva to discuss climate". 24 Heures. February 29, 2012. Retrieved May 3, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help) (in French)
"Schwarzenegger Forges Global Climate Action Coalition With Regional Leaders". Environment News Service. November 16, 2010. Retrieved May 3, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, speedy keep. It would have been nice if the article creator would have provided some of this information, rather than the trivia he did provide. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 4 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Casado[edit]

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

Restored deleted PROD. Request was made by Xboxandhalo2 (talk · contribs) with the explanation of "Has featured for Real Madrid's first team in a competitive fixture this season, thereby passing WP:NFOOTBALL". However, this appearance came against SD Ponferradina of the Segunda División B, which is not a fully professional league. Therefore, the subject does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – per nom fails both specific & general guidelines. Same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iván Rubio Caudín which was deleted just two days ago. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - neither of them has received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Both fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 3 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denisse Lara[edit]

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

I could find no significant & independent coverage of Lara so notability guidelines have not been met - Google hits are all social media and lyrics listings. Article has been tagged for primary sources, conflict of interest and notability since 2007. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - Not finding significant coverage. Here's an article from an ABC News station which constitutes coverage beyond a passing mention, but isn't likely quite significant coverage White Sox legend Frank Thomas introduces Bellevoxx (see bottom of the article). This BET blog article Artist Spotlight: @Iamcardin Drops “Emergency” w/ Denisse Lara! has some passing mentions, yet may not qualify as a reliable source per WP:NEWSBLOG because it's uncertain if the content is under BET's editorial fact checking, and again, it has just passing mentions. Not finding much else other than listings such as this at MTV Australia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:42, 4 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. If someone wants this userfied or incubated let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Premier League (football)[edit]

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

This is a proposed professional football league. WP:CRYSTAL tells me that there's no predicting for notability, but is it appropriate to put such an article on Wikipedia, given that it's unclear as to whether this will be notable in the future? Or, is it already notable, and I'm missing it by a mile? (Google Fu is failing me here....) -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There is no guarantee this league will ever start. As a level 2 league it would however become notable instantly i'd guess. -Koppapa (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will be no doubt notable if and when it happens - but no idea when that might be. WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 18:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article on four four two suggests that the league will go ahead and a number of clubs have been contacted with further details about the competition to be released later this month by FFA. cannot see how this article is not notable. this league is of huge interest to followers of football in this country. if it doesnt go ahead it can be deleted in the future however all indication suggest that certainty will go ahead.Simione001 (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but my concerns aren't so much about notability as they are the "crystal ball" effect. I see one article, source unclear, that would work as a potential reliable source - but we also have the fact that it doesn't officially exist yet, and it's not 100% that it will be. (I would go so far as to say that it isn't going to be 100% until that time that they say yes to it.) This said, though, we have an option to put the article in your userspace, given your indication that all signs point to "yes" at this point - if the league just needs to wait for the official word, frankly, that would be easier than nuking the article, and then later restoring it. What say ye? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated in both articles that the league will underpin the A-League therefore it will be a level 1 competition as per Australian soccer league system.Simione001 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this page should probably be deleted. A new article has been written be "theworldgame" and it seems like the league is still way if ever[5].Simione001 (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In case anyone's wondering, The World Game is a reliable source. Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or incubate). Will be notable if it ever comes into existence, or even if it becomes confirmed, but isn't at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 5 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. Largely per WP:CRYSTAL joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 Seconds to Mars Fourth Studio Album[edit]

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

No album title yet. I'm calling upon Ten Pound Hammer's Law for this one. Once we get a title, we can put it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blah blah blah WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The album is currently being recorded, and there is already a fair amount of coverage around, e.g. this, this, this, and [6], but at this stage we can't be sure that these sessions will result in an album, so it would be more appropriate to include any verifiable information into the band article until there's more to write. If they came up with a title tomorrow that wouldn't really change anything. --Michig (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With the release date being "TBD", this is the best bet; a redirect would not be appropriate here, for what little it's worth. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Really, what is there to say? It's much too soon and the content consists of one unsourced sentence. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:44, 6 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. Hoax or not, this article is unverifiable speculation and therefore has to go. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protege: The Battle for The Big Break, Season 2[edit]

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

WP:HOAX: show ran for one season in 2011, nothing about a second season online, including at GMA Network website, just rumors on blogs that there might be a season 2. G3 speedy declined by admin. Scopecreep (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article was speedy deleted days ago. -WayKurat (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No reliable sources to confirm that a second season in the works. Even if there was a second season, It shouldn't necessarily have its own article, but instead should be merged with the parent article unless there was sufficient content for a separate article. That said, unless GMA announces it, rumors =/= actual announcement. It really should have been deleted as G3. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Why was the G3 declined? This is obviously a hoax and doesn't need to slog through AFD for a week or longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as G3. The speedy should not have been declined, as there has been absolutely no inside coverage whatsoever. If there was an actual announcement, it would have been made a long time ago, and Chika Minute would have plugged it regularly. The fact that the article has audition dates for February, with now being May and having no announcement at all, this is truly a hoax, or if not, it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Imagine, if there were auditions for February (three months ago), I would probably have known about it, or at least sources would confirm it. Time to get this article out of its misery. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:14, 4 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila (Nepal)[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this article really qualifies as notable. First of all, the proposed state doesn't even exist yet (WP:CRYSTAL), and the tone of the article is along somewhat POV/advocacy/promotion lines. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 10:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear, what did you mean by saying "the proposed state doesn't even exist yet". Does it mean that there is no such proposal ? Does it mean that There is no demand for creation of Mithila state in Nepal? Please clarify. Vikas11004315 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If saying that Mithila is a proposed state in Nepal is objectionable, I change the statement. Now is written as Mithila is a region in South East Nepal. Tell me more. Vikas11004315 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Region may not be the best word either, since the 5 main subdivisions under the current system are called X Region. See also my longer comment below. --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Keep - The topic appears to have received significant coverage in reliable sources.

The Himalayan Times – Locals oppose Mithila division

However, some of the sources are in ~~Hindi~~ Nepali and, and I'm having difficulties translating them:

Kantipur Publications – Reports relating to the restructuring Snvidhansbama Ptaine (in Nepali)
BBC Nepali: माओवादी संघीय प्रस्तावप्रति आपत्ति (in Nepali)

~~Hence the leaning keep vote at this time.~~ Hopefully other editors who are fluent in ~~Hindi~~ Nepali can help to clarify the content of the sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your supporting statement on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mithila_(Nepal) . A heartful thanks for that. I thought to inform you that... The two link, you said, you could not understand are in Hindi. But, They are not in Hindi. They are in Nepali, The National Language of Nepal. I believe, you might have got confused because, both the languages Hindi and Nepali share same script. Vikas11004315 (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! I've changed language icons to Nepali, in the article and in this discussion above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to a translator that can translate these into English, to post here so readers who aren't fluent in Nepali can review the sources? That would be a great help. Also, if you speak/read Nepali, please feel free to critique the sources, particularly as to whether or not they meet the criteria at WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that I don't have access to any such translator. There are few translator like Google translator. But, The translation in not very exact. While google works good in translating Nepali to Hindi and vice-versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas11004315 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested help with translation and improving the article at WikiProject Nepal here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal – Mithila (Nepal). Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Sorry !! I got you now. The answer is again NO. Vikas11004315 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. As I am able to understand the article, Mithila (Nepal) does not yet actually exist. Other elements of the article appear to be "other stuff" related to Mithila (Nepal) that was found in Internet searches and added to try to increase the number of references. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this above !vote include a review of the Nepali sources in the article, (if you're fluent in Nepali)? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fluent in Nepali, nor should I be. If the article relies on non-English citations, alternatives to those citations that are in English should be provided in the article itself (and not just here on the AFD page). See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Non-english_citations. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila was the capital city of Videha Kingdom. As per the culture of that time, Most of the kingdoms were known by the name of their Capital. So, The Videha Kingdom was also more popularily called Mithila. Today also the region is identified by the name Mithila only. Mithila region extends on either side of international border between INDIA and NEPAL. The India side of Mithila is named Mithila (India) on Wikipedia. So, I believe that there must exist another article on the Mithila region falling on the Nepal's side and that should be name Mithila (Nepal). Also, The capital city of Ancient Videha Kingdom is identified to be Janakpur in Nepal. These are the few articles which may help you (If you have not learnt about Mithila)

So, In my point of view, the existence of Mithila (Nepal) i.e Mithila region in Nepal can't be questioned. Vikas11004315 (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was based on the state of the article when I reviewed it. If you have not already done so, please update the article to include this information. Articles themselves must include clear assertion of notability and adequate reference thereof. Doing so sooner versus later will lead to less AFD-related angst JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are not not comfortable with Nepali, I am giving here the alternative links of those references which are in Nepali language.

For clarity, let me state again: If the article relies on non-English citations, alternatives to those citations that are in English should be provided in the article itself (and not just here on the AFD page). See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Non-english_citations. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SRC(State Reorganization commission) submits report to govt proposing 11 states

Failed verification -- see below. --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janakpur folks protest Maoist federal model

Vikas11004315 (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changed my !vote to Keep above. Rationale: This is a verified geographic region within a country whose name and geographic area is recognized by its inhabitants and others as existent, and it also refers to the ancient kingdom of Videha. In January 2012, the State Reorganization Commission of Nepal proposed to have 11 states in the country, in which the Mithila of Nepal would become a recognized state.^[1] It has been proposed to become an official geographic boundary. Also per WP:FIVEPILLARS, Wikipedia functions in part as a gazetteer. Lastly, the topic has received coverage, and the sources appear to be reliable sources. Thanks User:Vikas11004315 for finding and posting the additional sources.

^ "SRC (State Reorganization commission) submits report to govt proposing 11 states". Nepalnews.com. January 31, 2012. Accessed May 5, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You User:Northamerica1000 for giving your time in understanding the subject, and voting to keep. (user:Vikas11004315 is now User:MithilaDeshan) MithilaDesham (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mithila is a historical cultural region, so the topic itself is notable. The article does have some NPOV/advocacy issues, since there is a movement for its recognition as a separate administrative unit. That warrants cleanup, not deletion. utcursch | talk 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look at the history of the article. Apparently, the page Mithila was originally about the ancient cultural region, but MithilaDesham/Vikas11004315 moved it to Mithila (India), and changed the subject of the article completely to make it a page on the proposed state in India. Then, he created another article about the proposed state in Nepal. There are other articles, History of Mithila and Videha, which cover the ancient region. My vote still remains keep: I think if there are references to support the fact that there is indeed a movement for creation of a separate state, the article should be kept. utcursch | talk 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you utcursch for voting Keep.

