< 17 November	19 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of specific note is the fact that the "delete" arguments directly address the sourcing available as inadequate, while the arguments to keep provide no rationale whatsoever, nor dispute this assertion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Do not be fooled by the size of this article. The only third-party, reliable source that discusses the topic is the second reference, which is nowhere near the required amount of coverage for WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. A minor chart appearance is not a criteria for the topic meeting notability guidelines per WP:NALBUMS. Previous Afd closures have resulted in 'no consensus'. Till 23:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination based on jealousy. Per the comments on the previous nominations. Meh. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have provided zero evidence of how this topic is notable. Till 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my vote on the last AFD. It's notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:ITSNOTABLE? Good grief, they should have banned you from Afd altogether. Till 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Should I be banned from AFD altogether? Well, go and try this time, you may have luck. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd think you've heard from your first ANI report. This time, you will receive a block for your acts. Keep digging. Statυs (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It appears to be a non-notable topic that passes WP:GNG. TBr and ley 00:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... (You made an error there) And have you read the article? The only secondary, reliable source is from Rap Up acknowledging its existence, which is not enough for WP:GNG. The rest of the information is completely irrelevant to the article in terms of notability. Till 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See below. TBr and ley 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's my assessment of the article's 17 sources:

(1) Allmusic listing. No significant coverage.

(2) Rap-Up piece. This one's okay.

(3) "inlay cover" to the Good Girl Gone Bad album. Not independent of the subject and no mention of this Collector's set.

(4) Allmusic credits for Music of the Sun. No significant coverage and no mention of this Collector's set.

(5) Identical to #4. No significant coverage and no mention of this Collector's set.

(6) MTV article. No mention of this Collector's Set.

(7) Another MTV article. No mention of this Collector's Set.

(8) "inlay cover" to the A Girl Like Me album. Not independent of the subject and no mention of this Collector's set.

(9) Billboard article. No mention of this Collector's set.

(10) Guardian article. No mention of this Collector's set.

(11) Independent article. No mention of this Collector's set.

(12) Amazon listing (Canada). No significant coverage.

(13) Amazon listing (US). No significant coverage.

(14) Amazon listing (Germany). No significant coverage.

(15) Amazon listing (UK). No significant coverage.

(16) Billboard directory listing. No significant coverage.

(17) Allmusic credits. No significant coverage.

I !voted to delete this during the previous AfD, and my concerns from last time still apply as far as I can tell. There is, of course, plenty of material written about the three albums (Music of the Sun, A Girl like Me, and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded) that make up this collection. However, I'm not seeing significant coverage for the collection itself, with the exception of the Rap-Up write-up. And that's what I'd like to see more of in order for this to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 01:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gongshow and Till. Subject clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:N and no significant coverage is prove to do so. No newspaper/magazine sources available either. The three albums are notable, but the collection itself is clearly not. TBr and ley 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gongshow and Till. AdabowtheSecond 14:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To the above: WP:PERNOM and WP:MAJORITY. Statυs (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it clear I feel that Gongshow and Till have highlighted that this is not a notable subject. So I vote Delete. AdabowtheSecond 15:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages you gave, Status, are only essays, not guidelines or policies. Regardless, I expanded my comment. TBr and ley 15:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, I am just asking the two of you to give a better rationale for your vote. That's all. "Per x" votes don't hold much weight to a discussion. Statυs (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless to blabber the same what another user pointed out earlier. This clearly isn't notable Gongshow has made this perfectly clear. But I understand your notion. So for future reference I will blabber more. AdabowtheSecond 15:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Article's best sources are in relation to the individual albums in the set but not the set itself. Charting in and of itself does not make an album notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have reviewed and agree with Gongshow's analysis of the sources. -- Whpq (talk)
Delete – admittedly, I must say that the length of the article caught me off guard as to why this article is up for AfD, but a look at the sourcing, as well as a Google search, which largely turned up retailer links, tells me that the article fails WP:GNG because it lacks sufficient coverage from third-party sources. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Weak Delete It has charted, which is indeed a considerable point for having an article but it does not seem notable to be honest. If you read the article, you will come to know it talks a lot about other existing articles on Wikipedia. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, having charted does not mean anything. It ranked in one chart (which is not even the main national chart) and at a mediocre position. Charting and receiving awards does not mean much if the album does not get significant discussion from secondary sources. This article was fluffed up with very loosely relevant information. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gongshow. The individual albums are absolutely notable, but this collection doesn't stand up to the GNG. Ish dar ian 03:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Again this? It's notable. VítoR™ • (D) 16:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - How so? -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of songs from Sesame Street. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 01:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do De Rubber Duck[edit]

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

A single sketch isn't worthy of its own article. JetBlast (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of songs from Sesame Street. I agree that there doesn't appear to be enough material in independent reliable sources to support a stand-alone article. I think a redirect would be fine as it's a plausible search term. Gongshow ^Talk 01:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of songs from Sesame Street. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Melbourne Beach, Florida#Mayors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Coston[edit]

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

Under WP:POLITICIAN, a local politician must have received "significant press coverage" to warrant an article. I think this speaks for itself. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - while a news search (as far as I know, GoogleNews is made up of articles which have been categorised as "news" since the inception of GoogleNews) might not find much, there are a couple of news items in archives that mention him, which you would expect for someone who has been mayor. Simply stating there are no online hits for a guy who retired 15 years ago is a bit unfair. Sources need not be online and we should be conscious of the fact that "online news coverage" is not the same as "coverage" generally and that there may have been significant coverage of the subject of the subject during his time as mayor (the 1980/90s). I'd be uncomfortable about deleting the article of a 1980/90s politician on the basis of a lack of 2012 google hits. That said, there's nothing attached to the article and those few sources I could find could not be considered significant coverage. I would be interested in anything others could find, especially off-line, especially from Florida. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melbourne Beach, Florida#Mayors. The sub-stub of an article says little more than what is already in the Melbourne Beach article. With a population of 3,101, I don't see that he would likely satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Mayors of major metropolitan areas would receive significant coverage. Mayors of a small town would likely see local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whpq, small-town politicians, unless they do something extraordinary or stupid doesn't get the broad coverage we need for WP:GNG Secret ^account 09:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayor of a town of 3,100 people. We've almost always in the last few years kept mayors of cities over 100,000 population, and sometimes between 25,000 and 100,000, but never this small, unless there are sources for something special in the way of notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Qwest Choice TV channels[edit]

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

Current channel listing that clearly fails WP:NOTDIR, a constantly changing channel guide and directory similar to an electronic program guide. See overwhelming consensus for deleting channel lineups at other recent AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List_of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete yet another directory of ephemeral trivia with no third party sources. triple fail. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per well-established precedent that we don't do this sort of article. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR #4. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIR and as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Snow delete, no need to keep hoaxes around for seven days when they are this obvious. Fram (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estakhr's Constant (physics)[edit]

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

Bringing this to AfD because it needs attention from someone knowledgeable in physics. I cannot find a single reference to this in Google Books or news. Nothing. Smells like an elaborate hoax. §FreeRangeFrog 20:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be largely biased or a hoax. Only Google results are either forums or youtube, or this article. Rarkenin (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure nonsense. The article makes grandiose claims of having found a theory of everything by writing down the weak-field metric of GR and replacing coordinates with operator expectation values (quick—somebody email Ed Witten!). A search of Estakhr on arXiv turns up nothing. Googling estakhr big bang only turns up the same incoherent blog posts that have been pressed into service as "references" for this article. Zueignung (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This version was denied at AfC, and this version has some strange comments at the bottom from the IP author. The article was copy/paste moved from AfC. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you enjoy the part where the article's creator added an external hyperlink to a WWW page calling it "empty nonsense"? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsensical hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The traditional response, when the article writer points out that the subject is a secret is to state that it must thus be too secret for Wikipedia and we are required to ensure that it remains a secret by deleting it. I did a history merger to restore the original authorship, by the way. I was all set to go to User talk:The Illusive Man to ask xem what on Earth possessed xem to write this, since it seemed out of character, when I figured out that it was an AFC submission. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something which is not physics. a13ean (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think not a hoax, which implies intent to deceive; the author probably believes in his theory, but it is unverifiable original research with no reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxes and pseudoscience can sometimes be notable. Not in this case though. No independent reliable sources exist at all. Fails WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk)
- I also think SNOW applies here for any passing admins. It's pretty clear that this is never going to be acceptable here. No point in waiting another 7 days. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:OR. This is mentioned in exactly ZERO reliable sources. All I could find is blogs and forums of the lowest sort. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Qualifies for ((db-nonsense)). Starts with "There is a physical constant ... that is a single unified force!" and doesn't get better. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That probably wouldn't have worked; CSD#G1 has a very high threshold of acceptance for most admins, for good reasons. G1 is something where the entire contents are "osdkoasdk" or something like that. Certainly not a page and a half of mathematical formulas, useless or otherwise. §FreeRangeFrog 03:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As FreeRangeFrog points out, the criterion is patent nonsense, not merely nonsense. Patent nonsense has a specific definition, and it covers things that cannot possibly be understood, not things that can be understood but are simply unverifiable or original research. That latter is a decision that has to be made through a consensus discussion involving many eyes over a week in order to be made with a reasonable degree of safety. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article have 'one reliable source' that is accepted conference abstract (that is origin of all other references too) so that is enough to say it is 'not' a hoax.

"a search on arXiv turn out nothing", this is clear because author is not american!!! :D, any way, JohnCD is right, it is unverifiable and 'original research' with only one poor reliable source, i also think article is reliable (as a physicist)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Software Portfolio Rationalization[edit]

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

This is an article on a purported business technique that most people call software asset management, though the article goes to some pains to try to make the distinction. The basis of the technique is apparently a book by Michaelson (2007). "Closed Loop Lifecycle Planning®: A Complete Guide to Managing Your PC Fleet." Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 9780321477149 , a book held in only 100 libraries. Almost none of the accessible references use the term except the HP article, also by Michaelson. Otherwise, all the references are simply talking about the motivations for Software asset management, making this article a prime example of WP:SYNTHESIS DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I previously had PROD'd this article for WP:OR concerns, but never got around to following it up. DGG's statement summarizes the issues well. Legoktm (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crezzas (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I'm relatively new to this process so am trying to understand what I need to do to make the article stick. How many independent external references do you need in order for this not to be considered WP:SYNTHESIS. I have found some consulting companies that are offering this service to organizations, and indeed I have personally witnessed this very activity underway. Software portfolio rationalization is very different from Software asset management; it is just not widely known. I think an article on it would be a valuable contribution to wikipedia.[reply]

it's a matter of quality, not quantity. You need reliable published sources by other people discussing this particular specific topic in a substantial way. Your opinion that the concept is "just not widely known" is probably a good indication they will not yet be available. When it becomes widely known, there will be sources & an article can be written. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails the WP:GNG. Appears to be an invented technique that only the person that invented it refers to. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Seccareccia[edit]

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

Most of what's out there is primary rather than secondary. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Was written by a WP:SPA. Qworty (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I'm not finding anything in reliable sources on this living person. Ironically, he shares his name with a deceased poet, who is very likely notable. See, for example, Castellinews.it coverage from February 3, 2010 (subheading reads "To Be Presented: Journey to the South by Antonio Seccareccia, farmer, policeman, bookseller, and poet who died in the town castle in 1997."). The dead poet's writings seem well cited, and there is an award in his name that receives some coverage. But no connection to this living person. This article should be deleted to give an article on the deceased poet its own clean revision history. JFHJr (㊟) 02:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the other person of the same name; thank you for your research. An article about the notable poet should definitely be created to take the place of this one. Qworty (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and written a biography for the deceased Italian poet in my draft space: User:JFHJr/Antonio Seccareccia. Whoever deletes this living person's autobiography, please feel free to move this draft into the article namespace. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very few classical musicians are notable at the age of 22. If he wins any major awards later in his career he can have an article. Claritas § 15:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails the WP:GNG. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unreferenced. If sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Da'qwan problem[edit]

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

Non-notable mathematical problem. Fails WP:GNG. Likely made up in a classroom. All Google searches for the problem result in newly created social media sources suspiciously created after the article was created by multiple suspect accounts. Attempts to reference the article were done by copying irrelevant references from other articles. Contested proposed deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with Gogo Dodo that this fails WP:N. Note: I was the original PRODer. David1217 ^{What I've done} 20:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable. Da'qwan problem and Da'quan problem not found on ZMATH, Google Books or Google Scholar. Whether or not it's a hoax, a classroom exercise or just something made up one day I don't know, and doesn't really matter. Deltahedron (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure it's a hoax, more likely WP:NFT, but it should go anyway. Stalwart111 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a philosophical concept. It doesn't matter if it's present on scientific websites. Furthermore, its more interesting then most other philosophical concepts Toastedasparagus 03:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)— Toastedasparagus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First, probably worth having a read of WP:INTERESTING. Second, it does matter if it has been covered elsewhere or not because the notability of a subject (which must be verified by reliable sources) determines whether or not something is included in Wikipedia or not. If you can provide sources and references that demonstrate the notability of the subject, your arguments here will be given far more weight. Stalwart111 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the term "Da'qwan problem" may be a recent invention, a moment or two on Google will show you that this problem does, in fact, exist. Watch a race exemplifying the Da'qwan problem here, here, or even here. Think about it; it's an ancient conundrum. Turtlelova39 2:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)— Turtlelova39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's not about whether we can analyse something ourselves and come to a conclusion - the idea must have received coverage in reliable sources elsewhere before it can be covered here. That aside, the signature, style and topic interest suggest (very strongly) that you and User: Toastedasparagus are the same person using two different accounts. But Wikipedia is not a democracy and these discussions are not "decided" by a vote. They are decided by weight of arguments against policy and guidelines and by consensus. So creating new accounts just to "vote" multiple times here will get you nowhere... except maybe blocked. Stalwart111 03:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You, Stalwart111, are just wrong, while I do know 'Turtlelova49' in real life. We do not have the same account. Secondly, no one suggested this is a democracy. So that argument falls invalid. We are working to get a paper published on JStor as I am typing. ToastedAsparagus[[User talk:ToastedAsparagus}] 06:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.30.27 (talk) [reply]

Actually, you've just confirmed I'm at least partially right - meat-puppetry is also not okay. If you really are two different people then you should at least try using signatures that aren't formatted exactly the same way. As for sources, I'm glad you're working on publishing a paper but be aware that some might question it's reliability if it's not independent of the subject. Further, Wikipedia still requires significant coverage in multiple sources so one single source likely wouldn't be considered enough. Stalwart111 08:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As you can see in the sources provided by Turtlelova39, there are cases where this race has been experimented. The theories suggested in this article however do not meet [WP:NFT]. The article should be edited, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:CC0:1:20F:FEFF:FE24:FD1C (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those videos mention the "Da'qwan problem", which is the subject under discussion. See Stalwart111's comment above to Toastedasparagus. The only YouTube video that mentions the "Da'qwan problem" is this, which is obviously an attempt to gin up some coverage of the topic. The video just reinforces my view that this "problem" is made up or a hoax. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in academic journals or textbooks. Seems to be made up, doesn't meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 23:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability should be more convincing. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic example of original research. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LPC (programming language). MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LPUniversity Foundation[edit]

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

Not noteworthy Somerville32 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 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) 15:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LPC. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a speedy keep following the withdrawal of the nomination. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of encyclopedias[edit]

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We already have List of encyclopedias, which is encyclopedic. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 19:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't see how it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE in any way. It appears to have a similar aim to List of encyclopedias. Merging the two would seem the obvious way to go. --Michig (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only basis for deletion provided above seems to relate specifically to the admittedly over-exuberant language in the lede section, and it should be noted that I had expressed those concerns in the talk page already. I acknowledge that there is a duplication question regarding the two groups of articles, but, honestly, to my eyes the title with the work "Bibliography" is a bit clearer and possibly better in line with WP:NAME than the more generic title "List" articles. Personally, I think it more reasonable to merge the content from the existing "List" articles into the bibliography articles, which, again, seem to me to have a more appropriate name. I have only gone through about 1/4 of the 1986 Sheehy book I am currently using to cite my own additions to the pages, which also, obviously, only covers books printed in 1986 or early, but I have started a similar list specifically for religion at User:John Carter/Religion reference and I can reasonably think most of those published after 1986 are discussed in some of the same journals as those Religion books are. And, yes, I have a lot of review articles in my e-mail for books of all sorts which I haven't yet added to any list. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very honest question: Are bibliographies like this considered encyclopedic content? I mean, it is okay yo have this type of information collected into an article (or lists) here on Wikipedia? — Ṟ Ṉ™ 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In attempting to answer the above question, which pretty much by definition is somewhat OR on my part, I would have to say "almost certainly yes." Do they meet basic WP:NOTABILITY guidelines? Yes. There are huge sections of the Sheehy book I am using to source my additions devoted exclusively to bibliographies of topics, and in the book I even find pages 3 and 4 of the book starting an exclusively generic "bibliography of bibliography" section, with 15 generic entries, followed by eight pages of lists of national and regional bibliographies. I even saw a few entries exclusively on "bibliography of encyclopedias", I think enough to establish particular notability. One of these is an either academic or professional journal devoted to the topic. Given the choice of "lists" and "bibliographies", I would prefer the "bibliography" format because it can also contain short entries on those works which don't have enough "reviews" for separate articles as well. "Enhanced lists" or whatever we call them could do that as well, but, given the word "bibliography" exists to specifically cover this sort of topic, I do think it the more relevant and effective title. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the almost-five-years I've been here, I never came across this type of articles, that's the main reason why I proposed this, as well as other bibliographies, for deletion. I found them [in my personal opinion] to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but if the topic as a whole has been discussed by several sources, then it is obviously notable. John, I'd ask you to close this nomination if you wish; I made a bad judgment call, I guess. Thanks for taking a bit of your time and explaining this to me :) [Damn, we learn new things every day]. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 00:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - straight deletion does seem out of the question here, as this list is well-defined (if ambitious), well structured and properly cited. John Carter makes sensible points about the name, but in general WP contains "Lists" of any number of kinds, and it is I suppose less easy to locate if "List of xyz books" is an exception by being a "Bibliography of xyz". However there's obviously no problem with the name at least as a redirect. On the merge/keep issue I am less certain. It would clearly be silly to discard the detailed bibliographic information here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are important differences between the lists of encyclopedias and the bibliography lists. The lists of encyclopedias tend to list works about which separate Wikipedia articles have been written while the bibliography and its offshoots sets out to be a comprehensive list which can serve as a reference guide to anyone researching a given topic. As an increasing number of historical and modern works become available digitally, the bibliographies of encyclopedias become increasingly relevant to those wishing to enhance their knowledge of the world. Furthermore, with ISBN references, many of the works can be obtained through physical library networks. I hope these lists will continue to develop so that in the not too distant future, Wikipedia will serve as a universal on-line reference point to those seeking encyclopedic knowledge of any of the topics which have been included in encyclopedias and dictionaries over the years, whether in English or in other languages. It is an extremely ambitious project and goes far beyond the more restrictive lists of encyclopedias developed until now. --Ipigott (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ipigott's comments. "List of ___" articles basically should include only items that (1) have Wikipedia articles, or (2) can be expected to get them. This page has a completely different purpose of listing basically any and every encyclopedia — while the pages linked at List of encyclopedias provide links to articles about those encyclopedias, this list provides links to the encyclopedias themselves and to bibliographic information (e.g. ISBNs) about them. Basic lists are one situation in which "it's useful" really is a good argument; this list brings together related encyclopedia topics and is useful for navigating that subject. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator said he wants to withdraw the AfD. See the comment made above by Ṉ™ @ 00:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Theo polisme 02:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Director X[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, as well as being poorly written and barely biographical. EM64T (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely a notable music video director. OJ411 (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll just say upfront that I have zero interest in this guy or what he does, but even I've heard of him! A glance at Google News Archive shows LOADS of sources there. Mabalu (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I might be thinking of Professor X, now I think about it. However, still a Keep vote based on the Google News archive material, there seemed to be a lot of stuff there that can't all be non-RS. Mabalu (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you point out some of the significant coverage from the "LOADS of sources"? -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the promising ones appear to be pay-to-view such as 1 and 2. The preview for this Dec 10 2006 article read: "Little X Brampton native, born Julien Lutz, who has made a name directing videos for everyone from the pious Deborah Cox ("It's Over Now") to the currently ...". A free source in French. Not sure this online South African magazine is a RS but it adds to the volume of international sources out there. Canadian interview. Article on name change. An amusing one about Somerset farmers making a rap video directed by X. This guy really gets around. To be honest, the more I look online, the more puzzled I am as to why this guy has even been nominated for deletion - there really is loads of stuff out there. I have no interest in the genre or the person personally, so I'll just say that he has obviously received extensive international coverage, has done lots of high profile music videos going back nearly 20 years, and while he is pretty low on my personal radar, I fail to see why he is up for deletion. Mabalu (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I honestly did not realise there was so much coverage of this man. If this is the case, then it's possible the article could be extensively improved upon. We can keep the debate open, but I might personally change my mind about wanting it deleted. --EM64T (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, CSI: Miami, Without a Trace and CSI: NY episodes[edit]

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

No point in having them all in one. There are separate lists for this, and you can compare if you wish from there. This list is pointless. TBr and ley 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Understanding that there separate episode lists for the 4 shows, there's no point in a combined list just to highlight a few episodes that have common stories to the various shows. Just note these in the current episode lists. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This interleaves the episodes into airdate--doesn't seem to be a terribly useful feature to me, but it is one that is not addressed by separate lists, and is not addressed by either the nom or the delete !vote above. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same reasons List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel episodes was - an unnecessary content fork, and those shows had more direct connections to each other than the various CSI series. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whats wrong with the way they are? Its just confusing! — M.Mario (T/C) 23:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Aldrich[edit]

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

Doesn't fit a CSD criteria, but isn't notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An alias from one episode of a TV show isn't notable enough for an article. If an article is created for the actor, though, I'd redirect it to that article. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I might have considered that if it was sourced, but without sourcing.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable character alias, IMDb - not a reliable source, plus article is possible WP:COPYVIO of IMDb-reference.Shearonink (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble citing the real life Douglas Aldrich. It is behind a newspaper paywall and not referenceable. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipietime (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is the guitarist Doug Aldrich born in 1964 so couldn't be the namesake for this non-notable fictional character. What "Douglas Aldrich" are you referring to and what newspaper has this information/quote behind a paywall? If you cannot reach the information, then it is unusable - must be accessible in some fashion but anyone looking into this issue needs to have the newspaper name & info (date, page, etc.) Shearonink (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the guitarist is well covered, but, obviously this is not the topic of my entry. The Gastonia, NC Gazette. Why do you ask? Are you willing to assist with this effort to obtain citations? It is believed that the fictional Aldrich is based on a real life individual; as is common in fiction. PLEASE answer this; What is the time frame I am working under? I feel like the deletion baton is hoovering with a particular editor's constant borderline badgering. This seems inappropriate. --Wikipietime (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked is that I didn't know, so it wasn't obvious to me. Just wondering - how did you become aware of the asserted possibility that this real-life person is the model of a fictional character if the information is behind a paywall? And when you refer to "It is believed that the fictional Aldrich"...even if this is so, how would a single published assertion about a minor fictional character be notable? There doesn't seen to be sufficient coverage to fulfill the general notability guidelines in this instance. In answer to your timeline query, WP:AFD states that

Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the page may be kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.

