< 29 May	31 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Beach Ferry[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable business. Wikipedia is not Wikitravel. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, and the news coverage of the indicated incident appears to be routine and nothing that imparts notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with full content The world at large has taken notice of this public sector institution, see Google images ["Palm Beach ferry" Sydney OR Australia]. As per WP:CORP, the topic "attracts attention". As per www.ferriesofsydney.com, "Within a year of colonisation, Sydney's first ferry was built & launched.", the point being that the ferries of Sydney have a long and rich history. The argument of "Wikitravel" is not cited, so we are left to decide if this is somehow related to WP:NOT. If so, what criteria tells us that this is a travel topic that is excluded on Wikipedia? Notability is a test that decides if we want to have a stand-alone article, and only leads under our WP:Deletion policy and WP:N notability guideline to deletion in limited cases. One of the WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion is merger, the WP:BEFORE analysis of which is notably absent in the nomination. There are ways this article could be merged without removing any content if the objection is that the topic is not WP:N notable. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no evidence that this company is in the public sector. What basis do you have for that assertion? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references:

[1] International
[2] Australian national
Ferry transport in Queensland, in another Australian state
[3] NSW ferry regulations
[4] NSW ferry safety

Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do any of these qualify as coverage of Palm Beach Ferry?LibStar (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the post preceding the list of references, User:Phil Bridger asked for evidence that this company is in the public sector, that is why these references are listed. Unscintillating (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how can sources that don't mention this company be evidence of its ownership status? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

??? None of those even seems to mention this company, let alone say that it is publicly owned. I presume, since you linked the phrase above, that you know what "public sector" means? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Unscintillating (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not treating it as a battleground. I simply asked for your evidence that this was a public sector company, as I hadn't been able to find any such sources and thought you might have found some better ones with significant coverage of the company. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't heard a compelling argument why the distinction between public and private is relevant p b p 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is relevant, but was hoping that Unscintillating would reveal what sources were used to determine that this company is in the public sector, as those sources, if they exist, could also be useful for determining notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, how do the above list of sources which say nothing about Palm beach ferry advance notability? I also think "Within a year of colonisation, Sydney's first ferry was built & launched" is totally irrelevant. Palm Beach ferry was not created 200 years ago. and the my local taxi company offers public services, does that make it notable? no. it's got nothing to do with battleground, editors have asked for clarification and you haven't actually argued notability. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Palm Beach, New South Wales#Transport. I cannot find coverage to establish notability. The bets source for establishing notability that I was able to find is this one. That people take snapshots of ferries and they turn up on a Google image search does not establish notability, nor does that fact the Sydney has had a lot ferries provide for any sort of automatic notability. I'm open to keeping this article if sources can be presented, but they would have to be much better than the results from a google image search. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing a compelling argument for keeping, nor how public vs. private sector has any bearing on notability p b p 00:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all middle schools are notable since they have multiple sources written about them, everyone I've ever been to has dozens of articles in various papers covering the school in depth which makes them meet the GNG and therefore all schools are notable. Whoops, well in any cases all ferries are notable, they get written about in the paper and like subway lines are important infrastructure topics of broad interest to readers. Also the vote beneath this one is irrelevant.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

above vote is irrelevant. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be if the ferry contained a middle school! --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. Palm beach ferry has the same status as a small bus or taxi company that provides public services. Most of the small operators around the world would not qualify for a WP article. Unscintillating's arguments of public entity are irrelevant, No in-depth numerous sources are about this small company. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (there is no verified, relevant content) and leave a redirect. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" found in given refs or independent search. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:54, 7 June 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 the slew of sources provided and lack of any cogent "delete" votes. (non-admin closure) Yunshui 雲‍水 08:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Keys[edit]

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

Promotional article for a "brand awareness" company that is not sufficiently notable to merit its own encyclopaedia article. There are many companies doing this sort of thing. The principals have each won one minor award, that's all, and anyway notability is not inherited. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:ORG andy (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:POLL, Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.37.170 (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTABILITY 96.224.37.170 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added valid references to prove that this company is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article, including The New York Times^[1], CNN^[2], and Bloomberg^[3]. Company has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, widely cited by peers, known globally, and known for originating a significant new concept and technique recognized by Advertising Research Foundation^[4]. The company has 98,500,000 results on google.^[5] Keep WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG.

Brand Keys is not a "brand awareness company." Brand Keys specializes in brand loyalty and engagement metrics. Therefore, it is not a promotional article for "brand awareness."

Happy to make other changes necessary to comply with Terms of Use and Policies.

Keep

96.224.37.170 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — 96.224.37.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — (Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjsmith (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - The company is not a "brand awareness" company as stated in the nomination. Rather, Brand Keys is a New York company that specializes in tracking customer loyalty and in survey conduction and analysis of consumer trends. The Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement Index has been established as a reputable recognition that the company bestows to various companies and organizations. The topic passes WP:GNG. Keep per:

[5] - Significant coverage about the company and its activities and methods
[6] - Information about the company's Loyalty Leaders List (subscription required)
[7] - Article about the company's Loyalty Index, which includes analysis of the company's methods and methodologies (subscription required)
[8] - Information about one of Brand Keys studies (subscription required)
[9] - More info. about Brand Keys Brand Keys' Customer Loyalty Engagement Index and market research
[10] - Yet more info. about Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement Index, including analysis of the index itself (subscription required)
[11] - Article about Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement Index (subscription required)
[12] - Short article that includes analysis of Brand Keys' Customer Loyalty Awards (subscription required)
[13] - Article about a Brand Keys study (subscription required)
[14] - Article about Brand Keys' Fashion Index (subscription required)
[15] - USA Today article titled "Shifting trends in brand loyalty" including analysis from Brand Keys and its founder (subscription required)
[16] - Seattle PI article about some work Brand Keys has done
[17] - CNN Interview with Robert K. Passikoff, Ph.D., Founder and President

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | talk _ 23:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‣ Obviously notable: hundreds - possibly more than a thousand - sources in multiple languages stretching back more than a decade are evident in a Google Books search and I haven't even tried other specialized search engines. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 23:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the fact that the nom failed to mention the 98,500,000 sources. Ok, make that the 608 google hits I found when I searched with [18]. The 608th and final source is The Himalayan Times, which has non-trivial information about "Brand Keys", and from which I also learned that the high and low temperatures on June 1, 2012, in Kathmandu, Nepal were [33.2°C] and [19.6°C].

The Himalayan Times.

Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 1 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No_Dada_No_KKR[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-useful, non-notable. Dee03 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 30. Snotbot t • c » 22:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History merge to Sourav Ganguly ‣ Have to note that I can't find the original Articles for Creation discussion about this... the AfC category it was originally tagged with does not seem to contain it. This seems like important information for the article on the player but a particular group of fans for a particular cricketer that is described as simply a Facebook group in many of the sources does not seem like something that would qualify as a notable topic independent of the player himself. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 23:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails a whole load of notability criteria. Can't see how such a group, despite "reliable sources" can be encyclopedic. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't establishes notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprised by the nomination and the previous edits here. Sources 3 and 4 alone look to me to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Dweller (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ganguly Article as per Struthious_Bandersnatch ƬheⱾtrike Ҿagle ^™ 12:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SG or KKR. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fenopy (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The campaign received significant coverage from reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. The article needs to be cleaned up but this is not a deleteable offence. Hack (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. extra999 (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Needs work admittedly, but so do a lot of articles. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sourav Ganguly. Although you would find lot of coverage in news its not something that should have a stand-alone article. The topic is regarding Ganguly and his fans protesting, its better placed there. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it has a lot of coverage in news, by Wikipedia's definitions it absolutely should have a stand-alone article. --Dweller (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. Aishwarya Rai becomes pregnant and delivers a baby girl. Lotsa lotsa coverage for lotsa lotsa time. Do we make a separate article on that? (Thanks for the note.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Rai's baby isn't an organisation. --Dweller (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that you should draw some exact analogy. What i meant with the example is that not everything that's covered by news (especially when 24Hr news channels have started) is worth an article. This organisation is basically a fan-club that protested on Ganguly's exclusion from team and is now planning to throw a birthday party. That's a one line gist. Why do we need separate article for that? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's created an article and it's nominated for deletion, we need to look at what our policies and guidelines say. I've not seen any arguments here that explain why this organisation fails our requirement for non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I see at least two sources that seem to meet those requirements. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone opting for merge or delete please explain why sources 3 and 4 between them are not sufficient to demonstrate WP:N? --Dweller (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more than sufficient coverage, not incidental and not bunched up to a certain time frame to show that this passes notability. Also, if it should be merged, Ganguly shouldn't be the target, but it should be the KKR article. —SpacemanSpiff 08:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited sources clearly demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. WP:IDONTCARE is not a valid reason for deletion. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, sole author requested deletion. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hennig[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with only uncredited or minor background parts. Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Disputed PROD. Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search only brings up IMDb listings, links to pages that aren't about this Eric Hennig, and posts by Hennig and/or his friends to promote him on various social media sites. I hate to say it, but this just seems to be the latest attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to specify that the Hercules movie is not a movie that would give undeniable notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An actor that has received nothing but bit parts in the background. Nothing notable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The White family[edit]

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

I have nominated The White family for deletion for lack of notability. Most of the information is duplicated in the Jesco White and The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia articles. The article is primarily unsourced original research, and there are numerous WP:BLP issues, some of which I have touched upon at the BLP Noticeboard. - CompliantDrone (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned BLP Noticeboard entry has been archived, and can be found here - CompliantDrone (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am bothered by the amount of negative, unsourced BLP in this article, some of it about people who are not even public figures, and also by the unlikelihood of this search term. In lieu of deletion the page could be redirected to The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia. But I would prefer deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The individual family members that meet WP:BIO either have or could have their own articles. Grouping these together and including others that would not meet notability is just an end-run. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent cleanup of the article to reduce the BLP issues I was complaining about. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 7 June 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 Megami Tensei . Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Megami Tensei IV[edit]

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

Lacks any kind of Notability. The only confirmed here is that is a video game from a notable series, that will be released for the Nintendo 3DS. Fails WP:CRYSTAL as there is no release date. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree on two accounts:

Shin Megami Tensei is in the top 3 JPRG franchises: Gamespot. It is absolutely a notable topic.

Pokemon, Animal Crossing, and essentially every other important video game title has been given its own page, even before a release date has been released.

There is zero speculation in this article and it relies entirely on verified and sourced information regarding a major release. Absolutely nothing warrants its deletion. Von Karma (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that is your justification? "Other articles were created from nothing". This is 2012 not 2010, and in fact Animal Crossing was redirected. If nobody "redirect them or deleted them" is because nobody noticed so obscure pages. If you cannot demostrate real rules, like WP:GNG or WP:CRYSTAL, or even an essay like this, and you believe we need 50 "notable [sources]" saying the same ("SMT4 will be a N3D video game"), this is not correct wiki. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody cared about those articles because they were obscure" is an extremely weak excuse and totally irrelevant; these articles were allowed to exist and were given an all-green before release dates were announced.

Ultimately, your argument boils down to:

It is not notable enough: The reason I have included multiple sources is to address your complaint that "people don't care about this game/your article is 'lame' and nobody cares about it", people do care about the game in question judging from the audience response and the status of this franchise.

Quoting WP:GNG: I have given an official website, primary, secondary AND tertiary sources all from top industry websites.

Quoting WP:CRYSTAL: There is no speculation at hand, no "predictions", no extrapolation and no rumors; only verified, official information from 100% reliable sources; both physical (Famitsu magazine) and digital (http://megaten4.jp/). Von Karma (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is not gained after 39,000 references saying what the official site already says "Shin Megami Tensei IV is a Nintendo 3D game". Quoting what you missed from GNG and CRYSTAL:

"Significant coverage" ... is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Also the article is not independent from Megami Tensei, as Shin Megami Tensei IV is a single line.

You said "There is no speculation at hand, no "predictions", no extrapolation and no rumors". Well, since when the future is written in stone? The producers can delay it, cancel it, or rename it (no problem here) at any time. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you getting at here? You demanded evidence that this is being discussed and that it has relevance - I provided plenty. It is being covered by major companies in the industry and the user reaction showcases its importance.

According to that logic, any article about an upcoming anything should be deleted; upcoming sports event, upcoming world tour, upcoming album, upcoming tv show, upcoming movie, etc... This argument holds no water whatsoever. Von Karma (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit wp:crystal, the longer we wait, the more sources we have to prove its notability before the article is actually deleted. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only way from here is up - more information will be released, trailers and any other update; it is the exact same process that every article on a major product goes through. Von Karma (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale about the future is not that "anything should be deleted". There are "upcoming sports event, upcoming concert tours, upcoming albums, upcoming tv show, upcoming movie, etc." [sic] that even when they can be delayed or canceled, they stand by their own, for example This Is It (concerts). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would this not be able to "stand on its own"? It has:

A title
A confirmed platform
A developer
A publisher
A tentative release date set for 2012
Concept artwork from the official website

Ironically enough, that Dr. Dre article you quoted started out as nothing more than an announcement Detox and was built up from there.

PS: That [sic] is actually invalid Von Karma (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"sports event" is incorrectly written so sic is valid; and you insist to use the "other stuff exist" argument, now in an article that was created in 2004. Since then Wikipedia and the world has changed, just see the template they used to use compared to the current. Also, Detox was taken to AFD in 2007. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate when you can say anything more than that WP:ITEXISTS. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Modern Warfare went through this same discussion and they eventually settled to simply let the page exist. In this case, there was 0 information aside from "it's coming"; no release date, and not even a platform. Von Karma (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt, redirect to SMT - A simple announcement, but noted by a lot of sources. Not enough to start an article on. (contrast this to The Cave (video game) which itself only got announced but includes gameplay and development discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To series article. It'll certainly be notable in time, but right now it's too soon... Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to series. That WP:OTHERSTUFF has not been touched is not a valid argument (on its own) and this fails WP:CRYSTAL insofar as "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." -Rushyo ^Talk 14:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to series. Fails WP:CRYSTAL on multiple levels and fails WP:GNG. If other stuff exists, then they can be dealt with in the appropriate venue(s) as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to series article. While I believe it will be notable in the future, that is not the case currently. We don't onow anything other than platform. Reach Out to the Truth 03:45, 8 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in WWE events[edit]

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

Redundant information, as everything contained in this page also exists in individual articles.

