< 4 May	6 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. WP:SNOW - fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V as the name is simply that proposed by petitions (perhaps a WP:NOT needs to be added that says "Wikipedia is not to be used to canvass support for off-wiki initiatives...") The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (CVN-80)[edit]

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

Hull number CVN-80 does not yet exist and it has not been announced by the US Navy or US Department of Defense that it will be named Enterprise. — MrDolomite • Talk 23:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please see Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier, which contains seemingly more accurate, and cited, information. Borock (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, the article for the class says this ship's name hasn't been assigned and that it won't exist until 2025 anyway. No need for a separate article until there's information specific to this ship. Dricherby (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CRYSTAL without prejudice to recreation once her keel is laid. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mjroots. Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as CSD G3, a blatant hoax, by RHaworth (non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor magjesty x[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this manga series actually exists, meaning it fails both Wikipedia's tests of verifiability and notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of existence when searched for - fails verifiability and notability. INeverCry 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Ducknish (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is either a hoax or at best, a manga/fanfiction that's quite obviously liberally based off of Sailor Moon. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your "original" works.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of pastebins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contains a list of largely non-notable and not-so-useful websites. Per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, "external links as sole entries in stand-alone lists and embedded lists" should be avoided. This list article only contains links to external websites, most of which are of questionable notability. Also, Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A3 suggests that articles solely consisting of external links may be deleted immediately. I've opted to use AfD route instead due to the previous failed AfD for this article. List of pastebins may be of interest too. Netalarm^talk 18:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per essay WP:WTAF. I was prodding that page, but then I noticed that it was already 'AfD with a 'keep'. mabdul 20:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netalarm and Mabdul. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 14:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Comparison of non-notable sites. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a technical manual. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hopelessly promotional, to the extent of being a G11 speedy, & I deleted it as such. I think he's notable by WP:PROF, but a usable article would have to start from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Shapiro (doctor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, promotional in tone and entirely lacking in non-primary reliable sources, written and posted by the article subject himself. Although the article does make enough of a credible claim of notability that it's clearly a question for AFD rather than prod, it's certainly not entitled to stay here in its current form. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up to a keepable standard — but delete if such improvement is not forthcoming. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A majority thinks the article is not needed, but we have no consensus for deletion. Sandstein 05:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012[edit]

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

There is no reason to have an article that relays media speculation and WP:CRYSTALBALLing about this matter. The vice-presidential nominee will be chosen by Mitt Romney in August, and speculation by talking heads being paid to make up articles does not mean that a Wikipedia article should be devoted to their prognostication. Of the twenty-three names on this list (and surely someone could dig up a dozen or so more names that have been meaninglessly thrown out there), only a few actually have any chance of being chosen, and of course Mr. Romney could decide on someone else entirely. A few of these can be disqualified by common sense (Trump, Bachmann), and many have vehemently denied any interest in the spot or already refused a theoretical offer (Daniels, Haley, Jindal, Rice, several others). Of course, they've all claimed they weren't interested and you could say things can change, but it's quite clear that many of these do not belong. Even with a few likely short-listers, we simply do not need a separate article listing these names. Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 has a short section about the VP pick that could be expanded with the likely possibilities. But a collection of unsubstantiated hypothetical speculation does not warrant a full article here. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal balling. When Romney actually announces his chosen running mate, we'll be more than able to cover that properly with reliable sources, and readers are already more than able to seek out information on the potential candidates since virtually all of them already have their own Wikipedia articles anyway — but there's no place or need on Wikipedia for an article about the advance speculation itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On some topics, even speculation is notable. This is one of them--as the sources show. The nom thinks some are unlikely, but that's his private political judgment. If there are good sources showing comment on them in RSs, that's what we go by. The nom's speculations are OR--not so the article. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to provide sources why many of these people are NOT going to the nominee; it is not just OR. A Wikipedia article is not the place to show this speculation, even that that shows the merits and dismerits of the candidates.

Keep: Remove unsourced speculation but Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2008 (created February 2008!) shows this article should exist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that should be removed as well. Keep the names of the shortlisted contenders in the main campaign article, but such a long list and an image gallery are simply superfluous. Reywas92^Talk

Your misuse of otherstuff is amusing. Apparently no one even thought to nominate it for deletion in 2008.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is some crystal-ballery involved in this subject, but on the other hand the speculation itself is likely to be notable for the next few months. I would support keeping this article only if standards were instituted to indicate who is eligible to be listed (i.e. an individual must have been cited as a potential VP candidate by a certain number of independent reliable sources within a certain time period). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously the topic is notable, and of interest to lots of people. The gallery of pictures is probably not needed, but if a reliable news source says someone might be picked then that should be good enough to include. The lede should clearly state which are, by consensus of serious sources, the most likely. If readers want to go beyond that, that is their choice. Borock (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being interesting is not qualification for inclusion, and those interested could also use an expanded section of the main article. Inclusion of anything anyone in the news says just because it's from a reliable source isn't a very good model for Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 02:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree. Get rid of the gallery of pictures. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that the moment Romney actually announces his actual pick, a list of everybody who any media pundit on earth ever published a guess that he might pick becomes a moot and unencyclopedic compendium of WP:TRIVIA that nobody will ever actually have any serious need to consult ever again (except perhaps for a quick, transient giggle at how wrong the majority of the "experts" are going to turn out to have been — but that's not the job of an encyclopedia.) Five hundred years from now, when you and I are reincarnated as academics studying the 2012 US presidential election, we're certainly going to need to know who Romney actually picked — but we're not going to have any serious need to investigate who the media pundits were guessing that he might pick three months before his actual pick was actually announced. Which is why I still believe that all articles which serve only to document third parties' advance speculation about what might happen in a future political event fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS — because as soon as his running mate is actually announced, the "encyclopedic" value of a speculative list of potential running mates disappears forever. Which is why this kind of thing certainly might be useful on Wikinews, but it doesn't belong here: it's a current event whose article only has value until the Republican convention actually happens in just a few months, and then will never have any real point or purpose to it ever again. It's not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A purely crystal ball exercise. There is no such thing as a 'Vice Presidential candidate" in the same way that there are Presidential candidates — in practice a Vice Presidential nominee is named by the Presidential nominee and given a pro forma ratification by the party's nominating convention. The universal set of such potential "Vice Presidential prospects" includes the entire registered list of the party in question's members. An article accumulating media speculation is inherently unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its a highly notable, "significant impact," "lasting" topic, WP:Notability, especially for politics, with cited information and analysis about the topic. The topic of possible vice presidential candidates is definitely encyclopedic by wikipedia standards since it has long lasting significance. Formal interviews have begun on major networks. Regarding events, Wikipedia says, "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." So it is certainly notable. The photos enhance the topic and should also be kept. This topic is the same as past topics in the series with the same title which also included media speculation. WP:I don't like it is not sufficient reason for requesting deletion. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Vice-Presidential nominee for the Republican Party a "highly notable", "significant impact", "lasting" topic? Absolutely. Is the list of people that pundits and journalists speculate could be picked to be nominee? Not all all. Looking back to 2008 (and its article), did Sarah Palin's candidacy have "long lasting significance"? Without a doubt. But did the random guesses about other prominent politicians and Republican figures have any? No way. Although Mr. Romney's final decision is surely "a precedent or catalyst", the speculation on it is not. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only one person on this list will actually become the nominee; the other two dozen or so will not. What's going to be the long-lasting significance of a list of people who didn't get picked as the nominee in the end? Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, even actual elected vice-presidents don't have any long-lasting significance. Only nine became president by succession, and all those who became president by election were major political figures and likely candidates anyway. But the ones that did become president by succession have made several of the most critical and controversial decisions ever made by a US President (in particular, annexing Texas and using nuclear weapons on Japan). Those choices of VP have been closely examined, and having a contemporaneous account of who else was considered is a useful historical document. Richard Gadsden (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is a huge difference between "As the presidential nominee, I actually considered these VP possibilities" and "I'm a media talking head and I think this senator and this governor and this also-ran would be a possible choice." I'm not sure how your tangential example is relevant, especially because those were when VP was a contested position at the convention. Reywas92^Talk 15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I voted Keep, the Delete advocates are making a very good case. Still I will stick with Keep since the topic is of much more than average importance. Borock (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there will be obviously much media speculation and coverage on potential VP candidates, they are not "candidates" in the sense of Romney, Newt, etc...being candidates running for public office. This is a sort of synthesized amalgamation of who Romney (or Paul if he can pull off his convention hijack) may possibly choose for his running mate in the fall, consisting almost entirely of media speculation and those who have announced they would decline. IMO the subject matter would be better treated in a paragraph or two in the Romney 2012 article.
Keep the subject receives extensive coverage in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where presidential campaigns are concerned, speculation concerning potential candidates - when covered by multiple reliable sources (and is clearly identified as coming from reliable sources, not OR)- is notable. This subject is given significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and thus meet WP:GNG. However, a rename to "Vice presidential prospects" should be considered, per Carrite's comments.--JayJasper (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With rare exceptions (e.g. Mike Gravel in 1972), people do not "run" for the vice presidential nomination and thus are not "candidates". The article currently just collects a lot of media speculation, all of which is irrelevant since the only view that matters is Romney's and he ain't talking. Some of the entries in the current article are downright daft and show a complete lack of understanding of current American politics on the part of the WP editors involved: the chance that Romney could pick Rand Paul or Rudy Giuliani is zero, and the chance he could pick Sarah Palin or Donald Trump is less than zero. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as utile as a Tarot deck - and below Crystal ball level. Collect (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Speculation over who Romney will pick as VP is given lots of coverage in many sources; however, "candidates" seems an improper term given that one doesn't actually put together a campaign for the job. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 11:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, JayJasper's suggestion of merging into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 seems like a reasonable idea. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 07:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article struck me as a likely case of WP:CRYSTAL when I first came across it a number of days ago. Reliably sourced speculation is still speculation. Sometimes this speculation is fun to read about, especially for political junkies (such as me) who hope Mitt Romney makes a wise selection. However, the only opinions that really matter in the VP selection process belong to Romney and the delegates of the Republican National Convention who will (presumably) officially nominate the selection. What the media think is ultimately irrelevant. Both the 2008 Republican and 2008 Democratic equivalents of this article should also be considered delete-worthy for the same reasons. Let's agree to leave the crystal-balling to Sabato. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliably sourced speculation is still reliably sourced. Why purge something that receives significant coverage? We can all agree that the page needs to be renamed but no attempt is being made to claim these are bona fide candidates, just that they receive notable speculation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Speculation and a picture gallery. Also, this article is sufficient for the topic United_States_presidential_election,_2012 ^The Wo rld 16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User talk:Canuckian89. Gage (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is not kept, merging and redirecting to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 would be a far more prudent move than outright deletion, given the subject's significant coverage in reliable independent sources and relevance to the campaign.--JayJasper (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As JayJasper said, this page would be better merged with Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. The topic hardly merits a page in its own right, but should get a mention of some sort. EEL123 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable current event, even though Barack Obama will probably win anyway. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break for readability[edit]