Keep I, myself being the creator of this article Mithila (Nepal), I vote Keep. (I don't know, whether, it is allowed or not). * Mithila was the capital city of Videha Kingdom. As per the culture of that time, Most of the kingdoms were known by the name of their Capital. So, The Videha Kingdom was also more popularily called Mithila. Today also the region is identified by the name Mithila only. Mithila region extends on either side of international border between INDIA and NEPAL. The India side of Mithila is named Mithila (India) on Wikipedia. So, I believe that there must exist another article on the Mithila region falling on the Nepal's side and that should be name Mithila (Nepal). MithilaDesham (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sugauli Treaty Devided Mithila between India and Nepal: For those who are not knowing about Sugauli treaty, might be wondering how Mithila became Mithila (India) + Mithila (Nepal)!!! As the Sugauli treaty is related to the current topic of discussion, I would like to tell a little about this.

In 1816, East India Company signed a treaty with Gurkhas of Nepal, which lead to the end of two year long Alglo-Nepali war between British India and Nepal. Under this treaty, a part of Mithila was conceded from India to Nepal^[1]. This region was popularly called Eastern Terai or Mithila in Nepal.^[2]

Since 1816- Sugauli Treaty, Nepal holds the control over the Northern parts (minor portion) of Mithila, while the Southern Parts (Major portion) remain under the control of India.

^ Bansh, Hari and Jha, Jayanti (January-March 2005). A Ritual for Ladies Only." Hinduism Today Magazine. Accessed May 5, 2012.
^ Paul R., Brass (1974). Language religion and Politics in North India. Lincoln, N.E: iUniverse Inc. p. 55. ISBN 9780595343942.

— Above preceding unsigned comment added by MithilaDesham (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Article contradicts with the five pillars of the Wikipedia. This does not reflect neutral point of views. Samyo (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its a historic region, so why delete it. Maybe the article needs better sourcing, but that in itself should not be a reason to delete.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! Treaty of Sugauli divided Mithila in two parts. One in India and another in Nepal. This is not an imagination of somebody. It should have been part of Wikipedia from day1.

Mithila of Nepal has geography, population, history, culture, literature. It exists and must be recognized by all. Mithila of India is currently part of Bihar state, does it mean that it does not exist? Same argument can be given about Tibet. Tibet is currently forcibly occupied by its invader China. Should it not be recognized? I totally disagree with arguments of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajha Bakshi (talk • contribs)

Keep The article needs copy-editing, which I am going to do, and some change of tone, which I will carefully attempt but I may need some help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Regions" are already part of the present structure of Nepal, as described in Nepal#Subdivisions and elsewhere. Maybe the first sentence could read "Mithila (Devanagri मिथिला Tirhuta মিথিলা ) or the eastern Terai is part of southeast Nepal." Even then, the article would still look as if it's written on the assumption that the SRC proposal will carry. FN2 is a failed verification as, although it says they proposed 11 states, it only lists 10, and Mithila is only identified as part of a larger composite one. I can't read the Devanagari of FN30. The map shown in the SRC Proposal section of the article may have been created for wikipedia, but it's obviously a copy (same colour scheme, for example) of the one at FN30. Has copyright permission been obtained? The image page doesn't say so or acknowledge the source. ~~By the way, the wikipedia version only shows 10 states, as it loses a dividing line inside the grey-brown part in the north.~~ Now, what is the status of the map in the infobox? Is it a map showing a well-identified entity with agreed boundaries? (Citation, please, if so). Or are its boundaries those of the SRC proposal? If the latter, it's WP:CRYSTAL. --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the recommendation of SRC, Nepal will have 11 states, out of which 1 will be non-territorial Dalit state. That non-territorial Dalit State is not shown in the Map. No media sources have shown the non-territorial state in their respective versions of Map.

OK, but FN2 only lists 10 of the 11 proposed states, including non-territorial Dalit, and not including Mithila. All I'm saying is that FN2 is not a good source for the statement that Mithila is proposed to become a state. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar Map is used by many media sources. All show only 10 states, as 11th one is non-territorial state. The Wikipedia version of Map is made according to the maps released by different media sources. It is NOT the copy of any particular map (may it be FN30).

Who first made a map with those lines and that colour scheme? Have they waived copyright? It doesn't matter whether it was physically copied. What matters is the question of intellectual property. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Grey Brown color part in North is not divided. It is complete one Unit. A yellow lines seems to be running across the region. But, That line is not dividing the region. It is infact pointing the name of a state, which is written outside the Map.

Ah, OK. I was confused because there is writing either side of the line. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila is certainly not a administrative unit of Nepal right now. But it is a recognized as a region in Nepal on linguistic and historic grounds

Good, but in that case you need a reliable source for what it is and what are its boundaries, independent of the SRC recommendation. Note that your sources for the Geography section (FN3 and FN4) are unacceptable as they are Wikipedia articles, and there are a few other cases later in the article. See WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose". --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I will say that this map is according to SRC recommendation. Similar Maps can be found on Google. You can verify the boundaries.

I accept the map of the SRC proposal as reliable. What about the map in the infobox? If it's of "a region in Nepal on linguistic and historic grounds", we need a source outside wikipedia, and independent of the SRC proposal. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many similar articles on Wikipedia ~~about the proposed states in India like Bundelkhand, Telangana, Harit Pradesh, Purvanchal~~ like Madhesh. Then why not ~~of Nepal~~ Mithila ?

Hang on a second: Is this an article about a proposed state or about "a region in Nepal on linguistic and historic grounds" as you said higher up? Harit Pradesh is indeed about a proposed state, but the others are primarily about regions that exist in their won right. In any case, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I am new on Wikipedia. Whatever goes wrong by me, fellow Wikipedians are welcome to correct it or inform me about the correction.

Of course. I hadn't voted (and am about to call "keep"). My questions are related to the AfD, in particular to be clear that the article is not based on the undecided proposal. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards -MithilaDesham (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have some misgivings about some parts of the article, expressed in the comments above, but they are not grounds for deletion. There is plenty here about the history, culture and so forth of the region to justify an article. --Stfg (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment following Stfg's comments: Mithila is first of all a region based on history and Language, also CA and SRC has recommended it to make a state. I will take a day (about 24 hrs) time to add some better references and to rectify as you have suggested. Also, I will try to add both versions of Map suggested by C.A and SRC. Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. MithilaDesham (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - a proposed state can certainly be notable - see, e.g. State of Franklin, References in Nepali, or whatever language where a large enough population exists that it can be translated into English, are perfectly acceptable and considered verifiable (nothing in WP:V says anything about "easily verified"). The references DO NOT have to be translated into English. AGF for the people who can translate, and if you can't contribute, please don't stop other people from contributing. Variations in local versions of English might be tricky - but we can handle British, American, Australian and probably several other versions, so why not just smooth out the differences in vocabulary and grammar? It doesn't now seem to be pushing a POV, but it might have been edited since the nomination. Just no reason to delete this. Smallbones (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have copy-edited the article (may still need some minor work) for links, grammar, and the removal of doubtful material. I have added Citation needed templates. Perhaps some of the legendary and religious material should be removed. I did remove the entire Genocide section, as it appears elsewhere and does not need repetition here. Any issues with WP:NPOV remaining should be cited by deletion proponents. This was a poorly written and weak article, but after copy-editing and other improvements, it should be kept. Any remaining problems should be tagged, as I say they are only reasons to call for improvement, not reasons for deleting the whole article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First Map has been removed because it was showing Chitwan District and Udayapur District. Studying on the topic later, I found these two districts are not of Mithila. Mithila has only 11 districts, while the map was showing 2 extra. However, there are few sources which claim those two districts to be part of Mithila. I will add another map showing the 11 districts. MithilaDesham (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is poorly written, but topic is notable. I see at least 25 references to independent reliable sources. Debbie W. 03:59, 12 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Sebastian Shrinc Villukuri[edit]

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

Lack of notability as I cannot find any reliable sources. Google search only shows the article itself, a redirect to it and two user pages. Also reads like a personal reflection or essay. jfd34 (talk) 09:17, 3 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wizzie Dee[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence that this artist meets the guidlelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSIC or WP:N. G/GNews/GBooks searches reveal no substantial coverage. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources cited don't really provide anything to show the article even meets WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the notability requirements for a musician. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 10 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 per several "heal face turns" including a partial one by the nom. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Village Life[edit]

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

This is unsourced original research, and I do not see how this could be saved, since the topic is actually not defined. Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not close the nomination myself, but I see that not it becomes more like an article, and, in principle, I will not object keeping it. Redirecting with the full information transfer is another possible outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Completely unsourced, original research. Changing to Keep following the sterling efforts of some editors to turn this into an encyclopedic article. Good work! --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely Original research and multiple POV issues (Eg. "his life is very miserable. He is very poor as the lion's share taken away by the (Zamindar). He is simply left to starve"). Satisfied by the article's renewal. Keep. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems quite easy to improve and I have made a start. Warden (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is salvageable information, merge it into an appropriate article.JoelWhy (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning Keep~~ Comment: ~~Per~~ User:Colonel Warden's has made improvements, which includes the addition of sources to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found and incorporated this source into the article:

Knerr, Béatrice (Prof. Dr.). "Overseas Migration and its Socio-Economic Impacts on the Families Left Behind in Pakistan: A Case Study in the Province Punjab, Pakistan" (PDF). Volume 6. Kassell University Press. p. 102. Retrieved May 3, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic meets WP:GNG per the following sources listed below. Furthermore, additional research for sources is very likely to return more reliable sources for this topic.