In answer to your statement that you think you are being harassed by "a particular editor", I would suggest you first WP:AGF and if you still think that there are issues that need to be resolved, then follow the steps in dispute resolution. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor character with little coverage, not enough to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character in a minor TV show. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info, seriously.Wikipietime (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, I must say that I find the guidelines inconsistent when I peruse Doug Aldrich; the lack of citations, etc., The fading effect of time will certainly render this Doug less significant than the current article portrays. It seems that the lens of history should be applied in an equitable fashion. Oh wellWikipietime (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I don't see any significant coverage of this character. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue stating a claim that this fictional character deserve a degree of notability and my argument for is founded on principle. The topics of polygamy and bigotry are counter to social norms and fictional character(s)' portrayal as pioneering in the respective media is sufficiently notable. The topic and character was, and still remains taboo thus garnering very little coverage. The comedic, gold digger, presentation in "A Woman's Work" made Aldrich palatable and remember-able. But, with 5 DELETES going it is looking quite grim. How many more DELETES are needed before the term "doing the Douglas Aldrich" goes down? --Wikipietime (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I am having with him is that he fails the WP:GNG. We can't say anything about his notable qualities from an outside perspective because no one has written about him. The only thing we'd be able to add to the page would be in-universe facts about his character. So for all his pioneering character traits, none of it could be added to the article because it isn't verifiable. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy spratt[edit]

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

Autobiographical article that doesn't indicate how the Person is currently notable. The none direct references (own site / facebook / youtube) do not mention Chrissy directly. I think there are enough references to mean it doesn't qualify for speedy though. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, borerline A7. Notability sufficient for inclusion is not established. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. —Theo polisme 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business Style: Word Choice, Conciseness and Tone[edit]

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

Seems more of an essay/how to instead of an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also original research. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, possibly a speedy deletion candidate as a duplicate of Style guide. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE — JJJ (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I echo NOTGUIDE . This article is written exactly as one. Fylbecatulous talk 14:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Wikipedia is not a web host for guides.--xanchester (t) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. I also suspect a cut and paste copyright violation, but can't work out from where. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A Treasure's Trove. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Q. Underhill[edit]

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

This one is slightly tricky. There appear to be references, but they all lead to the promotion of a book, where the subject did contribute some jewelry as a sales gimmick. There are no references to the subject or his work, just to the book. The article tries to inherit that minimal notability. The subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE = WP:PROMOTION Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~and redirect~~ to A Treasure's Trove. The sources in this article, whilst a bit weak for this subject, will majorly enhance that article, which does need the references. Mabalu (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything that comes up on a Google points to the equivalent of WP:SINGLEEVENT - in this case, the single event being the book. I've transferred some of the references and info over to the book page. I could only find one RS for Underhill that wasn't really about the book, 1 and it's not really enough for an article. He obviously has skill and talent, but doesn't seem to have really received enough coverage/publicity so doesn't seem to demonstrate notability in himself outside being the creator of some - not all - of the Trove jewels. Not even sure he warrants a redirect - the mention on A Treasure's Trove is probably sufficient for now. Mabalu (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to A Treasure's Trove., which is where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As The MST Land was not formally nominated I can't also delete that at this time. Not as part of this nomination at least, but speedied as an A7. Michig (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Tang[edit]

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

WP:GNG. This should also include the article The MST Land for the same reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Autobio, self-advertising. Fails GNG. Looks like a speedy A7 to me. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Speedy it, looks like an ad over on the zh side as well. Dengero (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (Nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 18:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Vincent[edit]

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

I'm sure she is a wonderful person, but simply not notable. The only references cited to substantiate any element is her retail website, and the independent reference only leads to a product listing. This is a promotional entry, and a search of google produced no reference independently establishing any notability. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NRVE, WP:CREATIVE Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an administrator - Based on the comments and actions below, I WP:WITHDRAWN--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I have found very strong RS, an art museum-hosted biography, which should form the basis of referencing the current article. There is another excellent RS biography on the American Jewelry Design Council site here. In addition to this, there is this book citation. These are three very strong sources which together are more than sufficient to support notability for this designer. Mabalu (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been updated with sources and rewritten. Mabalu (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There now seem to be sufficient sources and awards for notability. A good job of rewriting--the article has a much more encyclopedic tone than most of our articles on people in this and related professions. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fanatic Crisis. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsutomu Ishizuki[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPIP, WP:BASIC, WP:CREATIVE, WP:BAND, there are no references here or via google substantiating anything outside of his one band participation. If there are references, I suggest consolidating to the band article. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything to support notability. Mabalu (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not the subject of enough reliable coverage. At most a minimal amount of content should be merged to his former band's article, after which the title can be used as a redirect since it is a possible search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main band article. Not seeing sufficient reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Wouldn't think it needed a stand alone article, so a redirect maybe.Crackingstack (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only comment in favor of keeping the article fails to present an argument based on Wikipedia policy instead relying on personal feelings. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Cohn[edit]

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

Prod was removed by article creator. Reason for deletion on the prod which I endorsed was;

"Only one semi-good ref and that is about him being a customer of a business. Other refs are PR or non-independent and not reliable. Needs good refs and an actual notable job."

I'll also add that the article creator is very likely the subject of the article. I can find no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that would show notability. Rotten regard Softnow 17:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Really, the only notable achievement I'm seeing suitable for Wikipedia is as the founder of Marketaction, Inc. but I haven't found any significant sources about this despite searching "Clayton Cohn Marketaction, Inc" and "Clayton Cohn Veterans Financial Education Network" at Google News. However, a News search for simply "Clayton Cohn" provided some irrelevant results but there are some relevant links, nothing notable though, here (Purple Heart achievement) and three other results that won't appear properly here (first, second and fourth from the bottom). I thank Clayton for his military service but business wise, he is not notable at this time. Having your tweets featured through CNBC is not notable either unless you were an established finance blogger. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did the original prod, so Rotten regard has already quoted my misgivings. Bgwhite (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am relatively certain that Mr. Cohn would object to the creation of a Wikipedia article on himself. Secondly, I am new to Wiki-edits but consider him an "established finance blogger" based on the fact that many of my own investments have been based on his twitter feed @claytoncohn and his company's trade alerts via www.marketaction.net. He is a war hero, has made me quite a bit of money, and is an inspiration to my friends, family and son as someone who has grown up in a "privileged" environment but still joined the service to fight for our country instead of going to college, and came out successful. He is hardly a self-promoter, and I just feel that people should know who he is if they don't already because he's 24-25 and has led me in a better direction financially via his tweets than any talking head on Bloomberg or CNBC in my 20+ years of investing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equityelite (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination was essentially withdrawn with only one outstanding delete !vote (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 18:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of the seven natural wonders of Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

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

A simple list of seven places is not notable enough for inclusion as a standalone list. This should be merged into Georgia (U.S. state) or deleted outright. Jhortman (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable list with a solitary source that is unreliable due to tourism-promotion bias. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A simple list of seven places is not notable enough..." That's a meaningless sentence; notability has to do with the coverage of a subject in reliable sources, not with how many items it has. If you actually look at the source in the article, it's an entry on the Seven Natural Wonders of Georgia from the Georgia Encyclopedia, which is identified as "a project of the Georgia Humanities Council in partnership with the University of Georgia Press, the University System of Georgia/GALILEO, and the Office of the Governor." Hardly a mere tourism shill (unless we mindlessly dismiss all publications by a state government or state university that are about any topic within that state), and the article on the Seven Natural Wonders was written by a historian who teaches at a Georgia university. Perhaps more importantly, the article itself cites three further sources discussing the concept that were published over the span of a century. So while it may still be that this could be better covered within a broader article, the concept of "Seven Natural Wonders of Georgia" (to which this should perhaps be renamed, as it's really about a concept rather than a distinct list) appears to be notable. So let's see some comments that are a little less dismissive and a little more careful to actually examine the content. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Georgia Public Broadcasting-produced show Georgia Traveler also did an episode about the "generally recognized" Seven Natural Wonders. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now three reliable independent sources including a report from the Atlanta Georgian from 1926, a source with academic provenance and a tv episode as a secondary source for a sufficiently notable topic that should be made into an article. Kooky2 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the redundancy in the article be reduced? The current list is exactly the same as the 1926 list except that the entire Amicalola Falls State Park is listed now rather than just the Amicalola Falls themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't see the two sources as anything other than a pro-Georgia state tourism scheme. As for that 1926 list, I still don't see this as an independent source - again, it's pro-Georgia state. I still stick with my earlier delete vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a slight promotional feel about all the sources (local college, local TV and local newspapers) which makes it arguably WP:PROMOTION or even WP:COI. An independent third party reference (possibly out of state or without a vested interest) might give it more neutrality and notability. I may revert my vote. Kooky2 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"state-wide" ≠ "local" (the Atlanta newspaper excepted, though it's a pretty major city to characterize as just "local"). And WP:COI is about Wikipedia editors. Since when do we ignore sources just because they are from the same state that is the subject? Do we dismiss everything any French source says about what is a landmark in France? Nonsense. Particularly given that we have university and public broadcasting-affiliated sources. So the sources pass WP:RS, notwithstanding unelaborated opinions to the contrary. And even if we accept that this is "promotional" in nature, it's still a notable "promotion" that has been maintained for close to a century and repeated by different, unrelated sources, so it's verifiable that these landmarks in Georgia have been repeatedly characterized as its "Seven Natural Wonders". postdlf (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still disagree. Georgia Traveler at the very least is a pure tourist source. Georgia Encyclopedia may perhaps be slightly less biased, but just because something is old or long-standing does not make it notable in Wiki terms. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Seven Natural Wonders of Georgia. The concept of Georgia's seven natural wonders certainly exist. Coverage is already identified above. To answer the complaint that coverage is only local (although I don't buy that argument in this case), here is an article from The State, a South Carolina newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that out of state link. I am looking for notability from "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". WP:N Of course, notability does not have to be world-wide but you would expect that if this is so notable it would be discussed outside the state boundaries of Georgia - as indeed it is. Comparing France, a country of 65m pop. with a state of 10m is not persuasive to me. Kooky2 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 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, —Theo polisme 17:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on my comments above, in case that wasn't clear. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the criteria set out at WP:CSC as far as I'm concerned and I think there's enough for it to pass WP:LISTN. These are individually notable subjects which have been included in this specific list because reliable sources suggest they should be. Stalwart111 03:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the multiple sources already mentioned, the subject has received detailed coverage in The Buffalo News, a newspaper based in New York. The coverage isn't just local.--xanchester (t) 23:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, The Buffalo News is owned by the same company that owns The Macon Telegraph, and this is a word-for-word reprint of an article that appeared two weeks earlier in the Telegraph. -Jhortman (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, it does indeed come from a Georgia newspaper. Either way, the coverage has been significant, and meets WP:GNG.--xanchester (t) 21:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accede to the consensus - As the originator of this request, I can see the validity of the arguments for keeping this article, and respect that there clearly seems to be a consensus for keeping it. -Jhortman (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeping now as the only outstanding conversation is unrelated to the AfD itself and, if the parties feel it necessary to be continued, should be moved to the users' respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 18:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Price[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Simon Price (2nd nomination)

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

Not a notable person. Just someone who writes reviews for the Independent. Adhdsloth (talk) 16:29, 18 November 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 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 17:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Someone who has written for several major publications, not just The Indpendent, and whose book received significant coverage. His Twitter spat with Alan McGee also received some coverage. Worth noting that this nomination is the nominator's only contribution to Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No new evidence from first nomination, just repetition of vague statement of non-notability. Subject attracts widespread bad faith editing due to his views on pop music and particularly his history as spokesman/media champion for Romo movement which negated alt-music values & so offended many so-called "Real Music" fans. Suggest this nomination is merely another example thereof. 195.92.109.20 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His book Everything (A Book About Manic Street Preachers) is widely referenced as an acclaimed and best-selling rock biography. He also has a small role in music history, e.g. with his part in Romo (a movement that's now forgotten, but notable at the time). He's often cited as an expert on the Manics, Morrissey, and other music topics in the British media.[1][2][3][4] There are enough other references to provide background info. Notable as one of Britain's best-known music journalists with a 25 year career, not just a run-of-the-mill hack reviewer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would say Romo is still notable in Wikipedia sense! 195.92.109.20 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a journalist, or publishing best selling books, is not sufficient to be notable. However the book received many published reviews, and the controversy around the book received a lot of press. The book appears to be the canonical book about the Manics making it "significant", in that context. Thus the article passes WP:AUTHOR #3 (multiple reviews) and #4 (critical attention for the controversy). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book was reviewed by The Guardian, controversy over the book was covered by the BBC. Author has received sufficient coverage by secondary sources. Meets WP:GNG.--xanchester (t) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would say redirect if only Romo or only Manic Street Preachers connection. But since linked heavily to both and not just one or other, he deserves an article of his own. 95.144.240.119 (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Clearly passes WP:GNG, is a notable subject itself. TBr and ley 04:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, agreeing also that the page does tend to attract vandalism and bad faith edits for some reason. Hiding T 11:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whoever keeps trolling the community by proposing this article for deletion every couple of years should be sanctioned. --feline1 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not trolling. Merely stating the fact that Price has written one book and writes reviews for a newspaper. Hardly a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhdsloth (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you can see, nobody agrees with you. And creating a sock puppet profile purely for the purposes of getting Simon Price erased from wikipedia is pretty lame, and indeed ahine.--feline1 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but, regardles of whether you're personally one of them, there's definitely some person/people out there who do seem to have a bee in their bonnet about Simon Price and the set of values in rock/pop music and style culture that he has stood for in his writing and club promoting - see for example: Talk:Adam_Ant#Simon_Price. 195.92.109.20 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word you're looking for is Romophobia. 95.145.6.12 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but would everyone on here know that word without explanation? 195.92.109.20 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And nominating the Empire State Building for deletion by merely stating the fact that it's not that tall isn't trolling either. I think the correct term when you ignore certain facts to build a hypothesis is "being disingenuous". YMMV. Hiding T 18:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that his friends are defending him here, but he's hardly Lester Bangs, Greil Marcus, Julie Birchall, Paul Morley, etc (people who have articles about them because their work actually has some intellectual depth about popular culture). I don't think one mistake ridden book about a band, involvement in the "Romo movement" (that barely was) and a few basic reviews of gigs make a person "notable". Adhdsloth (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friends? Well, I'm a big fan of a lot (but not all) of the music he's championed and I've got a lot of time for his pop writing but FYI he and don't get along; in fact he hates my guts! I've met him once and it was very acrimonious to say the least. But even so I wouldn't try to spite him by making him out to be non-notable on Wikipedia. 195.92.109.20 (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adhdsloth, have you ever read the wikipedia WP:DICK policy? You may find it useful--feline1 (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

feline1 There's also something about not being rude to other wiki members. Stating one's opinion is not being a "dick". WP:EQ. Adhdsloth (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, but you are well past the point where WP:FAITH applies - you've had it calmly and factually explained to you above by over a dozen editors that this article does not meet wikipedia's criteria for deletion, and yet you are still here trolling personal abuse against a living person (see WP:BIO) and moreover, article talk pages are not places for people to "state their opinion": they are for discussing articles with-respect-to policies. You are not doing that; you are instead being a dick. Therefore, please refer to WP:DICK.--feline1 (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The London Weekly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is unsourced except for a link to the subject website. Almost all of the material in the article is unsupported, even by the subject's website. If you look at the About Us of The London Weekly, it links to Wikipedia. Finally, if you look at the bylines of the news stories, all of them are written by "Administrator". Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and not to be confused with the free newspaper that should really have its article at this title. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 November 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, —Theo polisme 04:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube statistics[edit]

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, criteria 3: Excessive listings of statistics. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've read your consideration for deletion of this article (YouTube statistics) and I was wondering what exactly does violate the WP:INDISCRIMINATE, criteria 3: Excessive listings of statistics. Is it the small amount of text (which shouldn't be a problem, if I look at the article like this, or this or is it the table with the listing of the top 30 YouTube channels (which I think is relevant to the topic)? Thanks, Michal Smetana (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I have considered that the topic, overall, fails to meet notability guidelines. Has any source discussed all the statistics of YouTube as a whole? Or how the most viewed channels have evolved? Also, why did you only add the "Number of Uploaded Video Views"? Why not sorting this too by channel subscription? or by number of videos? or by most watched video? [I can go on...] — Ṟ Ṉ™ 23:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with analysis by Michal.smetana (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The "Traffic", "Mobile and Devices" and "Social" sections can be merged to YouTube. Statυs (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Were to to keep the top 30,000, I would agree that it is indiscriminate. But the top 30 is as much encyclopedic as any other such list of the biggest--as much WP content as world-class athletic records or lists of largest cities. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 24 November 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, Go Phightins! 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the references are to youtube sources. If it is rewritten from independent reliables sources, as required by WP:GNG, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Excessive statistics, citing YouTube instead of reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns. TBr and ley 08:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Per the exceptional research provided by User:Michig, I withdraw this nomination. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moderat Likvidation[edit]

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

A Swedish hardcore punk band that fails WP:BAND. Google News archive only provides passing mentions. Google Books likewise also only provides passing mentions (e.g. [5], [6]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For a band that primarily existed in the early 1980s, relying on an online search isn't a reliable way of determining notability. They have had albums released on Havoc Records and Distortion Records, Daniel Ekerot's Swedish Death Metal calls them "another important band of the first phase of Swedish hardcore...the guitar sound remains unsurpassed", GBooks indicates that the band is covered in The Encyclopedia of Swedish Punk and Hardcore Punk, 1977-1987, there's an article here, Folkbladet described them as "legends". --Michig (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 singles with the longest titles[edit]

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

Marginally interesting, not notable in any real way. If anything, the content could be merged into List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, but as that article is itself bloated with too much stuff, I wouldn't even put it there. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. - eo (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. The length of song titles on one particular chart does seem a bit indiscriminate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; trivia. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, but trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--xanchester (t) 23:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. Also WP:NOT. STATic message me! 17:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) AutomaticStrikeout 00:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Hartford Hawks men's basketball team[edit]

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

No reason to have a separate article on the current lineup of a basketball team, unless its actually very famous. Suggest merging to Hartford Hawks men's basketball TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seasons of major sports teams are notable, and NCAA Division I men's basketball gets plenty of significant coverage. In theory this article should be part of a series of season articles and also discuss the outcome of the season, though the other seasons still need articles and this season is only three games in; nonetheless, it's not just about the current lineup. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the standard to have college basketball and college football individual seasons as articles, as long as the teams in question are NCAA Division I programs. See Category:College men's basketball team seasons in the United States and Category:College football seasons by team. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. The article is being updatedas well. Rikster2 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the first season that every team in Division I has a page on Wikipedia and it is important as part of the 2012–13 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. And, since every team has a page this season, it makes it a much better chance that every team with have a page every season from here on out. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep per TheCatalyst's comment above. Nothing else needs to be said. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funk Trek[edit]

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

This topic about a band from Omaha, Nebraska fails WP:BAND. Google News archive reveals only passing mentions. No results in Google Books. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found to indicate that an encyclopedia article is warranted. This confirms some basic details but their debut album was only recently released, without apparently getting much coverage. --Michig (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of my searches point to anything meeting the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 13:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChefsBest[edit]

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

This topic appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. Google News archive searches provide many public relations articles and news articles with passing mentions that are about people/companies who have received a Chefs Best Award, but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources about the company itself. Google Books provided this source, which constitutes significant coverage of the topic, but the remaining links just provide passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an interesting one. It has all the hallmarks of a "promotional" article but a closer reading suggests it's actually a cleverly disguised attack page. The mention of payment in the introduction without any further analysis of commercial methodology, the suggestion that every product reviewed has been given an award and the use of the word "purports" to qualify an otherwise fairly neutral analysis of methodology all suggest this article has morphed into a "back-handed compliment". The only sources provided are from the company itself, so what from those sources would have encouraged editors to produce a now fairly negative article is unclear. I think the original article was probably created to be promotional but "spam fighters" have now qualified and re-qualified different sections to the point where it is now the total opposite. Very strange. All of that aside, I agree with the nominator that the subject has probably not received enough significant coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 03:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having only refs to their website and as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dildarnagar Police[edit]

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

No reason to have article separately on unremarkable police force. If need be (and I really doubt it), merge to Dildarnagar Fatehpur Bazar TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As original PROD endorser. I cannot imagine why this article needs to exist. §FreeRangeFrog 14:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two reasons. First and foremost, there are reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (Times of India section solely on this police department). Second, we already have a broad swath of articles about police forces for small city areas (e.g., City of Lansing Police Department). While census figures are not clear on the city's page, it seems to be fairly large, i.e. not a small <500 person village. I think with all this in mind, it is notable as an element of the city government and our prior practice is a reason it can and should remain as its own separate article. --Lord Roem (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check your TOI source. There is absolutely no news related to the article there. Just the section being there is not enough. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable police station of a village. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to location page. Let it be split out if and only if it dominates the content. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)--xanchester (t) 23:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dildarnagar Railway Station[edit]

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

Suggest merging with Dildarnagar Fatehpur Bazar than having a separate article for unremarkable station TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

… which isn't a matter for AFD and doesn't involve administrators or the administrator deletion tool in any way. Only bring things to AFD where use of the administrator deletion tool is what you want. This is not Wikipedia:Requested mergers. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the same thing could be said without the bold text too. I just didn't know. Alright?