This page appears to have been created because User:Paul "The Wall" seems to have made the arbitrary decision to redirect all PPV pages to this "omnibus", without discussing it or reaching a consensus anywhere, yet is still declaring it the "new standard". – Richard BB 21:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Annual event articles in notable sports are presumed notable, especially where not every event has demonstrated separate notability, currently not possible per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dru of Id (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is your presumption of notability backed up by a policy? Could you clarify what you mean by referring to the "Crystal Ball" policy? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are future events scheduled whose notability cannot be established initially when the available info is some basic schedule of who, what, when, where. Such items can be included with proper referencing in an annual article, separating/splitting when a) notability for the event itself is clearly established by coverage in independent reliable sources with no financial interest, and b) overall length of the main article; if there are five events in the year, splitting out the title event makes the most sense, although it may not have as much coverage as an event on a holiday, involving a chance-of-a-lifetime public relations segment, or attended by glitterati. Dru of Id (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep- Its not going to be redundant once everything is merged also this ensures NOTHING is missing if a PPV is deleted for notability

Paul "The Wall" (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Once everything is merged", this article will be MORE redundant. Unless, of course, you are suggesting you intend to merge then delete standalone articles. Will you confirm or deny this is your intention? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you've decided all of this should be merged without consensus. Do you intend to go through the 20-30 years' worth of older WWE/WWF/WCW/ECW PPVs and have them all merged into omnibuses also? – Richard BB 09:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second (third?) clarification as to the ultimate aim of Paul "The Wall", as since this AfD has begun he has proposed merging ppv articles and again redirected to the 'omnibus' page, making it diffcult to assume good faith, more so when further down this page he claimes to "have not touched ANY Wrestlemania" articles when he has, albeit in a minor capacity. BulbaThor (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, IF this article is used to SUPPLEMENT and SUMMARIZE existing content. Delete, IF disruptive mass efforts (especially by editors involved here) to redirect, merge or delete standalone PPV articles occur with the apparent intention of promoting this page (see Talk:2012 in UFC events for example). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm delete vote This presumptive conclusion (along with the ones provided by nominator) strongly suggest there is a conflict of interest here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is seems all this user wants to do is merge ever WWE PPV that has taking place in 2012 into one page which he has created without even talking about it with the PW project.--Dch eagle | ^{Thunder Up} 05:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page and keep the individual PPV pages. I'd say one notability is championship titles are almost always defended and/or change hands at PPVs. Also, WWE doesn't usually refer to the year something happened, say for instance in reference to a storyline, they usually refer to the individual event. Readers, especially pro wrestling fans, will search by event name and not so much by year. InFlamester20 (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't embrace an inclusionist philosophy, but this fellow is attempting to fold even a major pay-per-view event (Wrestlemania) into this omnibus he's created without so much as a word. Merits of a merger should at the least be discussed before initiating this change to presumptively "save" the info in the existing articles. It's also plausible that some of these shows could pass notability unto themselves case-by-case; rolling them into one without any attempt at discernment would be a premature action. Papacha (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lie I have not touched ANY Wrestlemania at all Paul "The Wall" (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't cast aspersions anywhere; you clearly have, and your preemptive "this page will be removed shortly" edit histories and redirects without discussion are worrisome. Mentioning once everything is merged in the preceding text would also lends credence to a total overhaul. Papacha (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated and I quote "but this fellow is attempting to fold even a major pay-per-view event (Wrestlemania)" That is UNTRUE. Wrestlemania will only be summarized in this article and kept separate. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a lie or even untrue if you haven't even introduced the idea 'til this point, hitherto you infered "everything (will be) merged". But this is fruitless; it does nothing for the AfD and gets neither of us anywhere. Instead of arguing semantics with me would you please address the concerns raised by InedibleHulk, among others? Papacha (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a summary/list article. That would be consonant with Wikipedia policy on summaries and lists. Existence of the summary doesn't require deletion of individual articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if this page is of any use it could just be a portal page. However if the general consensus is to still delete by all means delete it. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page has seemingly been created in anticipation of a change in policy that has yet to be even proposed, never mind discussed. This, coupled with my comments further up the page and the volume of editing by the creator in the last few days compared to his recent history, lead to the conclusion that the article may have been created to make a WP:POINT with regards to similar articles elsewhere. BulbaThor (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this comment, it's important to note that 2012 in UFC events contains far more events in a year than a WWE article would have (WWE have one PPV per month, whereas UFC often have several). Furthermore, the WWE PPVs each have more grandiose attached to them because of their fewer number, thereby warranting individual articles rather than an "omnibus", which is not the case with UFC. – Richard BB 12:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually for this articles deletion. I want to use this articles deletion to prevent it from happening in the future as well as for an example of failure to use against what is currently going on against UFC events. MtKing has nominated each and every UFC PPV for deletion and has already successfully deleted the non-PPV events. It is only a matter of time until that format makes its way over to Wrestling. If you care at all about this you should be worried and speak out against it.

Paul "The Wall" (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- If you genuinely wish to have the article deleted, it can be deleted under the G7 criteria of speedy deletion by placing ((db-author)) at the top of the article's page. Additionally, you might want to ~~strikeout~~ your earlier vote of keep and change it to delete. – Richard BB 15:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully the wrestling subject matter experts take heed to Paul the wall's warning. The current activity going on in the MMA realm is totally digusting. You have a handful of wiki-zealots with no knowledge of the subject matter totally reorganizing and redefining the importance of individual MMA events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.19.113 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This page isn't needed. Stay with the individual WWE Pay Per Views.--Mjs1991 (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a collection of information that exists in a sourced form on the individual Pay-Per-View supershow articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page is more like a directory, and is unneeded -gta jaxoxo 05:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Fred, Luke and Piggy[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Google search turns this page as the top hit (and virtually nothing else). JoelWhy? talk 20:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources at all. This article completely fails WP:NOTFILM. NJ Wine (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything indicating that the (book?) has any notability. The nominator is correct that Google pulls up next to nothing. [19]). I note, however, that the article was only created today. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ‣ I'm only getting three hits in a general Google search, much less Google News or Google Books. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ‣ Searching for just the three names together comes up with hits connected to a DeviantArt account that has been banned from that site. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, based on the plot description, this book must be awful!

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. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Mimics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research and synth, and frankenstein based on three thin news/news blog entries[20][21][22] in German. It's a meme that somebody tried to start back in 2011, and it fizzled. A good reason not to run out and create a Wikipedia article every time a news reporter makes up a new term. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question. Yes, original research and original synthesis, and apparently based on nothing more than a series of four photos misdescribed as an article, and a dead link (not at Wayback). The article is terrible (and the subject seems unremarkable). But couldn't something be derived from this and this? (Not, please, from Google's attempts at Englishing these, but instead straight from the original articles; by somebody who can read German well and is interested; I'm ruled out on both counts.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that this is one of those articles that was created in anticipation of more coverage. It was a mistake not to have deleted it the first time, generously hoping that the trend would spread. But that never happened and so these articles, one 500 words, the other 300, in whatever language, are all there is. This happens a lot with new companies that get some early buzz and then go out of business. So in the end the reason for deletion is in WP:Notability: No coverage "over a period of time".
One of the two sources even says, "Perhaps the trend is still too young to become established as a new socio-cultural art phenomenon." When even one's paltry few sources are questioning the topic's significance, it shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above comments. Basically this movement, or genre, or whatever it is supposed to be, has not become significant enough for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent sourcing and highly synthetic. This phenomenon needs to be discussed as such in reliable sources before we can have an article on it, rather than using Wikipedia as a platform for identifying and analyzing it. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. The majority of the article is OR and Synthesis (the film references are particularly eggregious), what remains hangs on sources which are (in two cases) the only articles written by the "correspondent" on those sites. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:52, 7 June 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. Even after opinions that may have been canvassed or are poorly argued are discounted, the argument that the organization is not notable enough has failed to obtain consensus. Sandstein 05:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Marxist Tendency[edit]

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

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

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

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

No independent sources verifying notability. Of 45 sources cited, 37 (82%) are from the organisation's In Defence of Marxism website (marxist.com) or from webpages that are affiliated with the organisation or its national sections meaning the article relies heavily on sources close to the subject, none of the remaining 8 sources independently verify the notablity of the IMT itself, entire sections of the article (Theory and Tactics) consist of original research. Most of the article is basically a linkfarm to websites belonging to the IMT's national affiliates. Downwoody (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Downwoody (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an international political umbrella organisation. I recently participated in an AfD about its American wing, for which no-one was able to identify any membership figures, leading members or activities (it was deleted and redirected to IMT). The IMT in general is different, being global and developed by well known theoreticians. Wikipedia needs to be politically inclusive. All that being said, I would definitely support a substantial clean-up and edit, as per the recently added clean-up tags. They seem to be blowing their opwn trumpet just a bit too hard! Sionk (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing here addresses the reasons given for deletion, in particular WP:ORG and WP:N. Deletion should be without prejudice so that if independent, verifiable sources establishing notability arise a new article can be created. Deletion has nothing to do with this group's political positions but with its notability. Downwoody (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - News coverage would have existed at the time of the IMT's creation in the early 1990's, pre-internet. However, whoever wrote (and developed) this article didn't do their homework (or make much attempt to be balanced) so, if consensus says it should be zapped, so be it. Sionk (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup page. This article is in serious need of repair because most of the references are from one website. However, the subject matter is mentioned in a number of independent sources[23],[24],[25], and thus Wikipedia's organizational notability guideline is met. NJ Wine (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the first source you cite is from Vonk which is IMT's affiliate in Holland so it's not an independent source. The second and third source, both from the same book, do not establish notability - the IMT is not actually mentioned in the body of the book but only in passing in two endnotes. Endonte 10 cites an article from the IMT's In Defence of Marxism website but says nothing about the IMT itself and if one scrolls up to endnote 10's origin in the body of the text on page 7 there's no reference to the IMT whatsoever so this source does not establish notability. The second endnote, Endnote 243, is about Youth for International Socialism and mentions the IMT in passing and if one goes up to page 88 to see what is being endnoted it's actually about a Marx and Engels quote that is quoted in a Youth for International Socialism publication and again doesn't actually say anything about the IMT let alone establish its notability so the material you have provided does nothing to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:N. Simply being mentioned in passing in the footnotes of one book is not sufficient to provide independent verification of notability. Downwoody (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominators reasons. Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:N via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Arguments of "We should cover such and such type of organization" or "It's an umbrella organization" or "It's global" smack of "I like it" and are not compelling reasons to keep it. The links provided by NJWine include a PDF from a Dutch Marxist website, which does not appear to be a reliable source, and which is certainly not independent , since they say they are affiliated with the "International Marxist Tendency." and two bare mentions or passing references in published books, inadequate to show notability. Edison (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Downwoody's research. The sources seem to be the Wikipedia equivalent of resume padding. Guy (Help!) 06:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I support the lowest of all possible bars to inclusion of articles for political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without respect to ideology. This is exactly the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there is a pretty high WP:IDONTLIKEIT factor for matters of politics, which results periodically in ill-considered nominations such as this one. Sources to follow. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's begin at the beginning. It is 100% completely irrelevant to our purposes at AfD that (allegedly) 82% of the footnotes showing relate to internally-generated sources. What we need to see is evidence that THERE EXISTS OUT THERE multiple instances of significant published coverage to indicate that a subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. The nominator himself indicates there are EIGHT footnotes already showing which do not originate from the group. That number may or may not be right, I just point it out so that we are all aware that this is not six lines close paraphrased from a company website, but is rather a long, detailed, and thickly sourced piece. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, second point, we need to be sure that we are searching for the right things. This organization is a factional continuation of the British Militant tendency, which itself originated as the Revolutionary Socialist League in the UK in 1964. One of the premiere academic sources on such things is Robert J. Alexander's International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement. (Duke University Press, 1991), which deals with the Militant Tendency on pp. 21, 28, 178, 181, 406, 465, 499, 528, 576, with a full article on pp. 488-492. This is, in short, a very, very major entity in the British radical movement. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the same general vein, one of the leading sources from the UK on contemporary Trotskyism, John Callahan's British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice (Basil Blackwell, 1984), devotes a full chapter — about 25 pages — to the Militant Tendency, the forerunner of the International Marxist Tendency. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, obviously, when two of the main sources on this general topic over 20 years old, more recent organizational evolution is not going to appear there. The point I want to make is that this is a topic of scholarly interest, with an organizational history that dates back decades, not three fat guys in a pub deciding in one night to form the UK Pretzel Party. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now the table is set. Let's see what's out there. Here is A PIECE from The Worker, the weekly of the Communist Party of Great Britain, entitled "Oil-slick divisions: International Marxist Tendency has suffered a damaging split..." This was published in issue no. 804, from Feb. 11, 2010. Carrite (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an obit of Ted Grant, one of the primary figures of the IMT, from the UK website Revolutionary History. Note that this is the site of a magazine not affiliated with the IMT or any other organization, per THIS. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of time for the day, I've put out feelers for suggestions about additional sourcing and will revisit this matter. Carrite (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wading in here and talking some sense! FYI the "Oil slick divisions" article is already cited in the article and, I agree, it's an independent, relaible, in-depth news source (though it later slides into political opinion). I'd disagree that 1980's sources about the Militant Tendency are directly relevant to the IMT, which is a later political split from them, so something different. There is already a WP article on the Militant. Sionk (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see Carrite has spent a lot of time on this however I don't find his arguments convincing for a few reasons.

1) While the Alexander book certainly establishes the notability of Militant tendency it makes no mention at all of the International Marxist Tendency or its predecessor the Committee for a Marxist International. This isn't surprising since the CMI/IMT was founded in 1992, one year after the book was published and seven years after the end of the period covered by the author. Similarly, while the 25 pages in the Callahan book on Militant Tendency argue for the notability of that organization it establishes nothing in regards to the IMT, not surprising since this book was published in 1985. Notability is not inherited, just like the child of a notable person isn't automatically notable, a split-off from a notable organization is not automatically notable. If the IMT was notable in and of itself you'd be able to cite a book that has a chapter on the IMT rather than reach back 20 or 30 years for books on one of its predecessors. If this were an AFD on Militant Tendency your three or four initial posts would be relevant. As it is they aren't. By your argument because the Fourth International was notable then every organisation or grouplet that can claim a lineage back to it is also notable, even if they are just "three fat guys in a pub." Political groups in general and Trotskyist groups in particular are notorious for splits upon splits upon splits so we need more to establish notability than ancestry. The group has to be notable on its own.

2) Similarly, there is no Midas principle to notability. Just because Ted Grant was notable does not mean every group he belonged to is also notable. Why was Ted Grant notable? Well the lead of the obituary you cite refers to him as "the founder of the Militant Tendency" - the IMT is only mentioned fleetingly. Also, while the article appears on the Revolutionary History website it is actually taken from the World Socialist Web Site operated by a rival organisation and does not meet the criteria for reliable sources see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited," so your source does not meet the criteria of being a "reliable third party publication". The same applies to your citation from "The Worker" which does not meet the criteria required of a reliable third party source and I expect the IMT itself would say the CPGB is not a reliable source.