Black, Carolyn (2002), Pakistan: The People, p. 18, ISBN 9780778793472
S.M.H. Zaidi (1970), The village culture in transition. A study of East Pakistan rural society.
Opler, Morris E. (February–April 1972). "Review: The Village Culture in Transition: A Study of East Pakistan Rural Society by S. M. Hafeez Zaidi; Change and Continuity in India's Villages by K. Ishwaran". Vol. 74, No. 1/2. American Anthropologist. pp. 63–65. Retrieved May 4, 2012.
Knerr, Béatrice (Prof. Dr.). "Overseas Migration and its Socio-Economic Impacts on the Families Left Behind in Pakistan: A Case Study in the Province Punjab, Pakistan" (PDF). Volume 6. Kassell University Press. p. 102. Retrieved May 3, 2012.
Kennedy, Charles Stuart (interviewer) (December 14, 2004). "Interview: Eisenbraun, Stephen". The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training: Foreign Affairs Oral History Project. Retrieved May 4, 2012. ((cite web)): |author= has generic name (help)— Includes information about rural life in Pakistan and Pakistani villages

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been expanded and its structure has significantly changed since the time of this nomination for deletion. All except two of the sources listed above have been incorporated into it as inline citations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources found. Dream Focus 19:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and abundant academic sources available online [7]. --SMS ^Talk 21:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article has made much progress since the AfD nomination - that the original, dubious claims are clearly irrelevant. Please give editors a chance to do some work before bringing articles to Afd. Thanks BO; talk 21:20, 10 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. Weak consensus to keep but perhaps renaming and repurposing this article to be about the event and not him should be considered. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Chong[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. West Eddy (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involves a student, alleged drug possession, the DEA, allegations of torture, the Attorney General, the United States Congress, and a $20million law suit. Unlikely to go away. Dru of Id (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Incubate for WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. HOwever, I agree with Dru that this story may have legs, in which case I'll change my vote to keep.
Weak Delete - Significant coverage corroborates the notability that has been asserted; however we must remember WP:BLP1E. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both the article creation and the AfD seem premature. Incubate/userfy may be a good compromise. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to say merge somewhere. I don't see this justifying a biography. It isn't really about the guy himself. He is just some unfortunate person who it seems has been mistreated. Even if the case runs and runs he will still only be famous for one thing. There probably is something worth saving here though. The story is getting lots of mainstream news coverage. It was covered in the UK, for example. Maybe it can be used in an article about the American prison system? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect- Summarize content to a new last paragraph of Drug Enforcement Administration#Criticism, or create #Open issues or similar. Dru of Id (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" sections are a sign of poor organization; in any case, the incident is too important to merely summarize. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge) - this is a story that has gotten international coverage (e.g. [8]) and will result in more notability after the result of the lawsuit. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* more info: matches Wikipedia:Bio#Basic_criteria **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we know where this belongs. Yes, this is a WP:BLP1E. It should not be a biography, but a section in the article about the relevant prison or jail. But what prison? I've read half a dozen news reports that carefully omit any mention of where this "holding cell" is located. My wild guess is ~~it's a private prison and some Corporate Powers That Be have lobbied the newspapers, but we'll see~~ (well, wild). Sooner or later somebody will find us a link to the court filing and we can do what the press is too corrupt to, namely, lay this burden on the proper doorstep. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Update: apparently this was a holding cell at the DEA San Diego field office. Problem is, we haven't created articles about the individual DEA divisions or offices, and Drug Enforcement Administration is too stuffed to include the whole incident and aftermath (though it will deserve a summary there). So I'll favor an incident-specific article name like MelanieN suggested. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This is a nationally notorious case and is likely to remain so; if it quickly fades from attention it can be deleted later. The current article title is not appropriate, but neither is merging it into an article about a prison or jail. I would suggest moving it to something like Incarceration of Daniel Chong. This would be similar to the way we handle stories about victims of notorious crimes (Murder of Laci Peterson, Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, etc.). The notable subject is not Chong himself, it is his incarceration. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article and will continue to do so. Articles from the New York Times and the Daily Mail show the national/international reach of the story. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mainly/largely per MelanieN's analysis above. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; move to Incarceration of Daniel Chong. — goethean ॐ 17:01, 8 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. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday World & Splashin' Safari[edit]

As nominator I hereby withdraw my nomination Mlpearc (powwow) 19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Written as an advertisement, does not conform to a neutral point of view. Excessive amount of intricate detail. It may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information Mlpearc (powwow) 05:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The person that nominated this article for deletion has a vengeance for this article or something. He has more or less stalked the page after he discovered it a few months ago. Up until that point, not even experienced editors had any problem with it. There is absolutely ZERO reason this article, about a notable mid-to-large-sized regional theme park, should be deleted. It is no different than ANY other article about other theme parks. Whether he thinks it's promotional or not, the article contains WAY too much information to just flat out delete. It has a detailed history, detailed ride list (both active and defunct), and lists notable awards the park has received. If Mlpearc thinks this article is too "promotional" sounding, he can take the time out of his day to fix it to his liking. Deleting a completely worthy, informational, and by (most) standards good article would be completely ridiculous. OParalyzerx (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too think this article should be kept. There is no reason it should be deleted. It is just like any other amusement park article you will find.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Astros4477 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) [stwalkerster|talk] 12:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Per my nom, I stand by my edits and they speak for themselves. I await comments from editors who do not regularly edit amusement park articles. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You shouldn't make a separate bolded delete !vote if you are the nominator. The nomination rationale is automatically understood to be a delete !vote. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nominator offers no rationale for deletion, merely cleanup, as proven by the fact that the majority of the nomination rationale is copied and pasted from the ((multiple issues)) tag. The Google News search link above shows 1,890 hits, most of which appear at first glance to be legitimate sources to pass the WP:GNG, including an Italian source on the first page, showing that the park is recognized in other parts of the world as well. Shortening the search term to the more common name of just "Holiday World" brings up over 5,000 hits. This is clearly a notable park. Yes, the article needs cleanup and better sources, but when those sources are available, deletion is not an appropriate action. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - jcgoble3 you are correct, the majority of my statement is from the multiple issue tag I placed on the article but, this discussion is about the article and not on my choice of copy/paste or manual typing. Every word in my statement conveys the issues I see in this article. This article is written like a vacation pamphlet, I would expect to see something like this at a service station or a hotel lobby in the "Local Attractions" pamphlet rack in a neighboring town. Look through these edits I made in January, and is still full of "over information". The article needs to tell about the park not every spot you can buy a corn-dog and a Pepsi. Also, for the record, I do not question it's nobility, I question it's style and direction, in it's present state it belongs in a travel magazine not an encyclopedia. Mlpearc (powwow) 06:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you see a need for cleanup, not deletion. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. If the subject is notable, then it should be kept. We do not delete articles merely because they need to be cleaned up. See WP:BEFORE, item C1. jcgoble3 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I have already followed section "C" here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives four months ago. The diff is here and it was merely removed here without addressing any of the issues. P.S. Removed by the major contributor.Mlpearc (powwow) 18:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change anything. WP:BEFORE C1 states simply, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Nowhere does it say anything about AfD being appropriate if cleanup tags are removed. If the issues with the article can be fixed through editing, which can be done in this case, AfD is not appropriate. The fact that cleanup tags were removed does not change that (and, based on the edit summary, they were apparently removed in a good-faith belief that the problems had been fixed). Deletion is reserved for articles that break policies in a way that cannot be fixed through normal editing such as lack of notability. No such issue is present here, and the issues you've raised can be handled by simply improving the article, so deletion is not an appropriate action. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to this book, this was named the world's second best water park. 6 pages in The Cheapskate's Guide to Theme Parks: 25 Of the Most Popular Theme Parks in the United States. A Darwin Awards book. It has the third longest wooden roller coaster. There is also this and lots more available in Google News. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per those above. Sure the article may need to be cleaned up but I don't see that purely as a reason for deletion. Themeparkgc Talk 07:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Themeparkgc (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) [stwalkerster|talk] 12:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: When I saw a tweet that the article about our park was marked for deletion - just three days before we opened our 66th season - I expected to see an article packed with personal opinion and superlatives. Instead I read a article longer than past versions, with a few punctuation errors, but factual and fairly straightforward. As much as I'd like to go in and edit this page (as an old-school journalist), I've respected the rule that companies are not to edit their own pages. That said, and assuming this page survives, editors please know you're welcome to contact me for any needed verification and clarification. Oh, and if I may reference an above comment, there's nowhere in the park where "you can buy a Pepsi." Soft drinks are free here. Thank you, HolidayWorldThemePark (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)— HolidayWorldThemePark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Park is very notable, and article can easily be edited to remove any promotional jargon and peacock words. I agree there are too many sources coming from the park's own website (although a number of those come from Amusement Today, which is a reliable source), but again those can be removed and replaced with independent sources. Is it in need of some TLC? Yes. Is it a candidate for deletion? Absolutely not. --McDoob AU 93 05:12, 5 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken McGowan[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. It's unclear what would make him notable as an environmentalist, entrepreneur or author either. His own website, as listed, appear defunct. West Eddy (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a former leader of a registered political party. Falls under WP:OUTCOMES#People. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible conflict of interest: Me-123567-Me has identified as a Green Party supporter on his/her user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Eddy (talk • contribs) 05:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Isn't that a case of the kettle calling the pot black West Eddy? Your attempt to single out the GPNS and ALL of it's leaders, first, current and everyone in between stinks of political motivation. What part of: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. WP:OUTCOMES#People" are you having trouble with? I'll be happy to explain it to you. Just ask. But then I don't think you're after the truth here, I think you're just trying to erase GPNS history from from the site. Pdacortex (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Part is notable, I only want to remove the pages for non-notable people. I don't have any political affiliations, particularly in Nova Scotia. Let's try to keep the emotions out of the editing. West Eddy (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were the first to go ad hominem in these discussions by calling into question the ethics and motivations of a fellow editor (Me-123567-Me) West Eddy. When you stoop to such intellectually impoverished tactics, you must expect to be taken to task over them. Now I will say this one more time: as per WP:OUTCOMES#People Leaders of political parties, regardless of electoral success, are notable people. You are doing a disservice to Wikipedia and future historians by vandalising the site based on your own personal assumptions. And by ignoring Wikipedia's policies. Pdacortex (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're ~~deliberately~~ omitting the word "usually". You need to show notability for this person, not just the party. West Eddy (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true West Eddy. Every place I quoted with the WP:OUTCOMES#People policy I quoted it in full with the word usually in. With the exception of this one time. You really are grasping at straws here. BTW "usually" means more often than not. That would suggest that in the case of politicians we should err on the side of caution, and not do what you have done. Pdacortex (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep media verification http://www.annapoliscountyspectator.ca/News/Politics/2007-04-10/article-592474/Ken-McGowan-joins-Green-leadership-bid/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: historical copy of McGowan's website http://web.archive.org/web/20070928062125/http://kenmcgowan.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Media verification http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nova-scotia-greens-pick-new-leader/article757629/ Pdacortex (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, a short term leader while no election was called. 117Avenue (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. WP:OUTCOMES#People Pdacortex (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word here being usually; a party leader can still be redirected to the article on the party if reliable source coverage is not present. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: During McGowan's leadership the party reached 7% in an Angus Read public opinion poll http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/2253/honeymoon_over_for_macdonald_in_nova_scotia/ the highest the GPNS has ever been in the polls, before or after him. Pdacortex (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That shows the party's notability, not his. West Eddy (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Media verification http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/05/07/mcgowan-green.html Pdacortex (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: in response to 117Avenue - by-election during McGowan's leadership http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Harbour-Eastern_Passage_provincial_by-election,_2007 05:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Pdacortex (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pdacortex... can you please vote just once? West Eddy (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, just consider all of my Keeps as one vote.