As for the suggestion, I have seen several AfDs going to merge. That is what made me come here to go for AfD, as I took it to be the place for solving merger issues too.

And my actual opinion is to delete. The only thing is that railway stations might be considered inherently notable, because of which I made the alternate suggestion to merge. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:RAILOUTCOMES indicate that railway stations generally have merited separate articles, and this station is hardly a minor one. The article does need some sourcing though (most of the content is easily sourceable to any reasonable of the area, while the service content is probably sourceable to the railway company, but "future development" and passenger data should have something.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As indicated in WP:OUTCOMES, rail stations are considered notable and this is a substantial one serving a large city with a population of over 88,000 in 2001. There wouldn't even be a consideration of an AfD of a station of this scale if it were in the US or UK. --Oakshade (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are invariably considered notable and kept. Not only that, but as already stated this is a major station in a largish town. The nominator initially prodded this article. I removed the prod stating the above, but he still chose to bring it to AfD... -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried finding the exact place where that rule was mentioned - 'Railway stations are notable'. I could not. I asked. Did not find the answer. Brought it to AfD. Sorry if thats an annoyance. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rule. It's a consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I withdraw this nomination seeing the community consensus. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination. A significant problem in initially locating sources was due to the article's (now previous) name. The article's title has been changed to "Prabasi." Thanks to the editors who worked to locate sources and improve the article. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probasi[edit]

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

This topic about a magazine fails WP:N. Additional opinion about the notability of media on Wikipedia can be read at the essay Wikipedia:Notability (media). Google News archive and Books are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [7]). Custom searches (e.g. [8]) are likewise failing to provide significant coverage; just passing mentions (e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aka Prabasi or প্রবাসী - is a notable Bengali-language literary magazine. It ran for over 60 years founded in 1901. Authors who published in it included Rabindranath Tagore, a Nobel laureate. Ramananda Chatterjee was founder and chief editor for much of its existence. According to the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, "Prabasi's fame remains almost unsurpassed by any other Bengali periodical."[13] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the article to 'Prabasi' which has more results on Google etc, expanded the article and adding back links. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Prabasi was one of the leading Bengali periodical in the first half of the 20th century. It had a position similar to what Desh has today, if not better. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This was a very influential magazine in the first half of the 20th century. It is covered widely in Bengali literature related works, but may not be available for web search. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Mad Capsule Markets. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TORUxxx[edit]

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

This person appears to fail WP:BASIC, thus a stand-alone article on Wikipedia isn't warranted. The The Encyclopedia of Popular Music entry consists of one passing mention, and several searches in Google News archives and Books have not provided any other coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mad Capsule Markets per standard practice for band members who are not individually notable. Didn't need to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mad Capsule Markets per Michig. No stand-alone notability outside of being a member of a notable band. Notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Villagio[edit]

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

A topic about a planned luxury suburb of Chişinău, Moldova being constructed that fails WP:N. After several searches on Google News archives, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Custom searches such as [14] are likewise not yielding coverage. I found this YouTube video, but obviously this is not a reliable source. Posting at AfD for community discussion, rather than prodding, to avoid the potential for systemic bias on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The project appears to have been abandoned in 2009 ([15]). --illythr (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete housing developments usually need some extra quality to receive coverage (largest, first, designed by someone famous, burned down by forest fire, etc.), or house a lot of people. This one makes no claim, and there doesn't seem to be sources out there, in English anyway. If illythr's link is right, there never will be. The Interior (Talk) 03:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that some special point or quality is needed -- size will do it, but not with a mere 107 houses. Luxury might do it also, if it is so special that people write about it, but since the claimed specially luxurious planned features seem to include drainage ditches for the roads, I have some doubts. Certainly they won't if they never build it. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not your advertising media. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negerpunk[edit]

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

This music genre tag listed in some music player software fails WP:N. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources other than very brief passing mentions from searches at Google News and Books. The sole reference in the article doesn't mention the topic at all, and the external link in the article isn't a reliable source, because the content is user-edited. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything reliable through a Google search. Looks like it fails WP:NOTE.--SabreBD (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the usual outcomes. We have only kept the rare, breakout genres, and this ain't one. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsupported by the only reference.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Go Phightins! 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of names for the Volkswagen Type 1[edit]

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

Unreferenced and trivial / indiscriminate collection of names. If this were English-only and properly referenced then it might have some use as content within Volkswagen Beetle, but I doubt anyone on English Wikipedia needs to know what coloquial name for the Bettle is in Ulan Bator or Wagga Wagga. Biker Biker (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, it is certainly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE as the list has a clearly-delimited coverage and it sticks to it. There is also NO requirement for WP to stick to English, and our readers (and editors) are just as interested in things from other languages than this one. As for whether people want to know, the article has been visited about 14,500 times in the past year. Finally, the question for AfD is not whether an article contains references, but whether such can be found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - shame on you for attacking the good people of Wagga Wagga for their beetle beetles, Biker Biker! LOL. Agree it's not indiscriminate, as the list is quite clearly a distinct list of a particular thing. A list of names of a particular car (make, model and type) is pretty specific. If I were a VW enthusiast looking to travel to Chile then I'd be quite interested to know that I should ask for a "Poncho" rather than a "Poncho" (boy am I glad we made that distinction!). Sure, it could do with some more references but I think it's probably worth keeping. Stalwart111 04:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have added some sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good start! Stalwart111 08:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is probably the only car on the planet that I would support this type of list for though. I think with a bit of research into reliable sources we could establish that its nickname is notable. What is it called in Wagga anyway? NealeFamily (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear hoax and deleting accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanseer Saji[edit]

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

Another editor placed a Prod on this article with the rationale "Absolutely no hits on Google. There needs to be independent, reliable references per WP:SOURCES" The notice was removed, along with the maintenance tags, by the article creator, User:Tanzeersaji, without either comment or addressing the issues. I am bringing it to AfD as there is no evidence that this person meets the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hed PE per usual practice. --Michig (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is there any proof that he has actually ever been member of Hed PE? It seems unlikely considering that he is apparently only 15 years old. Asilv (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he isn't a member then delete it, and delete any mention of him from the articles (which doesn't have to wait for the AfD to end). --Michig (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm did the original Prod, so AllyD has listed my misgivings. There is no evidence that Tanseer Saji, 15-year old from India, is a member of Hardcore Punk group from California, therefore no redirect is needed. The editor "Tanzeersaji" has been trying to put his name to the group since August and tried creating the article "Tanseer HEM" saying the band had changed its name. Bgwhite (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google hits, and no evidence to verify the claims made in the article - looks a likely WP:HOAX to me. — sparklism ^hey! 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that notability is lacking here.Michig (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhills Christian Fellowship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A topic that appears to fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Searches for sources are yielding articles with passing mentions ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]), but they are lacking substantial coverage about the topic itself. Google Books entries are likewise depicting book sources with passing mentions. Posting at AfD rather than prodding to counter the potential for systemic bias on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If a church with 7000 members is not notable, I have doubts as to what church ever will be. As the Intenet is propbabably less developed in Phillippines than some countries the lack fo sources may be unsurprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this was nominated for deletion and consensus last time was to delete but with a single dissenting opinion from Peterkingiron along the same lines as above. That always makes me concerned about the same systematic bias that NA1000 referenced above. That the same editor could raise the same concerns twice (5 years apart) without them being addressed in the article (has it been recreated having previously been deleted?) bothers me. Peter's concerns seem legitimate. I suppose where I hit a snag is that while having 7000 members might be a valid assertion of notability (leaving aside WP:BIGNUMBER), that claim still needs to be verified by reliable sources and it isn't. I've searched and I couldn't find a single source to verify the claim. All I could find was a brief mention here and there (like this) - no "significant coverage", or even a single independent source to verify anything that could be used to assert/validate notability. As such, I'm inclined to delete unless someone can find at least one source verifying a particular claim to notability or enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 04:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone else finds reliable source/s that confirm the number of adherents to be 7000 (which is already rather large for a Baptist congregation) then I don't think this is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable church and as lacking in depth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It appears as if the sole editor of the page is the musician himself. It should be noted that the creator of the article has only ever edited this article. Statυs (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I think the article fails to meet WP:RS guidelines as well. Not that there is anything wrong with blogs as references, but every reference is a blog. --hmich176 10:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it would seem all the provided sources are unreliable which means the subject would not appear to pass WP:GNG, WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSIC#Others. The editor in question may believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON in which case a suggestion of userfication might be in order. But the obvious COI doesn't help and wouldn't help any future article. Stalwart111 04:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. DrKiernan (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of current United Kingdom MPs[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Richardguk (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial duplication of lists in Category:Lists of UK MPs 2010–. Besides which, this page, in its current form, will be so long if completed that it will almost certainly exceed the template limits of the wiki software, meaning that much of the bottom half will be unreadable. That's one reason why the lists are split into the different lists in the UK 2010 MPs category. DrKiernan (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue of the template limits could be fixed easily enough by dividing the list into a series of tables based on, for instance, party or alphabet. Keresaspa (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of my points: the existing pages already do this for parties and country. DrKiernan (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: My initial reaction was that the page should be deleted because it is so similar to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 (which already has a separate section for post-2010 by-election changes). And, with the topical but unusual exception of the November 2012 by-elections caused mainly by one-off police commissioner candidate resignations, UK parliamentary by-elections have been relatively rare since the average age of MPs greatly reduced over a decade ago. But on looking at Category:Lists of UK MPs 2010–, it is clear that editors are already willing (and presumably able) to maintain 8 other list pages that essentially reproduce substantial subsets of the main 2010 list page. Casual readers are more likely to be interested in the current MPs than those elected a while ago (though the new list ought to have clear annotations against vacant seats and by-election winners, noting the name of the 2010 MP whom they replaced). And the new list is the only full UK list to provide a direct alphabetical link to the current MP for constituencies that have had by-elections since the last general election. Unless someone can show that the other overlapping MP lists are unmaintainable, it seems sensible to keep this page and might avoid confusion among readers who don't realise that the main table on the existing pages is not entirely current; they might well not notice the unstructured text in the notes column, or the by-election section which is easily overlooked because the main list is so long. (If the page is retained, the list can easily be completed by copy-pasting the list from the main 2010 page and manually adjusting the seats that have had by-elections, instead of compiling the entire list from scratch. That should be much easier than the current approach which has left the new list mostly incomplete a week after its creation. I have already demonstrated on the new page how lists such as this can be made more sortable; see also List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom for an example of a fully sortable long list with TOC-style links using ((Anchor)).) — Richardguk (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have sympathy with the deletion request, but ultimately this content is notable, and can be used to produce an index within the wider UK politics project. There is clearly an issue with its 'orphan' status but this can be easily resolved. doktorb _words^deeds 03:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for me. I know little about tables (here or outside - I'm much more used to spreadsheets and computer typesetting), but the way the info is presented is accessible and easy to use for the visitor. By-elections may become more frequent despite the age of MPs getting lower - until they get the hang of honesty in accounting, and for certain other reasons... Peridon (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (without keeping a redirect)-- This list is duplicating another article. It is incomplete. It is structured ina way that will need continual maintenance. This makes is very unsatisfactory. If the article has additional information, that can usefully be merged, but the length of service will change every day and is not a useful addition. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the length be done automatically, like the 'age' in infoboxes? Peridon (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no, not on a page that would be this long. The software can't handle that number of template transclusions on a single page, and the load time would also be excessive. DrKiernan (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too notable for deletion. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination - little point in duplicating a category and this article adds no value over the category itself. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category pages can and should coexist with list pages (WP:CLN). — Richardguk (talk) 11:54, 19 November 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, —Theo polisme 03:52, 18 November 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 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is duplication then the solution is to merge or restructure. If there's a technical problem with templates then use a technical solution such as ((cite quick)). Deletion is not appropriate as the list is notable per WP:LISTN and so should remain a blue link. Warden (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious notable list of a notable set of individuals. The arguements for deletion based on the category already existing fail WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The argument for deletion or merge is that the list is duplicated. You have misread the rationale. DrKiernan (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lugnuts is referring to the comment from Biker Biker. As to duplication: please explain why you think the 2010 list is adequate for readers who want to know only the current MPs (taking account of by-election changes). — Richardguk (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are already lists of current MPs: List of MPs for Welsh constituencies 2010–, List of MPs for English constituencies 2010–, List of MPs for constituencies in Scotland 2010–, and List of MPs for constituencies in Northern Ireland 2010–. These are not lists of MPs elected in 2010: that list is at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010. These are lists of MPs from 2010 to the present. We do not need another list showing the identical information in a different format. DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the above comments seem to be arguing at cross purposes. We all agree that the list content is notable and that there is substantial overlap with other lists (i.e. of MPs elected in 2010). If you advocate keeping the new article, please explain above why you believe that the existing lists are inadequate enough to justify maintaining a separate page. If you advocate deletion/merger, please explain above why you believe that the existing lists of 2010 MPs are adequate for readers wanting to know the current MPs (taking account of by-election changes). — Richardguk (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done that. The pages in Category:Lists of UK MPs 2010– are for MPs from 2010 to the present, that includes current MPs. Let's say I want to know who is the MP for West Belfast: I go to List of MPs for constituencies in Northern Ireland 2010– and see it is Paul Maskey, elected in 2011. If I want to know who was the MP elected in the general election, I go to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 and see that it is Gerry Adams. There is no need for this extra page (although it would be useful as a link to the existing 4 pages). DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Rogues (2010)[edit]

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

Association football team who apparently do not exist, 36 ghits (link) none of which offer any reason why this is a notable subject. Cloudz 679 07:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previously subject of an AfD in 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Premier Soccer League, which was a batch nomination: result was no consensus. Cloudz 679 07:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author Approval This team was supposedly going to play in the SPSL, but never picked up steam. The SPSL disbanded in 2011(?). Regals, Club Amerca Academy, and Galveston (left in 2010(?)) play in the NPSL South-South Central Division. Those are the only teams that have moved on from the SPSL. Treyvo (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 08:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679 09:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played a competitive match. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - While there is no evidence of notability it would be helpful to provide a brief reference about Memphis Rogues (2010) at the end of the history section of the Memphis Rogues article. League Octopus (League Octopus 11:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem feuds[edit]

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

All this information was/is on the main article. I feel like a merge would do the best trick but I don't really see the need for its own article. STATic message me! 07:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clocking in at 23kb, I feel that this is necessary to be a separate article. It's too much for the main article. Statυs (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much information to put in his main article and his notable feuds have reliable sources. Portillo (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nocturnal penile tumescence. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-morning wood[edit]

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

Title is slang and no medical references in the article. Housewatcher Housewatcher 06:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cited medical references in the articles revision and slang time is medical research term updated to vocabulary in 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpatrickpaul (talk • contribs) 2012-11-18 07:14:58
We have a stub article on nocturnal penile tumescence. It's written in coherent English and describes the subject straightforwardly and sensibly. This article, in comparison, is utter tripe, with a slang title and slang content, that has the writing level of a child. It doesn't even get the spelling of "fazed" right. We have absolutely no need for this juvenile rubbish at an incorrect title when we've had a proper article for six years. We've had a prophylactic redirect at the right slang name, morning wood, for seven. This is just … well … useless unencyclopaedic junk. Indeed, I half suspect, given the content and the reasons that children have for writing such stuff, that it is outright vandalism. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A10 or speedy redirect as alternative. As A10 requires, this article "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject." I'd say speedy redirect, but I'm not sure how many people would ever actually search for or link to "pre-morning wood" (as opposed to the much more common "morning wood"), so speedy deletion may be in order. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect - I think the title could conceivably be a search term (while making no judgement about those inclined to perform such a search) and so a redirect to nocturnal penile tumescence might be of some (limited) value. But there is nothing in the article worth merging anywhere. I would suggest the title be semi-protected or protected to prevent it from being reverted to full article status (no pun intended) at some point in the future. Stalwart111 04:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Unsourced OR and content fork. I don't really buy the suggestion that this is a possible search term. It might be "conceivable", but it's exceedingly remote. Wouldn't object in the slightest if the article were simply deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I see plenty of merit in Dominus' comment and don't have any objection to a straight delete either if there is agreement that a redirect would be worthless. Stalwart111 13:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CSD A10 as above. -- Scray (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music of The Hobbit film trilogy[edit]

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

Notability not reached. The films may be notable, but the soundtracks won't reach such status until each one of the films are released. And until then, this article cannot meet GNG. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 06:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the article does not meet notability? User:2nyte 19:36, 18 November 2012 (AEST)

Well, initially there were not any sources on the article that were both independent and reliable. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the soundtrack being the soundtrack for a notable film. It's also not inherited by having notable people work on it. These things just make it more likely that it will be covered in reliable sources. An unsourced article will always be the subject of deletion discussions, so it is always better to source the article. We also can't say that something will eventually become notable, as that violates WP:CRYSTAL. A lot can happen in a short amount of time. In this case it is very likely that the soundtrack could become notable, but then something might happen to delay everything, including the soundtrack, and everything could end up being scrapped or sent into the film company's basement to sit in limbo for forever. Or all known recordings of the soundtrack and film could be destroyed in a fire. It's unlikely, but the premise here is that you never know until you get those RS that show notability for whatever the subject matter is. There have been multiple instances where a movie or book dropped out of the public eye and never gained enough media attention to merit an article. In any case, I've found some sources that discuss the soundtrack, so hopefully that'll be enough for it to pass notability guidelines. The biggie here is that the soundtrack hasn't yet released and unreleased things are usually held to more strict standards than other things. I think it just barely squeaks by, but don't be upset if it's decided to just redirect this to the main article until more stuff comes out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. Only one soundtrack, which hasn't even been released yet. This information should be in the film's article. Statυs (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't made up my mind yet, but at the very least this should probably be userfied or incubated. I've found a few sources talking about the soundtrack, which was temporarily streamed online via Empire Magazine. If I can find more sources that do more than just say "hey, this is going to release", I'm going to vote keep. If all else fails, we can either userfy/incubate it or redirect the article with history to the film's page for now with a brief mention of the soundtrack. If/when it gets more coverage, we can just un-redirect it and add the new sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found a variety of sources that talked about individual aspects of the soundtrack: Neil Finn's contributions, the upcoming release of the full soundtrack, and that it was temporarily released online. I'd say that there's just enough here to barely squeak by for the here and now. There's more discussion about Finn's song, but so far I'd say that rather than create individual articles for everything, it'd be best served as one big article about the soundtrack. If the consensus is for it to be deleted, I'd recommend that it's redirected with history to the film's article. I hate to pull WP:CRYSTAL type predictions, but this is the type of thing that's likely to gain more coverage in the future and I think we'd benefit by having the article history to use when it gets more coverage rather than having to create the article again from scratch.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Tokyogirl. Althoguh, I'm afraid we'll still need it to pass WP:NALBUMS =/ [In my opinion] — Ṟ Ṉ™ 15:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per NALBUMS, "unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." This seems now to be the case with even the Rolling Stone reporting about it. Keep. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move To The Lord Of The Rings Music Page?. Perhaps to keep things simpler we should move all the information to the Music of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy page so we can keep the information for the entire franchise in one spot?
- Not a good idea in my opinion. The two film trilogies should be handled separately just like the novels. Mixing content would only confuse the general reader. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, it should be moved to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (film). This page represents the first film in the trilogy that is to be released on 14 December. The page itself is lacking citations and information that individualizes it from The Hobbit (film series) page, but it is a start. – TFunk (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That page has been merged to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey which existed before. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that there is a full article about the film, we can in fact merge the soundtrack to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Both articles will benefit from this and when there is more reliable coverage about the soundtrack we can always split it off again. De728631 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A classic Hammer situation. So delete. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonata for Viola and Piano, Op.147 (Shostakovich)[edit]