Delete: Speculation that is interesting but not notable in the sense that it should have its own page... let's keep this stuff over at the page about Mitt Romney's election as per with JayJasper said. FronkTheFrank (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect as JayJasper has suggested. Sure, there are reliable sources and plenty of scattered coverage, but it's not substantive enough to warrant a separate article. As is pointed out above, there isn't even a formal process of picking vice presidential candidates, since they come coupled with their respective presidential candidates. An article like this, at least at present, cannot really blossom into anything substantive. Such a discussion of Romney's potential picks can easily fit within his presidential campaign article. Tim meh 01:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough space for this material on that particular page. Plus, the speculation here does not derive from the Romney campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The Romney campaign article is not very long at all and has plenty of space for his VP shortlist. The only reason it's large is the 300+ freaking endorsements and their sources, which need to be split pretty soon. Of course it derives from the Romney campaign; were Santorum the nominee, there would be a different set of possibilities on who complements his style. Reywas92^Talk 15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Romney is now presumptive nominee, it makes sense that the VP choice be associated with him. EEL123 (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The list does not derive from the Romney campaign, it derives from news publications.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you do see the connection between the VP choices and the Romney campaign, don't you? EEL123 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Powell (1665–1731)[edit]

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

A bit of an odd situation here. This article was originally created with an incorrect attribution of notability that actually pertained to the topic's father, not to him, so it was recently moved to the title applicable to the father, following which the resulting redirect was speedy deleted as being unhelpful and irrelevant to the actual topic. Subsequently, the article was restored by another administrator on the grounds that since historical records specifically about the son do exist and the original article wasn't "recently created", it isn't eligible for speedy deletion — however, the sources in question are purely genealogical in nature, and don't even make a claim that he has any actual notability in his own right for anything whatsoever. Additionally, it's the age of the redirect (less than one week at time of deletion), not the age of the incorrect original article, that determines whether a redirect qualifies for speedy deletion or not. Accordingly, I'm taking it to AFD rather than getting into an edit war with another administrator over speedyability — but since there isn't even a claim of notability here, it's still a pretty unequivocal delete either way. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion - owning a house & land received from one's father & having a will does not establish notability--JimWae (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete as a first choice as a non-notable individual, or as a second choice redirect to Thomas Powell (1641–1722)#Later life and legacy, where this subject is mentioned on his father's page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he's not notable for anything in his own right, and therefore highly unlikely to ever be an actual search term that anybody's actually looking for, I don't see how redirecting it adds any encyclopedic value. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject doesn't meet notability guidelines as per the above. INeverCry 22:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the reasonable solution. Since the subject is mentioned, a cross-reference is appropriate DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 02:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bradlee Fulton[edit]

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

Only one source, there is no reason given that this women is notable besides one brief mention in a book. Ducknish (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At three full pages, the book mention isn't exactly brief; also, in addition to the sources in the article, I found this (p. 227) which looks like it probably has quite good info, though it's quite old. It looks like there's enough material out there to write a decent enough biography. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few more, including a play that was written about her--we normally consider that evidence of notability -- just from Google books; the ed. who wrote the article should have sourced it properly, bbut the nom. should have followed deletion policy and checked also. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added the info, the article looks ok now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for at least a stub. Kierzek (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Connection (website)[edit]

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

This is mainly a procedural nomination. This was a contested proposed deletion; the Prod tag placed by a Newbie was removed. It appears that this page might be marginally notable. I'm leaning towards deletion based on lack of notability and insufficient reliable sources, but I'd like to read others' comments and opinions. I have no connection to the website or its competition. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment * FYI, two days before the nomination, I tagged the article and requested the creator to fix the issues tagged. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 5 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 5. Snotbot t • c » 15:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep On the strength of the Church Times article the organization has some sociological significance. It has collected three mentions in front-line national newspapers in the UK. I'd not oppose a redirect to some related general article if available. I sense that there are a lot of even less notable subjects of articles and a good number of these end up as "keeps" Jpacobb (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deprodder. In-depth articles in the Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph (I'm gonna apply AGF in assuming that the article's correct in asserting this is from the sunday paper, which is a distinct publication), and Guardian constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources. – hysteria18 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can see that the second article is from the Sunday Telegraph by looking at the date. The two publications share a website, but they are separate editorially. MarkSG (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm obviously biased as I created the article, but I would argue that significant mentions in the majority of the UK's quality newspapers constitute notability. And, while I know that notability isn't a popularity contest, Christian Connection has considerably more users in the UK (and a higher Alexa ranking) than many of the other online dating agencies listed at the relevant category page. The media page at the Christian Connection website lists some more articles mentioning them (it's fairly short, but they're obviously selecting only the positive ones!), but the top two are in The Times and Sunday Times, which has a paywall so I can't link to them, and the third is a print-only publication that I haven't read and therefore can't quote. MarkSG (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christian Connection is very well known within the Christian community - as of 2009, it was certainly the largest christian website in the UK (can't find anything ranking them more recently) http://www.keshersearch.com/top50.htm As for the wider community, the media coverage listed above is pretty mainstream, but one might also add http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1324383/We-look-better-did-20-years-ago-Find-YOU-.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/2694175/Christians-learn-the-art-of-dating.html Several dating websites are listed on Wikipedia, including ones that are less popular or even now offline - it is not clear on what basis this particular one might be considered less notable.(talk) Oriana Naso (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balkanstroy[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that seems to be going nowhere. Has been reckoned to pass A7, but I think may fail WP:CORP. Tagged unreferenced since June 2007, and orphan since February 2009. Peridon (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 6 references in 10 minutes, just using Google News, and just looking for English. It verifies most of the material. As the main firm involved in some very large projects, they're notable The nom could have done the same. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must have looked in the wrong places. Withdrawing. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the Penny Drops[edit]

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

No sourcing, no establishment of notability. Pretty clear-cut case for deletion. McDoob AU 93 14:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --McDoob AU 93 14:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything that would suggest it would meet WP:BKCRIT. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Juliano[edit]

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

BLP for a non-notable local ghost-hunter. The pinnacle of Juliano's notability to have been in 2001 when the NYT published a short interview with him, but since this short article he does not seem to have been the subject of any reliable secondary sources. This article is mostly original research which assumes a number of fringe-theories. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to me that "South Jersey Ghost Research" is the subject of the NYT article rather than Juliano, which may suggest that the group has a higher degree of notability than he does. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be very little references about him, not notable. GreenUniverse (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stevens (soccer)[edit]

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

PROD contested by Dps104 (talk · contribs) with the explanation of "This player is considered notable." However, there appears little proof of this to me as the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – shows no indication of notability per WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, as he didn't play in a fully professional league. – Kosm1 fent 15:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nominator said, this articles fails all criteria of notability. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 19:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An-Nisa, 34[edit]

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

This is an Article about one specific Quranic verse. ~~It's~~ Which, in itself, is not notable, ~~important~~ no more special than any other verse, thus I believe this verse is not encyclopaedic.