Running as a candidate in a by-election does not confer notability per WP:POLITICIAN if the person doesn't win it. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. The comment was a rebuttal to claim that no election was called during his leadership. Pdacortex (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck Pdacortex's additional !votes for clarity. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Thanks running on brains my intent was not to stuff the ballot box. This is my first time debating a deletion, and I thought the keeps/deletes were just a preface used in statements during debates to indicate your position/stance in the debate. Pdacortex (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by imposing blanket rules like "all leaders of political parties are inherently notable", but by the presence or absence of coverage about him in reliable sources. A political party leader is certainly always valid as a potential article topic, but valid referencing still has to be present — and standard AFD practice has always allowed for a political party leader to be redirected to the article on the party, and not given a standalone article, if legitimate, substantial coverage of him in reliable sources is not present and cannot be added. Accordingly, keep if the article can be spruced up to meet proper notability and sourcing standards within the next week, and redirect to Green Party of Nova Scotia if it can't. There is no "it will get cleaned up someday" exemption for biographies of living people anymore, and it's not good enough to point to the existence of possible sources that never actually get added to the article — the article either actually gets cleaned up immediately or it goes, no in between. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a a bit more constructive suggestion than West Eddy's scorched earth tactics. Nevertheless it may be even more useful if you can reference the policy of: the article either actually gets cleaned up immediately or it goes, no in between. Thank you. Pdacortex (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearcat I found the policy you mentioned "As of April 3, 2010, a new proposed deletion process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it can be proposed for deletion. This is known as a BLPPROD. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after ten days." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people -- OK I'll volunteer to try to clean up this page with in the next 10 days. I hope that others will volunteer to do the same for the other GPNS leaders. Leaders of political parties are not normal people :-) The public needs access to their information so that they can make informed decisions based on the best available information at election times. Be that current or historical information. And that's probably the reason for policy WP:OUTCOMES#People. We're all here to try to make the best information available to Wiki readers. So please, can someone else jump in and help clean up the other GPNS leaders bios? Thank you Pdacortex (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. It's important to realize that Wikipedia's standards have tightened up considerably over the years — not because we're trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, but because we've had genuine and extremely serious problems over the years with poorly sourced or unsourced articles. The idea used to be that certain classes of topics were "inherently notable", and therefore entitled to keep articles regardless of the quality of what was actually written, but that's no longer a helpful or useful way to approach things on here. Instead, we've had to shift toward talking about those classes of articles being valid as potential topics for articles, but still evaluating whether the finished article actually gets to stay or go on the basis of whether it's actually sourced up properly or not. Essentially, we've had to shift away from being primarily concerned about the volume of Wikipedia content and toward the quality of it. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably well-sourced (at least right now), references seem intact. It could use some more references, particularly for the second paragraph of the lead section. I already cleaned up one of these GPNS leader articles; glad to see someone cleaned up (mostly) this one.Marikafragen (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Bearcat: keep it, if it was cleaned up and reliable source provided. The article has been cleaned up. And reliable sources have been provided.

Moreover WP:OUTCOMES#People is clear: Elected and appointed political figures at the national level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.) Political leaders are given special consideration WP policies because they do influence public opinion. Even the from the small parties. After all, all political parties start small, and their early history, which is comprised of their early leaders, is important to document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 06:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing references vandalizing the page as I'm working on it West EddyPdacortex (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be on the talk page, but for clarification I didn't vandalize the page; I removed references that were inappropriate (an internal wikipedia page and an ebook with text lifted from wikipedia). See WP:RELIABLESOURCES for help. West Eddy (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this while I'm working on the page West Eddy? And for your information the book mentioned WP as only one of the sources. It's a valid reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this on the talk page: Talk:Ken_McGowan. You can also ask me questions on my talk page if you prefer. West Eddy (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though just, under #3 of WP:POLITICIAN. Appears to meet general notability guidelines as having received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be very little information about Ken McGowan himself, but there is info that could be included in the Green Party of Nova Scotia page. West Eddy (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and my 'keep' is a weak one, verging on 'neutral'. Though he's the subject of several articles, they're all within the context of his role in the party, and none of them offer much in the way of biographical content. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting opinion West Eddy. A a bit disingenuous, but interesting.

McGowan is notable precisely because he was a Green Party leader. Therefore most of the press on him will be because of his involvement in, and the actions he took on behalf of in the Green Party. It seems to me that you want to remove the page for the very reasons that make him notable.

Additional points in favour of keeping the page are:

Ryan Watson's (another GPNS leader) page was kept with less references or information available, (well that was true before you started removing valid references again) and it would be inconsistent to remove one and keep the other. What kind of a precedent would that set?

This page was considered a keeper before it was Relisted and no compelling arguments have been offered up since then that would suggest the previous ruling should be overturned.

In fact, the page stronger than before the Relisting, with better information and more reliable sources quoted ( again, that was before you started removing valid references West Eddy) than any other GPNS leader with the exception of Nick Wright.

Moreover the page meets the requirements of WP:OUTCOMES#People and survived Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Isn't it time for you to stop your over aggressive "editing" and helped to make the page better? Pdacortex (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Pdacortex, try to edit and discuss this dispassionately.

Making a page better means adding relevant, sourced information from proper sources. It also means removing unsourced info and opinions.

Remember, wikipedia doesn't operate on the basis of precedent. Also, surviving BLP PROD is not an indication of significance.

If there is any real biographical information about McGowan, I can see some merit to this article. Otherwise, I think it is best to place the info under Green Party of Nova Scotia. Most of the info seems to be related to his winning of the leadership, this seems more like a case of WP:BIO1E. West Eddy (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-elected candidate without other activities that might merit a place. Stepping down in anger does not make a politician notable (nor anybody else). Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leader of a major national party is notable; the question might be whether the Greens qualify for that, andI think that is actually the real issue in these nominations,. I am inclined to think we can best avoid bias in articles involving political parties by a strong effort to inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That subject received some coverage in 2006 to 2008 does not make him notable enough for inclusion per WP:NTEMP. Since he was never elected to a public office, he has no overall WP:GNG notability. A mention of his name in a succession of leadership in the Green Party of Canada article should be sufficient coverage since he is otherwise not notable. DocTree (talk) 18:52, 11 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. On a pure nose count we might be in "no consensus" territory here, but delete arguments speak to sourcing (or lack thereof), always the critical consideration. Keep arguments tend to speak to popularity, which is not an inclusion criterion. It looks like this might gain enough sourcing to be sustainable someday, no prejudice to recreation if that happens. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mageia[edit]

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

PROD was removed after "Removed deletion note. Already added external citation to DistroWatch, which shows Mageia as being popular." - I still don't see why this Distro is notable. mabdul 07:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 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) 01:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article, as it is, is terrible and has no good independent sources. However, as it is currently #7 on the DistroWatch page rankings, and was #15 for all of 2011 when it didn't even start until late 2010, I think it's fair to say that it's a fairly popular Linux distro. Also, Mageia is forked from Mandriva, which is a very old and well-respected distro. While yet another Linux distro fork may not be notable, the financial / organizational problems of Mandriva made fairly large waves in the Linux world, and Mageia has many of the prominent people from the Mandriva community. It's not that some random person created another fork, it's that major players from a major distro went their separate ways. Jdi153 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- added bullet. The fact that it is a fork of a notable and popular distro doesn't make itself notable, moreover at the moment it lacks coverage: being in the list of DistroWatch doesn't indicate anything except that it is downloaded many times. As I said: it lacks newscoverage - or I might have not found it. mabdul 21:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to argue too vociferously. I felt it was notable precisely because of the news I read about it. Googling just "Mageia" looks like it turns up plenty of hits. Still, "notability" to a nerdy software developer is not a good indicator of notability in general, so I will defer to those with more experience judging this sort of thing for Wikipedia.Jdi153 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:GHITS - an argument which should be avoided in an AfD. mabdul 12:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand about the hits / search ranking. I brought it up only in regards to your comment "it lacks news coverage." I felt like the search results showed that there is in fact news coverage. Jdi153 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the key information about the distribution can be found on other websites, including Distrowatch. The distribution plainly is notable, it just needs further external references. I've added another reference to Distrowatch (because it is the easiest to find) in the lead. Imc (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, then please add references and cite them. Distorwatch is reliable, but it is onl mentioned Mageia bypassing and not in depth. mabdul 12:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another mention, albeit still in passing: https://lwn.net/Articles/493091/ I'm not sure this goes well in to the main article, I'm just point out that there is at least a perception that Mageia is the heir apparent to Mandriva, which is what I thought made it notable in the first place.Jdi153 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is at least not a bad start, but this is not enough I would say. mabdul 08:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per DistroWatch information (7th most used distribution out of all the ones listed here. Wide development team. Community forums with thousands of posts. Will surely become notable - also looking at the troubles of Mandriva Linux - and notability is not temporary. Better to anticipate than to be late. Ocirne94 ^{Tell me!} 18:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia should not be a wishlist for what pointless reasons ever. Mageia existis, is a linux distribution and I'd like to get informations about it. I really don't care about rankings even if in this case mageia is ranked quiet well. It's so annoying to encounter such kind of pointless deletions on wikipedia again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.13.247.81 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Distro watch is just an entry to indicate it exists. This: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/spotlight-linux-mageia-1 is good, but I couldn't find more like it. Sad when the seventh most-used Linux distro can't get good coverage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could use e.g. your intermediate level of German to find signigicant coverage in reliable sources. In any significant german online magazine like heise.de, golem.de or pro-linux.de you will find plenty of coverage and I am sure in other european online magazines too. Do a search on http://www.heise.de/suche/?q=mageia&search_submit=Suche&rm=search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.13.8.248 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
enough reference with all these link https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Mageia1_Press ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.251.122.165 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyin' Ryan[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. The website that hosts the first review is shut down (appears unreliable) and the second review is an unreliable source. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failure of WP:NF. While "a really good movie for younger children",[9] this film has pretty much dropped below the radar...if it ever did peek its head above it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 3 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Russell[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Karen Russel has not been the subject of significant coverage, nor has she made significant or original contributions to any field. She has appeared on TV and on the Huffington Post as a pundit a number of times, called on to give her opinions. Being on TV regularly doesn't in of itself meet the notability requirements. Thousands of bloggers post on HuffPo; most of them don't meet the notability requirement. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The article had been without any references for over three full years and has seen essentially no substantial additions in four years. On April 25 of this year, a tag to her bio on HuffPo was added. I agree that she doe not meet notability requirements. Vincent Moon (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Most of what surfaces in a Google search for "Karen Russell" does not refer to the person who is the subject of this article.--JayJasper (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails to assert/show WP:GNG, and a cursory web search doesn't show enough WP:RSes to bulk up the article. --EEMIV (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - searching " "Karen Russell" bill -wikipedia " helps sort out the online references a bit. And there are 134,000 on them. Most (by the search parameters) mention her father Bill, also mentioned are her (and her father's) spokesperson position for the (not very sexy) disease sarcoidosis, a TEDx (not TED) presentation on YouTube, position on the Arizona immigration law. Needs some work, but likely will make it to notability. Smallbones (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That method of counting hits is seriously flawed; you're getting tons of articles about Bill Russell, one of the most famous athletes ever, which mention somewhere he has kids, and one of them is Karen. In other words, notability is not inherited. Out of these 134,000 hits, can you point out a sufficient number to meet WP:N? One good strong citation should be enough to keep an article; three or four would nail it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:57, 27 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, →Σ τ c. 04:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual notable accomplishments, and the coverage is merely incidental to her father's notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 10 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. There's a clear consensus that he's not notable yet but I was almost swayed by some of the "keep" arguments that suggested that his numerous roles put him over the bar so here's what I'm going to do. If somebody who is not the subject or has been paid by the subject wishes to write a new sourced article from a neutral point of view, it won't be subject to CSD G4. (but of course it may be renominated for deletion) However, if the same article is reposted, it will be deleted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Scott Cummins[edit]