3) Accordingly, you have not shown the existence, in regards to the International Marxist Tendency, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is required by WP:N to establish notability. The article fails the test. Downwoody (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is worth noting that political internationals are hardly ever mentioned by the media. This is true for organizations with national parties in the European Parliament. A search of Google News reveals only 5 mentions each for either the Socialist International and the Party of the European Left. I don't think the significance of these organizations is in doubt. DJ Silverfish (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve the page. It cannot be seriously put in doubt that this organisation exists and is noticeable in its domain; it is even included in the Template:Trotskyism and nobody has suggested to remove it, plus the page exists in 9 other languages (including Japanese and this group has no affiliate groups in Japan). The page needs to be improved with extra references, sure - but this had to be done before starting the AfD procedure. Please check Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_an_article.28s.29_for_deletion. Since googling "International Marxist Tendency" provides about 46,000 links I cannot believe that a 120-edit user like the nominator did not know how to gather enough reliable third-party sources to improve the article before proposing its deletion. We are not here to delete any proof of the existence of organisations we don't like, we are here to give a NPOV and accurate depiction of their true features. Please let's not start a voting procedure that would just trigger a nonsensical edit war between rival political groups. --MauroVan (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example of the IMT being mentioned not on obscure far-left websites but on the BBC website: [26] --MauroVan (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mere existence and being "noticeable in its domain" is very far below the Wikipedia notability standard stated in WP:ORG. Being included in a Wikipedia template, or having articles in other Wikipedias has no bearing on whether it is notable by the standards of this Wikipedia. Some number of results from a Google search is irrelevant to our notability guideline. "Mentions" and "passing references" are not "significant coverage.:. The BBC blog makes a passing reference to the International Marxist Tendency, then talks some about the individual said to be head of it. There is no significant coverage of the organization in the blog. Edison (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was not my main point. My main point is that the nominator has not followed the procedure, because the sources are easy to find. BTW, this discussion is seriously biased if after any link provided the reply is always "Oh yes but this is not enough". There are literally hundreds of third-party, reliable sources talking about the IMT, what an online encyclopedia has to do is not to find one source that tells everything about the subject and paste its content on the page, the mission of Wikipedia is to gather information and display them in an organised, reliable, NPOV, understandable and extensive way. --MauroVan (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep See: WP:NGO: the organization is international in scope and information can be confirmed by multiple sources. Also, a lot of information on minor left-wing groups does not appear in Google books and scholar, but can be found in libraries. 00:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  - Comment according to WP:NGO:

"Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

While the first criteria is met, the second is not and since 'both criteria have to be met the IMT article fails WP:NGO. Downwoody (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Solely as being sufficiently notable per telegraph.co.uk and other RS newspapers, and in sufficient book mentions not from marxist.com or the like. Removing SPS sources from the article still means there are RS sources remaining <g>. Collect (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What RS newspapers? please provide links. Which book mentions? If you're repeating the two Carrite mentioned then please address my response above as those are passing mentions in footnotes only and not substantial. Downwoody (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a socialist with a lot of familiarity with Trotskyist groupings I must confess that I find this discussion truely bizarre. To anyone with any knowledge of the international Trostkyist movement the CWI and IMT are very well known groupings and it seems absolutely peculiar that anyone would argue otherwise. I understand I'm not appealing to the precise notability criteria that Wikipedia uses - instead I'm appealing to common-sense! Of course for those who have no knowledge of the ins and outs of the Trotskyist movement this is all very obscure - but that is no reason for Wikipedia not to have coverage. It is complained that references independent of the IMT are themselves from Far Left sources. Well that is hardly surprising and the same could be said of any specialist field. For example I'm interested in history and topography and I recently added an article on John Swete. That article is sourced with numerous references but if I had to exclude all references from people involved in the same obscure field (topography relating to the county of Devon) the article would also fail the rediculous criteria being demanded here. I added the John Swete article because I felt it was an omission from that field. I would do the same for the IMT if there was no article on it. I'm sure that the IMT piece can be greatly improved but it shouldn't be removed for essentially politically motivated reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DartmoorDave (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please provide evidence other than hearsay or your personal knowledge that this group is "very well known". If this is true it shouldn't be a problem listing Reliable Sources that say this. You refer to sources already in the article but those are almost all self-references by the IMT or otherwise not reliable. Downwoody (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The history of the Trotskyist movement is full of splits. It takes time for academic works on the subject matter to be published and to my knowledge there are no serious studies of the Trotskyist movement published in the last 5 years. Although as far as I can tell that probably wouldn't help you because they are more than likely to be authored by "communists". There are already sources cited but you appear not to like sources from "reds". I might add if you know so little of the subject that you think this entry should be deleted then you are probably out of your depth and should stick to a subject matter you know something about. PS. I'm not, nor have I ever been, a member of the IMT or the CWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DartmoorDave (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm sorry that you feel the need to resort to personal abuse. I suspect that's because you are unable to justify retention of the article using Wikipedia's policies. There is no problem with sources who are "Communists" and indeed there are a number of Marxists who have written scholarly books or journal articles published by credible publishing houses or peer reviewed journals. That no one has been able to produce independent reliable sources that establish notability by referencing the group with anything but a passing reference indicates that it fails the test for notability established by WP:NGO, WP:ORG and WP:N notwithstanding the protestations of the group's members. If it takes time for academic works to be published on the subject and no academic works have yet been published that give the IMT anything more than a passing mention then obviously including an article about them here is premature but the fact that the IMT has not been noticed by Reliable Sources does not justify using self-sourcing and questionable sources to establish notability. Downwoody (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of the whole IMT cannot be verified by taking it only as a whole, for a number of reasons. First, it's only been known as the International Marxist Tendency since 2006, having been the Committee for a Marxist International before that. Second, and more importantly, it's composed of a number of national sections, so a good deal of the time its coverage is not through the whole international. For instance, the Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political organizations discusses Socialist Appeal, the British section, as opposed to the whole group. This article from Spartacist Canada discusses Fightback, the Canadian section, in some detail. It requires a serious misunderstanding of Trotskyist internationals to dismiss, as Downwoody does above, references to its constituent parts as not showing the notability of the larger group that they are a part of. The IMT certainly became notable in late 2010 when Alan Woods was described as a political advisor to Hugo Chavez (1,2, 3). Woods is the central leader of the IMT and it is through his activity as leader of this group that he has become a public figure. The article needs some serious cleanup but that is not an argument for non-notability. Cadriel (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - bear in mind organisations do not inherit notability from one another on Wikipedia. There already exist Wikipedia articles on many of the national member groups of IMT and they should each be judged on their own merit. This AfD is discussing the notability of IMT/CMI. The CMI seems to have resulted from a minority split from the Militant in 1992, therefore is not the same organisation (the Militant continued as the Socialist Party). Sionk (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, I don't think the IMT is notable because of Militant or the CWI, whose history I am well familiar with. However, I think that the specific case of sections of a political international are different, such as in the case of the IMT where any member of Fightback, Socialist Appeal or any of the other sections would tell you that they are members of the IMT. There is no difference between "Fightback" and "the IMT in Canada." Therefore to say that the part could be notable but not the whole seems to me to be splitting hairs. In the case of Alan Woods, the IMT is not discussed in detail but it is his actions as the head of the IMT that made multiple news sources. These are cases where establishing notability means taking a nuanced view of the type of organization we are talking about. Cadriel (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So basically you state "ILIKEIT," so it should be kept despite grossly failing WP:ORG, while relying on "inherited notability." Sorry, that doesn't work here. Take your "Nuanced view" elsewhere. Edison (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cadriel got the point IMHO. An International is hardly referred to as such in any national press, because the name of the national section is used as a placeholder for the whole group. In a sense, this is an improper replacement when the object being discussed is the general political line of such organisation, because that political line derives from the international organisation and not from the local section. Similar improper naming occurs when the name of the journal is used instead of the official name of the group. In those cases what Wikipedia does is using the proper, official name instead of following common usage. We have a duty to clarify through rational organisation of information, and not just to record by compiling. Example: International Working Union of Socialist Parties. --MauroVan (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who said anything about failing against any policy? I am clarifying that you cannot appropriately separate the international from its national sections in deciding notability. Functionally there is no difference between saying "Fightback" and saying "the International Marxist Tendency in Canada" and it is improper to use WP:NOTINHERITED to try and create one. Cadriel (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep...for the reasons outlined by Cadriel above. The IMT's history, its origins in the UK Labor Party and the particular strand of politics pursued by the group and its national sections are ipso facto notable. DJ Silverfish (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Your comments about the "history," the "origin," the:"strand" and the "national sections" abysmally fail the relevant Wikipedia notability guideline WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I can't see any reason for this article to be removed, as other users have commented. If it were deleted, articles about almost every other trotskyist international (CWI, IST, etc) would also have to go, as they have even poorer citations and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.249.30 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The existence of other articles which do not demonstrate satisfaction of WP:ORG is not a valid reason to keep this one. Edison (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Basically once you get organizations formed after 1985 (the end of Robert Alexander's International Trotskyism, a massive reference work on the Trotskyist movement published by a university press) 99% of the references to Trotskyist organizations are in the publicatiosn of other such organizations. In the case of the IMT there are multiple independent sources. The 2010 controversy with Alan Woods as leader of the IMT clearly establishes notability, and this discussion should be closed. Cadriel (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is a mention of the IMT, by its own name, in the Financial Times: [Chávez gestures mask rising LatAm clout] This is a separate, independent, reliable source and goes further to establish notability of the IMT. The IMT's views are referenced in [Censored 2011], a book about stories that were neglected in the mainstream press. The IMT is clearly notable, and the AfD proposal is primarily a complaint about the quality of the article, not establishing substantial notability problems. Cadriel (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "'Comment Such "mentions" or "passing references" are not always "significant coverage." Edison (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The most trivial source review demonstrates notability. Should never have been nominated. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin It's come to my attention that this AFD has been the subject of canvassing via a yahoo group called "leftist trainspotters". The link that has been sent to me is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/leftist_trainspotters/message/121270 but I think it only works if you belong to the group. Downwoody (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The IMT is a major Trotskyist organization with sections around the world. It is referenced by other Trotskyist groups and the press in general. It is not necessary to site sources that the IMT 'exists', which is really what's being asked here. This purging of wiki has got to stop.DwaltersMIA (talk) 02:16, 7 June 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom station[edit]

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

No sources, one external site that I don't know why it is there anyways, seems to be WP:OR, and the article has pretty much no chance of improvement(s) unless someone is willing to. JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found multiple other sources, [27], [28], including governmental historical websites, which would rule out OR. I removed some very-close paraphrasing and added more information/clearer terms. Notability is evidenced in the sources, and while this article needs work, deletion is not the way to go. Acebulf (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Phantom radio station for clarity's sake. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and be sure to add those sources to the article to keep this from cropping up in the future. - Dravecky (talk) 04:47, 1 June 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 Super Mario-kun. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Mario-kun chapters[edit]

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

I feel this falls cleanly into the realm of unnessecary lists of information. I do not think listing the individual chapters just for the sake of listing them to be beneficial to the encyclopdia; this is basically just copying the directory found on the source site without any additional information; a simple link to the chapter list in the manga's main article is more than sufficient. An IP editor contested the PROD without giving any reason. Salvidrim! 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ but cleanup. While the IP editor contested it without a reason, this list is informative. This nomination is not a substitute for cleanup. Needs renaming and restructuring, as Mariowiki.com does a better job than this. --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should be "volumes", not "chapters", by the way. Probably summarize the whole volume to replace list of chapters? --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying this article should be "fixed" or cleaned up, I am saying I see no reason for this list of trivial information to exist. I am well aware of the oft-repeated maxim "AfD is not cleanup", but I do not think the issue here is the format or the contents of the article, but its existence. I will however agree with you that such material is perfectly suitable, and even beneficial, to MarioWiki. I consider this "List of chapters" (or volumes, or whichever) to be akin to a "List of Minigames" in an article about one of the Mario Party games; the subject itself is notable but listing a directory of information like this seems unnessecary and superfluous, especially when such content is not especially useful to the reader as it is not discussed in any article, at all. Salvidrim! 02:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. I wish there is another way to have this article keep, but even adding the plot won't matter that much, unless real-world commentary is needed. Seriously, the manga is Japanese, and reviews about them may be in Japanese, as well. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its a small article is the issue here, notability cant reflect onto a chapter list. I think more needs to be improved on the main article before another article can be made of the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - Turns out there is an article Super Mario-kun however it is currently a stub, have reliable sources been checked for this list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Super Mario-kun article; I've worked on it; the fact the subject is notable doesn't necessarily mean that a list of all of its chapters/volumes is needed or beneficial. Salvidrim! 17:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my opinion then, I am going with Delete based on it's notability issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, trivial list. I agree with everything Salvidrim is saying, this is the type of thing that would belong at mariowiki at best, not here. Beyond that, there's very little of value here for the average english reader, two thirds of it is in Japanese, and the remaining third are direct english translations that are broken and read very awkwardly. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perfectly vaild WP:SPINOUT per WP:MOS-AM, widely used and long-recognized. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have you really read over WP:SPINOUT? That's more applicable to splitting up long articles. (You'll note that in the opening sententence of the link you supplied, it says "When you split a section from a long article into an independent article...") Have you checked the parent article at Super Mario-kun? It's is not long by any stretch of the imagination. I feel more like WP:CONTENTFORK (which are frowned upon), if anything would be more applicable here. (A relatively trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Since the parent article's so short anyway (a stub), I think the best thing to do is not a total deletion, but rather the merging of the list (table) into the parent article. It's not like the article for Super Mario-kun is so long that the chapters list needs to be split off. Of course, the parent article needs to be improved first and expanded. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think a merge of unferenced material into the main article is a good idea. There are two references at the top of the article but they are borrowed from the main page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Super Mario-kun. It's not like the article is that long anyway, and total deletion would not be necessary in this case, especially as it lists the chapters. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. A list of chapters in a continuing manga doesn't make for good encyclopedic content. If it doesn't exist at mariowiki it probably should. If it does exist then WP:NOTMIRROR--Joshuaism (talk) 20:04, 7 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Përparim Kalo[edit]

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

Recently created biography of an Albanian lawyer, written by an obvious COI single-purpose account. Unsourced except for one minor point. No sign of significant independent media coverage that would establish notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. -- Dewritech (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After searching, found this, which seems to just fall short of significant coverage: "Albania mania." The Lawyer Magazine. Didn't find any other coverage in reliable sources. At this time the topic appears to fail Wikipedia's WP:BASIC criteria within Wikipedia's Notability guideline for people. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Northamerica1000. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Titima[edit]

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

Article is about a goalkeeper who plays in the Zambian league, and I have only been able to find the most routine coverage of him (single mentions in match reports, squad listings, etc). There is no evidence that this article passes the general notability guideline nor that it passes NSPORTS since Titima has only been selected as a reserve goalkeeper for the Zambia national team. Proposed deletion was contested by the article's creator without explanation. Jogurney (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Being called up to an international tournament, but not playing, does not infer notability, as consensus at this AfD established. Giant Snowman 19:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Cyrus35334 (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Article can be created later on when/if the player plays and becomes notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:03, 5 June 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 Sparrow (2010 film). Redirects are cheap. I have deleted the history, though. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Greenhough[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Ridernyc (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Keep~~ - This nomination comes one minute after the previous nomination by this editor. Not the slightest indication that WP:BEFORE is being followed. No substantive rationale for deletion presented. This is an assembly-line set of nominations with no case being made and this is very rapidly becoming disruptive of the AfD process. Please stop now. Carrite (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before was followed. I have actually been checking all these articles today and suspect major conflict of interest and puppetry going with these pages. The movie and none of the actors in them appear to pass notability and many of the articles seem to be created by users with similar editing styles and patterns, some of whom have been blocked from editing. If have a real reason why the article should be kept you are welcome to comment. Ridernyc (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to suggest he has had a career significant enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Articles relating to the film Sparrow have been the subject of COI promotional editing and sockpuppetry for some time. --Michig (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect for now per WP:NYA to Sparrow (2010 film), the one arguably notable article in which this actor can at least be sourced and mentioned. Current article is poorly sourced and much lacks proper verifiability, making it a problematic WP:BLP. We can at least send readers to the one place where he merits a mention, and alow it back only when WP:ENT or WP:GNG are soundly met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I have discounted the argument that nomination for the Ursa Minor Award confers notability. Even if it is accepted that the award is notable, no sources discussing the nomination are presented. This leaves only a single review to establish notability. WP:WEB requires that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Multiple means more than one. Spinning Spark 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endtown[edit]