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

Not notable enough music work to carry it's own article. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 06:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article on the final work by a prominent composer is a reasonable feature of an encyclopaedia. The first Google Books link is to Carlos Prieto's"The Adventures of a Cello" where this is described as "an extraordinary work, both for its depth and beauty... the swan song of a great artist". AllyD (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a general rule, penultimate and ultimate works of major composers are probably epitomes of their work, so their last work or two are likely to be notable. In this case, the evidence shows at least reasonable suspicion that this meets WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rio (film)#Sequel . MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rio 2(2014 Sequal)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because WP:CRYSTAL. It's simply too soon to have its own stand-alone article right now, at a later time, then yes. TBr and ley 03:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far too soon per WP:CRYSTAL ... Mediran ^{talk to me!} 03:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom and per Mediran. This unconventional spelling and spacing in the article name also make it an implausible redirect, even at a later time. JFHJr (㊟) 05:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rio (film)#Sequel - Redirecting is better because it is likely the film is happening. Regarding this article, it is far too soon and any details about the film probably haven't been released. A Google News search for "Rio 2 film" produced this and a blog here (this last one proves nothing). However, considering this title's error of spacing and spelling (I should note this is a plausible search term), we could start other redirects later as we get closer and more announcements are released. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- As what JHJJr, it cannot be redirected due to wrong spelling and space. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 21:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AllCity Wireless[edit]

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

Non-notable company and the article is spamish. This sort of company should be way below the purview of Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Annapolis Wireless subsidiary is notable in itself as one of the few success stories in the Muni Wireless business. The AllCity Wireless parent company is certainly notable if you are interested in the management of public-access wireless networks. Its products provide functionality far beyond that of, e.g., Cisco controllers (the ACW gear is used to supplement, not replace, Cisco gear, to enhance the public side of the wireless networks). If you are a WISP, and you are looking for proven, dependable product, the major US distributors will all recommend adding ACW gear to the procurement shortlist. Junckerg (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are good reasons for having it the article in a business directory but not in Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AllCity Wireless is a notable company which is clear from its past acheivements, both in the GSA schedule achievement and it's placement of its device globally. 13 November 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colton2012 (talk • contribs)

Keep AllCity Wireless meets the corporate notability guidelines. It was a pioneer in small city blanket metro WiFi deployment, and the tools it developed to enable that business are now being adopted by other WiFi providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarshalluk (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the WP:CORP guideline is useless. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CORP guideline IS useful and used by many others on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colton2012 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having worked with Cisco, Motorola, BelAir, EnGenius, and many other vendors makes this company's claim to being vendor agnostic factual, as well as AllCity Wireless meets the guidelines for corporate notability through Wiki. — Preceding comment added by Chug187 (talk • contribs) 16 November 2012 (UTC)

To the point of whether the article should be in a business directory, but not in Wikipedia: the company is admittedly smaller than Cisco or Motorola Mobility, but it is also way more innovative and, imho, interesting. It is well known, well respected, and widely deployed within the wireless "ecosystem". I think it is of value to the Wiki community to have balanced articles about commercial entities such as Cisco, and Ericsson, and Motorola, etc. in Wikipedia, and I don't think that we should be drawing lines based on size, only notability. And I would say that by any standard this company is notable in the wireless communications sphere, and is a suitable subject for an article. Indeed, I would say that the WiDirect itself is just as worthy of an article as specific products from other vendors (e.g., Cisco) that have their own pages. Just looking at routers, Cisco has separate pages for the 837, 1000 Series, 2500 Series, 7600, 12000, and CRS-1 and CRS-3. I think that can be useful for people who are trying to learn about communications hardware, and is a valuable service Wikipedia offers its users. But it should not be limited to information about equipment from the global oligopoly. Junckerg (talk) 20:24, 17 November 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, —Theo polisme 03:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable topic; fails WP:GNG. Most keep votes are from new editors to Wikipedia, and I stand with my before comment. TBr and ley 03:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether the proper criterion is length of time as an editor, and would point out that "most" keep votes are not from recent editors; rather, half of the keep votes are from people who (unlike the commenter) have been editors for years. I also note that the keep votes are uniformly from people who are evidently familiar with the wireless ecosystem, and the delete votes are evidently from people who are not.Junckerg (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - understanding of or familiarity with the subject is irrelevant because WP:OR isn't allowed anyway. Editors are simply asked to make an assessment about whether there is "significant coverage" enough to verify that the company/entity passes WP:GNG or, in the case of commercial entities, WP:CORPDEPTH. In my opinion, it does not. Some of the "sources" in question are simply press releases from commercial affiliate Nortel - certainly not independent of Nortel or of the entity in question who are supplied by them. The article from the Baltimore Sun might be from a reliable source but it doesn't mention the subject at all (nor do many of the others I might add) - they mention the subsidiary "Annapolis Wireless Internet". It's hard to see how it could be considered "significant coverage" of the subject if it doesn't mention the subject. To be perfectly frank, the sources are horrible - a mish-mash of corporate press releases, installation guides, and e-commerce sites selling particular products. Even accepting that coverage of the subsidiary = coverage of the parent company, there doesn't seem to be enough to substantiate notability.

All of that aside, the sudden "revival" of a few sleeper accounts is always cause for concern and their collective inability to cite policy and consistent "I like it" arguments aren't particularly convincing. We've seen it all before and as always, Wikipedia is not a democracy and these discussions are closed on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS and weight of arguments that cite policy and guidelines. So having a bunch of borderline WP:SPAs show up to vote-spam won't actually help anyway. Stalwart111 05:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a10, duplicative of Star. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way the sun is powered[edit]

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

Original research, essay-like, probably already covered. Well-meaning but doesn't belong here. AutomaticStrikeout 03:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2012 in sports . MBisanz ^talk 11:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International sports calendar 2012[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT. This is a list that has no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, no possibility of ever being comprehensive enough to be useful, and lacking any meaningful structure to make it useful for readers. Kevin McE (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete The article seems to be stating that this is a real thing, but there isn't any attempt to show that it is so. It may be a list of international sporting events that Indian athletes competed in. Anyway it's hard for me to see a justification for this article; it isn't what the title says it should be.

OK, then, if it's a list of every professional sports event in 2012, then it seems to me that once the American events get added, they will simply swamp it, with half a dozen baseball games a day during the summer and so forth. It may not be literally indiscriminate, but the difference is not meaningful. And exactly how is this going to be sourced? Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its NOT for every event/games. Its the proffessional league as a whole, so only the winner at the end gets listed. (the respective interwikilink will deal with the season in detail.) its more quick rference.Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your interpretation: it is not clear from either the title or the text. And what about sports that are not run as a league? Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we already have 2012 in sports but it's an unlikely redirect. Morwen - Talk 15:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "real" thing? its a list. And it has nothing to do with "indian athletes competing in" (theres a nother article about sports in india by year, which is horrid) For the rescord the criteria is clearly mentioned in the lead if it is written. it is a list of proffessional sports by calendar. Which was motivated by the electoral calendar (and the death calendar and the terrorist incidents calendar (which is far more dubious in its inclusion and far less likely to be complete)). The article IS being expanded and updated (see the recent history). Its utility is to organise a list of events to be viewable throughout the sportsworld (instead of sports specific) and its more comprehensive than the year in sports. it needs organisation (As i asked on the talk page) but improvement is not a reason for deletion. Further the other page is vry poorly updated and a redirect is plausible. strong keep

Importantly, it offers a different organisation to the other page that exists. That is by sports, this is by month. I dont want to use OSE, but for context its akin to the various different organisation of list of global leaders by...Therein lies its utility for readers who want to see it by time of year not by sport. Improvement through discussion is already wasked for and can be workedon

Further the nominatior seems to be baying for blood searching my contrib history because of a disopute elsewhere. Thats stalkingLihaas (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave out ad hominem arguments.

I don't see the relevance of electoral/death/terrorist incidents calendars to this discussion, nor where to find them; I see no evident parallel between this and lists of political leaders (and there are no articles entitled list of global leaders by; and without links, I have no idea what you mean by "the other page that exists". This is the AfD discussion of a particular article, that has virtually no links leading to it.

You claim that "the criteria is (sic) clearly mentioned in the lead if it is written." Frankly, I can only guess at what you mean by that, but if we ignore the last four words of it, which I don't think changes the meaning that you intended, it leaves us with a ridiculously loose criterion: "proffessional (sic) sports". Is every League Two football match to be included? Every athletics meet that includes professional athletes? All professional darts matches? Every professional cycling race, including BMX, road racing, cyclocross, mountain biking, track racing, etc? That certain events co-incide on the same weekend is of such incredibly marginal relevance that it is not plausible as an area of readers' research. The Women's Professional Billiards Association Tour Championship in Oregon happens in the same month as the Dubai rugby sevens: pointless. Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intent was to include only the season dates, plus any finals such as the World Series. There was never any intent to post individual games, e.g. "August 13: Major League Baseball:

San Diego Padres vs.

Atlanta Braves, Turner Field, Atlanta, Georgia". - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this intention expressed? And if you believe that to be the case, why have you been posting results of specific motor races? Kevin McE (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 15:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked at it: absolutely nothing there that looks like a clearly defined consensus or an agreement on inclusion criteria, and no mention of season dates at all. Kevin McE (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then instead of being trigger happy on the delete discussion, one could add a discussion to improve it. There was more of a consensus here than a move of the paralympic summary. Improvement is not a reason for deletion.Lihaas (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A useful calendar for international sporting events and domestic championships. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge with (to) 2012 in sports and redirect. They are just about the same, only with a different organizations (ny sport, by date) - Nabla (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. To make it available through different criteria. Not to use OSE, but the smae is done in political articles. "by longevity""by tenure""by..."Lihaas (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2012 in sports and redirect per Nabla. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:54, 6 November 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, Mdann52 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support/keep IN ACCORdance with what i said earlierLihaas (talk) 11:20, 15 November 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, —Theo polisme 03:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both lists in both articles are a real dogs breakfast. They have individual competitions within competitions, a variety of formats, a list of winners for some but not for others - aarrghh. On top of that is a hundred or so missing sports. A major point against this kind of list is that the whole concept is likely to become to unweildy to manage - do you know how many different sports with significant contests there are out there? NealeFamily (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. improvement is not a reason for deletion, we can discuss improvement on the talk page

2. its also explicitly said this is for professional sports, you clearly havent read the page then

3. there are no winners for some because (obviously) the event is ongoing. Ive suggested putting it into a table and your welcome to suggest/add to that on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. But in the 20 days this has been proposed for deletion, yet alone the preceding weeks that the article has been there, there has been no attempt to do so. Sometimes the implementation of poor (albeit perfectly well intentioned) ideas does not merit improvement, such as when the concept is too unwieldy to manage.

2. Please AGF. One can easily read the page without ceasing to be aware that there are scores of other professional sports, possibly exceeding a hundred, and that there is a vast number of different sports with significant contests that are professional. Kevin McE (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WEC 6[edit]

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

Original PROD for no significant coverage in reliable sources was deleted without explanation. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And will restore WEC 18 also. It's a event of significant organization World Extreme Cagefighting. Why we need in deletion only WEC 6? Why not WEC 5 or WEC 7. I think we must keep all or delete all 53 events. NickSt (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its a good point but like UFC events not all are created equal. If there is significant coverage it should be kept. Use the AfD debate to help decide what is best.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as the article lacks "well sourced prose" and is "merely a list of stats". --TreyGeek (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and this is a WP:Pointy vote and this is not a democracy. Mazter00 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chris Crocker. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker discography[edit]

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

Although Chris Crocker is certainly notable as an internet celebrity, his discography has had no coverage in WP:RS sources - or at least none that has been cited on Wikipedia. All of the citations on the article are to first-party statements, fundraising attempts, and sales pages that do not appear to have any appropriate sources available. I do not believe that this article meets WP:GNG.Feather Jonah (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chris Crocker. This list is not very long and there's plenty of room at the bottom of his main article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the (entirely uncited) content was already on the main Chris Crocker article, which I removed due to lack of proper sourcing/demonstration of notability. Feather Jonah (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fact about a person included in the article on that person, for instance the title of a record (or whatever), does not have to be itself notable or sourced to secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was to the point that every minor detail on the subject's life was being reported in the article - I along with a few other editors attempted to clean up the social network citations. Although some mention of his music career is certainly important, I feel there is a serious case of undue weight at hand. Feather Jonah (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chris Crocker. This information is relevant to that article, it doesn't have to be separately 'notable', just verifiable. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the input. Are the current citations actually okay though　(first party statements including vague announcement tweets, sales links which could be construed as promotional)? Feather Jonah (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citations of shops are not ideal, but these releases are verifiable, which is the key thing. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chris Crocker - article isn't notable to stand on its own, but content can be mentioned on artist's page with proper citations. NYSMtalk page 16:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Stokes (embezzler)[edit]

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

This biography looks like small-time fruad to me (just $401k). Maybe several millions or more might have attracted more significant coverage. Also the primary source used for the article is from the Nashville Post, a news article written by the creator of the Wiki article. Ignoring the obvious WP:COI issue here, I simply don't see how this individual was notable outside of routine news coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 401(k) is not an amount, it's a type of retirement fund. --Slashme (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was a 19M USD fraud according to Wood, E. Thomas (August 10, 2010). "Ponzi figure Stokes dies in prison". Nashville Post. Retrieved 4 November 2012. --Slashme (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so is that notable? I don't see how this is anything more than WP:ONEEVENT. Bad guy does something wrong, goes to jail. Lots of those people about. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just can't see how the subject gets past WP:BLP1E (yes, he's dead but only recently). Attaching a WP:BIGNUMBER to the crime might be interesting but that doesn't make the subject notable. Would seem a long way from passing WP:CRIME to me. Also, the title is terrible - maybe (criminal), but (embezzeler)? Seriously. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BLP-1E does not apply here, this is not a living person. The question is whether this subject passes or fails a test of general notability — multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published and reputable sources — about which I have no opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, not a living person but a recently dead person with living relatives who could be impacted (as per WP:BDP) - "material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends [...] is covered by this policy". I did note that in my original comment. Even if he died long enough ago for that not to be an issue, I would still have concerns about the article against WP:BIO1E. Stalwart111 22:33, 18 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Multi-million dollar frauds, with adequate reporting of the fraudster, seem to pass the bar. If he'd lived to see the full trial we'd have seen far more news coverage of this, yet the basis of the case (and his notoriety) would still be the same.

I'd like to see some expansion though. Particularly for someone to clarify why "Ponzi" is being bandied about, when at first sight it appears to be a legit 401k where someone just stuck their hand in the cookie jar. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" If he'd lived to see the full trial" Sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me. He didn't live. The news report is in one paper, which the article creater writes for. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:35, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that only one newspaper seems to have taken notice of him indicates he was not really notable. If more in-depth sources are found then maybe. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:BASIC. While 1Point Administrative Services may be notable,[23] the individual who is the subject of this article really doesn't seem to have independent notability, regardless of how many people he ripped off. -- Trevj (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2012 in American television. Merged by Jax0677 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable events in American television in January 2012[edit]

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

This violates the indiscriminate criteria, in my opinion. This information could do better work on the respective main articles [of the topics touched here], if they exist. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article or delete 2012 in American television - This article is split from 2012 in American television due to size. I discussed this on the talk page of 2012 in American television prior to doing so, and there was only one vote against doing so. If this article gets deleted, then we should delete the article from which it came.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Not news. What is a list of notable events except news? Steve Dufour (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all "a certain year in a certain area of interest" articles are the same. However if I (or somebody else) were to AfD one there would be an outcry of: "Why did you nominate this one when there are hundreds of others just the same?" If a bunch were nominated at once it would be: "This AfD is part of a massive campaign to disrupt the project." So I'm not going to bother. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-merge into 2012 in American television on procedural grounds, including the other ten "Notable events...2012" articles. Looking at the talk page for 2012IAT, there was one vote altogether on the question of breaking this apart into twelve separate articles with absolutely no consensus, or even much notification. Not seeing how 2012IAT was too long in the first place, this was an effort by one editor which seemed to over-complicate what is just a simple list of news events in American television, and I never saw a merge or split template atop of the main article at all, thus the eleven-way article split should be nullified and the article restored to the November 16th edit for not following proper procedures; I would do it but I'm following the AfD process first. That's the reason we have those templates, so other editors can chime in before something is carried out which could cause damage to encyclopedia content. As no notice of the split proposal was left with WP:TV, I have also left them a note about this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 06:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Template:Toolong box was there for over a week before I split the article off. The vote was one to one, so I went ahead and split the article, as it was over 300 kB when I did (the Notable Events section being over 150 kB). I am willing to have the discussion now about reducing the article size. If the community decides to revert, then I will accept that. If WP:NOT is the verdict, then 2012 in American television should also be purged.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response What you should have done is go through WP:SPLIT and used the ((Split2)) template so that readers and constant editors could actually comment on the article before deciding on a split. Also, one to one isn't any kind of consensus; that's a draw at best and at worst out of basic policy. Just throwing on "TooLong" and thinking that would build up any consensus was unacceptable. I check the article 3-4 times a week and never knew there was a split discussion going on, and unless someone checks the talk page (very rare as most of the editors there build consensus through article content rather than talk), they would've never known about the split. As it is though putting the content in separate articles lost most of the context of each month and since some items are related to actions from other months, readers would be lost without being able to know something else happened months before (e.g. the AMC Networks/Dish and Cablevision/Trib disputes). And if the issue is the length of text, that's something easily dealt with through consensus rather than deletion, and there's no way 2012IAT should be deleted because there, every item must be sourced before its added in. Nate • (chatter) 17:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Apologies for not using a split tag, which places the article in a conspicuous place to be discussed. With that being said, I will likely accept whatever decision the WP community arrives at. Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-merge into 2012 in American television per Mrschimpf. Powergate92Talk 02:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-merge into 2012 in American television per Mrschimpf. There was no consensus to split; I was the only person to respond to the proposal and I said oppose. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball - If no one objects, I am willing to invoke WP:SNOWBALL and allow this to be placed back in the main article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-merge into 2012 in American television per Mrschimpf. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Dance 5[edit]

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

Not notable "in development" video game, part of the Just Dance series. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:25, 18 November 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) 23:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is written based on an ad for casting, and a single other article that basically only restates the casting ad along with some speculation. According to crystal, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Until there is at least official acknowledgement of the game's existence, the article probably doesn't belong. Millermk (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Game will probably be made, but there are no sources for WP:GNG at this time. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. It's a likely game, yes, but as of right now, it's not even officially announced, and it's just too soon. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just Dance Game the official Just Dance Facebook redirected me to the article saying that it will be out next october. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandeeps777 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Cresix (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. On an unrelated note it doesn't help that the article has been vandalized beyond repair... --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Peazer[edit]

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

Not notable dancer. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not notable under WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:PERFORMER. JFHJr (㊟) 06:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not notable in any kind of way except for being in tabloids whilst dating Liam Payne of One Direction, which in itself is not enough to warrant an article. AdabowtheSecond 02:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all of the above. Known for one thing and that's not a thing that makes an encyclopedia article appropriate. --Michig (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heterogeneous Missions Accessibility[edit]

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

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

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

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

A European project (ESA in this case, not EC) that does not seem to have any notability in its own right.

all the references are either irrelevant to notability of this particular project/organization, or self-published. . DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Actually HMA is an initiative and not a temporary project: I will add details on following points:[reply]

partcicipants to the initiative
description of the standards addressed
formal referencing of the standards

Pgmarchetti (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep new references have been added. Actually the body of text contains links to the HMA proposed standards which have not been listed under references to improve readability. Links to earth observations missions participating in the initiative were added. Pgmarchetti (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ycoene (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC) This is a valuable description of an ongoing standardisation initiative (HMA) and corresponding consistent set of implementation specifications aiming to standardise an important European infrastructure. The GMES (which has its own Wikipedia page) has an in-situ and Earth observation (EO) component. The Heterogeneous Mission Accessibility is the process which is standardising the access to Earth observation component (data) of space missions from various European countries and Canada. In addition, the GMES is a European contribution to the global GEOSS which as well has its Wikipedia page. The HMA initiative Wikipedia page provides in a single location the information for interested people and organisations wanting to explore the adopted specifications oand to learn more about the solutions proposed by this ongoing and open initiative. A Wikipedia page giving a summary overview of the technical solutions proposed by HMA for access to EO data, and providing further detailed references certainly has its place on Wikipedia and complements nicely the information about GMES and GEOSS already present in Wikipedia.[reply]

Iosbkausl (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC) HMA ist not just a temporary project but an international initiative that aims at reducing interoperability problems between EO mission infrastructures and applications based upon international standards. As stated by Ycoene the communities that are relevant for HMA and support it all have their Wikipedia descriptions. Hence, an HMA description on Wikipedia increases the overall understanding of how may be interoperable by design.[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Due to the extremely similar way the keep arguments have been phrased, I have reason to suspect that there's some socking going on and have opened a case to investigate it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I do find some reference to this outside the ESA website, including some book references and a bunch of GScholar hits. It's unclear that what they say is enough to write the article from without using the ESA pages as the primary source. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list the references you found? -—Kvng 14:45, 26 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A sockpuppet investigation has found that User:Iosbkausl and User:Ycoene were both found to be sockpuppets of User:Pgmarchetti. I'm striking through their comments accordingly.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found only one independent but not necessarily reliable source. Technical papers by members of the project aren't good references for establishing notability. -—Kvng 21:53, 14 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (duplicate vote) I propose to start the discussion on notability from the list of references listed in the article. Can someone tell me what is wrong there? Furthermore can we have a look to the HMA disambiguation page. Wikipedia is very successful and is considered a reference from a lot of people. I think therefore that it should take into account as many entry as possible (of course fitting in the overall objective). I am a newcomer on wikipedia, so may be mistaken, however looks to me that this entry is as legitimate as many entries in the page.