The actual subject of controversy is domestic violence (esp. in Muslim world). This verse intrinsically is in not an object of special significance, not even within Islam. ~~If that is the case be informed that there are 6000+ verses in Qur'an and 100+ controversial verses.~~ (depreciated at 06:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC) by Brendon ishere)
I personally do not think these verses require individual pages.
Reasons for the proposal of deletion (added at 19:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)):

Just because a particular subject (e.g. “Domestic Violence in the Muslim world and its relation to Islam”) is popular/controversial, does not mean every detail (e.g. every Quranic verse or Hadith) associated with it is within the project scope or requires an Individual page. In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia as opposed to a dictionary (dedicated to translate words from one language to another) with infinite breadth. There is wiktionary which is the "lexical companion to Wikipedia." Wiktionary welcomes all editors who wish to write a dictionary.
As per WP:GNG - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
As per WP:CSD A7 there is "No indication of importance". The subject of this article is not important or significant (i.e. An Nisa, 34 is not inherently significant but Domestic violence is). This Verse An Nisa, 34 (Sura 4 verse 34) is not a subject of controversy.
People try to interpret that verse in a million different ways (they try to explain away the connection between “Islam and domestic violence in the Islamic world” and absolve Islam from all the blame).
But within Islam it is believed that Qur'an is the "clear truth and the best explanation"^{[Quran 25:33]}, a revelation that was sent down "to make everything clear"^{[Quran 16:89]} and the "eternal word of Allah"^{[Quran 56:80]}. So clearly, the Qur'an is taken as incontrovertible truth in the Islamic world.
Then, what is this article discussing about? Mere interpretations. That is also unneeded because the verse is pretty clear about its approval of wife-beating (Sura 38:44 even describes the procedure to beat one's wife).
Any arab will be able to tell you what the verse says. This clarity doesn't leave much room for personal interpretations and POVs. (source) Also read the point just below that complements this one.
As per Wikipedia:COATRACK (also per WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK) - As stated above, the actual subject of controversy is “domestic violence in Muslim world and its relation to Islam”. And that subject already has a page dedicated towards discussing it (inclusive of the common interpretations of this verse). Thus, this article is quite evidently an inherently biased "coatrack article" (whose main aim is to only provide Islamic POV since there are not many non-muslim and Arab scholars). Thus this article has no other option but to cherry-pick facts, since there are literally millions of "scholars" who have steadily opined on “domestic violence and its religious permissibility” in past, some of which are true and others are abject fabrications. Thus this article will eventually foster a specific POV (be it for or against Islamic injunction).
In short, this article is about a Qur'anic verse. And that should have been the end of it.
Everything else will be people's personal opinion on the translation (probably predicated upon conflicted interest) and interpretation, making the state of its neutrality inherently an unfixable or insurmountable issue. Besides, why repeat same thing in two different articles? Why keep two articles more or less about the same topic?
I think it's really germane to note that wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy of a particular POV, or an Arabic-English dictionary, or an online exegesis of Qur'an (tafsir).
As per Wikipedia:NRVE - The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability (that proof is totally absent so far).
A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic itself has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity.
There are over 1.3 billion muslims and various critics of Islam, so it's easily demonstrable that every verse of the Quran as received "significant coverage".
But is it really the verse that's significant or is it the Qur'an or any other subject where the verse might be mentioned? The main topic of controversy (i.e. domestic violence in Islamic world) already has a page. Hence, the bald claims of "notability" or "significant coverage" don't tell us anything as to how that verse merits an individual page.

Note: Per WP:SUPPORT - AfDs are not about voting. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount.
Brendon ishere 19:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Addressing only the second half of nominator's statement: WP:NOTPAPER. We certainly have room here for articles about any and all portions of the Koran that have been the subject of significant attention in independent reliable sources, just as we do for chapters and verses of the Bible. See Category:New Testament verses, Category:Hebrew Bible verses, Category:Weekly Torah readings, etc. So I don't think an argument about "100+ controversial verses" to be germane here. On the other hand, whether this particular verse is sufficiently notable in Wikipedia terms to support a separate article may certainly be open for discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Brendon ishere 06:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't checked out all the references, but this verse appears to be the subject of much commentary and debate, and therefore notable. If you have POV concerns, this isn't the right venue to air them. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This verse is apparently the subject of considerable interest. "An-nisa 33" gets 7 Google Books hits, and so does "An-nisa 35". But "An-nisa 34" gets 2,830 Google Books hits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:HITS - A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally referable via the internet. Search engine tests may return results that are fictitious, biased, hoaxes or similar. It is important to consider whether the information used derives from reliable sources before using or citing it. Less reliable sources may be unhelpful, or need their status and basis clarified, so that other readers gain a neutral and informed understanding to judge how reliable the sources are. BTW, not many of these hits are reliable and can very well be blatant lies. Brendon ishere 06:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there are six thousand verses, we probably need 6,000 articles. Even the non-controversial ones have attracted elaborate comment over the past centuries, very little of it on sources on the web. Similarly for the other sacred books. In any case, this particular one is clearly controversial, and there is significant commentary even in modern English language sources--not that such sources are necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If there are six thousand verses, we probably need 6,000 articles." - Are you saying that in jest? Wikipedia is not an online exegesis of Qur'an (see tafsir).

"In any case, this particular one is clearly controversial" - No. This verse is not controversial per se, Quranic approval of domestic violence is (it has a page dedicated to it). That's all the more reason to think that this article is clearly a content fork or a coatrack article. Brendon ishere 07:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable verse of the Quran, and the verse has received significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“A notable verse of the Quran” - may not be an encyclopaedic subject. There are over 1.3 billion muslims and various critics of Islam, so it's easy to say that every verse of Qur'an as received significant coverage. But is it really the verse that's significant? or the Qur'an or any other subject where the verse is cited? Hence, that doesn't tell us anything as to why do we need an individual page for this verse or any other verse from Qur'an alongside the pages dealing with the main subject of controversy. Brendon ishere 09:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under CSD criteria G11 and A7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goddessey project[edit]

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

Not notable, cannot find any reliable source, fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The sentence "It acclaims itself as more than just a band but also a full blown story of female empowerment." is the one that does not make the article qualify for A7 speedy deletion. jfd34 (talk) 08:28, 5 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 5. Snotbot t • c » 08:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep on the issue of "keep vs delete" and no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Benita[edit]

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

Came fifth in 2012 Mayoral election: unsuccessful candidates are not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Only one citation in her article is not about her campaign in the election. Bondegezou (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many independent sources with her as primary topic are available. The guideline actually says that unsuccessful candidates are not notable if they don't meet the primary notability guideline, i.e. coverage in sources. - filelake shoe 08:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the GNG requires the existence of reliable sources, not that they be in the article already, desirable though that is. Benita is sufficiently well sourced to pass this test easily, election or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". A quick search uncovered profiles on the BBC website and UK national newspapers such as The Independent, The Guardian and The Telegraph. --Wavehunter (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly passes notability guidelines (WP:POLITICIAN) - coverage in reliable news sources. Because of the coverage of the individual in reliable sources, the nominator's rationale is incorrect - unsuccessful candidates are not notable if they don't pass WP:GNG - and Benita clearly meets the general notability guideline. →B music ian 14:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There were profiles of all the candidates in the London mayoral election, as there are often profiles of losing candidates in various elections around the world. The sources described above pertain purely to her role in the campaign for that election. Thus, any useful content in this article can be merged to London mayoral election, 2012. WP:POLITICIAN is a brief statement, so let me go through the underlying rationale. Individuals above cite WP:GNG, which includes this note: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". OK, so let us consider WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTNEWS is useful guidance here: I quote, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I see no enduring notability for Mrs Benita. There's also, critically, "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." The news coverage of Mrs Benita is entirely within the context of a single event, the London mayoral election, 2012, ergo our coverage of her should "be limited to the article about that event". Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our editing policy indicates that we should keep material with this level of notability. Warden (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of such profiles and articles indicates that our traditional limitation to successfulcandidates is unduly restricted. How far we should go depends on the political system and the importance of the jurisdiction. This is safely within it, as will be the case for all very large cities. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment In reply to Colonel Warden, I do not see the applicability of WP:PRESERVE here. Any material about this individual can be moved to London mayoral election, 2012 in keeping with WP:PRESERVE. In reply to DGG, while I accept the London mayoral contest is an important one, I struggle to see how the argument supports keeping a candidate who came 5th with 3.8% of the vote. In reply to others, I would appreciate discussion of WP:NOTNEWS, which suggests that our coverage of her should "be limited to the article about that event". Finally, can I refer everyone to a related AfD on another of the losing candidates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Cortiglia. Bondegezou (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE is very relevant because it is disruptive to wantonly destroy satisfactory and informative material such as this. It seems that you do intend that we retain some of this material and so deletion is out of the question because our licensing policy mandates that we keep the edit history. The name of the candidate is useful for searching and so the worst case here is that we would merge into an article about the election. But merger is not deletion - see WP:MAD. With deletion eliminated as a possibility, this is then a matter of ordinary editing. I myself prefer that the article be maintained with the current structure because it seems most sensible to cover topics under their natural title, per WP:COMMONNAME. Omnibus articles are unsatisfactory because they are too large for modern devices such as smartphones. Conventional encyclopedia commonly have very brief entries for many topics and we should not be afraid to do the same - enough is as good as a feast. Warden (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to London mayoral election, 2012 per WP:ONEEVENT and long standing convention that simply being an unsuccessful candidate is not sufficient for notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This should never have been proposed for AfD; the only question is whether the content should be merged or kept as a separate article. By usual policy, a merge is indicated, unless Benita continues to be newsworthy beyond the election aftermath. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely obvious merge here, unless there's some argument that she has been proven to be notable for anything other than that one thing which is already covered elsewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the election article. Having failed to be elected she fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN, but who she is (and the other failed candidates are) clearly belojngs in the election article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. However, I agree that a discussion regarding "scope" should be help on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about California[edit]