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

While doing final cleanup on paid group account and sockmaster, Expewikiwriter, I decided to check through the last few articles, and I discovered that this article was a giant lie. He did not play what could be considered a "lead role" in any of the movies (formerly) listed, and the television shows include such greatly memorable characters as "Bounty Hunter #1" on Numb3rs, and other things of around that calibre. The article created by a paid group account, but it turns out to have gotten the issues because of copyvio (see talk page) - large chunks of it were copy-pasted from the actor's website, where the actor greatly inflated his importance. I think the copyvio is removed, at least, but we are left with an actor who doesn't have a huge amount of coverage. Yes, there is some material out there, but it's mostly trivial coverage, with a few local newspapers interviewing him occasionally. Good sources are rather hard to come by. Now, he does have a some notability as a sportsperson who played for a professional team, though he was forced to retire in a year, and played one of the most obscure roles on the team; however, combined with the possibility of remaining copyvio, and the rather poor quality of what's been created, not to mention at least a little trouble with WP:NRVE, I see little point keeping this. 86.** IP (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He was a pro athlete and has received significant local press coverage, so there are reliable sources (even if they're not online). He may merit a short factual article, although the vast list of every TV role he's done is a bit much. Is there any potential copy-vio content left? The promotional content is by and large removed (I took out an unsourced claim about him being praised for his versatility). --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the source I know was copied, it should be cleaned up. However, the source was uncredited, so there might be another. 86.** IP (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: based on a search of NFL.com [10], it appears that he never actually played in the NFL. cmadler (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The claim in the lead that he was among the best college punters was an exaggeration—it was based on his own college coach's claims. I've removed it from the lead, as well as the claim that he played professionally (he only appears to have tried out for a team). This article is a bit dubious based on my findings, the nominator's concerns, and reference that are solely offline articles that I do not have access to (perhaps others do).—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say his football involvement is a passing mention in the article, but notability is established through his extensive work in television and movies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence that these are significant roles to satisfy WP:NACTOR? Or do exisiting sources meet WP:GNG?—Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any movie roles of any significant size. 86.** IP (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Here is link to offline articles (5 pages) http://www.gregoryscottcummins.com/clippings.html Salmodavl (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — Salmodavl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock.[reply]

Comment Throwing aside that Salmodavl has been blocked as a sockpuppet, the links provided to the offline articles (assuming they are legit) seem to satisfy WP:GNG requirement for multiple sources of significant coverage. However, lacking any evidence that the acting roles are major to satisfy WP:NACTOR, the subject seems WP:Run-of-the-mill. Also, the sources are from local papers from his hometown in Contra Costa and from Hawaii where he went to college. While it shouldnt be automatically discounted because WP:ITSLOCAL, I do wonder if based on the ROTM nature if these are Wikipedia:Independent sources that are discriminating or is this an example of a local feel-good story. This could be a case to invoke the presumed clause of GNG which says "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I will abstain from !voting unless a compelling argument sways me.—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I still say it's enough for me, but I'm not devoted to the topic. It wouldn't be the first time I've been on the short end of an AFD discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His football career is not notable and doesn't warrant an article. The commercial section should be deleted as that is trivial. He does have an extensive movie and TV career. He may have played in sub, B movies and as a"guest" actor on TV series, but there appears to be enough to cross the threshold.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 May 2012‎

My concern isnt that they are B-movies, but I'm unsure if the roles are big enough that he isnt another run-of-the-mill actor with insignificant parts.—Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the sports nor the acting career is notable by our usual standards. One ofthe reasons for the current dislike of paid editing is the tendency of paid editors like the one involved here to make a great deal in appearance out of what is really very little. We can best deal with that not by prohibiting paid editing, which is impossible, but keeping a careful watch on what they do. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The longer I've looked at this article and thought about it, the more I'm convinced that he does not merit an article. He does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON since he never played in a pro game. He does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR since he doesn't seem to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, nor does he have a large fan base or cult following, nor has he made a special contribution to the field of acting. He's probably close to the line on meeting WP:GNG, but as Bagumba pointed out, the coverage seems fairly WP:Run-of-the-mill. cmadler (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my earlier comments at 18:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC), person does not meet [[WP:NGRIDIRON] or WP:NACTOR. With no evidence that the acting roles were anything significant, even if numerous, the actor is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails the presumption of notability of WP:GNG, which allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." The article was created by a blocked sockpuppet Expewikiwriter, and this AfD was commented on by a related sockpuppet, Salmodavl. While articles should be based on the merits of the content and the available sources and not judged solely by who created them, the fact that I was leaning towards "delete" and and the sockpuppet investigation "suggest promotional paid editing" convinces me to commit to deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 20:02, 10 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:V Unverifiable content, possible hoax. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Spacer[edit]

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

No reference provided, none found. Probable hoax; anyway, fails WP:V. PROD removed by IP. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I've never heard this term used before and I can't find any usage of it. Ducknish (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 26 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, →B music ian 03:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 43 google hits for the phrase: most are content taken from Wikipedia, and the rest are about people or fictional characters called Annette Spacer. As it's a web term, it's unlikely there will be significant sources offline if there is nothing online. There is no way that this is notable. If your name is Annette Spacer, I'm afraid your moment of fame is almost over. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails WP:V; WP:OR and WP:N. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:43, 3 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ko[edit]

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

Notability isn't inherited, being the instructor of someone famous does not, in and of itself, make someone famous. A merge proposal has been in place to merge this article with the article on Kersten for almost a year, but there's really nothing worth merging over. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Felix Kersten. He doesn't really have any independent notability, as his only claim to fame was his training of Kersten, and has already been pointed out, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. However, there are quite a number of sources discussing his training of Kersten, such as the following: [[11]] [[12]] [[13]]

I suggest the information about Dr. Ko and these sources be merged into Felix Kersten's article to supplement the information that's already there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested by Rorshacma, unless there is fuller information available. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I would not be opposed to a merge. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be leaning toward Delete. I'm dubious about a merge/redirect unless we have a full name for this person. Everyplace just seems to call him "Dr. Ko." And I agree with nominator that there is nothing in this article (with its minimal, unverified biographical detail) that is worth merging, so if Redirect is chosen, I would make it a simple redirect, without adding anything more to the Kersten article that is already there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 27 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, →B music ian 03:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an urban legend. Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: "Touching the Outer, Reaching the Inner. An unpublished book by Gary J. Lockhart (1942–2001)". There is one last mystery to this story. Who was the mysterious Dr. Ko, who was sent to reach one man, to influence the destiny of millions of people? For a time I thought that I had unraveled the mystery, but a better translation showed me that I was wrong. I had hoped that he had left his secrets, but perhaps they could only be passed down from master to student. Delete as per above comments. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Stilwell[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: BLP not in force. She's dead. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she is very notable as an activist board member & chair of the Surrey School Board, and as a pro-life activist, and as a pro-family proponent. The Vancouver Sun calls her a "major figure in Canadian culture wars." More than enough sources to pass WP:BASIC. Articles like this are not non-notable, just neglected. Perhaps the nominator should refresh themselves with WP:BEFORE. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Her obituary was in Vancouver Sun[14] and Vancouver Province (paywall) blogs and apparently the National Post (Google shows it, but the link is dead). There are also a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article[15], a brief bio on the Finance Department of British Columbia site[16], and a smattering of less reliable (i.e. partisan) sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per Clarityfiend. However, would feel more comforatble, if article was rearranged with sections, and more sources. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear evidence of notability , based on the references provided. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 10 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 List of Wikipedias. Notability not established by sources, WP:GNG; redirect via precedent; redirect to be protected b/c of repeated recreation. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quechua Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website, per WP:NOTABLE, composed of first-hand sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is an exception to WP:N (which is a guideline, not policy) as a WMF project. →Σ τ c. 06:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias per the result of the last AfD and current usual practice in these cases. And, probably, protect the redirect. PWilkinson (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect clearly not notable on its own. JDDJS (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect redirect per PWilkinson. Just being a Wikipedia does not make a site notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Standard procedure is to redirect the less notable Wikipedias to List of Wikipedias. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 3 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 Church Street, Monmouth. Merge issues should be discussed at Talk:Church Street, Monmouth, per WP:MERGE. Ferneyhough's forge apprecenticeship and time as proprietor of the sweet shop at no. 24 don't make him notable but there is no policy reason I know of why the verifiable content shouldn't be retained in the Church Street, Monmouth article. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24 Church Street, Monmouth[edit]