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

All sources are primary or unreliable; no secondary sourcing found anywhere. Prod removed without comment by first-time editor. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification please. Since this article is about a comic strip, what other relevant source of information on it could there be besides the comic strip itself? Mediatech492 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One or more persons with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy who have written about the comic, of course. We call these reliable sources. In contrast, pseudonymous Wikipedia editors performing their own analyses directly into Wikipedia (without, obviously, any fact checking or peer review, since Wikipedia has no such mechanisms) where such analyses have not already been published outwith Wikipedia, is original research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a "newbie" I don't wish to be overly blunt, but it appears at first glance that the primary motivation behind this pending deletion is a desire to brand articles about webcomics as "unsuitable" for inclusion in Wikipedia. If this is indeed the case, a simple statement of that intent would be infinitely preferrable to the high sounding doubletalk about the sourcing of the information presented. The information provided is easily verified by simply consulting the comic archives. As one who has read the entire collection I can attest to the accuracy of the descriptions contained in the article. I am unsure what weight my endorsement carries in this forum, but I present it for whatever impact it may have.Mengle01 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check xkcd or Penny Arcade (webcomic) for examples of how to write a better article on a web comic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webcomics shows that we are not running a vendetta against webcomics: many webcomics have detailed articles with lots of references. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of webcomics and therefore it must have criteria to say which comics it should have articles on, and WP:N contains our criteria, which is coverage in multiple independent sources. The same requirements apply to books, movies, songs, video games, and other cultural products. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it upon my self to edit the page to get rid of some of the intricate detail and tighten up the format a bit. I have also included links to reviews and the fact that Endtown has been nominated for the Ursa Minor award for 2012 in it's category. I do hope these changes help to bring the Endtown entry into compliance with Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanawolf (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) :*[reply]

Sorry, that's not how the awards work. The Recommended Anthropomorphics List includes the following note: "Recommendation of items to this list does not constitute nomination for the awards, nor is it a requirement for nomination! Nomination may not be done until the end of 2012". It would take more than a single nomination to qualify for notability anyway, but right now it doesn't even have that. Veled (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous entry is in error. Endtown has been nominated for the 2011 Ursa Major award, not 2012. Mengle01Mengle01 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get picky over a simple typo and look at the fact instead. Endtown HAS been nominated for an Ursa Major award during this current year. Yes, it is the 2011 award but it has not yet been awarded.
Question. Endtown is published on GoComics, which implies there is some editorial oversight to include the comic on the website. Is this enough to provide notability in and of itself? Veled (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited. See WP:INHERITED. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endtown has been in the top 50 on the TopWebComics voting site for 3 consecutive months. Quite an achievment for a story without graphic sex or voting incentives. This alone should show a signifigant audience and the potential for a wide Wikipedia audience. The entry should stay. 24.96.72.13 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)jlbickley[reply]
Delete - Endtown fan here. Putting on my Wikipedian shoes, the comic doesn't appear notable to me — a quick Google search reveals that it's referenced mostly by primary sources, plus webcomic directories and such. Accelerometer ^T / _C 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It is nominated for an award of questionable notability, as one of 17 nominees in the category. Maybe this comic will become notable in the future, so I would not rule out a future article when the coverage is there. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Logical Cowboy. Being nominated for an unnotable award does not help confer notability, and the only other source is one review. Multiple reliable sources are required to satisfy the GNG, and I'm not finding any others. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 29 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. The Blogcritics review republished by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer online newspaper is at best the only coverage in a reliable source, but encyclopedia articles require multiple reliable sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. One citation clearly contributing to notability, one award nomination of indeterminate weight; I'm willing to say it'll probably garner more commentary sooner or later and we may as well leave it, mostly per WP:NOTPAPER. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep stuff in hopes that it might be notable later. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am drawing a distinction between "hope" and "reasonable presumption". A needless deletion contributes nothing to the encyclopedia but meaningless busywork. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either the work becomes notable or it doesn't. Tell me where the "busywork" is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting and recreating it, of course. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing should ever be deleted, because it'd just be such a hassle to re-create it if it does become notable. That's what WP:REFUND is for, and I've found it to be very fast and hassle-free. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, and that's just a silly straw man. I think you're mistaking me for Dream Focus. :) I wouldn't argue this if the article weren't hovering on the threshold. And sure, WP:REFUND works fine. I didn't say it was a lot of meaningless busywork. And, well, it's not like I registered anything beyond a weak keep, or as if there's any clear or present danger of my argument prevailing. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 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) 23:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Raj Pushpakaran[edit]

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

Biological researcher of no particular notability. Inclusion in Marquis Who's Who cannot be taken as an indication of notability, as the nomination and acceptance process appears to be not particularly rigorous.[29] The Bharat Jyoti Award, granted by the India International Friendship Society, is impossible to verify or assess, as the IIFS does not publish lists of its winners (see the IIFS article, and their website) -- for all we know, they're handing these things out like candy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject seems reasonably well published. The acceptance process at Wikipedia must be less rigorous than the Marquis Who's Who. Anyone that has a better handle on that sort of thing should weigh in on this debate. Stormbay (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Reasonably well published" seems a bit subjective. The subject has been co-author on five papers, but lead author on only one. This is a fairly typical (i.e. run of the mill) doctoral and post-doc publishing career. And yes, given the information in the Forbes article about Marquis Who's Who, I'd say that Wikipedia's guidelines of notability are considerably more stringent. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough publications and citations to satisfy WP:PROF and no evidence of satisfying any other criteria for notability. Salih (talk) 17:29, 22 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails to meet WP:PROF. Wiki is not an advertisement platform. --Bharathiya 03:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I've been convinced that the published body of work does not convey sufficient importance to the subject. (see my comment above). Stormbay (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Persistent IP vandalism on this page attempting to subvert the AFD process leads me to conclude that the author of the article (editing as an IP) has no intention of meeting Wikipedia standards, but rather every intention of subverting those standards. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- 202.124.73.97 (talk) 09:41, 4 June 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) 23:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamenka River (Kama basin)[edit]

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

The river is missing. The river was not found on the most accurate maps of 1:25,000. See also Talk:Kamenka River (Kama basin)#Speedy Deletion nomination and discussion in the Russian Wikipedia Insider (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am a Russian speaker (as well as he is), and the arguments are compelling. Kamenka is a pretty common name for a river in Russia, and this one is not on the maps and not in the State Register.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia's geography notability guideline states the following: "Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc. The amount of sources and notability of the place are still important, however." However, despite extensive searching, I cannot find this river on Google Maps, and thus this appears not to be a named feature. I taking a guess that Kamenka River is a local nickname for this very small (0.9 km) river. If anyone can locate this river on any map, I am willing to change my vote. NJ Wine (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", but when official maps (I'm guessing these are topographic maps that use a scale of 1 metre for every 25 kilometres) in the area of the alleged river show no sign of its existence, that's overwhelmingly strong evidence of absence. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 1 June 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. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Sewell[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is a role in a film of questionable notability. This is another in a long line of self promotion articles created by a long line of sockpuppets. Ridernyc (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confirmed that creator was a sock, and the article certainly does sound promotional ("she worked as a photographic model, most notably gracing French Vogue"). Google News didn't turn up anything. [30] ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations do not provide useful coverage of topic, so fail to demonstrate notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ispatika[edit]

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

Unsourced stub created by a SPA editor. No independent references, apparently not listed in any database (let alone selective ones). No homepage to be found through Google. Upon request, the article creator provided a link, but it is dead. Google search turns up one or two mentions on the home pages of some academics mentioning that they are a member of the editorial board of this journal. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:GNG and WP:NJournals, as outlined in the nomination. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even passing verifiability looks difficult for this one, as there are no third-party sources and the home page link given in the article is dead. WP:NJournals looks farther out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not detectable by non-heroic means. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I have not accepted that fn#1 is not a reliable source - it is the official site of a regional government. However, it gives no in-depth coverage, merely naming the subject, hence is proof of existence, not proof of notability. Spinning Spark 21:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nilkanthrao Kalyani[edit]

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

Bharathiya 16:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: No reason giving by nominator. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the original opener of the AfD has not provided a rationale, I will: there is no evidence of this person's notability. 2 of the sources provided are not independent (they're the foundation he started and the group he runs). The third (#1 in the article) is not a reliable source. As such, with no independent references, there is no indication that this person meets the notability guidelines for people. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1) The person's notability has not been established. 2) There is not even one independent, reliable third party source which says he is notable. 3)There is not even a single point or source which can answer "why the person should be on wiki?". So the nomination for deletion as per wiki policy. Thanks. §§bharathiya (talk) Bharathiya 07:42, 3 June 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. People seem fairly divided between keep, delete, and some variant on rename/merge. There's certainly no consensus to delete; I would suggest participants reframe the conversation by having a dedicated conversation on whether merging would be an appropriate outcome. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twitter users and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians[edit]