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

Unsourced, indiscriminate, full of redlinks. This does not give commentary on the purpose of California in a song, nor do the songs have any common theme besides name dropping one of our bigger states. For instance, "80's Ladies" only mentions California in one throwaway line — is that "about" California? This list is just unsourced, indiscriminate and too broad in scope. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Previously kept via no consensus as part of a bundle AFD in 2007. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a 69-kilobyte list of songs which mostly just mention California in passing. Undefined inclusion criteria, little or no sources. JIP | Talk 08:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. As an example of suitable coverage elsewhere, see the entry for songs in A Companion to California. Warden (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete, although the lists for individual cities would be better separated into their own articles. Any songs not "about" California can be dealt with by editing. --Michig (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but discuss scope. Personally, I'd consider limiting it to notable songs. It seems to include any song by a notable artist. The ones included seems to include not just those about California in the narrow sense, but also those which the text indicates are set in California--which I suppose in a broad sense implies they are about life in California. This can be discussed, but there are at least a few dozen which certainly qualify on both counts. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per the above and per WP:ATD. Gotta say, though, it gave me a chuckle to see California Dreamin' and California Uber Alles in the same list. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but very reluctantly because I consider "lists of songs about" little more than trivia for numerous reasons including that the list is usually expanded to songs that mention... Let's hope those that are voting to keep will trim the list mercilessly, removing songs that merely mention California, adding references to confirm a song is ABOUT California (remember Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to list articles too!), keeping to notable songs, and remembering to check back every couple of weeks to remove the rubbish that will be added again. FWIW, If Tenpound had nominated Category:Songs about California, I would have supported the nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an index of songs by subject is a pretty obvious index and relevant to culture of and about that state. I don't think it should just be limited to songs that merit standalone articles but should also include songs on notable albums, but that's a matter for editing. Columns should be added for album (if applicable), date of release/publication, and a description for annotating in what way the song is about California. It certainly should not include songs that merely mention "California". postdlf (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm currently listening to Sir Tim Rice present his playlist of songs about California. You may be able to pick this up on the iPlayer, if you missed it. Perhaps you can then explain why Walking in Memphis is in his list! Warden (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Because the word "Hollywood" appears in the lyrics, but I would read this to mean a club called Hollywood situated in Memphis, rather than that place in Cal. I note Walking in Memphis could be in lists about .....Walking, Memphis, Graceland, Shoes, Delta Blues, W. C. Handy (composers), Beale Street, Catfish (fish), Gospel and Piano (musical instruments). Hence, although I sort of voted keep for this list, I abhor these kind of lists - even if there is a kernal of a good idea behind them they soon develop into total trivia. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (or replace with an EL to a search for the word "California" in a lyrics database^joke) -- blatantly WP:INDISCRIMINATE and of no encyclopaedic use or value. Arbitrary intersection of the categories Category:California and Category:Songs, even if cleaned up. What next? A List of songs about the color black (blue, red, London, Berlin, Kintyre, ...)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent. I started this page a while ago. It helped make a great soundtrack for my road-trip moving back East from LA. But Wikipedia has matured since then. While I find this list very interesting (and I'm going to copy it to my Wikipedia user space for posterity), it is not a well-defined category. On the other hand, there are a notable number of songs in the list that really do focus on California in general or on a particular California landmark. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This appears to be one of the rare cases where "ITSUSEFUL" can be a valid argument. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PTM. Only two of the things here have the exact name "Diary of a Wimpy Kid", and the rest are already linked from that page anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is already a template for the DOAWK series and although it could be edited a little (will add it to my TDL unless someone else does it), the template essentially does everything that this disambiguation page does. There is absolutely zero need for a disambiguation for this series when this is really what templates are for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps I am missing something here, but it seems to me that this does exactly what a disambiguation page should do, in a helpful and necessary context. From the standpoint of an ordinary reader, we have four articles with this title: Diary of a Wimpy Kid (the first book); Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) (the series of books); Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film) (the first film); and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) (the series of films). Not to mention the assorted articles where this is a part of a longer title. Someone--perhaps less familiar with the mysteries of article naming--comes to Wikipedia looking for information about a specific one of these; without the DAB page they have to poke around in the text of an article, or figure out that they should go all the way to the bottom looking for something called a template (which doesn't even include direct links to all of the films). Or, we can be helpful and provide this more easily comprehensible navigation aid. I'd note that, according to the page view statistics, this page is viewed several thousand times each month.[1]--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So either a.) they go to Diary of a Wimpy Kid and click through to the hatnote, or b.) they go to Diary of a Wimpy Kid and navigate elsewhere with the template. What's wrong with just having b.)? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It serves a useful purpose and doesn't hurt anything. The template, if updated to improve other Diary of a Wimpy Kid items would be useful too, but there's no problem with having both. SchreiberBike (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument, not even for dabs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL says: "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I still don't see how this is not redundant to the navbox on the main Wimpy Kid page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, clearly passes WP:PTM, four of our articles have this exact name, Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series), Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film). Cavarrone (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This disambiguation page is doing exactly what a disambiguation page should be doing which is distinguishing between articles that would otherwise have the same title. Some of the the entries are artguably partial title matches but there but that is an editting concern. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs with over 60,000-capacity stadium[edit]

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

List which seems to duplicate information from the existing List of association football stadiums by capacity while setting an arbitrary limit and giving undue weight to the football clubs. Cloudz 679 06:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 06:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to arbitrary inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – why not include 50,000+ stadiums?! Seriously now, we've already got List of association football stadiums by capacity, which is enough. – Kosm1 fent 06:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely arbitrary list, 60,000 is not in any way regarded as a "magic number" in terms of stadium capacity -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary inclusion criteria. Why 60,000? Why not 50,000 or 70,000? JIP | Talk 08:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Assume good faith. The author probably created it as a trivial kind of thing. Still, it's not suitable for inclusion. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 18:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arbitrary & trivial. Giant Snowman 11:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete In World Cup, Semi-finals or finals must be held in over 60,000 capacity. Over 60,000 capacity means big sized stadium. So This article listed football clubs which have big sized stadium. -- Footwiks (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per User:Footwiks on the condition that a source can be found demonstrating that assertion. Rename to List of football stadiums eligible for World Cup finals or somesuch. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shmacapella[edit]

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

Non-notable vocal group. Ridernyc (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully. Really cool idea, but the sources tell me it's a little bit too soon. Good luck, guys. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The group of musicians may become notable in the future, but the article's subject at its presence fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG due to the lack of its coverage in reliable third-party sources. (note to nom: try to avoid WP:JNN) →B music ian 13:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deletable content and tagged for G10 by myself; article is clear cut eligible, and there is no need to carry on. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spike nicholson[edit]

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

Non notable and no reliable sources can be found, also contains original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd34 (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete G10 (attack page). So tagged; article has been blanked accordingly, and it looks like the setup took the AFD tag with it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | confess _ 14:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scribbling Day[edit]

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

Sources given are two blogs and a definition to the word "scribble". We are not for things made up at school one day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Possibly, this article could be merged with Yearbook; seeing as how it does seem to be a culturally relevant behavior and is notable. However, the exact name may or may not be "scribbling day." LogicalCreator (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing the notability, though. I see a couple of not so reliable sources that talk about it a bit, but this doesn't make the grade, quite frankly. As for relevance, that doesn't really enter into the picture accordingly. Have you read through WP:AADD by any chance? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Nominator's WP:NFT argument seems to be contradicted by the 8000+ Ghits on "scribbling day", the majority of which seem to be for videos, photos, or blog entries concerning this subject. I found and added a 2004 newspaper article that mentions the phenomenon in passing. It seems to be all or mostly an Indian thing, so perhaps there would be more to find in Hindi or other languages. Would feel better about saying "keep", though, if there were a bit more on the WP:RS front. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. I do not believe that it has the notability to be a seperate entity. However I agree that it may be merged with Yearbook, if it was it would be no more than a single sentence. This page however should certainly not be kept. Joe1000000 (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a non-notable student custom at possibly only one university. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsure what a proper redirect target would be. Feel free to recreate as a redirect if you like. -Scottywong | soliloquize _ 14:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Armstrong Brooks[edit]

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

I originally sent this off for ((db-copyvio)), but it's from a USDA site - so copyvio doesn't exist here. The notability concerns, however, remain, as it seems that the only site that contains anything about the late Mr. Brooks is the USDA site it was copied from. I could be wrong, but that is about all I'm finding. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A trumpeter for the US Cavalry who was killed isn't going to attract much attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Subject of nine pages in: Bennett, Eileen, ed. "The History and Legend of Bugler Bernard A. Brooks in the Saga of the Nez Perce War in Clark County." Snake River Echoes: A Quarterly of Idaho History 13, no. 2 (1984): 31-39., cited in the Bibliography of Nez Perce Summer, 1877: The US Army and the Nee-Me-Poo Crisis, and two pages of descriptive prose in Northwestern Fights and Fighters without biographic data (page 2 visible here). Single gravesite. Findagrave.com entry gives middle name as Arthur, states subject of LDS Special Collection 147123 (no visibility), referenced to Saga of Chief Joseph by Helen Addison Howard. Figured prominently in the action for which James Jackson (Medal of Honor) was awarded the Medal of Honor (Act of Valor: Retrieved Body of Downed Comrade). Dru of Id (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads a bit like a memorial. Obviously an admirable soldier, but not a particularly notable one. A recipient of a Medal of Honor is certainly notable, but others involved in the action are not notable by association. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If the only reason Trumpeter Brooks is considered notable is the Medal of Honor citation for someone else, would it be unreasonable to mention Brooks there and redirect this to that article? It seems to be a good comrpomise, though I of course defer to consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems reasonable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Smith[edit]