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

Fails to cite reason for notability. -Philippe (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: I could live with a merge, as was suggested in February here. My only concern with that would be the extent to which unsuitable sources are used. Facebook? The 1901 census? Is there much left once those are stripped out? - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability of the building not established, article is mainly about one non-notable owner.07:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be argued that the proprietor and/or his business is more notable than the building? In which case conversion to an article about him would be more appropriate? But agree notability seems marginal. Can't see we'd want every sweet-shop owner in the UK! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts - how many traditional sweet shops actually exist any more?! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Church Street, Monmouth . He is notable to Monmouths long term inhabitants over the age of 30 and its a shame deny his memory just before Monmouthpedia is launched on May 19th. Anthony Cope (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Church Street article. It's inherent in new initiatives like MonmouthpediA (in this case, an initiative of international interest) that new editors will contribute articles on topics of debatable notability, as in this case. The emphasis should remain on encouraging new editors with articles like this, but they do need to be properly referenced, and must claim sufficient notability. As we have an article on Church Street, Monmouth, this article can easily be merged with that one, and trimmed so as not to give it undue weight. Maybe the actual process of merging - to show that WP as a whole does gain from new articles, and also has proper procedures for dealing with marginal material - should itself be incorporated within the MonmouthpediA launch on 19 May in some way - not as a big deal, but as a demonstration of how we work? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Church Street article, as per above. (By the way, what's going to happen with 1-6 and 12-16 St Mary's Street, which I assume was originally included to match the town trail?) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per TheLongTone $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 11:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Church Street, maybe some needs to be edited down. Mrjohncummings (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a redirect (to catch any external references). This first? article has been improved but not managed to find notability on its own. Merge will retain the effort and the more important buildings in Church St will (in time) put the importance of this in context Victuallers (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge photograph and caption to Church Street, Monmouth. Page is mostly about Reginald A. Ferneyhough, who shows no hint of notability. The history of No. 24, Church Street, could well be worth recording on the internet, ideally perhaps on a Monmouth local history site, but to merit its own Wikipedia article it would need some significant coverage in reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here.--Charles (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Church Street, Monmouth, which will ensure good information is kept in an article of a notable subject, whilst not discouraging editors. Zangar (talk) 16:56, 8 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, WP:NFOOTBALL. If you get repeated recreations of this article, poke me or make a request at WP:RFPP for a reconsideration of SALT. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Cretaro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rafael Cretaro

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

Article that was recreated after having been deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Mr Cretaro has neither received significant coverage nor played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cretaro has plyed in Europa league [17]. Does this fulfill WP:NFOOTY? Murry1975 (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Europa League qualifying matches do not confer notability; only matches in the competition proper (i.e. play-off round or later) do. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I found this. Murry1975 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. And any chance of maybe a way of the page not getting recreated until/if he gains notability? Murry1975 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reply to Murry - it could be SALTED buts that's unlikely to happen as this is the first AfD for Raffaele Cretaro, although it has been deleted via PROD before. If this AfD is closed as delete then it can be speedy deleted via G4 in the future once he hasn't gained notability. I know why you asked though it's almost a certainty to be recreated. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thaughts indeed Duck. I did not know about salting, thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And what about the other Sligo Rovers players? What about the other League of Ireland clubs? What about us journalists who don't dismiss Wikipedia as an unreliable source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protector of Henman Hill (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure to what you're referring with your comment on journalists, but with regard to other players, I refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 10:25, 5 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Shahrul Azim[edit]

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

Article that was recreated after having been deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fuly pro leauge. This remains valid. Contrary to what is written in the infobox, source listed confirm that Mr. Azim has not actually played in the Malaysian Super Liga. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:45, 3 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Banksy of Bulgaria"[edit]

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

Sources establish existence, but not notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Banksy, perhaps under an "International influence" or some such other section. I likewise do not think this merits a dedicated article; however, I think that a few sentences on the Banksy article would serve to present this event as a product of Banksy's influence on political graffiti elsewhere in the world. The fact that a significant WWII monument was targeted makes this a shade more notable than your typical act of vandalism. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coatrack for a news event. Article is not about the artist but about the crime padded out with original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's even anything of worth to add to Monument to the Soviet Army, Sofia, where this event is already mentioned. — Toдor Boжinov — 17:01, 4 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 without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Crowthers[edit]

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

I only found trivial mentions in news articles. This photographer fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 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) 00:05, 26 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) 02:09, 3 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. Though he didn't bold anything, I'm going to interpret Dubulge's comment as a "keep" !vote. I probably should have done this a week ago but being a BLP, a few more comments would have been helpful. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzie (songwriter)[edit]

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

I don't see why merely writing songs (or assisting in writing songs--much of K-pop is cooperative, not to say industrial) is notable. The article has been tagged as unverified since 2009, and nothing's changed since then. Many of the songs don't appear notable in the first place, and I object in principle to an article that is nothing more than a resume: the only biographical fact in the article is a year of birth. The only "reference" in the article is this (scroll all the way to the bottom immediately to turn off that irritating ad), on a bloggy portal that appears to rehash SM Entertainment's press releases like so many other K-pop sites. This "reference" verifies nothing more than that she wrote a song. In short: not verifiably notable as a song writer. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree actually with the claim that K-Pop is cooperative, many of foreign non-korean songs are composed by several composers whereas many K-Pop songs have only one main composer/songwriter for the whole project. Kenzie has been working with SM Entertainment as being one of the main songwriters under such company since 2002, she's helped create title songs for artists such as BoA, Isak N Jiyeon, Super Junior, CSJH, TVXQ, Girls' Generation, Shinee, f(x) and SM Town, many of which were number 1 songs. If all that is needed is citations and references to be verified, then it so shall be done. Chocolat ≈ Dubulge (Chat Me Up) 17:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 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) 00:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like the subject at least has a claim to be notable per WP:COMPOSER since a few of her songs already have Wikipedia articles. I recommend that this article be re-structured to indicate the chart performance of the hit songs she wrote, according to the authoritative music charts as indicated at Wikipedia:Record charts. This would be a lot more relevant than the albums that the songs appeared on, which is currently included in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:34, 26 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) 02:09, 3 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) 01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Barlowe[edit]

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

Deprodded with sources, but one only gives a one sentence mention, and the other only verifies that he wrote one notable song. While he was nominated for a Grammy, it was split among 3 other writers, none of whom have articles either. I searched high and low and could not find any reliable third party coverage of the guy, just tangential mentions and name drops. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's also co-written some other "notable" songs: Made to Love [18], I'm for You [19], City on Our Knees [20], Get Back Up [21], even if the only sources for him co-writing those are sheet music publishers. He clearly meets WP:COMPOSER, although that does seem a rather stupid rule in cases like this. --12:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPOSER is not ironclad. It's possible to meet that but fail WP:GNG if no sources exist covering the guy in detail. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 19 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) 00:34, 26 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) 02:08, 3 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 Star Trek fan productions#Parodies. The "keep" !votes are weak and do not address the fact that all the sources have only trivial mentions of the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Trek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, it was a syfy "site of the week" and yes, a magazine briefly discussed it in an article about Star Trek fan fiction. However, these sources provide very little actual coverage of this project, cited only for brief quotes of the "we like it" variety. SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting article, notable, and well-written. LogicalCreator (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tangential mentions in context of bigger things ≠ notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GNews turns up a paywalled, but apparently substantial article about this in the February 17, 2002 Bradenton Herald[22]. GBooks reveals some potential sources although the paywalls make it hard to evaluate how substantial they are, e.g. [23][24] If this is not notable enough for its own article, there is at least enough to justify a redirect (keeping the edit history) to the existing entry about this at Star Trek fan productions#Parodies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the sourcing (including those found by Arxiloxos) is enough to indicate notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 27 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) 02:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references provided aren't enough to establish notability. The one in the magazine was just a rather trivial mention in an article about Star Trek fan works in general, and being picked as the SciFi website of the week is nice but not particularly notable. Also, the actual link to that reference is dead now anyways. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the references found by Arxiloxos - the film also appears notable enough to be included in an upcoming documentary, as shown by this trailer. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have you seen the actual sources (beyond the paywalls) that Arxiloxos found? If so, please give some hint of what is substantial about the coverage in them. Yes, the ~~film~~ web cartoon does seem to be mentioned in the forthcoming, non-notable, youtube documentary Backyard Blockbusters. That is not a compelling sign of notability IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of the sources that Arxiloxos found, only the first one can really be considered to be potentially substantial coverage. The other two, though, as mentioned, are blocked by paywalls, what little we can see of them really looks like its pretty trivial coverage, simply mentioning this series as a singular example amongst others. But, the simple fact remains that without being able to see the rest of the articles and seeing the complete context of the discussion of Stone Trek, we really can't say that they prove that there is substantial, non-trivial coverage out there. Its kind of hard to base a keep decision based off of the argument that there might be proof that its notable, without actually seeing the proof. As for that documentary, there's really nothing to show that it is notable in any way, let alone reliable enough to count as a third party source for this. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 12 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Locaso[edit]

Done– (View AfD • Stats)

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

This will be a batch nomination of numerous recently created footballer bio's that are unreferenced, have no claim to notability, have the same structure (XY (date range) was a Zoo-ian footballer, have the same author, and are substubs:

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

(Non-admin closure) The article already existed, changed into redirect--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done (google translate sucked for that so still needs translating but it contains some sourced info at least)