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

Not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. More like a directory. And worst of all, not referenced with sources to show why there should be a list of Twitter users in an encyclopedia article. There are so many Twitter users out there that conceivably, such a list, even if it is limited to those who have Wikipedia articles, could reach thousands, possibly millions. If just a few famous people are notable for using Twitter, this could be written about in the main Twitter article. Dew Kane (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract the "possibly millions" statement. Non-notable members of a list can be removed with normal editing. See below. Anarchangel (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note See WP:N, WP:SPLIT, WP:DEL#CONTENT, WP:EDIT, WP:LIKELYVIOLATION.
- No list and no article will ever be in danger of too much content. That is what the edit button is for WP:EDIT, WP:DEL#CONTENT.
- There is a fundamental misunderstanding by the voters here about the nature of Wikipedia titles. No title ever means, "everything about this subject"; they always mean, everything WP:N Notable about this subject. Hence, WP:LISTNAME says, "Words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. should not be included in the title of a list article." The default for all articles is that the subject or subjects is/are notable, so notable in the title is not necessary.
- "X celebrity on Twitter" articles are NOT "established"; no article is "safe" from deletion in any case, but as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna on Twitter shows, consensus on this issue has yet to be established.
- It is never a valid deletion argument to say that an article might be at some future time in violation of WP rules WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. This is a slippery slope logical fallacy. Anarchangel (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is this article any more absurd than Lady Gaga on Twitter, Justin Bieber on Twitter, Rihanna on Twitter, or Barack Obama on Twitter? Without formally !voting yet, I would maintain that this list, a navigational aid, is equally worthy of inclusion (or deletion) as the rest of these articles. It would seem more proper to nominate them all as a class, rather than single out a navigational aid. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that other crap exists and all that, but we've had List of LiveJournal users for quite some time. I'm not terribly attached to this article, although one could make a reasonable argument that it meets our list criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless, of course, it was made obsolete by the deletion of all the linked articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- !voting Keep per Blofeld et al. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, such lists are their own rationale. At least a couple of the entries have articles specifically on the Twitter accounts (as ridiculous as it is to have articles on peoples' Twitter accounts): it's not a list of Twitter users, it's a list of articles about the Twitter use by people (perhaps the original title captured that better). Note also the existence of Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts--if the one goes, so should the other. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I'd rather the tables were expanded to contain note summaries rather than having individual articles on them all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Utterly brilliant. Then I would support keeping this, if we discard the rest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On condition that the existing articles are merged. I'd rename it List of most popular Twitter users.. Do I endorse this sort of content, absolutely not. But it would be the lesser of two evils and I suspect this is exactly what my evil fellow doctor is thinking.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed opinion I say Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "List of most popular" means some top 20-50? And we measure popularity by number of followers? Is that the plan? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of Twitter users with over 5 million followers..?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this can be relevant for an encyclopedia. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not, but its the lesser of two evils. Deleting it doesn't solve the problem we have with the others..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting should solve the problem. Why do we have to choose of the two? Kill all evils. Facebook has started verifying user now. Will we make "List of Facebook users" then based on how many subscribers they have? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Corralling problems are often more effective, as it provides a singular outlet for this fluff rather than a variety of articles that are individually even less notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The list stays only if the current column of notes stays is what you say. Or else it would just be a collection of links and we dont keep mere collections of internal links. The content in the notes column can be (and should be and probably is) included in popularity section of individual biographies. That makes more sense. Here its just a spicy gossip column where one can see which celebrity is "awesome". And frankly, most of the content would be deleted for being mere trivial. "The black and white image features Rihanna crouching against a wall and wearing punk clothes." Plus we shouldn't be surprised if this attracts SPAs to glorify their demigods. Also, if the article actually is about how Twitter is used by celebrities, it should go under a section "In celebrity circle" in Twitter usage. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The addition of that content is what changed my mind, which is why I called it utterly brilliant. Before that, it had no sources. A name change might be in order, but it won't be the first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay! So adding the notes column has added value to the table. Thats correct. But what does the over all table have value in it? The enteries in it, i.e. the Twitter accounts are themselves not notable. They are talked about because their owners are notable. This information should hence belong to the respective biographies. If at all these tweets are a subject of study and commented upon by some parties, they would go in the article Twitter usage, as Twitter would then be the main subject. Do we keep "List of celebrities' pet animals" or "List of celebrities' bank accounts"? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above comment and on Dr. Blofeld's conditions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WTF??? Keep with the condition that other articles not under discussion be merged here???? I repeat WTF??? List of top 10 or top 25 Twitter users would be manageable. Top 100 would even be O.K. How can you make conditional keeps about articles not under consideration. I don't know who will keep it up to date if there is a lot of numerical content. We need to discuss the format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a bunch of odd conditions yourself. There is no need to limit to a certain number for reasons of manageability. The list is only limited by how many articles you and yours manage to produce on this "topic". BTW, I hope your first WTF was not directed at the nominator--or maybe that's your way of saying "Speedy keep" (but there is nothing out of line about this nomination). Drmies (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - HOLY WTF?? Now we are trying to by acclamation conditionally keep things if we merge articles that are nominated at WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony, you are aware that the closing admin is free to ignore any conditions or comments, right? AFD isn't a binding contract, and conditions simply mean that an editor reserves the right to nominate the article themselves if the conditions aren't met, and vote in a different manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That an article is nominated for GA means, as you well know, nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies, @TonyTheTiger: Justin Bieber on Twitter is not nominated for deletion. Whether or not this article is deleted, it has zero impact on the Bieber article. It's status at GA or not is irrelevant to this AFD. Notability is not inherited. --LauraHale (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIR. I am disappointed by the number of folks using this discussion as an excuse for all sorts of "pointy" behavior. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. Pointy behavior might have predated this discussion, but this discussion is actually constructive, in my opinion, and a valid alternative that honors WP:PRESERVE and addresses the shortcomings of a number of articles, while staying within the letter of policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be the equivalent of having a list of facebook users. It's simply too big. An argument COULD be made for a list of people famous only because of twitter, but even that should be a category, not a list. Jeancey (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An encyclopedia doesn't comment on social network activity. Lucasoutloud (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Says who? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lucasoutloud, if you believe that, then you have half a dozen article to put up at AfD. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps rename/repurpose The topic as it currently stands, "List of Twitter users", is far too broad for an encyclopedic entry. "List of most followed Twitter users", or some similar alternative, is a good topic in theory, but the effort needed to constantly update and patrol it for accuracy would probably be beyond our capacity. I'd be willing to rename/repurpose this list to the latter title if I had evidence that the criteria for inclusion wouldn't be volatile. Them From Space 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although renaming after determining a clearly defined a scope is certainly a good idea (I had expanded it to the top 10, including AK at 18, as his account had an article). I think that maintaining the ranking on up to 20 users would be manageable. I had intended to include number of followers, but thought that would be a nightmare to maintain, and simple rankings would be easier, as that information is readily available and probably doesn't change that frequently. The list gives context to the existing @XXXXXX accounts that have articles, to show where they rank compared to each other.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposing to have a list of Top 20 Twitter accounts also means proposal of having Top 20 Facebook accounts, Top 20 Blogspot accounts, Top 20 Yahoo! Communities, etc. Then we will also have List of top 20 Most liked Youtube videos, List of top 20 most disliked youtube videos, List of top 20 most commented Youtube videos, List of most shared links on facebook, wow! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't. I didn't suggest that we should turn this into a top 20 list, I said that a top 20 list would be manageable (i.e. not difficult to maintain). I also said that having a list in some for makes navigation and comparison of the articles about Twitter accounts easier (regardless of if you or I they should be here or not, it looks like they are here to stay in some form). I also said that there should be a clearly defined scope for the article, of which the top 20 is an option. Probably not the best option, but still an option. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't make lists for ease of navigation unless they are basic topics where the structure of the subject is made clear... something which gives outline of the whole subject; e.g. Outline of literature. This is not the case here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - But there is scope here. No, it may not be the clearest atm (do we put notable accounts? top accounts? only accounts with articles? etc.) but we have the general concept and at this point that alone is not a valid reason to delete the article because of other policies. WP:NOTDIR says that "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject", and so therefore lists function as our own directory system. WP:NOTDUP says that lists and categories are generally complementary, and since we have Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts I don't see how List of Twitter users is wrong. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A change of scope may be necessary, but its doable. As visible in several of the twitter feeds with articles, there can be quite a bit of commentary on individual feeds. Personally, I'd rather have something like List of Twitter accounts — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is notable. Article needs improvement and possible name change but in this case, it deserves an article of its own, especially given the media coverage that explicitly compares different people and different accounts. Oppose out of process conditional merge proposals. If people want to merge other articles in, then this article will need to survive an AfD and then merge proposals can be put on those talk pages for those articles. Realistically though, I doubt that can happen because Justin Bieber on Twitter has so much information that WP:UNDUE would happen if the text was moved over. --LauraHale (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Laura, you may be confused. It was never proposed that this list be merged. As for Bieber, that's incorrect: it has been proven to you by a few editors that that article could easily be condensed--but no one is discussing a merge here. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As use of Twitter reaches near-universality, I look forward to new historical articles such as List of people who text, List of e-mail users, List of cell phone users, List of telephone users and List of automobile drivers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the existence of So-and-so on Twitter articles represents recentism and that those articles tend to be filled with trivia of no lasting significance. In other words, they don't belong in an encyclopedia. While some tweaking of the name and scope of this list might be needed, a merger of selected information from those Twitter account articles could be useful. I do not advocate copying the sum total of those articles here, an act which would indeed be ridiculous. LadyofShalott 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitter has a Twitter account--does that not belong? ;) Drmies (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously unfinished article; I think this could possibly work well. With all the Blah on Twitter accounts showing up; a merge to this page would be the best way to show information that is notable, but not notable enough for a separate article. Rename to List of most popular Twitter users, or maybe List of notable Twitter users; probably the latter is better. I don't see how this is much different than List of YouTube personalities. I don't think it should be just a rank of the most followed though. Just notable accounts. — Statυs (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, however notable Twitter users would be huge if one just followed the naming convention as inclusion criteria (how many Twitter users are notable? Lots. How many accounts are notable, not so many). I think Crisco's idea (List of Twitter accounts) is more suitable. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed vote to redirect to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians; it is a much better article. Although I think that a new article shouldn't have been created, just this one updated. — Statυs (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Twitter accounts, and keep it strictly to twitter feeds/accounts which are notable enough to have articles written about them (ie there is coverage of the person/orgs' twitter feed). I would consider including periodic lists of the top 10 or 20 twitter accounts, maybe yearly, assuming that anyone is covering the stats released by twitter. I dont like the article length details attached to each name. all that material needs to be in the articles themself, with a brief mention here of, i dont know, why the feed is notable? some may be funny (steve martin and conan obrien, for instance, hope they have coverage and can get articles on their twitter accounts), some are, uh, well, celebrity and fame are, as Clive James has said, now based on a persons fame and celebrity, a recursive circle jerk o rama.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep your delete/keep vote comments to 140 characters or less. Lugnuts (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice one! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twitter is a culturally important site/medium receiving a vast amount of press interest, and a chart of leading twitter users is somewhat similar to having a chart of List of highest-grossing films, List of best-selling singles worldwide, List of best-selling books, Forbes Celebrity 100, etc. (Is a popular twitter feed any different from a popular book or film?) The list conforms to WP:L by presenting article links in a list format with additional information in a way that adds value (by permitting sorting). (Note: I'm not opposed to renaming or tightening criteria a bit.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Twitter apparently has over 140,000,000 users. Are we going to list them all? Dricherby (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have Lists of people yet it doesn't have 7 billion entries. "Notable" is always a requirement to be in any list. Seems a bit silly to even imply it would ever grow to 140m editors against all policies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lists of people is a list of lists, not a list of people. There is no List of people (it is a redirect to the aforementioned list of lists). Dricherby (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you are saying you really believe this article will (or could) grow to have 140,000,000 entries then? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure! Why not? All one has to do is tweet and pass it on. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Touché Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thurber-style. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course the article won't grow to 140,000,000 entries. But what are the inclusion criteria? Obviously, the person must be notable but all kinds of notable people use Twitter. As Beyond My Ken says above, we don't have List of cellphone users even though all kinds of notable people use cellphones. A next attempt might be to exclude people who are notable but not famous (academics, for example) and who just happen to use Twitter in the same way as ordinary people do, without being followed by large numbers of people with whom they're not personally acquainted (now define "famous", "ordinary", "large numbers" and so on). What about corporate accounts? What about pop stars who use Twitter for announcements and so on (which is essentially the same thing). Or is it just to be a list of people whose use of Twitter is itself notable (I guess Stephen Fry would count there, for example)? I realise that susceptibility to poor editing is not a reason for deletion but this is just going to descend into a quagmire of random famous people being added to the list on grounds that they have a Twitter account and, if we're lucky, a couple of citations to reliable sources that mention in passing that the person uses Twitter. I mentioned List of cellphone users; an even better and more direct comparison would be the absence of List of bloggers. Because blogs tend to be more substantive than Twitter feeds, many bloggers have become notable by frequent and reasonably in-depth media coverage (Andrew Breitbart would be the classic example); I suspect that few people are notable specifically for their use of Twitter. Dricherby (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Why no "List of cellphone users"? Because only who you call and the FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, etc know what you say on your cellphone, that's why. Anarchangel (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No we don't have list of bloggers, but we have List of blogs. As this article is only a few days old (14 hours at the time of nomination) perhaps we should define a scope of it before deleting it for lack of scope. The only reason I expanded it to include the top ten was because it seemed like a good idea at the time. I do admit I have made at least one mistake in the past (I am married after all), so we can call this number two. Trim it to accounts that have pages, by all means, per WP:WTAF, but don't delete it because there are some red links in it. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (edit conflict) I believe your last suggestion ("a list of people whose use of Twitter is itself notable") is closest to the truth. Yes, it's a navigational aid, similar to a category as laid out by WP:CLN, but the core is the few people whose Twitter activity has spawned article and RS's. An arbitrary number (top twenty followed) might be an easy guideline, but those five or six X on Twitter articles is what makes this different from List of cellphone users (if Tom Cruise's cellphone is ever a bluelink, I'll create that list myself). Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The main point being: While the article may have defects, none are fatal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reluctantly. It passes GNG and many other guidelines, while failing few, if any, decisively. It's like a 2012 version of "most read columnists" of yesteryear. Sickening, idiotic, but notable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Forgot to say keep provided the article name and lead quite strictly define the scope. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - see also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna on Twitter. LadyofShalott 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having established the precedent of "X on Twitter" articles, there's no need for this one. If a celebrity's Twitter presence isn't notable enough to stand on its own as an article, we need not mention it beyond the person's own page. At a minimum, rename to List of notable Twitter users, as a truly comprehensive list of Twitter users is neither feasible nor desirable. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of notable Twitter users like BDD said. The current title is on a level misleading. I think that that is the most disturbing thing about it. There are twitter pages that have received reliable coverage in the media. | ^help _dןǝɥ | 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the Manual of Style, at WP:LISTNAME, says to never use the word "notable" in the title. It is assumed they are notable if they are to be included in the list. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed my opinion. I think a merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians would be successful. | ^help _dןǝɥ | 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that being on Twitter is an indication of notability for the celebrity, a mention on it's popularity with celebs should be mentioned on the Twitter page. Secret ^account 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Twitter accounts, and restrict it to those which are actually notable and have articles (currently: Gaga, Bieber, Obama, Kutcher and Rihanna, though the last of those is up for deletion). Also, remove the 'Notes' section of the table, as it's basically redundant to the articles themselves. A simple list of articles is fine. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the claims that 'but we'll have to include everyone with a Twitter account!' - no we don't, and we shouldn't. Just as List of YouTube personalities doesn't include every single YouTube account, only those notable enough to have their own articles. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A list of personalities isn't the same as a list of people. Dricherby (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just seen Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, and my suggestion now is Redirect to that much better-developed article. Striking my comment above. Robofish (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People are trying so desperately to get rid of Foo on Twitter pages that they are behaving non-sensically. The Notes column in this list article is being used in a way that works against the usefullnes of the page. The notes should be like Gaga: #1 in terms of twitter followers since August 2010, Bieber: #2 in twitter followers and rival to Gaga, Britney: #1 in Twitter followers from May 2010 to August 2010, first to 5 million followers, etc. Something short and sweet that is useful. Trying to cram full articles into the notes is not useful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention, after the completion of this AfD, is to trim the notes section so it doesn't look like an article was cut and pasted into a box. While I appreciate Dr. Blofeld's efforts, I do think I can improve on them. Maybe I will get a head start on it today. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my Notes, TonyTheTiger and Colapeninsula et al, on the condition that the article does not get to be a problem in the future AND all reasonable means (such as RFC WP:Requests for Comment) are used to confront any such problems. I have no objections to renaming per se, but see no compelling suggestions here; eg, the difference between "user" and "account" is of no account. Anarchangel (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-encyclopedic. Views expressed above. Gawd! We might as well have List of people eating most number of Hamburgers. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of competitive eaters :/ LadyofShalott 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was going to look for more examples, then found List of lists of lists and my head exploded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:REQUEST List of Wikipedians whose heads exploded after reading list of lists of lists !! Dricherby (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
      - WHATEVER! Treat my vote as I-dont-like-it case if you want to. I am not giving my views on it. Call them conservative if you need to. But these all are just rubbish. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree as to Twitter articles being rubbish and do not mean to diminish your vote in any way, but this one seems the lesser of the available evils and better than individual articles. If we can't eliminate problems, we coral them. And there are some proper sources, even if I wish they didn't exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

The basic problem here, that has generated the overwhelming majority of the back-and-forth above, is the totally daft idea of having this as a list article at all, for which list inclusion criteria have to be then invented. There's a proper prose article here, waiting to get out. It was obscured by the daft choice of using a table. You can see it at Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, which I have included under the umbrella of this AFD discussion. It's also an ideal merger target for articles like Rihanna on Twitter (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the individual who had the daft idea to turn a bulleted list into table, I quite like your article (in particular the lead, which was something I had intended to add to this one), however I would advise against the addition of Rihanna (as noted in that Afd). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (maybe small merge) to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. At this point, the article seems unlikely to grow beyond the few people (celebrities and politicians) who have articles about their use of Twitter...so it seems logical to have the info about their use of Twitter in an article about the use of Twitter by celebs and politicians. We certainly don't need both articles; they are pretty redundant to each other. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 03:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just clarified, from merge to redirect (maybe small merge). Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As it stands, the name implies that it's a list of every Twitter user ever and that's just silly. But if we rename it then the name becomes similar to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and the two will basically have the same function. So, merge. CarniCat (meow) 05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nolelover/CarniCat. (Vote changed from a delete, struck through above.) --BDD (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As per Nolelover. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Change my view. Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As per Nolelover. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Now what the hell is this? We discuss deletion of this list. After this has started, many other "twitter of XYZ" go for AfD. Then someone starts a completely new article which is nothing but same stuff without table and same stuff from individual articles. Why do you wanna keep writing same and same on so many articles? This all my-twitter-account-is-awesome is also present on individual biographies. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a reasonable question. If you look at the first edit of Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, it is obvious it was a copy/paste of this article. It even included the AFD tag, which is worrisome. It would have been better if Uncle G has just worked on this article instead of copy/pasting it to create his own version of the same thing. If anything, that article is a clone of this article, and should be merged into THIS one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Poor admin who tries to close this AfD. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pah! It's not that hard. We have two articles under the umbrella of this discussion, each an alternative of the other. The choice is between deleting both and redirecting either one to the other. The number of people who changed their minds from "delete" to "merge" after I presented Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians is a good indicator of which way the wind is blowing. Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a bit dimwitted on two counts.
    First: If you look at the first edit, it's fairly obvious that it's copied and pasted from the places that the edit summary says it was copied and pasted from. Ironically, those are the very places that list of Twitter users was copied from, except that proper hyperlinkage, to conform with our copyright licence, wasn't given in the edit summary by the editor who did it there.
    Second: It's only "worrisome" if one is lazy. Everyone else will have read the explanation only a few bullet points above that it's included under the umbrella of this discussion, to stand and fall with it. After all, as I pointed out, it's the prose article that was in there waiting to get out.
    It's not even hard to work out why the separation, with a little applied thought. First: The initial edit summary is correct, whereas it isn't in list of Twitter users. Second: Kelapstick declared that xe was going to make further changes, and it was clear that those changes involved keeping the table and cutting out the prose. I went instead with keeping the prose, to provide a centralized merger target, and losing the table. I even corrected several errors in the citations along the way. ☺
    Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please stay WP:CIVIL. There is no reason to be calling people "dimwitted" or "lazy". Second, either I've misunderstood what you wrote or your criticism of another editor's failure "to conform with our copyright license" when copy-pasting material from one Wikipedia page to another is misplaced. All material uploaded to Wikipedia is available under the same license. Dricherby (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's a third choice: You haven't misunderstood the criticism, it's not mis-placed, and what was done was indeed not correct. There's a hyperlink to the page that explains what's necessary per the copyright licence, above, already given. Follow that hyperlink and read it. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uncle G, it really doesn't require that I'm lazy or dimwitted to come to my conclusion. Adding an article this late in the game for what seems is to intentionally put it at AFD isn't really such a good idea since most of the votes were already in. I would have just boldly changed the first article and moved or proposed a move instead of creating a second article. The format is better on your article, I agree with that, but the process of how we got here is a bit unnecessarily sloppy. I guess I don't see the point of doing it this way, unless it is to make some point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It does require a bit of laziness to not read a very clear explanation of what's going on only a few bullet points above where you wonder what's going on. And it is dimwitted to see an edit summary outright saying where things are copied from and then proceed to claim that they were copied from somewhere else. (Well, it's either dimwittedness or malice, an outright insult that the edit summary was dishonest. I didn't attribute it to malice.)
        I've already explained two very good reasons why it was done this way. If you've never encountered situations where we have multiple alternate drafts of an article going in divergent directions, with a choice to have one, the other, or indeed neither of them, then you've not experienced everything at Wikipedia. It's not an unusual practice. I've done it several times at AFD, and it happens fairly regularly in article talk page discussion. The important thing to remember at AFD is not to attempt to preëmpt or to bypass the deletion discussion, which is why I've always included the alternative under the umbrella of the AFD discussion of the original, just as I did in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, it's not an unusual practice butt adding the other article to the AfD after the vast majority of !votes have been cast certainly is. There's an entire section of commenters who have not seen the new article at all; do their !votes just get disregarded? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but are you trying to get this to no-consensus? This thing is so convoluted... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        This isn't a election. Votes are not "cast". This is a discussion, and good practice here is, as elsewhere in Wikipedia, to watchlist a discussion that one has participated in or simply revisit it regularly. It is, after all, a seven day long discussion. (I added the alternative a mere 48 hours into it. It wasn't even a last-minute addition from patrolling the tail end of AFD.) AFD is not, and is never meant to be, a process where a handful of drive-by voters comment within the first few hours, and then nothing happens for six and a half days; and if one doesn't participate in a discussion, rather than touch it once and nevermore, one risks missing out.
        You are welcome, if you think that it is needed, to go to the user talk pages of any of the editors who haven't yet altered their opinions and ask them simply to revisit the discussion, if you want to. That's normal AFD practice, too. But closing administrators know to take into account changes that happen during the discussion and to read earlier comments, by any people who don't watchlist and who don't pay attention to subsequent discussion, in light of that. It's not as though that's unusual, either, sad to say.
        Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Following this: I do not like what you did and have ZERO idea what to do regarding my own "vote" because this is very convoluted. I might favour a redirect from one to the other but having done that at the 11th hour, I wouldn't even begin to know how to express an opinion to say that. The addition of a second article so late just feels like a complete out of process move. Oppose: Out of process addition of second article into AfD. Is that what you correctly want me to do? Does that now count as a second "vote"?--LauraHale (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You unnecessarily read too much between the lines Uncle G. Rudely questioning my intelligence doesn't make your assumptions correct nor does it diminish the validity of my concerns. The whole way this was done is indeed "worrisome", and as others have pointed out, confusing the issue. And I don't recall questioning your faith, only your choices. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, only you thought it was worrisome. Others saw the very clear explanation, considered, and changed their minds on the issue at hand, without any expressions of worry, and without even being confused by Dr. Blofeld messing around removing an AFD notice. ☺ There is, and was, nothing worrisome here, and the idea that you're confused by something as simple as a suggested alternative being put forward in a discussion is ludicrous. No-one questioned your intelligence, but I told you that you're being a bit dimwitted because you are being a bit dimwitted. This is straightforward and easy to figure out, without being silly and coming over all worried by something very simple whose explanation was right in front of you. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I find this rather amusing. As I look up at the concerns of others being expressed, I'm reminded of the expression "When you point a finger at someone, three more are pointing back at you", for some odd reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In my mind, the issue is scope. "List of Twitter users" is a heckuva lot different than "Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians", and boundaries are better expressed with the defining "Use of...by..." Yes, I saw the first edit (heck, a redirect alone would work without a merge), but I think this topic is better expressed in prose form over a table with a name that practically invites every two-bit comedian to add themselves. Now, Animesh, I agree with you that these articles are not the best (to put it diplomatically) and are getting spread all over the place, but if we can create a clear central location for all the relevant information, maybe the content won't need its own articles and/or sections in the respective bios. Does that make sense? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Not an encyclopedic topic, nor that noteworthy of a trait, with it reaching such high levels of use. Not opposed to more specific article maybe, but as is, seems more appropriate for a category or something... Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reading over this, clearly it's not worth having an article. Not against a merge, though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not worthy of having it's own article, Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga alone should not even have their own articles. JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - calls for deletion seem to stem from intellectual snobbery. —Pengo 05:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 Ironholds (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sujana Vadlamani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find a single reliable source. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 12:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable subject. Secret of success (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this Indian musician appears notable [31] and has recognition. the references could be found in local languages as per wp:BIAS-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a site by the subject, nearly a primary source. Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Secret of success (talk) 15:53, 24 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, →TSU ^tp* 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No citations of notability-demonstrating coverage, none findable in basic source review. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC as it stands; can always (as a one-line stub) be recreated if it does. Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like That (T.I. Single)[edit]