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

This article is tiny with no inline citations, birthdate is unsorced, no death date is given. It's only attempt to establish notability is the statement "He placed somewhere between fourth and sixth in his first-round (semifinals) heat and did not advance to the final." An olympic athlete who placed 4th, 5th, or 6th in a heat in his 1 and only olympics and didn't make it to the finals is not notable enough to be included on this website. Rockchalk717 03:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be this sports-reference.com entry. Dru of Id (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- You seem to be mistaking this website for Winnerpedia. From Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Notability guidelines on sports persons: 'Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: 1. have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.' (emphasis mine). Where this article fails is Needs Reliable Sources (RS) & Verifiability, which hopefully will be provided by someone at this AfD, since I can't find anything reliable or substantive, but the sports-reference.com info may give someone search ideas. Dru of Id (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete those are guidelines. Notability is not guaranteed, only presumed. In this case, I think an exception to those guidelines can be made if no evidence of further references has turned up. --KarlB (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion on my original Delete There are some key words in there indicating they aren't rules. "Generally acceptable standards", "presumed notable". There really isn't anything notable about someone with an unknown finish in the 1900 olympics that didn't even make the finals.--Rockchalk717 00:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Competed at the Olympics for crying out loud, arguably the pinnacle of sport, easily meets WP:NSPORTS. This is a slam dunk to me. The article is referenced (just because it's a print source, doesn't mean it isn't reliable) and the sports-reference link supplied by Dru of Id is also reliable. Jenks24 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise What about moving this page to "Harrison Smith (athlete)" so we can move the football player to Harrison Smith, since Harrison Smith (American football) is more notable with him being a first round NFL draft pick this year.--Rockchalk717 02:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Since they're both athletes, counter-propose Harrison Smith (olympian), ~(runner), or ~(track and field) (in order of preference). Dru of Id (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used athlete since that's what most track athletes (Maurice Greene (athlete) for example) who need disambiguation have athlete as their identifier but if nobody objects let's close this and I'll create the moves myself.--Rockchalk717 01:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect back in the early days of the Olympics the athletes were primarily selected by connections and so forth, that doesn't mean that they were the best of the sport, instead they were basically the best of whoever they knew. There been several AFD discussions on these athletes who competed in the early Olympics and nothing else is known about their life, and they were usually merged or redirect to the sport they played that year. The Smith article should be turned into a dab page, as there's a notable football player, and looking at Google, a notable publisher with him name but no article (tons of sources about that publisher). But for this athlete in particular, there's no information about this guy that I can find, even in the 1890s sources when Yale athletes were among the most well-known athletes of their time, thus failing GNG. Secret ^account 20:54, 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, Drmies (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. Unfortunately, precedent is that everyone who competes in the Olympics is notable, even some athletes from the early years of the Olympics for which not even their full names are known. Rename to Harrison Smith (runner) since the newly drafted NFL player is at least as notable as the Olympian from 1900. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move as suggested above) It is a very good idea to have as many fixed standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia as possible. To the extent we don't have them, we must debate each individual case here. As is, we're debating about 10% of the new intake that pass speedy and prod,, plus an equal number of earlier articles--and this is too many a day to discuss adequately. It does not harm the encyclopedia to have articles on marginally notable subjects; it does harm the encyclopedia to spend any time debating them, especially when the results are going to be more or less random for everything on the margin. We need to write new articles, and improve old ones, not quibbler about requirements. I would never conclude that there is nothing to be found: Secret, have you checked with Yale sources, such as their campus newspapers of the period and their alumni bulletins? Have you asked their archivists? DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Harrison Smith (runner)--Rockchalk717 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irudina[edit]

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

Article is about a Sri Lanka based newspaper. No indication that it is currently in circulation. Its website too is down. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither having ceased publication (if that is true) nor having a non-functioning website is a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I don't think this article satisfies the criteria of notability either. This newspaper, as a characteristic of Leader Publications (Pvt) Limited, was highly critical of the Sri Lankan government. But since their major publication is The Sunday Leader, and it continues to publish, and this one does not, I don't think this paper needs a separte article in Wikipedia. One option could be a redirect. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 00:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I couldn't understand what is actually in the mind of Astronomyinertia. Initially he is coming out the reason for nomination is - "....No indication that it is currently in circulation" and when Phil Bridger is raising his objection he is jumping into a different reason. That reason is also not valid since under one group there can be many broadsheets and tabloids and they all can be qualified as separate Wikipedia articles whether they are in existence or defunct.Sudar123 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Clearly passes WP:N for a Sinhala Language newspaper from Sri Lanka. It has received international coverage BBC ,New York Times ,Fox News,Reporters Without Borders ,CPJ,Amnesty International amongst others have written about Irudina which is clearly notable for a Sinhala newspaper .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why this was relisted. Pharaoh of the Wizards showed there are good sources, and they are in the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Linda Bradley[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Many mentions for appearing at the premiere of The Lucky One (film), but does not appear to have been in any notable films or shows. Shirt58 (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was on my todo list. I was hoping for any sources. Her resume lists her film and TV roles. The TV roles are one episode deals. In the movies from major studios, I'm unable to find she has been in any of them, so I'm assuming they were bit parts. The other movies appear to "independent". A search of a movie and her only reveals her site. Nothing to say notable, yet. Bgwhite (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Baseball Association[edit]

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

Deprodded with claim of sources on Gnews, but all I found was one-off, local mentions all from Geelong's own paper. No one has paid any attention to this outside Geelong. I found no non-trivial, non-local sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Geelong is one of the biggest cities in Australia and the Geelong Advertiser is one of the biggest and oldest newspapers in Australia – it should not be dismissed as a "local paper" anymore than the Washington Post should be for topics in DC. Anyway, here is some significant coverage in the Advertiser: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Also some coverage in the Ballarat Courier, clearly showing that people outside Geelong have paid attention: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. There are hundreds more articles like this on Newsbank, and a few articles in The Age. Looking through trove nla, I see coverage in The Argus, a major Melbourne newspaper, which shows that the Geelong Baseball Club merged into the Association in 1937 [15]. More significant coverage in the Argus: [16]. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "coverage" I see is just name-dropping it. Tell me how any of those sources is non-trivial. Also, as I said, local coverage isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are The Age, The Argus and the Ballarat Courier local? The two Argus articles, especially, show in depth coverage of what is happening to the club, not just match reports. Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but Washington Post is considered one of the top newspapers in the USA, and regularly quoted outside the USA in other news sources. The Geelong Advertiser has no where near that status. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there's a major difference between a "local paper" and a newspaper that serves a major city. Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the first places baseball was played in Australia. Regularly hosts the National Youth Championships and has been proposed for Australian Baseball League games. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 14:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it's notable because it's notable. Yeah, that works… not. PROVE IT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it useful to yell at fellow editors? Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so they already did. You dismissed them as local, but local sources that show something important make for notability--we do not automatically reject them. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in my local paper a bunch of times. Does that make me notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :) Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Jenks24's sources satisfy the notability criteria. --99of9 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regional league that is at least 80 years old in its current form. Plenty of news sources, especially if you look in Australia archives (many not online). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong | confess _ 14:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzroy Baseball Club[edit]

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

Deprodded with an argument that sources exist, but I couldn't find any on Google News. I don't see how this team can be notable if their league, Baseball Victoria Summer League, was deleted via prod in August. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For Australian articles, it's always a good idea to have a search of trove nla. This search shows a multitude of sources, many in one of Victoria's biggest newspapers, The Argus. For example, [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. There are hundreds more articles along this line. The club has played at the top level of Victorian baseball for 120 years, mainly in the Victorian Baseball League, which should have an article [37]. Many of their players have also represented the Melbourne Aces in the Claxton Shield and have represented the Australian national team. Just because baseball doesn't get a lot of coverage in Australia recently, doesn't mean it wasn't a big deal that had a lot of coverage in the earlier half of the 20th century. Jenks24 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of that looks like incidental local coverage to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne is a similar size to Washington, D.C., but you wouldn't dismiss the Washington Post as a local source for things located in Washington, would you? Also, how why do you consider, for example, this article to be "incidental"? It's a full length article describing how Fitzroy won the championship for the season. Jenks24 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fitzroy Baseball Club is a 123 year old sporting club [38](12 years older than the New York Yankees) and a founding member of the Victorian Baseball League [39] [40] [41][42](the states first baseball organisation and predesseor to the current state peak body "Baseball Victoria"). As well as featuring in articles appearing in The Argus (one of Melbourne's major newspapers) [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] several times, the club has featured in articles in The Mercury (Tasmania's leading newspaper)[56], [57] and Perth's Daily News [58]. More recently club articles appeared in The Age (circulation ~650k daily) [59] [60], The Northcote Leader [61], [62], Wyndham Weekly [63] and Moonee Valley Weekly [64]. Whilst I note that the Baseball Victoria Summer League page was deleted in August the "Summer League" brand was only launched in 2010 by Baseball Victoria [65] and few people in Victorian baseball use it themselves let alone mainstream media, hence the lack of citation. Baseball has developed a strong niche in Australian sport and the history of the sport is intertwined with Australian sporting history. Bill Ponsford a Fitzroy Baseball club member juggled playing International Cricket for Australia alongside Baseball for Australia [66] as did Neil Harvey who flew home from playing cricket for Australia in South Africa to play baseball for Fitzroy [67]. This article deserves further work and deeper research, not deletion. I would welcome any contributions or suggestions you might have. FBC Pat (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Crossroads[edit]