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to no explained notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unreferenced, so no verified notability. I'd also suggest the closing admin has a stern word with the creator to prevent such issues in future. Giant Snowman 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do. I asked the author to add more information, but he seems not interested in doing that (see his talk page). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep following valiant efforts to try and improve these Godawful articles. Any that can't should be brought back on an individual basis. Giant Snowman 13:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I don't mind a dozen or so as I always like editing a wide range of articles but not sure i can do many more!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editor has recently created ~300 articles. All unreferenced. All subjects are dead. Majority are from eastern Europe. They give nationality, year of birth and death, and a profession (poet, writer, translator, politician, football). They contain categories for which no info in that article backs up adding the category. Bgwhite (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AGF, they seem like translations, and probably are mostly notable. But he refuses to add few more words to prove that :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see ~1,500, not 300 new articles. They don't create talk pages either. I saw his reply to you on his talk page... essentially get lost and don't waste my time. Grrrrr. Bgwhite (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I regularly tag and assess new Poland-related articles. This week this took three times as longer, and for most of his articles I was AGFing on notability - I don't have time to check all of them. The footballers were the most problematic, even on pl wiki many did not have any notability claims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider individually only the ones that do not have equivalent articles with a reference on the other encyclopedias. (From a sampling, all or most of them are Russian and have decent articles in the Russian encyclopedia, usually better than the one in the Polish encyclopedia--I do not know why AnomieBOT put "expand Polish" on them--possibly it looks for a Latin alphabet version?) I think this method of doing one sentence translations is really foolish, and I wouldn't mind discussing the behavior at an/i or somewhere. He certainly needs to stop. (In fact, I've left him a formal warning about non-constructive editing) It's acceptable not to complete translation, but at least enough should be added to show the notability--the sketch will be helpful until somebody finishes it. But the solution is not to delete the articles. The solution is to take a few minutes and include at least the minimum of text, using if necessary G Translate to help, and copying over the references--there's usually no point in trying to translate them. I do that for anything I see in a subject that even remotely interest me-- but football is not one of them. I'll sometimes do the whole job if its a subject and language I understand well enough--I think at least half the regular eds here can do this for at least one language--or, to be more precise, at least half the regular editors who are not recent graduates of the US education system. Even if I can't understand the language of the obviously best article, sometimes there's another in the list that I can and that gives at least a little. (And the data in an adequate bio infobox can be immediately translated--that's the purpose of the controlled data there.) DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree with DGG 100%. As he says there's nothing wrong with not completing a translation but a few sourced lines saying something like "From 1948 to 1953 he played for Spartak Moscow and then joined Dynamo in 1956 as a coach" would go a long way. One has to accept that yes we are missing millions of potential articles but it isn't going to suddenly propel thousands of new editors to expand them. I've proved that in the way I've created placeholder stubs in the past, that some get expanded but a lot remain in the database and might be years before anybody cares to bother with them. In the meantime if they have a fact or two and are sourced they immeasureably improve wikipedia as a resource even if still stubby. I've begun expanding these sub stubs and am convinced they are notable and think it would be counterproductive to delete them without researching them but advise the creator to change his approach.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind helping with a constructive approach; I'll try to expand the Polish ones to show the notability, but I may be a bit busy for a day or two. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As if we haven't enough to do already eh?..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just 300 or so articles to expand, courtesy of our mass substub translator... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 07:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious comment some days ago. emijrp (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is more efficient if you start them without having to enter in the player name. But I didn't say to create empty articles without sources either. I could generate them quicker with a source and a few facts if they share a common source and content which most of them seem to being associated with Spartak Moscow. Speed isn't an issue for me, I'd happily except 50,000 sourced stubs a day, but no content and lack of sources is. I'm baffled as to why you were clearly reading the google translate for categories but were unwilling to add any content. You could at least add some of the clubs they played for if you can manage to add so many categories... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your efforts I am fine with withdrawing the nom. I do hope that the editor who substubbed them won't be mass creating such problematic articles again, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the sad outcome of this though is that a] Emirj has shown no interest in this discussion or any indication that he cares about these articles and given no help whatsoever. b] Has shown himself to be unapproachable and unfriendly and unwilling to accept advice or discuss articles he creates. And he has immense potential too as an editor...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shame. He has done a lot of good work, but this is a collaborative project. One has to be able to work with others, instead of creating more work for them, even if one's action are good intentioned. A certain hell proverb comes to mind here... sigh. Emir, we would really like to work with you and help you out, but you have to accept that we are here, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't congratulate me first for the stub creation and later create a notability storm. The same for Dr Blofeld, first adding fire to the stub creation (link above) and later saying the opposite. I'm dissapointed with you both. I will try to fix the articles I created, but I'm not happy with your confusing behaviour. emijrp (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do not we stop discussing behavior of each other and turn to articles instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding fire? Eh? I and Piotrus encourage you to create new articles but its particularly problematic with biographies as something does really need to be said about them even if very brief. And when you create 1500 biographies the amount of work needed to even get a glimmer of something encyclopedic into them is staggering, work that the Polish and Russian wikiprojects cannot possibly accomplish. I've been guilty of this many a time and in my desperation ignored just how much work it entails to expand them. Its a highly optimistic perspective. There's a fine line between a sub stub which contains no info and a sourced stub much like your Spanish building articles which I personally think are very productive and even if it might be years before they are expanded they are set up nicely. I support your biography stubs if they contain one fact and one source bare minimum. With the Russian footballers for instance xxx was a Russian footballer. He played for Spartak Moscow from 1935 to 1940 and ended his playing career at Dynamo Kiev, where he later became coach (source), End. Would make a huge difference I think. Something like Mikhail Tovarovsky. And that is easily achievable by looking in the infoboxes on other wikis as you clearly did to create the categories. You could have another tab open for google search to immediately retrieve a source and add it, you could create articles pretty efficiently that way, especially if they all played for the same club and there is a common source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If they are all unreferenced, get rid of them all. There are plenty of referenced Articles on athletes. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Most of these are referenced and clearly notable, and probably all of them are. I fixed up Bernasconi and Poblome, and it looks like other editors have cleaned up the others. It would be incredibly silly to delete these en masse - feel free to nominate individual articles that you think don't pass our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all As per Jogurney,Dr. Blofeld and DGG.Most of them appear notable and are referenced even if one wishes to nominate it can be done on an individual basis.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:54, 13 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 Narasimham (film)#Legacy. And delete. Sandstein 05:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nee po mone Dinesha[edit]

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

The public usage or notability has not been established. Out of the three references provided, 2 are mirror of Wikipedia and third one is a deadlink. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added an extra reference now. If you google it you can get so many results on it but the problem here is, this movie released around 12 years ago and getting references from established sources now is easy. This must've been all over newspapers and discussions back then, not at this point of time. But this still is a very popular, easily recognised dailogue though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopaalan (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 27 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) 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Extremely useless bit of tiny trivia which is already covered in the film's article. This should have been a speedy or a prod. It's not even referenced. Not to mention, the phrase isn't even translated into English. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Narasimham (film)#Legacy. --Lambiam 10:21, 3 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phan-Ku Ryu Jujitsu[edit]

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

Non-notable martial arts style. —Ryulong (竜龙) 01:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable outside sources to support the article, so I'd say it fails WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI can not find anything either and there is no indication that this is anything more than a single dojo with hugely exagerated background.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 6 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 nomination withdrawn, debate about name can take place on the talk page -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Luís de Paulo[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability - substub. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- My Prod removal summary in full: 'Brazilian Olympic footballer compared to Pele; Portugese Wikipedia spells name correctly [25]'. Dru of Id (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to add this as a referenced info to the article? Reliable, of course, I can compare my friend to an Olympic basketball player, doesn't make him notable :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sports-reference.com [26]; report of death Ex-jogador comparado a Pelé morre aos 57 anos (in Portugese). Dru of Id (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Obviously notable, based on the information in the Portuguese article, which contains a cite to his Globo.com obituary, entitled "Ex-jogador comparado a Pelé morre aos 57 anos" ("Ex-player compared to Pele dies at 57"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FIFA, the world governing body of football, confirms appearances at the Olympics. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – having played in the Olympics he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: as the article has been improved, I agree it is notable, and this can be speedy close (and probably moved). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:21, 3 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 Spelljammer#Crystal Spheres. Originally closed as delete, but some editors would like to merge content from this article, so I'm going to re-close it as merge to facilitate that. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 20:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spelljammer crystal spheres[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I would have done a prod if this had not been kept at an AfD before, but I feel that this is a clear case of an article that fails WP:GNG, and I feel that the previous AfD failed to address the underlying issues. The basic idea is that all subjects must have some coverage by reliable secondary sources, and WP:SPINOUT does not make any articles exceptions. What must be considered is simply whether or not reliable sources exist that are independent of the topic, and if there are not, then it does not satisfy WP:GNG, simply put. New questions? 13:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly merge some of the content under Spelljammer#Crystal Spheres. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per BOZ. Articles with this level of detail belong on a Spelljammer wiki. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 27 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) 01:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Obvious fancruft. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 22:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and redirect - There do not appear to be reliable independent sources to support WP:GNG for this particular topic. If enough sourced material exists to move to a parent article, I could support a merge and redirect. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:27, 10 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agni (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail GNG and WP:BAND, a lot of the usual webnoise, MySpace, FB, YT videos and so on, user uploaded band bios but nothing substantial anywhere! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 27 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) 01:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of references and no evidence that the band even meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND Ducknish (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 3 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 Art Van. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mattress World of Michigan[edit]

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

Seems entirely non-notable: Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages.TheLongTone (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy delete under A7. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The notability of the company is extremely borderline. In the greater scheme of things, it is clearly not a very important company. But it currently does have two independent, reliable sources. Yet, those sources mostly talk about the acquisition of the company by another company. Certainly they are not the type of in depth coverage about the topic alone that would create a strong case for notability. In the end I think the subject barely passes WP:GNG. (I challenged the A7, while its borderline notability, reliable sources that discuss the company are plenty to pass A7) Monty ₈₄₅ 21:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Since all the reliable non-trivial sources are about the acquisition by Art Van, the article, like the company should be merged into the Art Van article. cmadler (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 27 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) 01:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. Merge the content into Art Van Furniture and redirect this article to that one. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Art Van. No way should this article on a tiny defunct local business be kept. Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Art Van. Not notable on its own. Zangar (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martyrs Among the Casualties[edit]

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

Article on the record of a band that was not notable. The Band's page was redirected to an unrelated page here. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 27 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) 01:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability, non-charting, by a completely non-notable band. Neither the band itself nor its predecessor band even have Wiki articles. Straight delete. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't know why it's not an A9 speedy. Artist not notable. Album lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:08, 12 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.E.W.S. Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Obscure record label, no coverage. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 27 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) 01:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage, best I found was a passing mention in a section about one of their artists in a longer piece. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is the topic obscure, but the Article is also an unreferenced stub. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:58, 13 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. There is a very clear consensus that the subject meets our notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J.T. Ready[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:CRIMINAL. West Eddy (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. He's referenced a lot in Russell Pearce and is profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center [[27]]. --Kynn (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (from article creator) - Ready was notable before his recent crimes. Here he is being covered by an article from the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2008. Talking Points Memo covered him twice this year, such as here. Google news archives (i.e., not covering today's events) brings up plenty of articles (as well as misleads), including national coverage, even foreign language coverage. NPR, NY Daily News. And because he's getting coverage for different reasons (militia, running for office, and now his crimes), it does not subsume easily into any existing article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the sources amount to much in the way of significant coverage in the sources that are reliable per WP:GNG and Ready fails WP:CRIMINAL. Hekerui (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is getting coverage in Israel. This AP story -he's the man in the title - was also up at ABC.com, although the link is now dead. Here he's coveried in Mexico. It's hard to see how the AP, Fox, NY Daily News, and the numerous Arizona-specific papers don't qualify as reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject; how stories with him as the headline or featured character don't qualify as significant, so WP:GNG seems to be met. All of those sources are before the current crime situation; he would've qualified for an article last week, so WP:CRIMINAL seem irrelevant; it's a guideline for those whose notability is their crimes, not eliminate the otherwise notable because of their crimes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National coverage today, including on Democracy Now. User: ChocolateBlender