As additional comment I want to underline that the comments of two persons have been banned from the discussion above.

Last point everyone is talking about crowd-sourcing, is this forbidden in Wikipedia? Thank you Pgmarchetti (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a crowd? It's really not a good idea for a single purpose account editor to start going on about process; WP:BOOMERANGs may be incoming at any moment. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Voom HD Networks. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animania HD[edit]

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

Lacks notability and references 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Voom HD Networks and summarize network in one line in that article. Long defunct, but a network airing content. Outright deletion should not be needed here. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect for an article that has never been referenced and is not notable, nah. Delete and put referenced summary, key word referenced on the VOOM page.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nom for Family Room HD, please do WP:BEFORE. A national cable channel shouldn't be hard to reference, especially with the source links above and the unique name of the channel, and I should be able to find some in the days before close. Nate • (chatter) 05:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources may be an issue. I hold my ground. An obscure, defunct tv channel doesn't constitute needing it's own article. You seem to insinuate I didn't do a WP:BEFORE, I did, adn it lacks notability --0pen$0urce (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect/Merge. The issue has been discussed various times with the other channels linked at Voom_HD_Networks#Channels that have been AfD'd or PROD'd due to lack of notability. This article is in the same shape. If it happens to be more notable than the others, a redirect with inclusion of the source in the main article could work. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still think delete, someone swooped in and snowball saved the article from deletion not by editing or improving, just removing the deletion nomination.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Under construction while Adding info that is clearly available and notable related to Children's programming in Hi Definition. More to be added. I welcome research and contributions from Wiki editors as opposed to deletion requests. The info is out there. Will work to improve. Don't believe other articles on indivudual VOOM Channels should have been deleted. Channel has notability as the first hi def Animated children's channel in the U.S.. LONGEDDY (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions, (key word opinions) appreciated. Consensus was found on those other articles to delete. The first HD animated children's = notability? Have to disagree. Might want to read up on notability guidelines.

Merge or Delete. Seems to be where the consensus is heading. Only see one discussion to outright keep the article, several editors for merge to VOOM. --0pen$0urce (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meets General Notability Guidelines with verifiable third party sources cited on first high definition Animated Channel (eg. Animation Magazine)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still going with Merge at best, likely delete. Have concerns of wp:snowball and wp:advocacy may be behind attempts to save articles related to Voom and it's defunct channels.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Voom HD Networks. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family Room HD[edit]

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

Lacks notability, lacks signification references 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Lacks notability and references.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Voom HD Networks and summarize network in one line in that article. Long defunct, but a network airing content. Outright deletion should not be needed here. Also, nominator's duplicate vote has been struck as the rationale is counted as their delete vote. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe see a referenced summary, maybe. Again clearly lacks notability and references.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done WP:BEFORE then? With the entire AMC Networks/Dish Network dispute over the last few months/years, there are definitely sources for Voom's channels and services if you look at the links for Google services above. Nate • (chatter) 05:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AH yeah how about focus on content so YES, I did a WP:BEFORE. Not notable to have it's own article. Just like Kung FU HD which is in the same realm and a consensus was found deleted. PLEASE focus on content. Being mentioned in passing because of a lawsuit doesn't count as NOTABILITY. So example VOOM network is in a lawsuit with DISH and a list of defunct, short lived, obscure channels that voom carried is mentioned in article. Doesn't meet the significant coverage criteria. Not notable to have it's own page.--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As stated, lacks Signification coverage. Lack reliable sources, Lacks verifiable sources. In summary not Notable.--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect/Merge. The issue has been discussed various times with the other channels linked at Voom_HD_Networks#Channels that have been AfD'd or PROD'd due to lack of notability. If necessary, a redirect with inclusion of sources in the main article could work, but the only type of information I see in the article (and in news archives) is programs that were to be shown on the channel, which I do not agree is notable. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will concur on this. A redirect may be in order, if only to appease those who would snowball the issue.--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first linear Family-themed channel in high definition is notable. It was a network that aired content and had significant programming mentions in media outlets. Why the sudden rush to delete the Voom Channels after the recent dispute between AMC Netwworks/Cablevsion and Dish Network was settled? BTW: Kung Fu HD should be re-instated and the other Voom Channels should not be deleted. Timing seems questionable as is the attempt to delete history and possible future references, etc.. LONGEDDY (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW really, KUNG FU HD which a consensus was found to delete. Please read up on NOTABILITY. Also you're making insinuations and your intentions here raise questions.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:45, 6 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the Voom channels that had there own page are gone, 3 remain because of snowll's chance efforts to save by a single very new editor who has been advised about edit waring, NPOV, and advocacy. merge.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:43, 14 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a debate?--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I would, however, remind Lx121 that consensus is not a vote and that you may only !vote once during an AfD discussion. That said, I am going to close this as a keep rather than re-listing a third time. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 18:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's multiple[edit]

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

the term is referenced to only one source. the common phrase for this is "limited edition artwork" or words to that effect. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Artist's multiple" is the term that I would use for the matter in question. And the first Google Books return is Stephen Bury's "Artists' Multiples 1935-2000" (ISBN 0754600750, published 2001). That said, I can appreciate the issues with the current article and will look further. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC) A couple more examples of usage, both from The Observer: 2001 article 2002 article. AllyD (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've noticed that there is a related ongoing category rename discussion, so I am cross-referring them: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_3#Category:Artist.27s_books_and_multiples. AllyD (talk) 15:12, 4 November 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, Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article this is clearly a topic that can be covered in an encyclopedia. I am not sure what the proper name is though so the article maybe should be moved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced distinction without a difference. Not notable. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep; how is it useful or "encyclopedic" to remove an entry that provides a definition for a commonly-used term in contemporary-art vocabulary!? if we have a mega-article glossary, of such terms, we could consider moving it there (although i think it's long enough to justify a separate existence. as for references (& "notability), it's not at all hard to find more of them via google... & i don't see any egregious factual errors that would entirely destroy & invalidate the merits of keeping/having an article about this topic. Lx 121 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis of my comments above and specific references as well as more general evidence of usage that have been added to the article. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, now this deletion has been relisted TWICE; why is that exactly? the first time, maybe one could justify because the initial discussion only generated one commentor. & while they appeared to favour keeping the article, they didn't actually "vote". but the first relisting generated 2 keep (including mine) & one delete; which, taken with the commentor's position from the initial discission, should add up to a pretty solid "keep". BUT instead, we now have a SECOND "RELISTING" (which has inspired the original commentor to clarify their position to a solid "keep"...) IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE TO CONTINUALLY "RELIST" ARTICLES FOR "DISCUSSION" UNTIL ONE ACHIEVES THE OUTCOME ONE DESIRES; & if we do keep relisting endlessly, then i think it only fair to start the voting anew for each "round", & i again vote keep; so in this round that's 2-0 in favour of retaining the article. are we done yet? Lx 121 (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yassir Abdul-Mohsen[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. The claim that he has played for the Iraqi national team is not supported by reliable sources, to say nothing of the fact that the article about the Iraq national football team states that the match in which he allegedly made his debut was not a full international. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - International player + called for the world cup qualification match against Jordan next week. it will be Ironic to delete the page then next week recreating it. Mussav (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Mussav, what day is the World Cup qualification match scheduled? These AfD discussions are supposed to remain open for seven days under normal circumstances per standard AfD procedures. That means this AfD should remain open through November 17. If the subject player is scheduled to play two or three days after November 17, it would be entirely appropriate for a reviewing administrator to "relist" this AfD, and effectively extend its deadline for another week. Can you tell us when this match is scheduled? Beyond that, we have to make a decision based on what we know about the player's notability now. As others will point out, Wikipedia does not deal in predicting the future notability of its subjects per WP:CRYSTAL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replay - The match against Jordan scheduled to be played on November the 14th. Mussav (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. It appears we will have an answer before this AfD expires in seven days. If the subject plays in the international match against Jordan on the 14th, I will be happy to vote "keep" and I am sure most other editors will too. Please update this AfD after the game on the 14th, and provide a linked source confirming the subject's actual participation in the game. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sure will do. Mussav (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Yassir didnt play today however Hussam Ibrahim did, so please vote keep for Hussam. Thanks Mussav (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for the update. Second, the proposed deletion of Hussam Ibrahim is not actually part of this discussion. Third, please provide a reliable source to confirm your assertions. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could please provide me a link for Hussam's discussion? and this is the source from FIFA website [24]. Mussav (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At present, there is no discussion on Hussam Ibrahim. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:27, 14 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject not entitled to presumption of notability per WP:NFOOTBALL because he has not yet played in an international match or fully professional league, and coverage to date does not satisfy WP:GNG. My !vote is without prejudice to immediately recreate the article if and when subject plays in an international match. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to article creator Mussav: I suggest that you save the text of the article so you may quickly recreate it if and when Yassir finally plays in an international match. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gone in 60 Seconds (bank fraud)[edit]

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

This article is a massive WP:BLP violation, particularly of WP:BLPCRIME. Putting aside the horrible wording (calling the charged individuals "criminals") and the listing of each individual by name, age, and place of residence, I don't see how the article can be salvaged. The article may also not be notable under WP:EVENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also nominated 10+ unnecessary redirects the author created here. Antelope Hunter (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but remake as necessary if the accused are found guilty (with a far better article, of course, and a far more appropriate article name). I'd say a theft of this apparent magnitude IS notable, however. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are controversial: You mentioned that magnitude is notable, then why should we delete it? :) Any updates and improvements in article name and content are welcome. Best, Konullu (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the article either needs rewriting from scratch in a new place, or deleting and starting with a blank canvass once the trial concludes and the guilty parties are established. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - this bank fraud is quite significant in terms of amount and people involved. This gives awareness to the Wikipedia readers about possible frauds, also informs notable event. The article is well-referenced as this fraud was widely covered in international media. 195.212.29.184 (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be deleted - very information article with broad information, bank fraud procedure, group members, trial, etc. I was looking for this case and came across this article.94.21.93.218 (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.93.218 (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC) — 94.21.93.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You can't say "Not to be deleted", and your comment doesn't really give valid keep arguments either. (I suspect this IP may have links to the original article creator, especially as they appear to have similar grammatical flaws) Lukeno94 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - The article is notable: How many frauds with similar size and international coverage have already happened till now? If some wordings are not properly chosen, users are free to edit and develop them, it doesn't imply that article is not needed and this can not be basis for deletion. Based on Wikipedia's philosophy none of the articles are ideal when they are created, they become better after staying online and updates of other users. Best, Konullu (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, sounds like a great scheme. Once there is a conviction, covered by publications, then maybe you have an article, dep on expert writeups. Especially listing all these names at this stage is improper, plus the Armenian emphasis. Not for WP IMHO. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:45, 16 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Names of persons should probably be deleted right away by WP:BLP. It does not seem to be yet established that the event really exists, much less that these people are guilty. (I'm not saying it doesn't and they aren't either.) -Steve Dufour (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. A sizeable chunk of the article was copied directly from here, so I have removed it, along with the list of suspects. Formerip (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the fraud of this magnitude is notable, but fix all BLP issues and maybe change the name for a more appropriate one. At this point the article should say that this is a suspected fraud, and the charges have been made by FBI. I think this has already been done by recent edits, which greatly improved the article. Grandmaster 19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it stands now, the article has ceased to be a BLP issue and the event is certainly notable. §FreeRangeFrog 03:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that this is not suitable for a wikipedia article per WP:NOTHOWTO. Michig (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RŌBLOX Lua Scripting Book[edit]

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

Non-notable book, and content is uncyclopediac as well (as if this page is the book...WP is not a how-to manual). DMacks (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wanted to speedy delete it but none of the criteria quite fits. The editor was even creating interactive answers to the quizzes with separate articles for each answer. I've never said this before at AfD, but this really doesn't need to remain open for the full 7 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTHOWTO; unreferenced; no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete*, WP:NOTHOWTO/etc. _{*Let's have a little WP:IAR...} —Theo polisme 22:02, 10 November 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) 19:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we're to have LUA foisted upon us, the least we could do is IAR and allow some information concerning the use of the language. Not like it's harming anything, is it? --Nouniquenames 05:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please apply some common sense and thought, Nouniquenames. We don't put internal pages for editors in the encyclopaedia itself, and you should know this by now. We've had separation between the product itself and the help and project areas for almost eleven years. Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
move to the Wikibooks platform. I'm not sure if redirects are permitted to there? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interwiki redirects do not work, thus it would be a soft redirect which we do not do. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:13, 18 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for the fact that it's copied from a Roblox Wikia tutorial site. Why on Earth was this relisted? Statυs (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd close the discussion as delete myself, it being quite obvious from xyr user page that TheEpicQ (talk · contribs) has mistaken Wikipedia for a general document storage service, equally obvious that this isn't an encyclopaedia article, nor intended to be one, nor even a guide intended to help Wikipedians with Wikipedia, and obvious that the result would be in line with both consensus and the Five Pillars. But then people might accuse me of favouring Wikipedia:Guide to Scribbling, which I wrote (in a project namespace, notice, Nouniquenames). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks if they're willing to accept it, otherwise speedy delete per above. Legoktm (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly falls under WP:NOT. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I hate to come to that conclusion after such a long and involved discussion, but here I see no alternative. Editors have addressed the central question at an AfD ("Is sufficient reliable source material available to write a comprehensive article on this subject?"), and have come to different conclusions about the answer, several of whom on both sides gave positions which made clear they carefully examined the source material available and didn't just do a drive-by or reference list count. Many thanks to those editors who did careful examinations of the sources available, and refrained from bringing in irrelevancies such as Google hit count, membership size, number of employees, and the like. An additional confounding factor in the determination of a clear consensus is that several editors favored deletion based upon the article being a blatant ad, and it is not clear whether they consider that concern to have been resolved by subsequent editing or not.

I suspect we might be re-examining this issue a few months down the road. Hopefully, with the article in better shape at that point, we can get a better idea of whether this is a suitable topic for an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Association for Gun Rights[edit]

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

Relisting, lack of consensus Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was Keep. Well past the allotted discussion period. Cited in adequate third-party sources. (non-admin closure) Faustus37 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

There are no significant reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Given references are primary sources or don't mention the association. Claims are not cited. Would be happy to keep if these are met. heather walls (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After researching for a bit, the majority of content I found online was from unreliable sources (blogs, special interest groups), primary sources, or mere mentions that share little to nothing about the organization. Appears to fail general notability guidelines for me. SarahStierch (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as passing mentions and blog coverage is not the in depth coverage in reliable independent sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to be just barely informative and referenced enough to survive. The group is to the point of being notable. Registered, active, filing regularly income and expenditures, getting some mentions and light coverage. The article should be de-politicized and de-advertorialized quite a bit by an outsider.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the Gun Owners of America page faces the same kind of issues, and the NRA's page also references it's self multiple times, yet there isn't a deletion discussion going on over there. The suggestion that there are no significant reliable secondary sources in the NAGR article is highly subjective. Several credible news media outlets are referenced. NAGR's notability as an established PAC is further established on Open Secrets, and it looks like they have a growing influence by those numbers. A quick Google news search reveals more sources that seem to implicate it's 501c4 counterpart. Perhaps these should be added to the article. I say we give this article time, and let the community touch it up with more references instead of jumping to deletion conclusions -- especially when the subject is politically controversial. To do so may suggest a bias against the organization or it's positions instead of a fair evaluation of it's worthiness for Wikipedia. --Rf68705 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article and Request Close of Discussion Ok, I’ve spiffed up the article. This page now has more citations than most other gun groups. These references include non-original source references and news references including the Wall Street Journal, Denver Post, the filings of the organization in Virginia, legislative references and testimony, financial information and several neutral political news services, and links to articles from other gun groups they’ve worked with.

Membership claim is now cited. (Even the NRA's membership claim was a self-reference and that link is currently broken, and GOA's references their own press release. NAGR's reference is a court document, sworn under oath). Included references to the groups 2012 activities and expenditures (Open Secrets and the FEC), which is more information than other groups in the Gun interest groups in the U.S. category have.

The group’s expenditures are more than a drop in the bucket, and far exceed other groups with uncontested pages. In fact, the referenced sources show that the group's notability through their expenditures is growing quite significantly. Furthermore, their lawsuits are quite relevant to current debates on post office concealed carry laws, and campaign finance laws. Let the readers decide that, if necessary add to it.

Gun rights groups tend to have a lot of blog and forum entries that show up on a quick Google search. I’d encourage folks to dig deeper than page one before assuming the relevance isn’t notable.

Keep in mind, per the criteria of notability for organizations “Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.” The sources provided, and those recently added, are sufficient to establish the required initial notability.

Additionally, unregistered IP addresses have been making edits and accusations about this page without substantiating them and one has admitted a personal bias against this group’s VP. The Wikipedia community has a responsibility not to arbitrarily delete articles because someone simply does not like the group or one of its leaders. That responsibility is even more important for articles about political organizations that have enemies with motive to vandalize, discredit or delete it.

Those who have concerns about the facts of the article should take them out through appropriate critiques and edits of the content, instead of slinging personal attacks on the talk page. The fact is, this group isn’t going anywhere, and people who have/will received letters and emails from them are going to want to know more info about the group and will be looking for an unbiased reference. So here’s the chance for the Wiki community to provide it. Let’s get to work.

In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I have connections to the group, and welcome NPOV critiques and edits. But, deleting this page would be a very biased and inconsistent move, and would necessitate the deletion of several other organizations pages for the same reasons. Therefore I request this discussion be promptly closed and the article NOT deleted. --Rf68705 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm just gonna point out that a straight Google search for the exact name of the organization returns 2.6 million hits and offer my opinion that this is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia should include. If there are problems with the neutrality or tone of the piece, fix it. If there are problems with sourcing, fix them or tag for more sources. Don't let IDONTLIKEIT feelings get in the way of a comprehensive encyclopedia... And no, I'm not a gun owner, and yes, I think an organization which lobbies for enhanced firearms privileges characterizing itself as a "civil rights" group is asinine. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Wikipedia stance on google search arguments is, "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." There is not a single reliable source on the first five google search pages I see, and it is the responsibility of the people who want to keep the article to produce those sources. I am very happy for well written articles on all subjects, my objections are to articles that don't prove notability, are not properly cited and are written almost entirely by COI single-purpose (or nearly so) accounts. heather walls (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My counter argument is that if there is a big enough iceberg showing on the Google radar, one can be damned sure that there are enough reliable sources out there to make a snowcone that will pass GNG muster. I'm a believer in following WP:BEFORE, which, if nothing else, means that nominators should run a quick check on Google and if an organization returns, let's say 2.6 million hits, assume that it is going to pass GNG and take other action to fix what ails a piece. This never should have been brought to AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promotional The WSJ article is enough to establish notability , but the article is hopelessly promotional beyond the scope of normal rewriting The entire tone is promotional. The entire body of the article is composed of quotes from supporters of the association. There is not one word of negative comment, besides that implied by 1 of the 4 political candidates they supported having lost an election. (A 2nd of them lost the general election also, but the article says only that he won the primary). There is an irrelevant paragraph about the organization's president supporting Ron Paul at the Republican convention. I can see no way to deal with it except starting over, But I don't want to do this as an admin by myself, unless there is some agreement. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I know this might be quibbling, but the WSJ article I see is 90% about the NRA with a couple of small paragraphs from NAGR. Pardon me if there is another.)

Support speedy. heather walls (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is a work in progress, and this article illustrates that. The fact that a particular article, in its current form, needs a lot of work is not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, and neither is "questionable material that is not vandalism" (See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7_scope). DickClarkMises (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is potentially valid: the article is not. The fact of the matter is there would be more worth in salting the earth and starting over than in attempting to rewrite the current version - this is the most efficient way. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~

Respectfully, statements above regarding notability are generally the same as they were when the AfD thread was first initiated and opponents have failed to address points I have made, or the changes made to the article that addressed the initial concerns regarding notability. Only one source has been cited in effort to discredit the subject’s notability resulting in one cherry-picked reference out of over thirty being skewed to fit one persons narrative.

As far as I am concerned this is a case of a few people with a vendetta against the subject trolling the article, by applying their own subjective standards here, but not other similar, yet generally uncontested articles written in a similar fashion. Given the sensitivity of the topic, and the potential for vandalism that exists by real life political opponents of the articles subject (including other "pro-gun" groups, as well as "anti-gun"), deletion should heavily scrutinized.

As I explained I my previous post regarding Google searches, its important dig deeper than page one on a Google search before assuming the relevance isn’t notable. Just because the few people here did not find a bunch of noteworthy sources at the click of a mouse does not mean they are not there.

Last week I edited the article to in accordance, and as encouraged by, the guide to deletion. In doing so, I provided the article with many credible references not seen on a Google search that contribute to notability that were not present when the article was first nominated.