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

No indication that this song is notable. JoelWhy (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's got a bit of media coverage despite only being released yesterday (the 15th).[32][33] However most of it is very brief.[34][35] And his last single was a flop (see first link) so we may not know for a bit if this is really notable. Waiting a bit seems sensible; possibly the article could be incubated/userfied. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 23 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, →TSU ^tp* 14:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Duffey[edit]

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

Article's subject is an actor that fails WP:NACTOR, only being known for a minor role in a single film. Sudo Ghost 20:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO with sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What significant coverage? I see a single reference that provides any sort of significant coverage,and WP:BIO requires multiple, not one or two. As an actor the individual fails WP:NACTOR by a long shot. - Sudo Ghost 22:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote "sufficient", not "significant", and the two terms do not mean the same thing. While RadioFan is welcome to correct me, I believe he intended that the sources were sufficient enough for the notability claim of this actor meeting WP:ENT, and not that he had some amazing amount of SIGCOV. While significant coverage is always delghtful in assisting editors in determining notability (if the assertion were a meeting of WP:GNG, which it is not), SIGCOV is not mandatory under WP:V's requirement that sources for assertions be reliable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:ENT with work verifiable in multiple reliable sources. Sad that his career of late seems to have cooled down and his roles gotten smaller, but WP:NTEMP does not demand that he stay on top of the heap just so long as he was there at an earlier time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires significant coverage, none of the references added show this. I'm also failing to see how WP:ENT is satisfied, I see no significant roles, and the references are all trivial mention, failing WP:BASIC. - Sudo Ghost 23:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no asertion being made that his notability is through meeting WP:GNG, nor is that a mandate. In your claiming that he fails WP:ENT, you forget to note such as his very first role ever, was starring (significant) as Jethro Creighton in Across Five Aprils (adapted from the award-winning novel of the same name. Quite a feather in a new actor's hat. He was also involved in strong featured roles in many films after that, including the oft-ridiculed charater of the excruciatingly-happy Brian in Office Space... a character that has become a cult favorite as a target of Office Space fans as the don't-be-this-guy guy, and he has recurred as a strong support role in multiple episodes of a notable television series. EVERY actor has smaller and less significant roles in their careers, and this guy is no exception. But Wikipedia does not demand that all of an actor's roles must be signficant. We gauge notability on the best of one's works... not the least. That it can be seen that he has even three or four roles that are significant enough to plot and story is good enough for WP:ENT. And it does seem that Lumino Magazine says more that just a few words about this fellow. Is he the most notable ever? Nope. does his career seemed to have died down? Yup. Are his roles becoming les and less significant? Seems so. But his having the same overarching fame and newsworthiness of Robert Dinero is not the assertion, nor the expectation. His work is verifable (and again, such verifiability does not itself have to be SIGCOV), and those whodo mention his more notable works from his earlier career do so in a slightly-more-than-trivial manner. Having significant roles in more than one notable production, even if only between 1990 and 1999, allows a meeting of WP:ENT. Wikipedia is not about only the most notable ever... we're also even about those actors on a down-swing who, through their works, can be seen as just notable enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with WP:ENT is that none of these significant roles are in notable films, and none of the notable films have significant roles, with the possible exception of Office Space. The Across Five Aprils film is a single unsourced sentence in the novel's article, and nothing I found online showed any notability for the film. If there is something I'm missing then by all means please show it, but you're making a case against something that was never implied, it was never suggested that "everything" be a major role in a notable film, but it certainly needs more than one. - Sudo Ghost 03:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though Across Five Aprils (film) currently lacks an article, a decent case can be made that it meets WP:NF.[36] So to contradict you, it seems that THAT unsourced line CAN be expanded and sourced, or even an entirely new article created. The coverage of the individual for his role in Office Space means that the role was significant enough to have caught the attention of the media. That's signifcant enough, even if he was not a major player. That, and his earlier starring role in Across Five Aprils just taps over into WP:ENT. Admittedly, as his career appears on the downswing, he may never reach the hights again, but he was just barely notable enough, once upon a time. I contend that Wikipedia is not to be only about the very most notable persons ever, and has room for those that can be considered just barely notable enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely. The Google link you gave shows brief mentions in local newspapers; most movies that are played in local theatres are reviewed in these, and does not convey any notability towards the film in a way that satisfies WP:NF. Nothing I've seen shows that Across Five Aprils film is notable enough to contribute towards WP:ENT, leaving only the Office Space film, and a single role does not satisfy WP:ENT. - Sudo Ghost 08:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can at least agree to diagree. That Across Five Aprils (film) does not yet have an article written by someone with the time and inclination to research for offline coverage for a 1990 film, does not act to dismiss the verifiable fact of his having the lead starring role in a film adapted from an award-winning notable work. And in our disagreeing with his being just notable enough to include somewhere, we of course need not even discuss his character of the boss in Buttleman, nor his character of Scooter McNutty recurring a couple times in the Barney & Friends television series, but still somehow being significant enough to plot and stoyline to include in the film Barney: Let's Go to the Zoo (another unwritten film article). And while I am not inclined to myself write an article on a kiddie film based upon a popular kiddie series, someone else might. I recognize that Wikipedia is an incomplete work in progress. Being imperfect and incomplete does not mean articles yet-to-be-written are ipso-facto un-notable... it simply means that they have not been written... yet. And as it might be seen by some that Duffey is just notable enough to be worth mentioning someplace within these pages, I am surprised that no one has suggested any other solution beyond an outright deletion of someone who has made it (albeit barely) into the enduring record. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'm not proposing to delete the article because out to get the article, or anything like that, and I'm not judging the lack of fleshed out, relevant articles in this - but from what I've seen (both on Wikipedia and from searching online), the Across Five Aprils film doesn't appear to be notable. The work he's done appears to be either a minor role in a notable work or a major role in a not-quite-notable work, with the exception of the Office Space role. - Sudo Ghost 19:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we disagree, and his notability is minor, might you perhaps offer a proposal that will serve the readers and not require outright removal from Wikipedia in toto? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 23 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, →TSU ^tp* 14:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:SNOWBALL. - filelake shoe 15:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Duncan (artist)[edit]

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

An article about an unexistent person. A hoax. "The King of Modern Art"? Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Not sure why the nominator chose to remove the prior ((db-hoax)) tag and take to AFD instead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yes it certainly seems so. Presumably Charles Stafford Duncan (1892-1952) is the smokescreen. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. This CSD tag should not have been removed, but since it was, it has to go though AFD now. Perhaps this can be speedly closed? - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cypress Chapel Christian Church#Chris Surber. (anything else useful can be merged in) Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Surber[edit]

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

HARSH ^TALK 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you please state the reason for your nomination? -- WikHead (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you add an explanation of why you AFDed this 1 minute after its creation by a newbie? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article had no references when I tagged it. But there is no reason now to AFD it. HARSH ^TALK 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this, you first wait a bit to see whether any references are forthcoming. If there aren't, then you first use WP:BLPPROD. If that doesn't help either and you yourself are also unable to find sources, then you go to AfD. But now that we are here, it is perhaps a bit too hasty to withdraw the nom already. The sources are very meager, to say the least. What makes you think the subject now meets WP:GNG? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I question the validity of this AfD because the nominator has still not given a clear-cut reason for the nomination. The article did indeed have three references at the time of its premature nomination. We can only assume at this point, that this AfD deals with potential notability issues. -- WikHead (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a poor nomination, and could easily have been speedily closed, but the subject certainly doesn't seem to be notable. The church is presumably notable, though it doesn't have an article, but notability is not inherited. When it comes down to it, this guy is an ordinary pastor. St Anselm (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If the church is notable, why do we not have an article on it? Some of the contnet is actually on the church, rather than the pastor, so perhaps it could be repurposed to an artilce on the church. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep partially because I just gave the article an overhaul, so take a look and see if you still feel as you do. But I don't feel too strongly about that. I separated the content about the man from that about the church, and that leaves three sentences each. I think we're looking at a stub whether we want this to be about either one. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ - based partially on the re-purposing idea introduced by User:Peterkingiron (above), and the fact that I'm uncertain of what additional notability (if any) could be established through the books authored by the subject. If the church is indeed notable, the article may be worth renaming, reworking, and keeping. -- WikHead (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In order to help people decide, I have split the very useful added material off into an article on Cypress Chapel Christian Church. St Anselm (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge any useful content → Cypress Chapel Christian Church#Chris Surber. -- WikHead (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cypress Chapel Christian Church#Chris Surber per BDD. Maratrean (talk) 10:50, 9 June 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. Speedy deleted, non-notable, no content, test, whatever you like really Jac16888 ^Talk 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod basavaraj[edit]

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

The article has major issues most importantly there are no citations and references. It is apparently written by a fan and doesn't qualify wikipedia standards. HARSH ^TALK 14:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article's content consist of a single sentence, repeated over and over. Clearly a speedy deletion candidate. I believe the nominator may have made a mistake in creating this AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7, author blanked Jac16888 ^Talk 15:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oncocidia[edit]

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

Appears to be a vanity piece about a fringe cancer treatment, little more than a quackery. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The only significant author has blanked the page. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (and convert to a soft redirect to Wiktionary) Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Able-bodied[edit]

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

Reason - attempted prod [37] - Suggesting deletion - rational : superfluous to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/able-bodied, suggest a wiktiomary link. Other concerns are unreferenced material in second and third paragraph, which may be WP:OR and maybe should be removed irrespective.