KeepIn addition to his crimes, he was a candidate for public office. --Lacarids (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIf Antoine Dodson gets an article, J.T. Ready should as well. B-Machine (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG met.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The apparent crime here, while horrific, is all too common. The notoriety he is receiving is clearly due to his past activities, not just today's murders. Indeed there was a period today when it was not clear if he was a victim or the perpetrator and yet it was his death that was highlighted in the news coverage, e.g. "Neo-Nazi among 5 dead in Arizona shooting" on Fox. --agr (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a criminal. Nationally known prior to shooting. Founder of U.S. Border Guard (a right wing militia group). Candidate for public office. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gNews archives show significant coverage of subject prior to the current events. Article needs time to be developed. vulture19 17:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy! Why? Normally I keep everyone in the list. But let's face it: Wikipedia must never be a platform for such racist people. He is was a four time muderer, nothing else. If this is a reason for notability, at least the link to this Border Guard should be deleted. Wikipedia should not link to pages forgetting about the criminal's victims. royalrec 20:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Wikipedia must never be a platform for such racist people" is not a reason for deletion, and concern for the victims being forgotten or not forgotten is actually not relevant -- I don't mean to sound cold nor do I wish to disrespect the victims. It's a horrible crime, but this is an encyclopedia. List actual Wiki policies and guidelines to build your case for deletion. At this point, I'm neutral in this: I don't think this should be speedy deleted and the discussion should carry on for the full seven days. freshacconci talktalk 00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. he was notable before this incident. Founder of the U.S. Border Guard, ally of Russell Pearce...[28], [29], [30], [31]. etc
Delete. I'm seeing cases of RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, NOTINHERITED, and a misread of POLITICIAN. The question that needs to be asked is: what is notable in the coverage? Ready as a person, the activities of an organization he founded, or the neo-Nazi beliefs he held? I'm not necessarily seeing that separation. If Ready is mentioned as an aside in an article about Border Patrol, that is not "non-trivial" coverage. The latter we can talk about; Ready's direct actions therein, I don't think so, because there's nothing in there on what he specifically did. He was a candidate for an office; that does not confer notability, especially if the political coverage in the papers were predicated on the whole "neo-Nazi" thing (which, BTW, is why Israel had coverage of this). A candidate is notable only if they win a major office, and that is why we do not have articles on every county sheriff in the United States, as there at least 5000 of them at a low estimate. An individual does not inherit notability from being associated with other people or being referenced in articles like Pearce's. An individual is not notable only for having a political viewpoint of any kind. I also don't see a real notability for CRIME here, and "we have X, so we should have Y" doesn't work. I frankly see no reason why the necessary information on the individual or his activities could not be put into a paragraph in Border Patrol (or any other related article), but I don't see enough here to merit a BIO article that would not be largely "one event"-centric on the crime. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to consider that Ready is being mention as an aside in things like the AP story, where most of the sentences contain a reference to him. He's not mention as an aside in the SPLC piece. A candidate is not only notable if they win a major office, as per WP:POLITICIAN: such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I see no exception in that for neo-nazis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, SPLC is not a reliable source but an advocacy group so one could use it as a primary source. Hekerui (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a false assumption there - that an advocacy group cannot publish a reliable source. There is nothing in the WP:RS guidelines that states that. It does require a reputation for accuracy, which the Intelligence Report does have. The question of whether the SPLC publishes reliable sources has come up multiple times at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard; you can see one such example here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Met notability guideline prior to the shooting, having been featured regularly in the state media and occasionally in national press. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep." I read the Washington Post story and clicked through to the Wikipedia article. Seeing the man's prominence in an issue of high national interest I was surprised to see the article tagged for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.48.220 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There should be no censorship. Everyone needs access to this info. Of course some want this deleted. The heck with them, what does free speech stand for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.93.34 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of significant coverage by third-party reliable sources and was notable before the shooting rampage. For example, here's an full article about the topic from a national news organization: Man with Neo-Nazi Ties Leading Patrols in Arizona. Nominator should be reminded of WP:BEFORE which requires editors complete basic due diligence before nominating an article for deletion. If this is an ongoing problem with the nominator, they should be topic-banned from nominating articles for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. From a purely practical standpoint, I recently searched specifically for this bio and was surprised to find it flagged for deletion. His significance and notability come from his associations, views, acts, and political activities, and the importance being placed on these aforementioned by competing political groups -- as well as his criminal acts. The importance of his bio being included parallel those of Willy Horton or Vietnam swift boats in educating the general public on the back story of current political discourse.
Keep Ready's action were notably notorious, like Charles Manson's actions Rob (talk)

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

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

The result was delete and a trout for me for not ringing this up a week ago. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Hardy[edit]

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

I can find no reference of this person with a google search. Either their are not notable or they don't exist. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also can't find references with a quick search, but regardless, it looks like a hoax. According to the article, Hardy was born in 1998. 13-year-olds can't have careers as professional wrestlers; that's just preposterous. Possible speedy? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry for the confused i wasn't typing right and pressed another 8 instant of 0 and if you haven't hear her yet is because she new and well she wanted a wiki article and were going to rewrite it again in more detail. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sueblue12 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this important Wikipedia policy, all articles on living people must have at least one reference to a reliable source (see here for more information). Furthermore, even if a source is available, Hardy may not Wikipedia's notability guideline for people. Just wanting a Wikipedia article on yourself is not enough. If you can give some examples of multiple reliable, independent sources discussing Hardy in detail, then the article will almost certainly be kept, but otherwise, it may just be too soon. Thank you for your understanding. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 27 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) 00:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether she's thirteen or twenty-one, nobody's written about her. The article's creator has admitted that Hardy is "new". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either non-notable or a hoax, probably the latter -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 3 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. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources, as confirmed by the commentators. I will create a courtesy redirect to his party. TerriersFan (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Gray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per West Eddy (talk · contribs). --Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 30 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) 00:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per West Eddy (talk · contribs) 88.201.63.26 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 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 Libertarian Party of Canada candidates, 1980 Canadian federal election. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Eaglesham[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 30 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) 00:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Libertarian Party of Canada candidates, 1980 Canadian federal election. Nothing shows up on Google. minor political candidate. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep minor party, but national head. there is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD. Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Many, maybe most, party leaders are notable. But, I don't think it's a universal rule. We have three "sources". One is a government page with election results with almost no info, then there's his own letter which is useless, and then there's the micro mini bio which is published about all candidates in every election. Such micro mini bios of all candidates generally repeat whatever the candidate says, and aren't even checked before being printed (not a huge deal in this case, since it's insignificant and uncontentious). I wouldn't go as far as saying we have to have BLPs "sourced to the hilt", but think BLP policy means a rise in standards above what we had before. I did do a search for Canadian magazines on ProQuest, and found five results for Alex+Eaglesham+libertarian, but each were trivial mentions (Every one had him included in a list of all candidates, and not even mentioned in the prose of the article). Keep in mind I was able to find substantial coverage of the election of other candidates in another search. If this had even one reliable source that that focussed on him, I'd say keep, or be neutral. Surely we can simply ask for one independently verified fact about this candidate which goes beyond what is reported for every single other candidate in every election. Even the fact he was a leader is mentioned only by him, his party, and the government, but nobody else seemed to care enough to note this fact, which is the sole claim of notability. --Rob (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rouwkema[edit]

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

Selfpromo. Sources fail WP:RS. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info The Reformatorisch Dagblad is a national newspaper and the EO is a public broadcaster of the NPO so these qualify as RS. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 15:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of references are needed to maintain this artikel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.127.106 (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero notability, and the article doesn't even try to establish any. This is just a choir-master who has done a few arrangements for his choir(s). Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nl- article removed this morning again for reasons of lack of notability, promotional intent. MoiraMoira (talk) 05:20, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Dance (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:58, 26 April 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 April 26. Snotbot t • c » 23:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the article was created in COI by editor George Dance himself, now blocked for disruptive editing. Span (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what "Spanglej" calls her suspicion is not true; which (if she were interested in that) she could have seen for herself by checking the article's history -- the article was created by C.J. Currie in 2005, five years before I began writing articles here. I also note that West Eddy states only one of the criteria given in WP:POLITICIAN for *inclusion*, and infers illogically (see Denying the antecedent) that its absence is a reason for *exclusion*.GD04 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I correct that to 'an article heavily edited by George Dance himself, who is currently blocked and seems to be using a sock account to make sure his article is not now deleted'. My apologies. Span (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least that correction isn't obviously untrue, but only because it's nonsensical. First off, a "sock account" is meant to disguise one's identity; my identity isn't disguised, whereas "Spanglej's" is. Second, only administrators can decide to whether to delete articles or not. "Spanglej" is the one with administrator friends willing to ban/block other editors for her, and I'm sure they're as willing to delete articles for her; what I write isn't going to make a difference to that. GD04 (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 30 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, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Span (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We used to keep Leaders of all political parties, but this case is different. He was "interim" leader twice; I am not sure if that ever passed WP:POLITICIAN. Secondly, the consensus has been changing to be less inclusionist to more exclusionist, at least as politiicans are concerned. Finally, WP:BLP and WP:RS trump everything; I see a lot of in-house media rather than well-known sources. For these reasons, regretfully, the article must be deleted. I'd be open to changing my mind if someone can rescue this mess. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interim leader is no different from a permanent leader for notability purposes; if the sources are there to properly support the article, then we simply don't care whether they were an interim leader or a membership-selected permanent one. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Can someone add better sources? Bearian (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I followed the links to the primary references and they are all articles from "Nolan Chart", a website modeled after "The Huffington Post" with content built from links to other content. However, on Nolan the "other content" is just from personal blogs and not from reliable published sources. Nolan Chart even boasts a FAQ about how to "get yourself published", which the author of the Dance article clearly did. Nolan obviously gets traffic primarily thru pushing ads and misdirecting searches. The Dance article itself is therefore merely a puff piece on a non-notable BLP who created his own source material. The photograph in the article is even from his own wife and not a known source. Deletion long overdue. Ultracobalt (talk) 21:39, 12 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

François Gourd[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable politician. He has led the country's satirical party for many years. Surely he has played a bigger part in Canadian politics than Cornelius the First. 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Rhinos are an important part of Canadian history. But if I understand correctly, Gourd had little connection to the original party. I think Cornelius is, in that sense, more notable. West Eddy (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article about Gourd from Le Devoir, he actually "took over the reins" of the party from it's original founder Jacques Ferron. --Marchije•^speak/_peek 12:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gourd is very notable in Quebec, particularly within the arts and entertainment scene of Montreal. Aside from his involvement with the Rhino party, he founded Les Foufounes Électriques (basically the CBGB of Montreal) , he created the Symfolium festival, he is a filmmaker and co-founded FRIC, he created the Festival international de musique incroyable (FIMI), he made the list of "Les 100 qui font bouger le Quebec" (100 people who get Quebec moving) by L'Express International magazine in 2000. If you do a Google News archive search on his name you will find several articles about him from major Quebec-based publications such as Le Devoir, Voir, La Presse, etc... There are also some snapshots of other stories about him and his "Université de Foulosophie" at udfou.com on the "cahier de presse" tab. I think this article needs expansion to better establish notability, but not deletion. I may beef up this article myself given I speak French and can cite some of those articles. --Marchije•^speak/_peek 12:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 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, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more refs. He has received continued media interest for decades, so he's notable through WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 3 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.