As outlined by Wikipedia standards of Notability for organizations, several items establish PRIMARY criteria for notability as follows:

Items that contribute to the Depth of coverage, Audience, and Independent Source criteria include:

• Reference # 2: Wall Street Journal o Independent Source o Depth (being recognized for differences between themselves and other groups) o Audience (nationwide penetration)

• Reference # 11: USA Today o Independent Source o Depth (Uses the organization as a source/interview for their story on a legislative issue of national prominence) o Audience (nationwide penetration)

• Reference # 12 & 17: Politico o Independent Source o Depth (Director’s role at the Republican national convention / organizations role in the Iowa Straw Poll) o Audience (nationwide penetration, political audience, Iowa market)

• Reference #21: Courthouse news o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations part in a lawsuit on campaign finance, pertinent state, and federal issue) o Audience (nationwide penetration, followers of court and legal news)

• Reference #23: Billings Gazette o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations part in a lawsuit on campaign finance, pertinent state, and federal issue) o Audience(Montana market)

• Reference #24: United Press International o Independent Source o Depth (Organization’s involvement in a lawsuit to overturn gun bans in post offices) o Audience(International, likely US media markets to pick up the story)

• Reference #26: Denver Channel – ABC 7 News o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations involvement on the campus carry issue) o Audience(Colorado market)

• Reference #27: Nationalreview o Independent Source (self-admitted conservative bias, but no affiliation with group) o Depth (Organization endorses congressional candidate) o Audience(Conservative national audience)

• Reference #19 - Colorado Legislature o Independent Source (Not applicable, though made available by the CO Legislature) o Depth (Organizations materials referenced by legislative committee) o Audience (Colorado market / Colorado legislature)

• References #13, 14, 15, 19 o Independent Source (Local groups with similar goals, cite the organizations involvement in matters important to their constituencies) o Depth (Organization has made notable relations with other groups, testified before multiple legislative committees.) o Audience (New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Utah gun enthusiasts)

• References #29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 o Independent Source (Official government or credible reporting service) o Depth (Organization has raised and has spent significant sums of money) o Audience (Made available to anyone)

And again, “once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.”

While Google as accurately been criticized as not being a source to establish notability, Google should also not be the sole criteria for disproving notability. In fact, WP:BIO, specifically states, “Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics.” I submit that applying this standard to organizations is a natural extension of a well made point. Points made above referencing Google searches to disprove notability should not be well taken.

The changes made to the article, and the articles in its current form are very comparable, and in many cases MORE well referenced than articles about similar groups.

The fact that discussion of those changes and points has been ignored could be construed as prima-facie evidence that a bias against the articles subject the true motivation behind the efforts of some to delete this article.

If there is dispute regarding the article notability, please comment on the specifics, as I just have, instead of general impressions, subjective presumptions, and incomplete or cherry-picked arguments.

This articles subject has demonstrated and established sufficient basic notability, and deserves more respect than to be tied up in endless bureaucratic Wiki-litigation by a few people. If you don't like it, fix it. But keep the article, quit harassing it, and do not re-nominate it for deletion.--Rf68705 (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While your comments are useful, there's only one !VOTE each in straw polls here, so I've struck out your multiple !votes. -- Trevj (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is promotional. Rf68705 is a single purpose account whose only activity has been in this discussion and the article. I checked the references cited by Rf68705. As he requested, comments are specific.

Ref 12 - Only 3 sentences at the bottom of the Wall Street Journal article are devoted to the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR). The article is not about NAGR; NAGR is only mentioned as one of many "splinter groups". Trivial mention of NAGR in this article does not establish notability.

Ref 211 - Four sentences are devoted to NAGR. The article is about opposition to high-capacity magazines, not NAGR. A statement that NAGR disagrees with gun control advocates is not substantial coverage to establish notability of NAGR.

Ref 12 - NAGR is not mentioned in the article. That the director of NAGR was a Republican delegate does not help establish notability of NAGR.

Ref 17 - An NAGR email was reproduced along with a comment in a reporter's column making it a primary source. It is not an article about NAGR.

Ref 21 - The article is about a lawsuit filed by NAGR, not about NAGR. References 1 and 4 are the filing of the same lawsuit. Filing a lawsuit does not help establish notability. Notability requires substantial coverage of NAGR.

Ref 23 - This article reports that NAGR lost its lawsuit (references 1,4 and 21). There is no substantial coverage of NAGR but it does note that NAGR wanted to spend $20,000 to support a Republican candidate.

Ref 24 - NAGR is mentioned once in the middle of the article. There is no coverage of NAGR at all. A mention of supporting a lawsuit does not establish notability.

Ref 26 - NAGR is not mentioned in the source. Saying NAGR threatened to sue is either original research or synthesis not suppored by this source. In no way does this source help establish notability.

Ref 27 (now 28) - The article is about the NRA supporting a Democrat. NAGR is only mentioned once at the end of the article as endorsing a different candidate. A trivial mention does not help establish notability.

Ref's 13, 14, 15 and 19 - That NAGR is mentioned on the web sites of state groups with similar goals does not help establish notability.

Ref's 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 only document contributions my NAGR's PAC as required by law and in no way establish notability of the organization.

When I first saw this AfD, I leaned toward a Weak Support !vote based on the number of reliable sources. After I checked them, I reversed to Delete because the sources did not support notability. To reassure myself, I did an independent search. See here and here and here, among many others. Then I found the Executive Director of NAGR used Wikipedia to help establish his importance here.

Based on all of the above, an article on NAGR does not belong in the encyclopedia at this time. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prompted by DGG's comment, I've tagged this ((Db-g11)), per WP:NOTPROMOTION. . -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 26 November 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, Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Comment: My vote is still a Keep for this one given the sourcing, however I'm relisting anyway due to an obvious lack of consensus (see my Talk page). Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am no fan, but this is an established and federally registered political action committee. This is a borderline snow keep, isn't it? It's leaders have done countless interviews. I do not understand this nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Agree with immediate previous poster. The poster who refuted my reference list did so with subjective biases against most of them essentially claiming because the group was not the majority subject of the articles that notability does not exist. Quite the contrary, when several independent sources across the country pick up on a single groups activities, it demonstrates a brad range of saturation and notability. Additionally, Reference #11 the USA Today was completely ignored in the rebuttal. Finally, posters so-called "research" is entirely based off of discussion form hearsay -- which is the simple result of clicking on on the less credible first page results of a google search. Hardly content notable enough to be considered as evidence in an AfD thread. NAGR was cited by the United States Supreme Court in the McDonald v Chicago case. How much more notable does the group need to meet the almighty standard for Wikipedia? AfD should be closed with the result keep.Rf68705 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple !vote struck out.) -- Trevj (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Keep~~ - Article indeed has some promotional aspects, but it is a widely mentioned organization: Goggle hits (web & news) are adequate. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Delete. I've done some more research on this, and although there are a significant number of ghits, the organization appears to be a 1-person money-making organization, with little independent recognition or accomplishments. The mentions in google are very minor and incidental; often it is just mentioned in passing. So, although it is a legitimate organization, it is tiny and does not appear to meet WP notability guidelines. --Noleander (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to WP but I believe notability requires significant coverage, not just wide mention and lots of Google hits. I am concerned that Wikipedia is being used to establish the legitimacy of an otherwise non-notable organization, for example here (scroll about half way down to 04-10-2012, 9:06 A). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An IP user has independently expressed concern (also on the talk page of this article) that The article in Wikipedia is clearly there to gve credibility to the scam. The page probably needs to be removed and something put in place so that it isn't created again. -- Trevj (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap this article, and start over There are two arguments for deletion in this discussion, lack of notability, and excessive promotion. The original nomination, and much of the commentary here has concerned notability, and on that basis I'd weakly advocate keeping the article. However, I am persuaded that there is excessive promotion such that a fundamental rewrite by neutral writers is required. Based on the admittedly vague ip complaint mentioned in the comment above, I investigated further. First, I note that the impressive search engine hits show signs of optimization - there all lots of links on different gun enthusiast forums with the same text, quoting the organization's name and the full name of the executive director. Based on that, since I saw the organization is registered as a public tax exempt organization, I pulled the most recent tax filing I could obtain - 2010. (If you want to search for it yourself, the IRS form is 990, and group's tax id number is 542015951). It shows this organization has a total 8 employees, and 4 board members. Only 1 of the members - the executive director again - works full time. The other 3 work 1 hour a week for the organization. The group reported receipts of around 1.7 million dollars, and spent 1.5 million of that on internet marketing, direct mailing, telemarketing, and donations. The total salary it paid to its employees was about $125,000. Now, I admit, none of these things means that the group should not have an article - it has been mentioned briefly in a couple of reliable sources, and seems to be actively fundraising and advocating its position. However, I decline to stick my head in the sand, and pretend that a group appears to exist almost entirely on the internet and direct marketing fundraising is not trying to use this article as an attempt not just to inform, but as part of the group's fundraising aims. As such, I advocate a clean start, preferably one by writers w/ no affiliation with the group. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION and Xymmax's comments - but allow NPOV re-creation. I did a little research regarding notability and concluded that there are barely enough reliable sources to just qualify WP:CLUB/WP:GNG. However, there is the similarly-named (though AFAIK unrelated) 'National Association for Gun Rights India' which does artificially inflate search engine hits. If I had the time and inclination, I'd offer to attempt a rewrite myself, which would result in an article a fraction the size of the current one. I also feel I'm probably not alone in appreciating the honesty that User:Rf68705 has demonstrated in disclosing his connections to the group. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NOTPROMOTION is the one I meant. Link added. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:32, 30 November 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, Faustus37 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD has been outstanding for the better part of a month with no decisive outcome one way or the other. Propose Close No Consensus (I'm not non-admin closing this again). Faustus37 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - against No Consensus. I don't really agree with that conclusion, but of course I am biased. I think there is consensus that the article should not stay as it is and closing no consensus is essentially the same as a keep. Much of the detailed (and occasionally bordering on bullying) support has been from a single (and single purpose) editor. I think we should finish this, in the very least creating a space for a more appropriate article as described above. heather walls (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of others (including me) have voted Keep. I have no connection with this organization or any of its principals. Recall the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Pillar Three is Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute (emphasis mine). We're not here to censor. We're here to document the good, bad and ugly. WHO CARES if the principal contributor to date has a COI? The notability is there. As with anything else here, that'll be corrected soon enough. Faustus37 (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A third relist when the discussion was scheduled to finish tomorrow doesn't really make much sense to me. -- Trevj (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I missed that. I sincerely doubt 24 hours would have tipped the discussion one way or the other, though. Faustus37 (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, that's unfortunate - WP:RELIST suggests no more than two relists under normal conditions - but ultimately harmless. I too disagree with a preemptive nonconsensus close. I actually think that keep, NC, and delete are all within admin discretion here depending on how the arguments are weighed. Let a closer handle it, that's why we pay them the big bucks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Why is this even here? An organization with 1.8 million members, stated in a legal document. Has sufficient and suitable coverage to meet wp:notability. I Googled for a complete string match for their entire name and got 2.8 million hits. Scanned through the first few hundred of the 2.8 million and every one was a reference to this organization. I also noted that an invalid reason was cited in a large number of the "delete" weigh-ins which was deleting because the article has flaws (too promotional, unbalanced etc.) These are not valid reasons for deleting an article, they are reasons for fixing it. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi there. It's not about how many hits they get (see: WP:GHITS), but the quality of those sources. If you take a look at many of the hits you see, many are from non-reliable sources, non-neutral sources, etc. Or perhaps the organization has a mere mention. I believe that organizations fall into the same notability guidelines as other subjects - just because they have memberships, or are a legal entity doesn't mean they meet notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the 2.8 million real listings just as a reinforcement on top of meeting the normal criteria, not in place of it. We have zillions of Wikipedia articles on obscure individual ballplayers, towns with 10 people in them, etc. I find in incredulous that there is even a discussion of possibly deleting coverage of an an organization with 1,800,000 members. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked for 1 minute and found a New York Times article covering a piece of national legislation, and that the National Association for Gun Rights was in conflict with the NRA on it. Well, there's the first minute. I put it in. (the article does need Wikifying) North8000 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked another 1 minute and found a USA Today article ("Gun rights vs. gun control: Nation is again squaring off") with 2 paragraphs from an interview with a National Association for Gun Rights spokesperson. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the USA Today material and reference.North8000 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you're looking, see if you can independently verify the 1.8 million member number, and you'll be on your way to seeing why some are skeptical. The PDF I linked to above suggests that this "national" organization has 8 employees and 1 full time board member. It's annual budget is equivalent to a local restaurant or medium sized church. I think it's probably notable, but there's a lot of puffery going on. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about membership numbers. The 1.8 million members was a clear statement by them in a court document where BS'ing could easily mean jail time. 2.8 million Google hits that look pretty clearly on them is also a strong indication. Also that NY Times and USA Today quoted them for views on national issues, an covered their conflict of view with the NRA is also indicative. And those two articles are what I found in two minutes. This just bolsters that sourcing already in there satisfies wp:notability. The article certainly does need wikifying, but I would find it silly / incredulous for there to no article on them in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break[edit]

Question It's worth pointing out that the tax form above shows revenues increasing by a factor of four from one year to the next. This speaks to me of not of an enduring organisation, but one of the many transient organisations that seem to string up in politics as fronts / spokespeople for various groups. Is there any evidence that this organisation has spanned multiple US electoral cycles? Short-lived organisations would tend to fall into WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not satisfy our notability requirements per WP:GNG.

Sources that might meet WP:RS for satisfying WP:GNG
Sources that include more than a quote or brief mention in passing Haberman, Maggie (August 16, 2011). "Pro-gun group says it wants Perry answers". Politico. "Kendra Marr flags this email from the National Association for Gun Rights, which sounds gleeful about Tim Pawlenty's loss at the Ames Straw Poll and claims it as a victory for the group as it presses for Rick Perry answer where he stands on the Second Amendment." Youderian, Annie (October 5, 2012). "Gun-Rights Group Takes Aim at Montana Laws". Courthouse News Service. "The National Association for Gun Rights sued state officials in federal court in Helena, challenging the state's definition and regulation of political committees as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech and association." Associated Press (October 30, 2012). "Judge denies request to bypass disclosure law". Billings Gazette. "U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen on Monday ruled against Virginia-based National Association for Gun Rights' request for a preliminary injunction, saying the group is asking the court to strike down the state's longstanding disclosure requirements on the eve of an election." Sources that include brief mentions or quotes that include the words "National Association for Gun Rights" O'Conell, Vanessa (April 19, 2010). "Gun Advocates Open a New Front:Saying NRA Isn't Imaginative, Splinter Groups Seek More Aggressive Tactics". Wall Street Journal. "But Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights, an NRA competitor that has filed paperwork to form its own political action committee, said that wasn't enough, adding that the NRA had been too quick to compromise with gun-control advocates. He pointed to the association's endorsement of a law to check mental-health records in background checks for gun purchases following the killing of 32 people in 2007 by a suicidal gunman at Virginia Tech. "Philosophically, we all agree with the same idea of gun freedom," said Mr. Brown, 44. "The question is strategy." Jervis, Rick (July 31, 2012). "Gun control advocates target high-capacity magazines". USA TODAY. "High-capacity magazines are not commonly used by hunters, as most states ban them from hunting reserves, says Luke O'Dell, spokesman for the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights. But gun owners should be allowed to buy them for home protection or in case the government ever turns on its citizens, he says. More important, he says, the magazines are protected under the Second Amendment. "Who determines what 'high-capacity' is?" O'Dell asks. "It's a slippery slope we start walking when we start picking and choosing what rights of the Constitution and Bill of Rights we're going to follow." Bloomberg News (November 17, 2011). "House Approves Bill Making Travel Easier for Gun Owners". New York Times. "The bill was also opposed by the National Association for Gun Rights, which said it could become a "Trojan horse for more gun control." Jervis, Rick; McAuliff, John (July 25, 2012). "Gun rights vs. gun control: Nation is again squaring off". USA TODAY. "Friday's shootings -- and the threat of greater gun control stemming from them -- are driving people into gun stores, said Luke O'Dell, spokesman for the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights. Gun owners are also filling up training courses in Colorado, he said. "People take their self-defense seriously in Colorado," he said. "A tragedy like the murders in Aurora is often a catalyst to reminding people they need to be looking out for themselves." Sandoval, Michael (September 16, 2010). "NRA Set to Endorse Democrat Markey (CO-4)". National Review Online. "Gardner was endorsed by the National Association for Gun Rights last week." UPI (November 28, 2011). "Suit over Postal Service gun ban proceeds". upi.com. "James Manley, an attorney at the Mountain States Legal Foundation who represents the Bonidys and the National Association for Gun Rights in the suit, said the case could have nationwide implications." Marcus, Peter (February 3, 2012). "Rival pro-gun groups' explosive relationship triggers political hits". The Colorado Statesman. "The name that pops up above all others is Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), the largest Colorado-based gun lobby in the state. He is also the executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that serves as an umbrella coordinator for various state-level pro-gun organizations." Sources that include brief mentions or quotes that include only the words "Dudley Brown" Hihmann, James. "RNC 2012: Tampa floor fight less likely". Politico. "Dudley Brown from Colorado was part of the group trying desperately to use the last resort to block it. "If you’re trying to win a presidential campaign and put on a show, you shouldn't poke a sharp stick in the eye of conservative activists," he said."

Sources that might meet WP:RS for satisfying WP:GNG

Sources that include more than a quote or brief mention in passing

Haberman, Maggie (August 16, 2011). "Pro-gun group says it wants Perry answers". Politico.

"Kendra Marr flags this email from the National Association for Gun Rights, which sounds gleeful about Tim Pawlenty's loss at the Ames Straw Poll and claims it as a victory for the group as it presses for Rick Perry answer where he stands on the Second Amendment."

Youderian, Annie (October 5, 2012). "Gun-Rights Group Takes Aim at Montana Laws". Courthouse News Service.

"The National Association for Gun Rights sued state officials in federal court in Helena, challenging the state's definition and regulation of political committees as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech and association."

Associated Press (October 30, 2012). "Judge denies request to bypass disclosure law". Billings Gazette.

"U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen on Monday ruled against Virginia-based National Association for Gun Rights' request for a preliminary injunction, saying the group is asking the court to strike down the state's longstanding disclosure requirements on the eve of an election."

Sources that include brief mentions or quotes that include the words "National Association for Gun Rights"

O'Conell, Vanessa (April 19, 2010). "Gun Advocates Open a New Front:Saying NRA Isn't Imaginative, Splinter Groups Seek More Aggressive Tactics". Wall Street Journal.

"But Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights, an NRA competitor that has filed paperwork to form its own political action committee, said that wasn't enough, adding that the NRA had been too quick to compromise with gun-control advocates. He pointed to the association's endorsement of a law to check mental-health records in background checks for gun purchases following the killing of 32 people in 2007 by a suicidal gunman at Virginia Tech. "Philosophically, we all agree with the same idea of gun freedom," said Mr. Brown, 44. "The question is strategy."

Jervis, Rick (July 31, 2012). "Gun control advocates target high-capacity magazines". USA TODAY.

"High-capacity magazines are not commonly used by hunters, as most states ban them from hunting reserves, says Luke O'Dell, spokesman for the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights. But gun owners should be allowed to buy them for home protection or in case the government ever turns on its citizens, he says. More important, he says, the magazines are protected under the Second Amendment. "Who determines what 'high-capacity' is?" O'Dell asks. "It's a slippery slope we start walking when we start picking and choosing what rights of the Constitution and Bill of Rights we're going to follow."

Bloomberg News (November 17, 2011). "House Approves Bill Making Travel Easier for Gun Owners". New York Times.

"The bill was also opposed by the National Association for Gun Rights, which said it could become a "Trojan horse for more gun control."

Jervis, Rick; McAuliff, John (July 25, 2012). "Gun rights vs. gun control: Nation is again squaring off". USA TODAY.

"Friday's shootings -- and the threat of greater gun control stemming from them -- are driving people into gun stores, said Luke O'Dell, spokesman for the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights. Gun owners are also filling up training courses in Colorado, he said. "People take their self-defense seriously in Colorado," he said. "A tragedy like the murders in Aurora is often a catalyst to reminding people they need to be looking out for themselves."

Sandoval, Michael (September 16, 2010). "NRA Set to Endorse Democrat Markey (CO-4)". National Review Online.

"Gardner was endorsed by the National Association for Gun Rights last week."

UPI (November 28, 2011). "Suit over Postal Service gun ban proceeds". upi.com.

"James Manley, an attorney at the Mountain States Legal Foundation who represents the Bonidys and the National Association for Gun Rights in the suit, said the case could have nationwide implications."

Marcus, Peter (February 3, 2012). "Rival pro-gun groups' explosive relationship triggers political hits". The Colorado Statesman.

"The name that pops up above all others is Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), the largest Colorado-based gun lobby in the state. He is also the executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that serves as an umbrella coordinator for various state-level pro-gun organizations."

Sources that include brief mentions or quotes that include only the words "Dudley Brown"

Hihmann, James. "RNC 2012: Tampa floor fight less likely". Politico.

"Dudley Brown from Colorado was part of the group trying desperately to use the last resort to block it. "If you’re trying to win a presidential campaign and put on a show, you shouldn't poke a sharp stick in the eye of conservative activists," he said."