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

The article was previously prodded, but another user deprodded it, stating that there are too many sources for a prod. However, the actual PROD's reason appears to be correct - there is a lack of independent, reliable coverage for this convention. While I was able to find some pages, such as a page on Examiner.com (which, last time I checked, usually isn't a reliable source), I don't think they are enough to establish notability. Even the pages I found on Anime News Network were just press releases, which can be primary sources for expansion of the article, but not sources to establish notability. If reliable sources are found, I will withdraw this AfD, but until that happens, I just don't see how this convention is notable. It's not like this is the anime convention equivalent of the Indianapolis 500 you know. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another editor had asked for feedback about this and said they had not found any other sources either, here is what I said: "Anime Crossroads just has sources as you have said from animecons.com." in other words the sources given in the article are just primary, and the convention fails per WP:N without sources to help it out. If new sources are found by someone in the future then the article can always be remade using the info from the limited sources plus the new ones found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anime conventions looks like an area that really needs some trimming. There are articles devoted to conventions with less than 500 attendees and no references other than convention directory sites -- this appears to be one of many examples. There is no indication that the convention is of any significance. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the one who deprodded it and I do not have the sysop bit. I did a search and found too many sources to let this article be deleted under prod. A link for this search can be found on my talk page. – Allen4names 06:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A further analysis of your search shows that other than the event's own website and AnimeCons.com, the only other source is Anime News Network. Some of the search results are also false positives. Even though the number of sources is small and tightly tied to the event itself, the main issue here is still notability. Its significance among anime conventions is not proven anywhere in the article or anywhere in the available sources. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 14:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the ANN links - they aren't even actual coverage of the convention itself - rather, they are press releases. Not exactly the reliable independent coverage it needs to establish notability. I found coverage on Examiner.com, but that site isn't reliable most of the time. I also found some blogs... some unreliable blogs. It is actually possible for someone to create an article on let's say an anime convention in in a city in let's say the Philippines. It gets decent attendance, and is even visited by people like Alodia Gosiengfiao and other Filipino anime personalities. It can have a claim to notability as the largest Filipino anime convention outside of Manila, but unless reliable sources, and lots of them (newspaper coverage, ANN coverage etc.) cover it, then it can't have an article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same comments from when originally PROD, lack of independent, reliable coverage for this convention, even with significant attempts to find sources. Esw01407 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yasht101 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Spain's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence[edit]

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

Creating a page for each country is overcoverage per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is already covered at International recognition of Kosovo. Any relevant information not already covered there can be added. West Eddy (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The International recognition of Kosovo article is way too large. Thus, the info from it has been moved into stand-alone pages in order to make it navigable. Would it be better if these articles instead be re-named "Kosovo–Foo relations"? There are many articles on relations between countries (and yes I know about WP:Otherstuffexists, but Category:Foreign_relations_by_country is pretty big). Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And can I just add that International recognition of Kosovo has gone down from 76th largest article on Wikipedia, to 534th since the separation of info into separate articles has occurred. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The content of this article used to be in the very large International recognition of Kosovo article but moved here (and similar articles have been created for some other countries) for technical reasons, i.e. per WP:TOOLONG. Bazonka (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Delusion23 and Bazonka. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yasht101 16:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ukraine's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence[edit]

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

Creating a page for each country is overcoverage per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is already covered at International recognition of Kosovo. Any relevant information not already covered there can be added. West Eddy (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The International recognition of Kosovo article is way too large. Thus, the info from it has been moved into stand-alone pages in order to make it navigable. Would it be better if these articles instead be re-named "Kosovo–Foo relations"? There are many articles on relations between countries (and yes I know about WP:Otherstuffexists, but Category:Foreign_relations_by_country is pretty big). Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The content of this article used to be in the very large International recognition of Kosovo article but moved here (and similar articles have been created for some other countries) for technical reasons, i.e. per WP:TOOLONG. Bazonka (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Delusion23 and Bazonka. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yasht101 16:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Vatican City's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence[edit]

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

Creating a page for each country is overcoverage per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is already covered at International recognition of Kosovo. Any relevant information not already covered there can be added. West Eddy (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The International recognition of Kosovo article is way too large. Thus, the info from it has been moved into stand-alone pages in order to make it navigable. Would it be better if these articles instead be re-named "Kosovo–Foo relations"? There are many articles on relations between countries (and yes I know about WP:Otherstuffexists, but Category:Foreign_relations_by_country is pretty big). Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The content of this article used to be in the very large International recognition of Kosovo article but moved here (and similar articles have been created for some other countries) for technical reasons, i.e. per WP:TOOLONG. Bazonka (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Delusion23 and Bazonka. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yasht101 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Libya's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence[edit]

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

Creating a page for each country is overcoverage per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is already covered at International recognition of Kosovo. Any relevant information not already covered there can be added. West Eddy (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The International recognition of Kosovo article is way too large. Thus, the info from it has been moved into stand-alone pages in order to make it navigable. Would it be better if these articles instead be re-named "Kosovo–Foo relations"? There are many articles on relations between countries (and yes I know about WP:Otherstuffexists, but Category:Foreign_relations_by_country is pretty big). Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The content of this article used to be in the very large International recognition of Kosovo article but moved here (and similar articles have been created for some other countries) for technical reasons, i.e. per WP:TOOLONG. Bazonka (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Delusion23 and Bazonka. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Mission paradox[edit]

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

Contested prod. Nothing more then an original research essay. Ridernyc (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be just an ordinary self-reference paradox cited only to a videogame. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note The user who created this article is also the person who entered that information into list of paradoxes. Ridernyc (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a trivial piece of plot from a video game. I don't think it's even important enough for mention in the video game's article, much less as a stand-alone article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A piece of plot from one video game. Hardly notable. JIP | Talk 08:55, 5 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) 02:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable variation of liar's paradox. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Liar's paradox. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable in the least. Seems more like something that should be a single sentence in the Portal article, or an example in the respective paradox article, not a whole article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Wiese (Poker Player)[edit]

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

Has been speedied a few times in the past, now has a "claim" of notability, but winning $1000 lifetime in tournaments isn't enough to pass WP:N. I pulled the A7 tag off since it didn't clearly fit the criteria, and sending here instead so a consensus to delete, and perhaps salt, can be had. See also deletes for Frank Wiese [68]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nothing comes close to being notable here. Also recommend salting. Ridernyc (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~I (and about a million others) have more tournament winnings than this bozo.~~ (Okay, not in top flight tournaments.) Two small cashes are nothing to brag about, not even in the WSOP or WPT. Salt to taste. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A career in the $1000 range clearly puts him as an amateur in any reasonable scoring of a sport. Claim of being a "best kept secret" is basically a statement that he is unnoted. The books published by Just Fold Enterprise? Amazon lists there being only one book total from that publisher, suggesting that it's a self-publishing operation, and in any case not a publisher of note whose support would indicate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedy is unjustifiable; assertion of notability is made, and a speedy was already declined. This said, the article notes a publishing house that has published one book as of 2010, despite the assertion of two books published (openlibrary.org). First link found on a perfunctory google search turns up a Myspace account. Even disregarding the amount of winnings on the part of Mr. Wiese, there is no notability here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, not notable, deleted six times previously. Hairhorn (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only seeing two on the logs for this one, Hairhorn. Could you link the others? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted four times under the title Frank Wiese. 79.123.72.81 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two A7s, a G11 and a PROD[69], plus a G11 and an A7 under this title[70]. I linked this in the nom, but it isn't as obvious as I could have made it I suppose. I'm guessing 7 is a lucky number for salting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my speedy delete should have been for a combi of A7/G11 (as it was tagged but that tool only lets me choose one) since it was posted by a subsequently blocked promotional role account. Having it here after a repost under a fresh account to evaluate just notability is fine but after checking the poker guideline and looking for sources, it is still delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Howard Schwartz, host (28 May 2009). "Gambler's Book Clubs Podcast. Episode #45 - Poker Player Frank Wiese". Retrieved 2012-05-06. He's also a correspondent for several poker magazines.
Paul Oresteen (5 November 2011). "Short Stacked Wiese Doubles Up Plus Some". Retrieved 2012-05-06. (photo caption) Frank Wiese chips up but still less than starting stack. ((cite web)): External link in |author= (help)
"Frank Wiese. Poker Tournament Results. Poker Player". Retrieved 2012-05-06. Lifetime Winnings: $1,153

Delete A potentially legitimate BLP topic, but I had trouble finding secondary sources, three sources are listed above. Based on what I found, I doubt that there is a target for the redirect. The book, Eat Professional Poker Players Alive! is "Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #462,974". This book review from readybetgo.com states, "Plagiarism in any form is simply inexcusable, and even if the rest of the book had been good enough for me to recommend, which it wasn't, this by itself would have been sufficient reason for me to encourage prospective readers to not purchase this book." Which reminds me that the second sentence of the current article, "He is considered to be one of pokers best kept secrets", is also found at fwiese.com. Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are two related deletions for "Eat Professional Poker Players Alive", but I can't find any previous AfD discussions for either the author or the book. Unscintillating (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 Notes to Infinity[edit]

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

Can't find it much notable and also looks like a G11 Yasht101 07:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep : I think I can help get sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to Rsrikanth05. The article was sent to AFd just two minutes after it was created, with cleanup tags added eight minutes after nomination.[71] So, I just performed some cleanup for style and format,[72] but was myself unable to find suitable sources. It may be that the article is premature. However, if not enough sourcing is found to merit a separate article, perhaps it can be redirected to the director's article where it might at least be mentioned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a Highbeam account now, perhaps I might be able to get more than Google. But maybe, if needed we could redirect it to Shrenik Rao if I'm unable to get anything. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created a bit too early. Iv no doubt it will be recreated once notability is established, delete for now. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:52, 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) 01:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It really is too soon for this one. Best of luck to those involved in the show. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After source searching, this topic currently appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline WP:GNG for inclusion in the encyclopedia. No prejudice toward recreation if the topic receives significant coverage in reliable sources in the future. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Qwyrxian under criterion G4. Non-admin closure. "Pepper" @ 20:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgid Nzekwu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reporter. I'm not seeing award or major field impact here. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hedging on Speedy Delete G4 (repost) on account of AFD. Can't tell if it's that different, but the last result was delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change management auditing[edit]