My examination of incoming links shows that they are a. probably uneccessary, and b. simple requests for a dictionary definition in the simplest sense. Oranjblud (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research/essay; somewhat POV and completely unreferenced. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Doesn't seem to be a term of art, just a description (see the wikitionary article). If anything, this should be redirected to that article, if not deleted. Also share some of MelanieN's concerns about OR. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary per MelanieN.—S Marshall T/C 21:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Send it to Wiktionary (BTW Why were the Medicine and Law Wikiprojects notified of this but not WikiProject Disability?) Roger (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a deletion sorting list for disability. WP:DELSORT is a separate function from WP:Wikiproject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is obviously some correlation with WikiProjects because notifications are posted to Project talk pages. Can it be fixed so that WikiProject Disability also receives relevant notices. Picking and chosing which of the projects that have tagged an article deserve to get notified and which don't can cause a deletion discussion to be biased. Apologies for the diversion from the actual topic here, but this matter needs attention. Roger (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't project notifications, those are deletion sorting lists. The projects themselves aren't notified unless they have the Article Alerts bot set up to monitor all their project tags which is a seperate process from delsort which just categorizes deletion discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact the Disability Wikiproject already has Article Alerts set up, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability#Article alerts. And this article already is listed there. Anyone who wants to have relevant articles called to their attention, can add Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Article alerts to their watchlist. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(consensus appears to be delete/redirect) I can convert to Template:Wiktionary redirect now, but I think someone (admin) needs to close the discussion.Oranjblud (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear exactly what a redirect to Wiktionary entails. But if it means this entire article will be reproduced there, as if it is an actual definition, I would object. Only the first sentence of the article is a definition. The other two paragraphs are original research/essay and would not be appropriate for Wiktionary IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that any of the content of Able-bodied could usefully be added to the existing Wikt:able-bodied page, you are welcome to do so. Roger (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDICT, title is not a noun and so fails to unambiguously identify a topic per WP:TITLE. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. WP:NOTDICT. But I would have thought that disability studies theorists would have explored this term (or its equivalents), similar to the function of the term "cisgender" in transgender studies. However, without any WP:RS for that it has to go. Maratrean (talk) 10:48, 9 June 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. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNC Wilmington Master of Science in Computer Science and Information Systems[edit]

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

It's a degree program at a college. I don't see anything unique or notable about it. Seems to fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Seems to border on advertising also. Ridernyc (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information belongs on the page for the school. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing that indicates this program is in any distinguished from the many other such programs that would justify a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 3 June 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 10:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antivirus 2012[edit]

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

Do we really need something like this that goes over the antivirus software each year. When we have List of antivirus software. Which pretty much does the job. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholly duplicative, with the added problems of being WP:OR and having no sources. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does this article have no sources, as mentioned, there is already a List of antivirus software. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 6 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death Wave[edit]

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

At best, non-notable neologism; probably something the author made up one day. (declined prod) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to the 14 dark angels and their skinny keyboard ties and whisper "Delete". Unsourced neologism, was coined by someone who shares the name of the account that created the article. Didn't see any conclusive ghits even. Syrthiss (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the article's provenance (term made up by member of non-notable band who then posts it on Wikipedia) seems a clear case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Doesn't seem to be widely used to describe his band, even (it was in the deleted article Prehumanity but otherwise googling for the two in combination gives nothing). Google throws nothing up relevant, although I did enjoy http://deathwaave.tumblr.com/. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a music genre neologism. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Maratrean (talk) 10:45, 9 June 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 Redirected per agreement of nominator and all contributors. If he wins, it can be recreated. WP:SNOW, (Non-admin closure) --Chip123456 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Obsitnik[edit]

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

Has been PRODded a second time after being deleted via PROD and then recreated so I'm bring it to AfD. The concern in the new PROD, with which I concur, was "unelected candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates; unless you can demonstrate that he was already notable enough before running for office that he'd be expected to have an encyclopedia article anyway, he is not notable enough for our purposes until he wins the election." Whouk (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Connecticut, 2012 per WP:POLITICIAN: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- Directly to section United States House of Representatives elections in Connecticut, 2012#District 4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians. Dru of Id (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense - happy for this to be closed and the page redirected. Whouk (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swamy Ra Ra[edit]

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

Not notable, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. GregJackP Boomer! 11:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Whouk (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:NYF. While in point of fact, policy does not mean we cannot have coverage of anticipated events, a lack of widepread and persistant in-depth coverage does not allow this topic to merit a separate article as a possible exception to guideline WP:NFF, and we simply do not have anyplace where it might be merged. Allow back once we do have the requisite coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per MichaelQSchmidt, might be notable in the future, but not now —Hue Sat Lum 17:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NYF. Maratrean (talk) 10:44, 9 June 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 05:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James von der Heydt[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Joe407 (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This guy wrote a book published by a university press and some journal articles. Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Joe407 (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And references are only to his own works. Whouk (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2-3 Streets[edit]

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

This rather confusing article about an art piece or style seems poorly referenced; one online ref is a self-ref, and considering the mess I am having trouble accepting AGF on other sources. Can anybody demonstrate this topic, whatever it is, is notable? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first sentence in the article identifies it as an art exhibition and it's in the category "Art Exhibitions"; from the description I suppose it could be further specified as an "interactive art exhibition" or something like that. The creator of the article seems a bit confused as to where to put what and how to write a good article but provides links such as the one to Art & Architecture Journal Press and The Irish Times [38]. The German Wikipedia version of the article is a couple of years old and is called "2-3 Straßen" and contains more links; the creator may not understand that German-language citations are valid on English Wikipedia. I've added a search template for the German term above, which you may note gives hits in Google News, Books, and Scholar, and I am cross-linking the Wikipedia articles. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 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, --Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the German version of the article, there are 4 substantial stories from major regional newspapers: Frankfurter Allgemeine[39], Der Westen[40], Frankfurter Rundschau[41], and Zeit[42]. Add to this the English-language coverage in Art & Architecture Journal Press and Irish Times, and you've got more than enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Stoverink[edit]

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

An actor. Had bit parts in five TV episodes, one movie and two voice overs. The parts include "bouncer", "bartender", "big drunk", "Roadie #2", "tattooed Man" and "Aaron". Fails WP:NACTOR. Prod was contested because, "Notability is subjective. Those are all speaking co-starring roles with credits at the end of the show, despite their generic titles." Bgwhite (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Tattooed man" is a "co-starring" role on NCIS? I don't think so. DarkAudit (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Tattooed man" was a "co-starring" role for that episode. His name was listed in the credits. Co-starring roles have generic names more times than not. Don't get caught up on character names if you are interested in being factual. Some starring roles are generic, e.g. "The Smoking Man" from X-files. Turner1616 (talk)
Delete. If his "best-known" role is as a nameless bouncer from a single episode of Glee, I can't see that this meets WP:NACTOR. These are not "significant" roles and this is not William B. Davis; no notable awards, no third-party references, interviews, coverage, etc., that I could find. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he becomes more notable. Ubelowme (talk) 22:10, 5 June 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 technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S.M.S Warsi (Delhi)[edit]

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

Autobiography of a person who is not notable per WP:GNG. The only sources provided are links to blogs, social networking sites and his official website, and I cannot find any independent and reliable sources. Also an attempt to evade create protection as S.M.S Warsi is salted. jfd34 (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Consensus is that the mention of her Twitter account in the cited sources is incidental (i.e., "trivial" within the meaning of the GNG), and not actually about her Twitter account in and of itself in the manner of the Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber Twitter articles. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna on Twitter[edit]

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

The article cites sources that address topics that Rihanna tweeted about, but the sources do not directly address her Twitter account, so while they would be useful on articles about the actual singles she was asking fans to vote on, they are not suitable to establish notability for her account itself. In short, her Twitter account has not been subject to significant coverage, her comments and music have. kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All this would be treated better in the main article on Rihanna, as kelapstick says. I'm not sure there's any useful mergable info here, but if someone wants to try a merge, they could. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her actions on Twitter don't appear to be independently notable and notability is not inherited. SplashScreen (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this isn't an article appropriate for Wikipedia, just a collection of pretty trivial news bits. Anything especially notable could be covered in her main article. Having a large number of followers on twitter doesn't make this interaction a notable topic. - filelake shoe 14:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patently unencyclopedic fluff. Perhaps we should have article on Rihanna on MySpace and Facebook, or whatever the flavor of the year social media site is popular next year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I had a feeling Bieber and Gaga would spawn similar ones.. We now have Ashton Kutcher on Twitter too. Kudos to the nominator for picking up on this tripe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonder no more, Drmies created List of Twitter users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
favor merge - I like the idea of merging. There might in the future be a notable Twitter-related event relating to Rihanna or another celebrity but nearly all of those should go on the articles, not on a separate spin-off article. It would be like having a separate article entitled, Barack Obama's books that was distinct from the articles about his specific books. It would either be a retread of stuff covered in those articles or just an accretion of any comment made by anyone about his books, regardless of notability. DrPhen (talk)
- There was a merge discussion; see the article history. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally, I think Foo on Twitter articles provide a place for reliably sourced content. I think there should be one discussion rather than separate ones for each page, but in general. For the top few users this is a notable topic. Not every celebrity needs one, but there is room for a select few.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem. "For the few top users"--and how do you propose to define new? If there should be one AfD, one Keep or Delete for all of them, you can't claim special status for some. It makes no sense to do so: you can't have it both ways, with one single AfD and yet some kind of automatic notability for a couple. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In truth the rule should be based on WP:GNG, which seems to be being ignored in this AFD. The content here is well sourced and seems to be a type of topic welcome for other celebs. I think this should get DRVed and reversed as no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT is being given above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tony, If you are suggesting that I nominated this because I just don't like the idea of Twitter accounts having Wikipedia articles, you are wrong. You will notice I didn't nominate any others, because they had significant coverage of the account itself, which regardless of my position of Twitterpedia on the whole, would prevent me from nominating them for deletion because I think they meet the GNG, and I don't nominate articles that meet the GNG. This article is made up of sources saying "Rihanna tweeted this about her new album", and "Rihanna tweeted that to her fans", that isn't coverage of the account, it's coverage of Rihanna. The Ashton Kutcher twitter article talks about how it was the first to reach 1,000,000 followers, that is coverage of the account, the sources here are not (same with the Biebs and Meat Dress Lady, as Laura states below). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As the article stands now, I would favour a merge into the articles about the album. The content of the article as it stands now is different than Justin Bieber on Twitter and Lady Gaga on Twitter because it does not have the breadth of sources to demonstrate independent notability and there is not enough content that would make such a merge difficult. The focus is almost exclusively source wise on use of Twitter around albums. I would support recreation of the article without bias if it was substantially added to where independent notability was clear and the content was great enough to make it hard to merge. --LauraHale (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm trying to parse your final sentence but find it very difficult. And what "bias" are you talking about? And why would size matter here? Why should the stand-alone notability of one topic depend on the size of a related article, into which it could or could not be merged? (Dependent, of course, on whether some editors allow for such a discussion, which is not a given.) Drmies (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying if the subject clearly becomes independently notable, as is the case for Biebs and Gaga, then I would support the recreation of the article. I should have perhaps worded as "recreated without prejudice" but brain is half asleep. As the article stands now, I don't see independent notability and spending more time than is healthy reading about social media, I have heard very little about Rihanna but have heard a great deal about other accounts like Bieber, Gaga, Demi Moore and Ashton. (Oddly, haven't seen as much about Obama.) --LauraHale (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and hopefully create a precedent for "X celebrity on Y social networking site" type article. Any encyclopedic material on here that is not on Rihanna's article should be merged there. If it all overlaps, then delete. Them From Space 22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her tweets aren't significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My general view is that all these So-and-so on Twitter articles are piles of trivial recentism of no lasting significance. In this case, the subject (that is the Twitter account) doesn't even meet the GNG. LadyofShalott 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, your "scholarliness" is so old fashioned they don't even have e-books about it. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Information in this article (which is barely anything) is already present on the respective album articles. — Statυs (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are lots of trivial media space-filling mentions of social networking sites, but no secondary analysis of the significance of the subject of this article, so it fails WP:N. The material is inherently unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia should not be used to promote websites. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - see also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users. LadyofShalott 15:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on someone's writings (yeah! tweets are sort of writings) that are not notable on their own need not occupy space in an encyclopedia. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike the other X on Twitter articles that do have direct notability from events caused because of them, this one doesn't really. The choosing of the single thing isn't directly related to the Twitter account in the sources, so it doesn't bring much to the article. Silver seren^C 22:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me that this article could be easily named Rihanna's song-naming or something else like that, since really that's all. DrPhen (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a merger target, I suggest Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, where this would fit quite comfortably in the celebrity case studies section, which already mentions Rihanna in its introduction. Uncle G (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would advise against a merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians (notwithstanding it would be a suitable merge target for list of twitter users). The entire Rihanna on Twitter article is made up of examples of tweets about upcoming singles and albums, which is the sort of thing that most major music personalities who use Twitter do, and the sort of thing that gets picked up by organizations that cover this sort of thing report back to the public. Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians should cover their use (as it is on Gaga and the Biebs), and not just be a reprint of what they said on Twitter (as it on Rihanna).--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Take Lady Gaga on Twitter and Justin Bieber on Twitter. Both have lots of information and relevance to real-life. This is just a paragraph or two that's not really notable and such. CarniCat (meow) 20:42, 1 June 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 Baseball Victoria. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Winter Baseball League[edit]

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

Deprodded with claim of notability due to hits on Google News, but all I saw was scores listed in local papers. Tagged for notability 2 years, outdated for 2 years. No non-trivial sources found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look for sources with Newsbank. There are hundreds of articles in Leader Community Newspapers, and although most are match reports, some are multi-page articles that are devoted to covering the league in a non-trivial fashion, e.g.:
- Mobilia, Ryan (21 April 2010). "New season and name - Melbourne Winter Baseball League on the park for another campaign". Diamond Valley Leader. p. 51.

Also gets a few mentions in major newspapers like The Age. At least worth a redirect to Baseball Victoria. Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else looking for sources, it was known as the "Victorian Winter Baseball League" until 2010. Jenks24 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete coverage is primarily, would need more wide coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Baseball Victoria. Does not have multiple independent sources of significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but can be WP:PRESERVED. Article has been tagged for 2 years for notability, an ample amount of time.—Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:19, 23 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, →TSU ^tp* 04:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case we should act formally. The article has only one source, which is self-published. Thus, this source is insufficient to establish the notability. Unless other sources have been added, either delete, or indeed merge and redirect to Baseball Victoria.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Baseball Victoria per Baguma. Maratrean (talk) 10:37, 9 June 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. Discussion of the sources appears to suggest that they do not meet the notability requirements for musical groups. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PandemoniUM (A cappella)[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources Yaksar (let's chat) 02:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's one independent source in the article (RARB), which is independent of the subject abacknd probably reliable. However, it is not useful for determining notability because all of their reviews are done at the request of the musical ensemble, so it's not really "coverage" in the sense we normally use for notability. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to add that the sources added to the article since my !VOTE are still insufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. A few of the sources added are reliable, but the mentions in the sources fall under the category of trivial coverage. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three additional independent resources have since been added, including the page for the group on the website of the Student Government Association at that University (University of Maryland). The other two are a review from the Contemporary A Cappella Society (which, unlike RARB, is not done at the request of the musical ensemble but rather done independently), and the A Cappella blog which is independent of the subject and is reliable in its coverage of Varsity Vocals events. Pandemonium also has music sold on iTunes, Amazon.com, and Rhapsody, among others, which speaks to its notability, besides being featured on the Best of Collegiate A Cappella compilation in 2009 which is nationally respected by the a cappella community. Willgd14 (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete It seems that several other sources have also been added that would constitute media coverage. However, the article still has a lot of information (e.g. in the History section) that is uncited. Have any of the article authors tried looking on the Web Archive? backstabb 01:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that are actually independent from the group either don't cover the topic at a substantial level or are not the kind of sites that are useful in determining if a subject is notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We did indeed use the Web Archive to access past versions of the group's website for information such as the dates of the older CD's in the discography section which are no longer on the website. Since the URL is the same now but without that information, how should we go about citing this information? Also, as noted in the references section, the Constitution of the PandemoniUM A Cappella Singers was accessed at the University of Maryland Student Government Associations's office as a resource for the writing of this article, including most of the information in the history section. Willgd14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Awards are not major, touring lacks coverage. The only independent source that provides any depth of coverage, the Recorded A Cappella Review Board, is not a reliable source. Noting satisfying WP:BAND. At time of writing this some referencing is misleading. The Washington Post article's mention of PandemoniUM in it's entirety "Everybody wanted in on the act. In time, the Generics begot the Treble Makers, Faux Paz, PandemoniUM and the Earthtonz." It does not verify the sentances it follows. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is incorrect, if you read the whole Washington Post article (I'm guessing you just read the excerpt from highbeam.com), you would see that it does verify the sentances it follows about Amie Hsu being a founder and the sister of Richard Hsu. Also, inclusion on the Best of Collegiate A Cappella compilation is proof of notability. Willgd14 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Willgd14 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