Sources that do not meet WP:RS for satisfying WP:GNG
Self published. "Gunrunnners and Gunwalkers". National Association for Gun Rights. "Rand Paul Fought to Amend Patriot Act". National Association for Gun Rights. "They Call You A Terrorist". National Association for Gun Rights. "M1 Rifles An Update About the Obama Scam". National Association for Gun Rights. "HR 822 Moves to the Senate". National Association for Gun Rights. "Memorandum HB 1092 - Priola -2/9/12" (PDF). House Judciary Committee Testamony / Handouts. National Association for Gun Rights via Colorado. "Amicus Brief in McDonald v. Chicago: On Behalf of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and National Association for Gun Rights". SSRN 1684688. `((cite web))`: Missing or empty `\|url=` (help) A complaint filed in a lawsuit is not WP:RS for anything other than the fact that a complaint was filed (i.e. The complaint does not verify the existence of 1.8 million members). "VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND NOMINAL DAMAGES in NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, INC., v. JAMES MURRY, et. al" (PDF). National Association for Gun Rights. p. 7. Group not in source. "Editorial: The UN Gun Grabber". The Washington Times. May 27, 2010. "Group Threatens To Sue CSU Over Gun Ban". TheDenverChannel.com. January 26, 2010. "Colorado State Rescinds Campus Gun Ban After Court Ruling". TheDenverChannel.com. May 5, 2010. Sources lacking independence from the subject. "FAQ: WGO works for gun owners, not politicians". Wisconsin Gun Owners. "Leadership Team". Utah Gun Owners. "Big win for a first step toward restoring freedom". Wyoming Gun Owners. "One small step for Wyoming, one giant leap for gun rights". NAGR via Outdoors International. "Hearings on Constitutional Carry and Preemption this Thursday". New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Inc. Campaign finance. "Report shows where the money is going in Congressional races". IndyStar.com. February 1, 2012. Public records. "Requirements for Exemption". Internal Revenue Service. "Corporate Data Inquiry". ID 0537656-1: State Corporation Commission, Commonwealth of Virginia.`((cite web))`: CS1 maint: location (link) "Committees And Candidates Supported/Opposed". "NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS INC PAC". Federal Election Comission. "Top Contributors, 2012 Race: Montana District 01". Open Secrets.org. "Top Contributors, 2012 Race: Texas District 36". Open Secrets.org. "National Assn for Gun Rights Expenditures". Open Secrets.org.

Sources that do not meet WP:RS for satisfying WP:GNG

Self published.: "Gunrunnners and Gunwalkers". National Association for Gun Rights.; "Rand Paul Fought to Amend Patriot Act". National Association for Gun Rights.; "They Call You A Terrorist". National Association for Gun Rights.; "M1 Rifles An Update About the Obama Scam". National Association for Gun Rights.; "HR 822 Moves to the Senate". National Association for Gun Rights.; "Memorandum HB 1092 - Priola -2/9/12" (PDF). House Judciary Committee Testamony / Handouts. National Association for Gun Rights via Colorado.; "Amicus Brief in McDonald v. Chicago: On Behalf of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and National Association for Gun Rights". SSRN 1684688. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |url= (help)

A complaint filed in a lawsuit is not WP:RS for anything other than the fact that a complaint was filed (i.e. The complaint does not verify the existence of 1.8 million members).: "VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND NOMINAL DAMAGES in NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, INC., v. JAMES MURRY, et. al" (PDF). National Association for Gun Rights. p. 7.

Group not in source.: "Editorial: The UN Gun Grabber". The Washington Times. May 27, 2010.; "Group Threatens To Sue CSU Over Gun Ban". TheDenverChannel.com. January 26, 2010.; "Colorado State Rescinds Campus Gun Ban After Court Ruling". TheDenverChannel.com. May 5, 2010.

Sources lacking independence from the subject.: "FAQ: WGO works for gun owners, not politicians". Wisconsin Gun Owners.; "Leadership Team". Utah Gun Owners.; "Big win for a first step toward restoring freedom". Wyoming Gun Owners.; "One small step for Wyoming, one giant leap for gun rights". NAGR via Outdoors International.; "Hearings on Constitutional Carry and Preemption this Thursday". New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Inc.

Campaign finance.: "Report shows where the money is going in Congressional races". IndyStar.com. February 1, 2012.

Public records.: "Requirements for Exemption". Internal Revenue Service.; "Corporate Data Inquiry". ID 0537656-1: State Corporation Commission, Commonwealth of Virginia.((cite web)): CS1 maint: location (link); "Committees And Candidates Supported/Opposed".; "NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS INC PAC". Federal Election Comission.; "Top Contributors, 2012 Race: Montana District 01". Open Secrets.org.; "Top Contributors, 2012 Race: Texas District 36". Open Secrets.org.; "National Assn for Gun Rights Expenditures". Open Secrets.org.

From WP:NRVE...

"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic 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, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason."

From WP:SIGCOV...

"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."

The article fails policy on several accounts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What the previous author accuses of being “brief mentions or quotes” is guided by his subjective opinion of what it “Significant coverage” per the wiki guidelines. He had to try and apply that subjective standard to no fewer than TEN sources that independently mention the group in various forms to try and make his argument. Sorry, but that's a tough sell.

Here is another way of looking at the same material the previous poster pointed out in those fancy looking drop down menus…

From WP:SIGCOV...

"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."

These mentions ARE more than trivial mentions in the article, but even if YOU think they are not, they still clearly demonstrate a level of saturation enough to establish basic notability.

From Wikipedia:ORG...

“Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.” Previous poster's second pretty drop-down box is an attempt to discredit sources that are justified by this statement and the ten + sources he subjectively and inaccurately discredited. By the way, just because the other half dozen or so local firearms groups are firearms related does NOT mean they are “lacking independence from the subject.” The dubject is National Association for Gun Rights, not firearms or firearms groups. Most, if not all of those groups existed apart from NAGR and previously affiliated with other national organizations instead. The fact that they now reference NAGR in their works demonstrates they think that NAGR is credible.

From WP:NRVE...

“Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. … In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.” This statement is more than satisfied. The sources provided demonstrate an ongoing context through a broad range of coverage relating to multiple works and events.

It's noteworthy to point out that in the process of this AfD thread, proponents for keep (not just me) have essentially rewritten this article. It is not the same article originally nominated. Significant new sources have been added, and it has been made clear that the organizations notability is growing, not shrinking. Despite the increase in notability reference (which cumulatively are more well laid out than, say Gun Owners of America), those advocating for delete haven't touched the content of the article, and have demonstrated nothing more than a predisposition for their position based on hearsay in gun discussion threads.

Wikipedia is here as a comprehensive encyclopedia, if you think something violates NPOV, click the edit tab, and change some words around to address your concerns. North8000 at least had the willingness to improve the article in accordance, and as encouraged by, the guide to deletion. I will likely work on expanding on that today, including a recent article from the Colorado statesman which cited the group as the primary opposition to gun control measures expected in the State of Colorado. These are the kind of building blocks that are needed in a project like Wikipedia.

The article would be better served if the opponents of the organization would address the subject matter by improving the article instead of fighting a flame war over AfD. That would bring the balance the article allegedly needs.

Nevertheless, some will continue to argue that an organization referenced in a US Supreme court decision, by the USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and recognized by more than a half-dozen state groups (actually its more than that)as a national affiliate and with growing political influence isn't notable enough. There isn't going to be any convincing them, and I hope the person making the final decision takes that into account.

Another previous poster argued about the organizations finances. He was wrong, and presented misleading information. In presenting IRS form 990 he presented 2010 but omitted and failed to mention that the organization reported revenue of $3.7 Million in 2011. I do not see any rule where submitting a detailed accounting of a c4's budget is a prerequisite to establishing notability. Even so what is available indicates the group is growing substantially, and for a political organization to double its budget as claimed in the court document (under penalty of perjury) of $5 to $6 Million in an even year (especially a Presidential election year) is not a-typical for most c4's. For those of you who are unfamiliar, 501c4 organizations are not the same as PACs. C4s get into issue discussion and are therefor not subject to FEC "election" reporting guidelines, meaning you are relying at the speed of the IRS to post newer information online. That does not prohibit anyone who has a question from calling the IRS and asking for that information for NAGR's c4. The FEC of-course will continue to release information on PAC's as it becomes available, but that information is cited in the article with respect to NAGR's separate PAC and is growing from prior years.

NAGR has more than a few board members and part time employees, and the Executive vice-president isn't the only full time employee. In fact there are significantly more, not that any of the opponents would know for certain based on information available, but a group that has gone from 1.7 million to 5 million in the last four years... not unheard of for investing in staff. North8000 pointed out Luke O'Dell's is Director of Political Operations. Much like the NRA's La Pierre and Keene, or GOA's Larry Pratt it is quite common for organizations to center one or two people as the public face of their group. The number of paid staff and the level of involvement of groups spokesperson are not valid reasons for an AfD, but if YOU think it is -- the group is growing, not shrinking.

Previous posters have mentioned my admission of connections to the group. That doesn't mean inherently I am not committed to seeing an article worthy of Wikipedia, or that I some how want to see bias or promotion in the article. Quite the contrary. I WANT others to scrutinize it and change it. News flash: Groups care about their image on the web, and the most likely person to create, edit or AfD such an article is the person with a bias one way or another. Imagine if every controversial article has opponents resort to lobbing every Wiki-policy bomb they can find to AfD it. We wouldn't be left with a whole lot of controversial topics. That's why you have the ability to keep them on track as you see fit by editing articles to conform to the standards you so excitedly use to attack it.

Finally... (to end on a lighter note) if NAGR is notable enough for [http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/why-i-chose-newt-over-santorum/ Chuck Norris to reference], (who is amongst other things, *cough*: an NRA celebrity) it's notable enough for Wikipedia.

Rf68705 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and once you remove all of the chaff from a Google search you'll have less than 30 hits left. The group fails WP:GNG. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mention in an article that is about something else is NOT reliable sourcing, no matter how much the above editor wants it to be. Being interviewed about something proves nothing other than you exist. Nothing in any sources is substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. The numerous articles cited do a wonderful job of proving the organization exists. Existence does not equal notability. So, my vote is delete as it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This organization isn't notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Bell Canada[edit]

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

Not neutral Bill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OVERVIEW

Below are many reasons why this page should be fundamental. But ultimately the main reason this page should be deleted is because wikipedia is not for rants, blogs, or complaints. It is an encyclopedia that should present important facts in a neutral manner. In would be much more neutral to list these facts on the Bell Canada page instead of having a criticism page. Bill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Nuetral

The article is not neutral. Information factual information can be including on the Bell Canada page. By the very nature of collecting critism together on one page it can't be neutral. People aren't going to post great things about Bell on a criticism page, just negative items. See WP:NOTSOAPBOXBill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Battle Ground

Wikipedia is not a place to wage battles against individuals or corporations. WP:BATTLEGROUNDBill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Attack

Wikipedia articles should not be created to attack a person. By legal definition a corporation is a person. WP:ATPBill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Notable

While as a major telecommunication company Bell Canada is a notable context for an article. The article has failed to establish that critism of Bell is notable enough to justify an article. WP:NotabilityBill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears the nominator is not familiar with similar existing pages on Wikipedia for other large companies. If this one is deleted -all will have to go to preserve consistency. Just my $.2. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of pretty much everything: List of criticism and critique articles. Rotten regard Softnow 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And even that came in for criticism. Rotten regard Softnow 00:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe the other critism pages you pointed out should also be deleted, maybe they should not. I have not reviewed those pages. This discussion is only about one page in particular. I would not expect to open the Encyclopædia Britannica C volume and see Criticism of Bell Canada. Any negative facts would just be in the Bell Canada article. Why would one want wikipedia hold itself to a lower standard of neutrality? Bill C. Riemers (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Corporate attack page. If there are major, substantive, historically important negative incidents these should be presented, in appropriate context, with appropriate neutrality and balance, on the company's page. This is a hit job and inherently violates NPOV. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What motivates this shit? Bandwidth throttling. Quote me. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i've created this page to group the numerous notable criticisms that would be too exhaustive to post on their respective individual pages. Both the "Not Attack" and "Not Notable" reasons given to delete this page are false. Criticism isn't equivalent to an attack (for example, CBC and MSN aren't "attacking" Bell, simply stating out the facts) and it is in fact notable due to mainstream media outlets, such as the two i've mentioned, tech journalists such as Michael Geist consumer advocacy groups such as OpenMedia.ca all report criticism which affects Bell Canada. And since there is no attacking of Bell Canada, simply stating the facts, classifying this page as a "battle ground" is also inappropriate. This leaves one valid reason, "not neutral", for considering the deletion of this article. However, the title says it all: "Criticism of Bell Canada" is a page to find notable criticisms which affect that large telecom. The page could use a cleanup, removing poorly sourced or unsourced materials, but since the rest of its information is important and notable, the article should be kept instead of deleted. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) *Keep On notability: The article has reliable sources (CBC News, the Toronto Star, Ars Technica) that are independent of the subject. On the other 3 points: (as they can pretty much be addressed together) It feels like your point is that the reason for criticism articles is to complain about how bad x is. To me, it seems to be more about saying that people complain about x and why. It doesn't constitute a personal attack on something the law defines as a person to say that "y thinks badly of x because of z" when it is published in a reputable news source. The reason that this particular one exists is that someone was concerned the main article would be too long, but I would not be entirely opposed to adding more of the criticisms to the main article. Just my two cents. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Gene93k, Just wondering why this has not also been included in wp:WikiProject Canada as well as wp:WikiProject Business Ottawahitech (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it should be included there and in other places the door is open to you to do so yourself. It is no-one's job to do this and no-one can be criticised, even by implication, for not doing so. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiddle Faddle, This was not at all meant as criticism - I am just tring to have this discussion notice more widely circulated before time to contribute here runs out Ottawahitech (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The door is open to you. You could talk about it, or you could do it :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced article. The topic of "Criticism of Bell Canada" fulfills all notability criteria on its own. Notability is shown by many independent significant references. A412 (Talk • C) 05:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic and title are inherently not neutral, contrary to core policy: "Articles mustn't take sides..." Warden (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see this page as an attack page. It is not appropriate material for any encyclopaedia. The existence of similar articles is not a reason to retain it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information. No harm in keeping it. The nebulous idea of what is and is not "appropriate" for some snooty concept of "encyclopaedia" only harms us. We don't have the space constraints of a traditional printed encyclopedia. If it's verifiable information, notable and reasonably well organized, it belongs in this encyclopedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete difficult decision for me, as I hate Bell Canada with a passion! (250$ bill - what?) However, this article does suffer from neutrality issues. It is essentially a WP:COATRACK. Sources are about Bell Canada, not "Criticism of Bell Canada". An article like "Bell Canada billing practices", which covered all aspects of Bell's billing practices, both positive and negative, would satisfy our NPOV requirements. This article does not. If this was a BLP, there would be little argument. (Not suggesting corps. should have the same rights as people ;)). These "Criticism of" articles fail WP:NOTADVOCACY, they present one side of the story, and have a "point" - namely that Bell sucks. (Which may well be true, but it is subjective, and not within our mandate). The Interior (Talk) 19:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:38, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is essentially a WP:POVFORK. The concept itself of criticism particular to this company does not rise to the level of WP:GNG. Negative press, which may be understood as critical by readers, does not necessarily report that there is criticism of the company. Criticism may be implicit and topically relevant to the company itself, but criticism most clearly merits a stand-alone article when the topic of criticism of the company is what's covered. Contents of this article that are actually noteworthy should be folded into the Bell Canada article, even as its own ===Criticism=== or event-based subsection, as due weight indicates. Not every bit of negative press will be of enduring significance; I expect a summary statement supported by several reliable citations would be sufficient. JFHJr (㊟) 06:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rather than outright deletion, merging the sourced content to the Bell Canada article's Criticism section would satisfy WP:PRESERVE. The Criticism section at the Bell Canada article currently has a 'Main article' template that directs readers to this article. If this article is deleted, the criticism section of the Bell Canada article would remain as significantly devoid of content, despite sourced criticism that has occurred. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The amount of things to criticize Bell Canada for just keeps growing, which is why a separate article is more appropriate than a huge "Criticism" section. Criticism can also extend to Bell Media subjects (such as them having almost no Canadian/in-house shows, a vast majority of American simulcasts, playing VNRs for their store The Source, etc.). It gets annoying for someone to have to read different articles (such as Bell Canada, Bell Internet, Bell TV, Virgin Mobile Canada, Bell Media, The Source, etc.) to find the numerous criticism for Bell Canada. Why add this complication? There should just be one unifying page for Bell Canada criticism. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, by lumping the various criticisms of all the subsidiaries into a single page, you get a grossly imbalanced view of the company's practices. From a maintenance standpoint, it also becomes a magnet for poorly sourced gripes from unhappy customers. If Bell TV is doing something dodgy, it should be related on that page. The Interior (Talk) 22:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that reputable criticism is acceptable on Wikipedia, while small-small criticism such as that from customers is best left to other places. If the Criticism article is deleted, the main Bell Canada article's criticism section will need a ((See Also|Bell Internet#Criticism|Bell Media#Criticism|Bell TV#Criticism|The Source (retailer)#Criticism|Virgin Mobile Canada#Criticism)) tag too. That can get quite messy! --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I personally would be equally happy if the article could be rewritten to be balanced criticism. e.g. If I critic a book, I mention both positive and negative aspects about that book. Criticism does not need to be just bad. That is the reason why criticism articles about companies and sometimes even persons are allowed. If I look on places like www.broadbandreports.com, I see 60% of Bell Canada customers are happy with there service. As such I would expect there is more positive criticism available. In the end, authors need to present a balance view and let the reader decide for themselves how they feel about the company.Bill C. Riemers (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger WP:CSECTION - Articles dedicated to negative criticism of a topic are discouraged because they tend to be a a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy.Moxy (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Raúl Cañizares[edit]

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

Several claims to notability made, but fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:NMUSIC, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — the subject has some passing coverage, but zero in the way of substantial coverage that would lend to meeting WP:GNG. The coverage that exists gives little in the way of an encyclopedic biography. The article has also blossomed into a WP:RESUME, which is distracting. But. As to WP:AUTHOR/WP:ACADEMIC, the subject's writings could support content at Santeria, especially Walking with the night: The Afro-Cuban world of Santeria (1993) (cited by 34), and Cuban Santeria: Walking with the night (1999) (cited by 17). Others, and the substance of their citations, seem less substantial. That said, these two publications alone seem rather authoritative within an obscure but squarely notable topic. I'll watch in case good sources containing valid biographical content, even perhaps WP:PRIMARY sources are found to support a biography on this subject. I've no doubt the subject is an expert, but not every expert is biographically notable. JFHJr (㊟) 05:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some trouble with this as well. The best argument I can extend so far is that I'm seeing where his works are listed in various books as sources or further reading, so he might be savable under that. I'm just sort of ambivalent about that argument though, as he's not listed in that many books as a reference or reading recommendation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this might be usable as a redirect to Santaria in general with a very, VERY brief mention of him somewhere in the article?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Canizares was an important voice in the American Santeria community. Author of over a dozen books and founder of the Orisha Consciousness Movement, he is certainly notable. I urge you to read the obituary/tribute in Ashe Journal [25] before passing judgement; there is data there that needs to be made into proper citations, as there is in the text Qworty deleted before making the nomination. The article needs work, but the subject is, IMO, notable.Rosencomet (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the worldcat listing for Cuban Santeria, [26] which shows over 300 library holdings and a spanish translation. The holdings include a fair number of university libraries: as highlights, Columbia, Yale, Harvard, Penn State, McGill, Duke, Chicago, Minnesota, Texas, --and several European universities. Using the subject heading for Santeria, it's the third most widely held among 616 books on the subject. Considering the subject, I accept this as showing him an authority. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough library holdings to keep it certainly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.160.179.145 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coment. I haven't yet examined the claims of the nominator; I know, though I disagree that the subject fails WP:AUTHOR or WP:CREATIVE. In any event, WP:BK doesn't even belong in the list. No one is claiming Baba Raul Canizares is a notable book. Rosencomet (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Canizares is a major force in his field of study and his religion. He is author of several books that are used as textbooks in accredited American Universities, and is a founder in his tradition of Santeria. He is also an accomplished musician and a minor but important recording artist. An obvious Keep. The article does need improving, though.Oddio (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spinning Spark 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Müller[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable ski jumper; there appears to be no sources on Google that can confirm it. The German, French and Polish Wikipedias only link to the same FIS listing as the english version, and WP:NSPORT doesn't have any specific criteria for ski jumping.