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

Non-notable buzzword phrase with no citations. Searching on Google Scholar brings up lots of "...change management, auditing..." and "...change management: auditing..." but no use as a phrase in itself. There's one or two passing mentions on Google Books. I can't find any mention in newspapers and there's scant sources on the web: what exists certainly isn't anything close to reliable source. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge See sources such as Auditing Technology Change Processes or Audit Involvement. Warden (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very weak Keep Much to my surprise , the The Internal Auditing Handbook ref seems to show it to be a distinct topic. It would need considerable rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | talk _ 14:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Davalloo[edit]

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

This article is about the perpetrator of a crime, possibly two, but neither the criminal acts, the perpetrator or victim have notability. There are also only 6 references given, only one of which is active. BashBrannigan (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this time, she is suspect of one murder, and has been demonstrated to have committed one - against her late husband. So for all intents, we have WP:ONEEVENT. Given the deactivation of the other links, I'd have to lean on no. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes wp:gng per source.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, read WP:GNG . It says "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." but goes on to explain, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I contend it fails as as criteria for inclusion because, From Wikipedia is not a newspaper:

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." What is enduring about this murder? I see nothing particularly unusual, nor does the articles single source give anything. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Kinkaid School. clear consensus that it does not warrant a separate article DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinkaid School Archives[edit]

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

Archive of a local school. Any information here should be either merged to The Kinkaid School or deleted as not sufficiently notable. Travelbird (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge—into The Kinkaid School. No notability can reasonably be expected for the archives, but since somewhere along the line we decided schools were notable, this can go into the article on the school. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on the school itself (much of whose history is replayed in this Archive article anyway). No evidence that the archives have independent notability; their existence can be covered by a sentence in The Kinkaid School article. AllyD (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many schools and universities for which a separate page exists either for the libraries or the archives: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscripts Collection; Perry-Castaneda Library; and others. The Phillips Exeter Academy Libraries is a good example since it is also an independent high school for which a separate wikipedia page exists for its libraries. The archives of the Kinkaid School are notable particularly since they contain some records of President George W. Bush, a former student, and records of school founder Margaret Kinkaid, a historically notable individual in Houston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonGrl (talk • contribs) 16:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It is just a kindergarten through 12th grade school. "Other stuff exists" is not a viable argument for keeping this article, but rather a suggestion that an AFD for Phillips Exeter Academy Libraries is needed. The argument also conflates a modest 160 thousand volume school library (at Exeter) with the mere archives of a lesser-known school, Kincaid. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Exeter article concentrates very largely on the building, which is very clearly notable as a building, and is too long to merge. An Afd would be foolish there, though the dorm articles in Category:Architecture of Phillips Exeter Academy do look ripe for merging to the main article. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Large collecting archives are notable. Archives of single organisations usually aren't. The fact they may contain papers relating to famous people is neither here nor there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ingersoll Rand. Sandstein 05:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GHH Rand[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. This company fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ingersoll Rand, which owns this non-notable division. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 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) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Not quite a "keep" consensus, as many opinions are just bare assertions of notability with no or little argument. Sandstein 05:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. P. Birla Institute of Fundamental Research[edit]

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

No evident notability or credible claim thereof and (of course) there's no external sourcing. There are a vast number of "Institutes" on WP already and far too many of them are bogus articles on bogus organisations with no credible sources to back them up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is linked, as the article claims, to a major university, which Bangalore is, then it could well be notable. I suggest we wait as an editor appears to be working on it. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The institute quiet dully notable. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of how dull the institute is, but whether theses claims are WP:Verifiable by independent sources. I can claim that my garden shed is an accredited partner institute of MIT (and many, many Indian academic articles claim similar things), but that doesn't mean that it's true, unless we can find another reliable source to confirm it. If we can't confirm these things, we shouldn't state them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Birlas are a well known industrialist family in India and this is one of their philanthropic activities - there are refs available from Google News, its only a question of using them. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are lots of hits in google news, but all of them seem to be recycled press releases and interviews, no in depth coverage. Merge to host institution also a possibility. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that sources have been found and incorporated into the article. See below and the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable institute.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to suggest sources that might support this assertion? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is certainly not a "bogus" organization; the institute has been involved in a joint project with NASA. The topic is meeting WP:GNG with significant coverage about the institute itself, its programs and courses. There are likely more news sources available on Indian news websites.

Mazumdar, Jhinuk (December 28 , 2009). "Nasa gadget for closer look at sun". The Telegraph (Calcutta, India). Retrieved May 05, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Charan, Sahana (September 27, 2004). "A-Z of Astrobiology". The Hindu. Retrieved May 05, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been expanded as of this post, and sources have been incorporated into it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 2 and 3 are passing mentions. Ref 4 is a tourist guidebook entry to an entity these people do research with (but notability isn't inherited). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It is good that some 3rd party sources have now been found for this article. However... NASA describe Radio Jove as being for "students and amateur scientists" [73], as is also said in the final line of The Telegraph article, so the extent to which this can be described as a joint project is questionable. And the other article is effectively a press notice for an evening class. But they are possibly just enough. AllyD (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -Scottywong | converse _ 14:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kabuki dance[edit]

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

nn neologism used a few times in a limited setting, no currency in common English usage as claimed Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more's the pity. Culture takes it on the nose for snideness. That said, where one might expect terrible difficulties weeding out false hits, there are in fact a comparable number of hits for the phrase and the Japanese dance style itself, in Google News. About half of the 381 hits are for the phrase. Examples:

Said by: Bill Clinton, http://www.oakridger.com/editorials/x750985241/Dancing-with-the-deficit , Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bakersfield Californian - Mar 25, 2008.

Said about: Michael Gorbachev , LA Times , and Obama, Clinton & NAFTA all at once, which is kind of greedy, I think, and I think reflects on the phrase itself. Nonetheless, as I say, notable and much used.

Anarchangel (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As User:Anarchangel points out, the term has been used for decades to describe inaction or going through the motions on Capitol Hill. I apologize if such an inaccurate re-purposing of a Japanese artform insults the self described Japanophile who has proposed the deletion, but that is the reality. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That the phrase is used is not in doubt — so it certainly should be in wiktionary, for instance. That it is an independent encyclopedic concept, itself the direct subject of third-party treatment, is far less clear. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit the article needs work in that direction. I was able to dig up such a ref quite quickly: Lackman, Jon (April 14, 2010). "It's Time To Retire Kabuki: The word doesn't mean what pundits think it does". Slate. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- N.B. I've found the time to incorporate the aforementioned source to produce a more encyclopedic lead. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It's a notable concept, and the sources and text now assert that. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete move to wikitionary BO; talk 17:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki. Does not go beyond a dictionary entry; per WP:DICT we are not a "slang or usage guide". Sandstein 05:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G7 by user:Malik Shabazz. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nagendra Manyam[edit]

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

Recreated after being prodded. Only source for this "aspiring filmmaker" is IMDB. Only credits are various minor film making roles e.g. assistant director. No evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO. Tassedethe (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability presented via GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Brown (producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I slashed the article because it was unsourced or unreliably sourced. I don't even know what he's supposed to be to be able to do WP:BEFORE. His own website points back to this article. Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete no coverage at all. Can only find these, [74] [75], which are about a completely different N Brown (producer) who was born in St. Louis and works out of Chicago, our mystery man hails from Texas. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I've come to the same conclusion as the Captain. Fails GNG for utter lack of coverage in reliable sources. Fails ANYBIO for lack of significant accomplishments as documented by third parties. JFHJr (㊟) 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current version of the article is virtually blanked. Earlier versions looked more like WP being used as a marketing site for an unnotable person, rather than an encyclopedia entry. I saw no substantial coverage from reliable, secondary sources applying to this person. Looking at producer credits for the various Nathan Brown's listed at imdb.com, even if all of them were attributable to this one Nathan Brown, I would not consider it to provide sufficient notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Or at least no consensus to delete. As Mr. Safar's notability appears not to be in question, the only argument advanced for deletion is that the article is poorly written, promotional and authored by Mr. Safar himself, who has not made his WP:COI transparent. However, the preponderance of opinion is that these deficiencies can be remedied through editing rather than deletion. Sandstein 05:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diwon[edit]

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

Textbook puff piece about a marginally notable musician written by the selfsame musician. Diwon recently gave an interview to the Daily News about his Wikipedia-editing business, mywikipro.com, that charges people $300 to start their Wikipedia articles. User:Bernie44, the same account that started this article and the article for Diwon's record label, Shemspeed also started the majority of the articles for clients of mywikipro.com.