- Just a heads up, while you're absolutely allowed to keep participating in the discussion, you should only have one bolded "vote" (although they aren't exactly just votes) in your comments. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I looked at the full article on highbeam, and while it does seem to confirm what is cited it in no way comes close to significant or substantial coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've reread the article and I was wrong. I need to add that the next sentance is also relevent. "Wednesday at the campus Memorial Chapel, the five once-fractious groups will come together for the fifth annual "A Cappella at the Chapel Singfest."". as is "Around the same time, Hsu encouraged his little sister Amie to found another co-ed group, PandemoniUM." Then a quick mention of the shared style of the multiple groups then "They all say the infighting, which occurred well before many of the current members arrived on campus, is over. In addition to sharing the marquee for the annual concert, they party together, sing together and critique each other's work". duffbeerforme (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the Best of Collegiate A Cappella compilation is not a notable complialtion so is not proof of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not clear to me how this group meets the notability criteria for musical groups. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 23 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, →TSU ^tp* 04:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most universities/colleges have music groups; the vast majority of them will not be sufficiently notable for a WP article. Although there are a handful of RS mentioning this one, I still don't think it is enough; I would put the bar higher. Maratrean (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as a blatant hoax. Salvidrim! 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Pokemon Gold Silver[edit]

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

Non-notable game, no coverage in reliable third party sources. Google gives nothing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE, but unsupported, unexplained opinions that an article should be kept are without persuasive value in determining WP:CONSENSUS, and idle speculation that reliable sources could be added by someone is insufficient to rebut the claim that no such sources can be found. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Colors (software)[edit]

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

Does not pass the GNG; no high quality sources found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article should be kept. Independent sources are what would make the article better. Interlude 65 17:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — if seriously noticeable improvements have not been made by the time this AfD closes. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improve Well, why don't we get some users to help improve this article??? That would really help me out here!!! Interlude 65 17:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand the frustration of doing the work to create an article and then having it sent to articles for deletion. I am voting delete because topic notability on Wikipedia is determined by available significant coverage in reliable sources. After several searches, I just haven't found any coverage in reliable sources for this software product; this includes searches for software reviews. In the future, you may want to consider creating an article in your user sandbox, and then publish it in Wikipedia's mainspace (where articles are displayed) after the topic is backed by significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this discussion closed or not? Interlude 65 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions typically occur for seven days. There's also the possibility that other users may find reliable sources for the topic during this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I still think this article should be kept. Maybe someone will finally add higher quality sources to the article. By the way, it's already been five days since this discussion has been going on, and no one has added any new messages to it. Interlude 65 02:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, shall we Keep or Delete this article? This discussion will close TOMORROW, so we better decide fast before time runs out! Interlude 65 14:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the closing administrator decides the issue is unclear, s/he will probably relist the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable to be found anywhere. Further, not much of anything notable on the company that makes it. If a company isn't notable, it kinda follows that their products aren't either. As an aside, one might ask, if this software "has been one of Magic Mouse's most successful products", then why is it "considered abandonware"? Just sayin...Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you guys know, in the article I deleted the abandonware part. Interlude 65 21:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, does this mean that the article will actually be deleted since Delete got the most votes here? Interlude 65 21:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak . (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vixen of Thunder[edit]

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

Probable hoax, nothing on Google — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3. This is very obviously a blatant hoax, as not only do searches bring up absolutely nothing, but it's highly unlikely that she would've been named "Vixen of Thunder" at all.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noted that the user is a sock of another user that was banned for various things, including trolling. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AtlanticDeep/Archive Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Long[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. West Eddy (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 02:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Not considered an influential musician on his own, not part of numerous notable bands. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask the other discussants here to keep in mind that having an Allmusic bio is typically a very good indication of notability. And indeed, with some further investigation, Greg Long does easily meet WP:MUSICBIO; see my additions to the article. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for relisting: new sources were added towards the end of the listing. I feel that further discussion would be beneficial, specifically by the previous participants - if they all re-confirm their 'delete's, then that would be sufficient reason to consider this a 'delete' consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the following Wikipedia's music notibility guideline: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The article appears to have several independent sources discussing Greg Long, his band Avalon is definitely notable (three Grammy nominations), and iTunes sells 75 of Greg Long's songs. NJ Wine (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains references to independent, reliable coverage, as User:Paul Erik notes above. Also, the artist has released three albums on Myrrh Records, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group. Passes WP:MUSIC on at least point #1 and #5. — sparklism ^hey! 10:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets notability guidelines and several aspects of music guidelines. (#1, #2, #5). My76Strat (talk) 13:49, 2 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mission: Blacklist (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Bbb23 that Mission: Blacklist (film) is not notable per WP:NFF, which states: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. To make matters worse, this article contains a large amount of namechecking of non-notable people. NJ Wine (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:NYF. Return this brand new stub to its author as a userspace "in-progress" draft. Simply stated, while policy accepts the topic of this planned film as having enough covrage to be worth discussing at places such as the articles on Robert Pattinson and Erik Jendresen,[43][44][45][46] it does not have enough under WP:NFF to perhaps merit a separate article. This may well change as casting completes and filming begins. If he is willing, the author can continue building his article off of mainspace until that time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Maratrean (talk) 10:33, 9 June 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. postdlf (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gubbarudda[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable sources for it, so it may not meet WP:N. It says it only had two families living in it, so I don't think it's a town or even a village. I don't usually do AFDs, so please feel free to check whether I am correct. David¹²¹⁷ 00:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while it is mentioned in the Irish placenames database, it's a non-notable townland with nothing significant to justify an article. ww2censor (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The dozen or so Google Books hits make it appear to me that this was a notable colliery two centuries ago (note the 1845 source mentioning its presence in a "Report on the Connaught Coal District", listing it as one of the other important collieries after the "most important" one at Aughabehy) and a notable archaeological site one century ago. Since Google Books is mostly drawn from American sources and of course has better coverage the closer you get to the present, I would expect that more coverage exists in Irish and British sources of a century ago. So, since notability is not temporary, this appears to me to meet Wikipedia notability standards, even if in all likelihood it will never be more than a stub because expanding it would require physically going somewhere and doing archival research in Ireland or Britain. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's geographic notability guideline states the following: Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low. A townland is a legally-recognized location, and there are already articles for other townlands (see Category:Townlands_of_County_Roscommon), so Gubbarudda is notable. NJ Wine (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Wikipedia's Five pillars; the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NJ Wine.Red Hurley (talk) 10:35, 2 June 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. Reason: withdrawn by nominator. RGloucester (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Government frontbench[edit]

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

There is no reason for this article to exist. The information provided here is already listed at Cameron ministry (the standard naming for British ministry articles), which also provides a more detailed look at the government. The title is awkward (because it doesn’t really exemplify what is in the article), and the article is hard to find. It should therefore be deleted, in my view. RGloucester (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 30. Snotbot t • c » 00:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

There is a reason for this article to exist, and the "awkwardness" of a title is a nonsensical reason for deletion. Similarly, various articles and at least one template link to the page. If nominator thinks the article is too hard to find, the answer is to link to it, not to delete it. In truth, RGloucester gets nothing from it, so it isn't wholly shocking that he doesn't see links at articles he enjoys. All the same, the fact that he gets nothing from it does not mean it has no value.

The article was created in September 2009 to mirror Official Opposition frontbench, which has been in existence since May of 2006. It makes no sense that it would be perfectly acceptable to have a list of the current members of the Shadow teams, but not a list of the current members of the actual Departmental teams.

Nominator says this information is duplicated at Cameron ministry. There are two important facts there. The first is that Cameron ministry is a list of all people who have served as ministers or whips during Cameron's premiership. The article at issue is a list of only the current members of the ministry, just as it was during Gordon Brown's premiership. As reshuffles happen, Cameron ministry is going to become an almighty mess. As it is, it would be tedious to try to get a picture of exactly who is currently serving in ministerial office in Westminster from Cameron ministry, but once we've been through one major reshuffle, let alone more than one, it will be impossible. Despite nominator's refusal to comprehend at a discussion elsewhere, separate lists like this are common. For instance, there is 28th Canadian Ministry, which details all ministerial positions held since Stephen Harper became Prime Minister of Canada in 2006. There is also a list at Cabinet of Canada that lists all ministers except Parliamentary Secretaries. A similar situation exists for Queensland (see Newman Ministry and Cabinet of Queensland) and various other Westminster-system governments. Similarly, various lists are kept of members of each two-year United States Congress, and there is a corresponding list of current members for each. For instance, List of United States Representatives in the 112th Congress by seniority and List of current members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority. It may somehow offend RGloucester to have a list of the current members, but it is not unique and not useless.

The other key fact to do with Cameron ministry is that it is unusual. Until that article, all such articles had only included a list of members of Cabinet, with luck reshuffles were reflected. There is no guarantee that Cameron ministry will continue to exist in the form it does (which copied the article at issue here) as it becomes more complex, nor that the next ministry's article will follow the format. Even if Cameron ministry could perform the function of just showing ministry as currently constituted (which, again, it doesn't), that would at best be an ancillary consideration that could easily be swept away if consensus supported going back to a Cabinet-only format. There is simply reason to believe that an article whose purpose has nothing to do with the purpose of this one will somehow serve as an adequate replacement.

I think RGloucester needs to take a step back. First, he nominated the article for speedy deletion despite the fact it didn't meet any such criterion. Then, he waited a few days and turned the page into a redirect to Cameron ministry. I don't know why he has such a personal hatred for the article, but its presence doesn't harm him in any way. -Rrius (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I came off as a “hater”, but I’ve been working heavily on British ministry articles at late. If you’ve not noticed, me and a few other editors devised a scheme of conventions for the British ministry articles (whereby each article contains a cabinet shortlist and a junior ministers list), merged some, renamed some, added information to them, and so forth. See Talk:List of British governments and List of British governments. This has been a heavily time-consuming clean-up which has removed alot of the former barebones articles that did not serve any purposes, and created fuller ones in their place. This has been completed for all ministries from the Liverpool Ministry onward. In doing that, I came across this article by chance, and didnt’ see the use of having a seperate page for information that was already listed at Cameron ministry. I do, however, now understand where you are comming from and would like to close the deletion nomination. I am not trying to be destructive, just efficient. I apologise for any stress I may have caused. Sincerely…. RGloucester (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kadochnikov's Systema[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a Russian system of martial art. Seems to be a minor variation of sambo (martial art). Pburka (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like self-promotion, no independent sources proving notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNot an expert in all the ins and outs of Systema but Kadochnikov seems to be one of the original forms. The article on Retuinskih's System ROSS talks about the relationship. I think the connection to Sambo of these arts is stronger than the supposed connections with special forces training and ancient Russian martial arts but if ROSS is notable then I would say the parent organization should be too.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That article's pretty borderline, too. I looked through the Retuinskih's System ROSS sources (which might just qualify as reliable) and found no references to Kadochnikov. Other than the Wikipedia article, we have no evidence that there's even a relationship between the two systems. Pburka (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pretty much why I am sitting on the fence for this one.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find reliable sources to support any claims that this system is notable. I also have my doubts about ROSS, but that one isn't yet up for AFD. Jakejr (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G3 (blatant hoax) by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Holy Crown[edit]

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

Fails General notability guidelines and lacks any reliable sources for verifiability. It is likely a hoax. EricSerge (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence can be found that it's not a hoax. I can find some evidence of a Hungarian military honour of this name, but nothing ~~Scottish~~Spanish. Pburka (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently Alba de Tormes is in Spain. Pburka (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:RS. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as this is likely a hoax. I did a search for both "Order of the Holy Crown" and its Spanish translation, "Orden de la Corona Santa", and I couldn't anything like what is described in the article. NJ Wine (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax.--Yopie (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article was speedy deleted.--Yopie (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyda Verstegen[edit]

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

Doing some quick research in the way of Google News, I was unable to find any secondary sources for this article. General rule according to WP:BIO holds that there must be secondary sources, accordingly. On the other hand, Ms. Verstegen is the president of the International Alliance of Women. As near as I am able to tell, this, unto itself, does not connote notability. My concern, then, is that this does not meet our notability guidelines. I'm bringing this here after I prodded the article last week; the primary editor has remove the template and made changes, as well as added a couple of primary sources from IAW; with the assertion of notability, I will not speedy the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the IAW is an organization that has been a consulting NGO with the UN since the early 1960s, and has societies (chapters) with representatives from over 50 countries. It's a major international women's rights lobbying organization, I think that gives Verstegen enough notability, she's made constructive moves of her own since she's been in that role. She's active in a number of international initiatives with IAW, and a former president of a leading women's rights organization in the Netherlands. I've added a few sources to the article.OttawaAC (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 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) 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - if this was a guy representing some big international group to the United Nations, with same number and type of refs, would we be having this discussion?? CarolMooreDC 04:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The IAW is an extremely large and important organization. For example, the IAW is one of only 24 NGOs with "consultative status 1" to the United Nations, which allows them to participate as observers at sessions on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, read its reports and documents, and address the CSW with their permission (see https://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/home/archive/issues2010/empoweringwomen/briefsurveywomensrights ). The president of the IAW participates in United Nations sessions - 'nuff said. Catavar (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verstegen's role as President of the International Alliance of Women establishes her notability. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Carol, Catavar, and the rest of the folks here make a good call for keep. Sarah (talk) 18:47, 4 June 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, however weakly. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshikazu Takeuchi[edit]

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

Recreation of a page deleted under PROD. Concern was "No evidence of notability" and no references to show notability have been added. – Allen4names 16:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --– Allen4names 16:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning to keep. Two of his novels have been made into movies. There's appears to be a perfectly good ref in KansaiScene. I have a feeling there are some Japanese language refs out there. The Japanese Wikipedia page shows refs, but I don't read Japanese. Bgwhite (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth third-party coverage or sourcing to establish notability. Note that what may appear at first glance to be "reference" on the Japanese Wikipedia are mostly just editorial notes (as often seen in Japanese Wiki articles) and not actual reference sources, so the level of sourcing is little better than here. --DAJF (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sourcing with English information to establish notability appears to be a problem but I am inclined toward keeping it. I will watch for further editing. Stormbay (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It seems there are a lot of mentions of him in Japanese on the net, especially in blogs and on 2ch, but those are not RS. What exists as RS on the net is marginal. Beyond the KansaiScene piece, I've found this interview in Japanese, but not many others. His radio show with Kitano Makoto seemed fairly popular, but most pieces on the net talk about Kitano, not him. I personally knew of his book on Daiei TV, but since that first came out in the 1980s, it's hard to find reviews of that. His co-authored work with the right-wing manga artist Yoshinori Kobayashi does have mentions here and there, but the focus is usually on Kobayashi. In the end, I think the main argument for keeping this is the second criterion for notability in WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Since his novel has been made into two feature-length films (the two versions of Perfect Blue), that would seem to satisfy the conditions. Michitaro (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‣ I added a ((find sources)) for his name in Japanese at the top of the page, although note that there appear to be several other high-profile individuals with this name. But see for example this J-Cast article where he is interviewed about the cancellation of another radio show. (Though I can't read Japanese, I'm relying on Google Translate.) WorldCat shows his works and the adaptations of his works in dozens of libraries and I assume that's not covering libraries in Japan because it isn't showing me any. The coverage, library holdings, and the fact that his works were well-regarded enough to be adapted into films satisfies notability for me. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It probably could be a straight keep but the lack of English sources makes that a guess. (see my previous comments). Stormbay (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is fairly new, and AfD's can always occur down the line if more sources have not been found. The article does have sources in Japanese that seem to support Notability it will take time though to work on translating them and finding possible ones in English. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 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.