This article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMOTION and would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Some of the references used here are highly problematic. This statement - The Village Voice has stated that “as producer and DJ [Safar] is among the most adventurous and banging on the new Jewish music scene.” was sourced to Elena Oumano's piece in the Village Voice "Get Down Moses," but that article doesn't mention Safar at all or have that quote. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 00:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like he threw every single press mention he's ever had into the ref list. Pure puff. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems there are enough good references left to make him notable. The Jerusalem Post gave him a full article devoted entirely to him. I consider the Forward 40 an authoritative list that proves notability--it's a national, not a local list, they are the major US Jewish news publication, and in fact I have long meant to write articles systematically on everyone they include. It's a shame it needed a paid editor. As for errors in the article, we fix them. As paid editors go--and as I have just commented on his page--his work is relatively quite free from promotionalism, though quite unskilled in terms of skill in writing. But we're not judging him, but the performer DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This might fall under WP:TNT, and the puffery herein kind of makes me lean toward that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at his notability, it's quite obvious. Sources entirely about him or significantly about him include this, this, this, and a number of others, as shown in the article. These are definitely not "puff pieces", but coverage of a leader in the Jewish music scene. Silver seren^C 07:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source you quote above as 'problematic' states "Kippah-wearing producer dj handler spins in Lower East Side clubs by night and, by day, produces Jewish-infused hip-hop, electronica, and jazz for his Modular Moods label." Sounds like the quote should be attributed to a different article, but I don't see why it can't simply be removed. I tried to locate an article that actually showed the quote that is on the page, but I couldn't find it, used Wayback and lots of search term variations in Google. You didn't explain what other sources you find problematic, but if that is the only one, I say drop that citation and leave the ones that can be verified. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I didn't address most of your other comments because they weren't concrete enough to address. You say "textbook puff piece" and mention how he used some website "mywikipro.com" but these two statements are merely bias and not specific claims. I looked over the article and although it makes claims, it generally backs those up using what appear to be reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. If you could be more specific about some things in the article that particularly violate NPOV, I could reconsider. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep the motivation for the nomination is almost entirely vindictive. Yet punishment isn't grounds for deletion. If we're to delete this article, we need to consider the article's merits and not its origins. "Puff" can be fixed. "Marginally notable" should be debated on a source by source basis. So, if the nominator would like to change my mind, then I invite him or her to address each reference or otherwise back up the "not notable" claim. Rklawton (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Also, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to maintain a stand alone article per WP:GNG. Once you have that, errors in the article, other problems, etc. can be fixed. Comment: User:Gobonobo's initial AFD request is a valid request and the reasons given in the nomination for deletion are clear enough to develop this discussion. Two people can disagree on what it takes to meet WP:GNG without one having bad motives and should not have to endure public accusuations from others about having bad motives. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith:
Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the author of the Diwon entry, I’d like to address a few of the concerns expressed here. First, as other users have pointed out, the entry clearly shows the notability of the subject, referencing several mainstream news sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Jerusalem Post, etc). Per Gobonobo, I checked the Village Voice quote in question, and the reference is indeed incorrect. The quote has since been removed by another user, which is appropriate; I’ll put it back up should I find the correct reference. However, Gobonobo’s statement that the article “would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic” is excessive. I’ve made an attempt to clean up the entry in order to make it as neutral as possible.

In regards to the flagging of this entry, and others I’ve written, claiming I may have violated Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” principle, I should remind Gobonobo and others that, as it states on the Conflict of interest page, it is “not actually required” to declare any potential conflicts of interest. As per the guidelines on that page, I have attempted to “carefully [follow] Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy” to “help counteract [perceived] biased editing.” I have not written or edited any entry in which “advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia.” I appreciate any good faith attempts to improve the quality of my contributions. As for the accusations of “puffery,” any user finding relevant and properly referenced criticism of Diwon/Safar can obviously add that to the entry.

In keeping with Notability in Wikipedia, Diwon “has ‘gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time’ as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic,” and is therefore worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. --Bernie44 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a vanity autobiography. If he is genuinely notable then let someone else start an article. The intersect of important subjects and people where nobody creates an article until the subject themself does it, is the null set. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as I dislike paid editing, paid editors, and autobiographies, an article should be judged on its merits. This subject seems notable. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bunny Man. -Scottywong | gossip _ 14:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Overpass[edit]

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

This overpass is not notable in itself. West Eddy (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would make exception if this were a historical landmark, but the only thing I can draw out of here is that it is on a supply line from the American Civil War. If something else can be found about it that makes it significant, sure I'd say keep, but I see nothing special about this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I am the article writer. Please see the latest edits. I will defer to the more seasoned editors as to whether or not Colchester Overpass is notable in and of itself. My intent with this submittal was to provide factual information to curiosity seekers regarding the train and vehicle traffic present at this popular legend tripping site. If it can't be kept as a stand alone article, then perhaps the information should be merged with the Bunny Man article. It would seem to me that public safety information pertaining to a popular urban legend is an important part of any encyclopedic entry. This can be done by linking this article to the Bunny Man article or by including the information there. Please read the following excerpts from a newspaper article currently in work as part of the public service announcement campaign regarding railroad trespass at Colchester Overpass. With its place at the top of Google search results for Bunnyman Bridge, the Wikipedia entry for Bunny Man plays a prominent role in drawing curiosity seekers to the overpass.

"... Colchester Overpass is sometimes referred to as Bunny Man Bridge. In nearby Clifton, t-shirts advertising Bunny Man Bridge as a local attraction are sold in the General Store. Though some are aware of this local curiosity, very few are aware of a very real danger there. Unconvinced? Just ask the individuals involved in the railroad trespass arrests that have occurred at Colchester Overpass since October 2011....The recent string of arrests has little to do with legend and plenty to do with a matter of public safety. At the heart of this matter is an active railway. The railroad tracks at Colchester Overpass are the same tracks that run through Clifton. They are NSC tracks used by Virginia Railway Express (VRE), Amtrak, and NSC trains. Weekly VRE and Amtrak traffic accounts for at least ninety trains. Add the NSC freight traffic and the weekly total is easily in excess of one hundred trains.....Though vehicular traffic is safe, Colchester Overpass surprisingly receives an inordinate amount of pedestrian traffic on the active railway. How can this be? During April 2011, local residents discovered a disturbing fact on the Internet. While researching the Bunny Man legend, long embedded on the cyber sphere, multiple YouTube videos and various blogs promoting railroad trespass at Colchester Overpass (Bunny Man Bridge) were discovered. Normally, active railways are not advertised as destination locations. In this case, the location is “advertised” as a great place to experience a thrill on the track! Uninformed curiosity seekers are drawn to the overpass through the Internet exposure. Perhaps unaware of the railway traffic they proceed onto the tracks, twenty five feet above Colchester Road, endangering themselves in the process. Unknown, unattended and often occurring at night, this scenario had been in place for several years. The potentially lethal mix of pedestrians and trains was recognized as a very real public safety danger.....Discovery of this information led to several meetings. As a result, local residents teamed with law enforcement in implementing the following actions....The actions taken to address the insidious Internet “advertisement” for Bunny Man Bridge have changed the circumstances at this local curiosity. This affects not only local residents but others as well. Since October 2011, the string of arrests related to railroad trespass at Colchester Overpass has included both juveniles and adults. Many were high school students from distant Fairfax County schools. Some were not old enough to drive but caught a ride. In April 2012 alone, five arrests were made. Ironically, by being arrested, these individuals are being protected from themselves. Curiosity seekers of all ages from the greater Washington D.C. metropolitan area and beyond are getting an unexpected surprise when they trespass on the railroad tracks at Colchester Overpass. Increased public awareness of the safety danger and potential consequences at the overpass could prevent an arrest or most importantly, save a life."

Kohlchester (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Kohlchester (not exactly sure how to "sign" this)[reply]

Delete. No need for lists of minutiae about the speed limit, clearance height etc. of this small railway bridge (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Most of the sources are blogs, reviews and apparently self-published material. Removing all of that leaves insufficient material for an article. If people have been injured on the road or rail line, that can be included in the Bunny Man article (with reputable sources), along with a statement that law enforcement are actively patroling the area (ditto). Dricherby (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I am the article writer. Colchester Overpass is certainly a small railroad overpass. What makes it significant is not its clearance height. The significance of Colchester Overpass is its deeply embedded association with the Bunny Man urban legend. This association draws legend trippers to the site. Once there they like to leave their vehicles and have a look around. Pedestrians unfamiliar with the active railroad and roadway traffic are at risk. There is a public safety hazard at Colchester Overpass. This is the information that must be conveyed. I found a couple of other Wikipedia articles that include public safety information. The Niagara Falls article includes a section called Over the Falls that talks about the different ways daredevils have been injured there. The Grand Canyon article includes a section called Grand Canyon Fatalities that talks about the different ways visitors can be injured or killed there. Public safety information is missing from the Wikipedia Bunny Man article. The missing information can be added either by linking Bunny Man to the Colchester Overpass article or by adding pertinent information directly to Bunny Man. Kohlchester (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:DISCUSSAFD, please do not make more than one recommendation for action ("keep or merge" etc.). You're welcome to discuss your recommendation but using the boldface more than once means that somebody who looks at discussion without checking the signatures will think that several people share your opinion. The two examples you mention (Niagara Falls and the Grand Canyon) seem very different to me: they do not simply give safety information but discuss notable historical events that received wide media coverage, including an air crash that killed 128 people. Furthermore, the safety advice of not walking on railroad tracks, parking your car in an appropriate place and being careful while crossing the road is commonsense that should be known to everybody; it certainly isn't unique to the Colchester Overpass. If there is a safety problem caused by people reading the Bunny Man article and visiting the overpass, the place to put the factual statements is in that article (as suggested above), where it will be seen by the people you're trying to warn. Dricherby (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip on Wiki etiquette. I agree that it is common sense not to walk on a railroad track or loiter in a roadway. It is also common sense not to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel or to hike the Grand Canyon in a poor state of fitness yet this information is included in those articles. The Niagara Falls article discusses the illegality and potential consequences of barrel rides over the falls. The Grand Canyon article discusses actions taken to prevent unfit hikers from becoming overzealous. All good public safety information at these popular destinations for those that lack common sense. Colchester Overpass is a popular destination for legend tripping visitors that obviously lack common sense. How do I propose a modification to include public safety information in the Bunny Man article? Is that something proposed and discussed here or in another Wikipedia forum?Kohlchester (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to propose it — just do it. But please find reputable sources to indicate that this is a significant problem. Dricherby (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. See Bunny Man.Kohlchester (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge Bunny Man. Not really appropriate for a separate article , but the contents is relevant, and its an important redirect. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bunny Man. Appaears not notable otherwise. Sandstein 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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