The other criteria from WP:NSPORT#Generally_acceptable_standards is that a person must "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." The FIS World Cup is likely to be such a tournament, and consists of 25-30 individual competitions. Of these, Müller participated in 5 spread over two seasons. His best result was as no. 12, finishing between 60 and 97 in the other four jumps. Does this make him notable? (Also, the article is more or less identical with the other languages, and has been tagged with ((notability)) since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 10:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has he competed at the Olympics ? If no then the we are looking for coverage of him in RS's, not routine reports of results, I can't seem to find any at the moment, so am inclined to say delete but will leave it a few days and see if I get more time to look. Mtking^(edits) 11:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He hasn't competed at the olympics as far as I know, but those are just given as an example in the guideline. As far as I know, the world cup qualifies as a major international (...) competition at the highest level, but the question is if there needs to be a cutoff; either competing in a majority of the individual jumps, or finishing eg. amongst the top 50 athletes. I also checked a few german sites, and there appears to be two skijumpers by the name Christoph Müller, this one and a younger one mentioned as a talent in at least one source. Bjelleklang - talk 12:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete: Looking at the French, German and Polish versions, I cannot figure out what they are basing notability on. No WhatLinksHere to explain. I don't speak German so cannot look at the German language sources easily. If some one can say they checked German language newspaper sources and found him, would lean keep. --LauraHale (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lean delete The German version says, in addition, that he finished 2nd in one Euro Cup competition, 3rd in another; in off-season training he hurt himself and had to lay off the next year, and dropped out of competition shortly after the new season started. There's also something about him coaching the second string team. Of course this is all unsourced. I'm not that strong on sports notability but from the comments made so far it sounds as though this additional info isn't going to put him over the top. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, world cup jumper. Geschichte (talk) 15:26, 4 November 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 10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has competed at the highest level of his sport which would be the world cup ski jumping events. As an Austrian ski jumper, sources might not be readily available in English, and having competed in 1987/88 before the widespread use of the internet, online sources may be hard to come by. The information is verifiable via the FIS profile, so we do not have an issue of verifiability, or any WP:BLP violations. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 14 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Competing in World Cup events means that he is of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 01:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos (DJ)[edit]

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

Minor British disc jockey. No evidence of enduring notability. Fails WP:GNG. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:43, 3 November 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 November 3. Snotbot t • c » 12:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know that happens, but I was doing a job lot of articles and to save time I transcluded them all together. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 November 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, Spinning Spark 01:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, particularly because he was the country's youngest DJ when he started.[27][28][29][30][31][32] -- Trevj (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes there seems to be a few decent references there, which I think changes the picture slightly. Although I'm the original nominator I'll vote to keep this on the strength of those. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:54, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I don't think the coverage offered is from very reliable sources, nor is it biographically detailed enough in relation to his apparent notability: his DJ career. Most sources report on his sacking; most of those are not RS material. Although he was once the youngest DJ in the country, there's no evidence that superlative is of any lasting, encyclopedic biographical significance here. JFHJr (㊟) 06:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A national radio presenter with a long, successful career. Interesting connections too. Have added references. Leonardstavros —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Again, I'm persuaded we should keep this since it now appears to meet the WP:GNG guidelines. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A_Moving_Picture#Confirmed_tracks. Spinning Spark 20:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off With Their Heads (song)[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NSONG#Songs Slashme (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this MTV article, but it contains only a couple sentences about the song (the first two paragraphs are just background on the artist). I could not find any other significant coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better solution would be for the page to be significantly improved instead. I know a lot about Wretch so I'm happy to help. DJUnBalanced (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in that I'm all for improving articles when coverage exists. Any in-depth reviews, commentary, or background information on the song in reliable sources would be quite helpful. My searches have so far been unsuccessful. Gongshow ^Talk 07:39, 14 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A_Moving_Picture#Confirmed_tracks as too soon - I found several links noting the music video announcement here, here, here, here and here. There are probably more but I refuse to continue searching and it's likely there wouldn't be much. For now, it's better to redirect to the album's page. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spinning Spark 20:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inga Nataya[edit]

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

A BLP which does not have a single reliable source, only promotional sources. The search does not give anything reasonable. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've added one located reference into the article (and also re-added the orphan tag which was one of those removed by User:Inga nataya in March 2010); but I'm finding nothing more than that, and it is insufficient to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:28, 11 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google Books found one minor mention and Google News found additional results here (Italian news article), here (brief mention), here (another brief mention). My own search provided results here (magazine article briefly talks about her), here, here and here (this last one has questionable reliability). It's possible additional sources are Russian though chances are most of them are English, considering she is based in Los Angeles. Regarding the celebrities who have worn her clothing, I haven't found much reliable evidence aside from this and this (this last one only seems to mention Anne Hathaway). This Wikipedia article mentions British Esquire, Southern Bride and Bride magazine so I searched at their respective websites but found nothing relevant. This is probably a case of too soon, SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to have sufficient relevance for an encyclopedia article at this time. --Michig (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Frankly, as a web only magazine, this could have been speedy deleted as an A7. Spinning Spark 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefire_(magazine)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ceasefire (magazine)

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

not notable, no references, nothing about the 'magazine' shows up in news sources. Soosim (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some newspaper mention here: Peter Tatchell in The Guardian, 2009, Mark Townsend in The Observer, 2011, though the role of the magazine in both is probably tangential. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 4 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:30, 11 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom; despite and precisely for coverage similar to that offered by Hahc. It lacks WP:CORPDEPTH; also fails WP:GNG for substantial coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 06:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spinning Spark 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Papillon-Method[edit]

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

Article is about a relatively new theory developed by Hardyna Vedder. There seems to be no reliable reporting or coverage of the topic, either cited in the article or (as far as I can see) available online. Current references do not seem to talk about the Papillon Method, but about other tangential topics. I can't see any benefit in retaining this article in its current state, unfortunately. Wikipedia isn't the place for promoting new research. Sionk (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a few google books results for papillon method but they seem to refer to something else. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:58, 7 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:40, 11 November 2012

Not delete: Independent reliable sources of the topic, cited in the article and available online:

MERLOT, California State University

German Education Server Education Server Berlin Brandenburg Education Server Lower Saxony Education Server Baden-Wurttemberg

The Papillon-Method is published under the heading of "Learning in the 21st century" (Lernen im 21. Jahrhundert). No tangential topic, rather concretely Papillon Method.

Scholar: Expert report on PapillonMethod by Hans Prengel Graduate in Media Studies, University of Technology, Berlin, Institute for Language and Communication Media Studies Department Expert report on PapillonMethod--Peters888 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Comment - possible WP:SOCK, this AfD is the editor's only contribution. The first 'independent' link is actually an e-book by Vedder. The remaining 'articles' seem to be announcements linking to Vedder's website (www.pio-pio.de), while I can't see any mention in the Lower Saxony Landesinstitut link. Sionk (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Lower Saxony Landesinstitut [33]--Peters888 (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)'[reply]

The message/announcement is signed by Hardyna Vedder, which looks again like it is the author promoting their own research. Sionk (talk) 00:45, 24 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topolino1979 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC) The Papillon Method deals with an interesting topic for my studies in Knowledge Management. As Google tries to improve its "Docs" with "Research Links" and ebooks are enriched by videos and multiple hyperlinks, the Papillon Method is really worth to be mentioned.[reply]

From your point of view, Wikipedia recognizes state institutions such as the German Education Server and education platforms of countries as not reliable and independent sources. Moreover, sources like MERLOT, California State University and an expert report by scholar of University of Technology, Berlin, were not challenged and therefore recognized.

Do not delete: From my point of view, there are two reliable sources. They seem to meet the Wikipedia rules for publication.

Delete There may be potential for an article here, but it would have to start over. The current version is so unencyclopedic that it would be difficult to reuse it: it is written as an advertisement for the program. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Gupta (IDSA)[edit]

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

Delete as per lack of any WP:RS to support notability.The person is not notable and article is poorly refrenced with virtually no good references.The article is created by his fans or to generate some favors.The issue is mainly with notability and there are any number of these pages of mid-ranking and junior Indian civil service officers probably put up by their sycophants, progeny or those looking for a something in return. (Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:50, 3 November 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 November 3. Snotbot t • c » 06:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete He could be notable, though there are suggestion that it would need more RS. Though the OP's "sycophants, progeny" are not currying favour for a delete. His positions seem notable, but as said perhaps more RS could show his worth. And ofcourse if its not an orphan (which it currently is)Lihaas (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a cross database search in commercial databases and came up with many hits it would take me hours to transcribe all the cites into the article. They are cites in international papers and often have in-depth quotes by Gupta. He is more than a "junior" government officer, he is Director of a major think tank that influences Indian foreign policy and he often appears in the press. Here are some quotes just in the past few months, all of these articles focus on Gupta's comments beyond the abstracts given below:

"Indian body hails Yemen's role in enhancing regional security". BBC Monitoring Middle East [London] 29 Oct 2012.

Abstract: [Arvind Gupta] said that Yemen is one of the important parties that make strategic efforts to insure the international shipping safety in the Gulf of Aden. He said sea piracy's activity in the region has declined recently due to the efforts being made within the international community and association, stressing that the stability in the region would improve the economic and investment cooperation and commercial exchange among the IOR-ARC's members.

"IDSA hails Yemen's role in enhancing regional security". Arabia 2000, 10/29/2012

Abstract: NEW DELHI, Oct. 29 (Saba) - The Indian Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) hailed on Monday the strategic role Yemen plays in enhancing the regional security within the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC). The statement made by IDSA director general Arvind Gupta during his meeting with the journalists, who will cover the 12th council of ministers' meeting of IOR-ARC to kick off in Gurgaon, India from 29th October to 2nd November. Besides Yemen, 18 member states will take part in the meeting.

"'There is potential for Indian mediation in Iran-West nuclear dispute'" Mehr News Agency (MNA). (Oct. 29, 2012)

Abstract: GURGAON, India, Oct. 29 (MNA) - There is a potential for Indian mediation in the nuclear dispute between Iran and the West provided that both sides agree to it, according to Arvind Gupta, the director general of the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA), which is an Indian think tank for advanced research in international relations, especially strategic and security issues. Gupta made the remarks on Monday ...

"Health of national grid vital." Times of India 5 Aug. 2012.

Abstract: PUNE: Director general of Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA) Arvind Gupta has said that the country can barely afford to disregard the health of the national energy grids, which is critical to national security.

"Arvind Gupta takes charge as new IDSA chief ", The Hindu. (Jan. 6, 2012)

Abstract: Career diplomat Arvind Gupta on Thursday assumed charge as Director- General of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA) here on Thursday. Before assuming charge, he held the Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair in Strategic and Defence Studies at the Institute since March, 2008, an official release said. Prior to joining the premier defence think-tank, Dr. Gupta, a 1979 batch Indian Foreign Service officer, was a Joint Secretary at the National Security Council Secretariat. Between 1999 and 2008, he dealt with a wide spectrum of national security issues. He has also worked at Indian missions abroad and handled a number of assignments in the Ministry of External Affairs in different capacities.

In terms of notability, his position as chief of Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis is notable due to that Think Tank being similar to an academic research institution (research, studies and published journals) and position as Chief/Head.[34] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:56, 4 November 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, Spinning Spark 01:40, 11 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep " the Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair on National Security in the IDSA" is notable. As a major research institute, this is equivalent to a named professorship at a major research university. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UUelcome Editions[edit]

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

New journal, too young to have become notable yet. No independent sources, not listed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 06:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS discussion of this project found, so lacking evidence that it meets the notability criteria at this point. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spinning Spark 19:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noggin Magazine[edit]

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

No evidence that this publication is notable. References consist of self-published, primary, and otherwise unreliable sources. This magazine might have had some local importance in the past, but there is no indication of this or that the alleged "controversy" and "outrage" generated by this magazine is sufficiently covered in any third-party source. Article on magazine's creator (Tom Hunter (novelist)) has recently been deleted via AfD. Kinu ^t/_c 18:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was involved w/ the Tom Hunter AfD during which I did a fair amount of research into sources and was only able to verify one solid source in the Cedar Rapids Gazette. I have a copy. The other two sources mentioned in the article (Iowa City Press-Citizen and Daily Iowan) I have never been able to find citations, my assumption is they exist, but impossible to cite without title,author,date. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, here's a couple of full verifiable confirmed citations from a quick search:
- Ann Scholl Boyer (March 25, 1992). "Tom Hunter creates Noggin in a bubble". Cedar Rapids Gazette. Cedar Rapids, Iowa. he's the editor of Noggin, one of Iowa City's most controversial publications.
- Timothy Connors (November 11, 1993). "Iowa City Council delays vote on newspaper racks". Cedar Rapids Gazette. Cedar Rapids, Iowa. p. B3. The publishers of ICON and Noggin said small news magazines would be the ordinance's worst victims. "In any lottery, it's very unlikely that the Register or the Press-Citizen would be left out," Tom Hunter of Noggin said.
The fact that it was called "one of Iowa City's most controversial publications" certainly lends a bit of notability. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - unlike Hunter himself, the paper itself was clearly notable on a regional basis, and like most such papers had an influence far beyond the size of its stated circulation. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a single source in-depth (Boyer). WP:GNG calls for "multiple" in-depth independent sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As background it's a COI: "I am the uploader, Curmudgeon99. My legal name is Tom Hunter"[35]. Curmudgeon99 created the article, Tom Hunter founded the magazine. There is only one source that covers the topic in depth (Boyer). WP:GNG requires "multiple", the other sources are trivial or primary. No one has been able to produce other in-depth sources, I left numerous requests on Tom's talk page during the Tom Hunter AfD to no avail (I did not vote in that AfD). The only thing the magazine seems to be controversial for was anti-Gulf War protests, so the controversy is 1E. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I actually read this magazine when it was published in Iowa City, and it offered a very significant point of view that was in strong contrast to local media of the day. The quality of both the writing and illustrations was extraordinary, which is saying something considering that the University of Iowa Writer's Workshop was located in the same city. I also read the articles about the magazine at the time. Just because someone cannot find the old articles online does not mean they don't exist. I read them. AnnThar (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC) — AnnThar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Articles don't need to be online to be cited. But they need to be cited ie. Author (date). "Title" Work. And presumably someone will have read them to verify they discuss the subject in-depth. Typically local libraries contain collections of local newspapers on microfiche and/or digital scan. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per all of Green Cardamom's excellent arguments above. Qworty (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Attention Green Cardamom, Qworty. Gentlemen, you will please note that I have now already uploaded the profile of Noggin in the Cedar Rapids Gazette and from the Iowa City Press-Citizen. These two sources (one more is on the way from the Daily Iowan) constitute multiple sources. Next, you make the broad statement that "The only thing the magazine seems to be controversial for was anti-Gulf War protests." Did you even bother to read the article? Didn't you notice the section about the cartoonist Scott Warren? His famous "Ed Gein" three-page cartoon strip? [Ed Gein was the inspiration for Psycho, leatherface from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Hannibal Lector from Silence of the Lambs.] There was hardly an issue of the magazine that was not controversial. We actually have three sources now. Two in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, one in the Iowa City Press-Citizen (that I just provided) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We can't obviously use photos of newspapers as those are copyrighted, but the cite that Curmudgeon99 (talk · contribs) is referring to is this:
- Armstrong, Valoree (November 25, 1991). "Magazines draw on large talent pool - Writers allow Iowa City to offer a wide range of publications". Iowa City Press-Citizen. pp. C1, C3.
So now the four cites mentioned are:
- Ann Scholl Boyer (March 25, 1992). "Tom Hunter creates Noggin in a bubble". Cedar Rapids Gazette. Cedar Rapids, Iowa. he's the editor of Noggin, one of Iowa City's most controversial publications.
- Timothy Connors (November 11, 1993). "Iowa City Council delays vote on newspaper racks". Cedar Rapids Gazette. Cedar Rapids, Iowa. p. B3. The publishers of ICON and Noggin said small news magazines would be the ordinance's worst victims. "In any lottery, it's very unlikely that the Register or the Press-Citizen would be left out," Tom Hunter of Noggin said.
- Armstrong, Valoree (November 25, 1991). "Magazines draw on large talent pool - Writers allow Iowa City to offer a wide range of publications". Iowa City Press-Citizen. pp. C1, C3.
- Peterseim, Locke (February 7, 1992). "Tales from the Crypt of Free Speech and Bad Taste". Daily Iowan. pp. 5B.

Just noting that all here, for what it's worth, — Cirt (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The article was indeed plagued by over-dependence on primary sources. I've done some cleanup work, and this current version now relies primarily on secondary sources. Also, I've moved the page to "Noggin (magazine)" as the word "magazine" was not part of the title, and this appears to be the predominant naming convention in this manner on Wikipedia. I think those contributions have helped in the quality improvement effort to this article — though, of course, if anyone could suggest additional secondary sources or research avenues to pursue to find additional archived secondary sources, that'd be most appreciated. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Located a 4th independent source for Noggin. The Daily Iowan, Feb 7, 1992. Page 5B. "Tales from the Crypt of Free Speech and Bad Taste" by Locke Peterseim, Daily Iowan Arts & Entertainment Editor, op-ed devoted to the alleged obscenities and other controversies swirling around "Noggin" Magazine. Curmudgeon99 —Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the coverage in the present version, edit history, and search results do not indicate substantial coverage of the publication itself (WP:GNG), nor an impact that could be described as significant, especially of enduring or encyclopedic significance, in its field. While I do not doubt the publication existed, I've found nothing approaching the likes of WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 06:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This magazine garnered five mentions in contemporary newspapers. It generated newspaper columns and profiles in several prominent newspapers. This is notable as many other editors have concluded. Curmudgeon99 —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Freeze[edit]

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

Delete or userfy. Appears to be a notable person but it is too poor an article for mainspace. Looks like an abandoned draft. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this article has inadequate documentation, and I am doubtful this person is notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this article has inadequate documentation, I am doubtful this person is notable, and the article has not been significantly improved since being nominated for deletion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V.P.Srinivas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. Finding online references is difficult because the guy has mimicked the name of a more famous person Mimicry Srinivos. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is wrong with the four print citations included in the article? I notice every one of those publications has a Wikipedia article, and seems reliable enough (mainstream newspapers). Churn and change (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see some online references - even if they are in Telegu. Also the four newspaper references having the same date may boil down to one article syndicated to four newspapers. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second objection is valid; I don't think we can ask for online sources though because the guidelines say print sources are equivalent. We can ask for short translated quotes from the print sources. I saw this thread from the other Mimicry Srinivos complaining about this guy's stage name. But Srinivas does seem to be part of this guy's original name, so I don't know what to make of it, and it is somewhat off-thread for the Afd, I guess. That does imply this guy has managed to garner some attention, else why complain? I left a note reminding creator the Afd is now again active. Churn and change (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete not notable.poorly referenced.this does not merit a wiki article (Harishrawat11 (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: From the write up, I find the person to be notable, as he has won awards and recognition from Government and various cultural organisations. Regarding confusion with another artist of same name, it can be managed through disambiguation links --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:38, 7 November 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, Mdann52 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:34, 11 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability beyond one event has not been shown per WP:BURDEN. Cloudz 679 13:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High Sierra Sport[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. An article of this sort is essentially spam created by either overenthusiastic editors or actual spammers. The previous discussion (2007) was closed as no consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's true that it's been fleetingly covered, I don't believe any major sources have discussed it, and no one seems to have gone in depth: All the coverage that GNews yields is run-of-the-mill "designed by"/"made by" references - no "a look inside High Sierra Sport headquarters" or even "Gosh, I'll tell you what brand I'll be using next time I'm camping!"-types. WP:ORG states: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." High Sierra Sports appears to have only received just this, and as such should be deleted. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 20:19, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I performed a Google News search with "High Sierra Sport" and found links here, here, here (All three are new director of sales announcements), here (from what I see, insufficient), here (breast cancer donation announcement), here (extremely minor mention from an employee), the other results are either promotional press releases or probably insufficient. My next search was with "High Sierra Inc. Harry Bernbaum" and received results here, (somewhat detailed article but probably insufficient), here (insufficient) and here (third result from the top, disregarding the Wikipedia result). My final search was "High Sierra sporting" which provided some of the same results as before or new irrelevant results. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sable Research Group[edit]

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

A research group within a department. No reason to think it notable. If any content on it should be included in the article on the School, not even a redirect would seem to be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signification coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 14 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG, including re redirect. JFHJr (㊟) 06:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Rajarata[edit]

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

I believe this article is a hoax and as such request that it be deleted or redirected to Kingdom of Anuradhapura. I have nominated for AfD rather than WP:PROD because I suspect the article's creator will object to it being deleted.

Northern Sri Lanka has been known as Rajarata since ancient times but it wasn't ruled by a single kingdom from 5 century BCE to 13 century CE. It was instead ruled by a succession of kingdoms all of whom have separate articles: Tambapanni, Upatissa Nuwara, Anuradhapura, Chola and Polonnaruwa.

If the Kingdom of Rajarata had really existed it would be mentioned in Sri Lanka, History of Sri Lanka, Ancient history of Sri Lanka, Medieval history of Sri Lanka and List of Sri Lankan monarchs but it isn't.

There are a few articles that link to Kingdom of Rajarata but most of the these links were added by User:Himesh84, the creator of Kingdom of Rajarata - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

I have looked at two well known books on Sri Lankan history - A History of Srilanka by K. M. De Silva and A Short History of Ceylon by H. W. Codrington - but neither mentions Kingdom of Rajarata. Google does provide some RS which mention Kingdom of Rajarata but often when they refer to Kingdom of Rajarata they actually mean Kingdom of Anuradhapura. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should do more research about Sri Lanka. Before Kalinga Magha and Tamils come to Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka was internally divided into 3 parts. Rajarata, Malayarata and Rohana. These said kingdoms are not different kingdoms , but they are different administrative centers. To become different kingdoms areas of the influence needed to be change. But only the administrative center was changed during this period.same area, same blood line, same nation... Even the administrative center moved maximum 75Kms, the area ( Including later Jaffna Kingdom) under it wasn't changed. If you understand sinhala, Rajarata means (Raja + Rata - area under the King). There is no kingdoms like kingdom of London, Kingdom of Paris, Kingdom of Amsterdam,.. Actually Kingdom of Rajarata is wrong, because Rajarata already have the meaning (Sinhala) for Kingdom.--Himesh84 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material. No evidence has been provided to show that there was a kingdom called Rajarata which lasted for 1,800 years. None of the paltry references given in the article mentions the Kingdom of Rajarata. I have already stated that De Silva and Codrington don't. Neither do Peebles, Holt, Kirk, Starn, Upham or Amazing Lanka. So, not only are the numerous editors who have worked on the various history articles wrong but so are respected historians De Silva, Codrington and Peebles. Is it really possible that so many people have overlooked a kingdom that lasted 18 centuries?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your games. You live in some Western country don't know anything about Sinhala but trying to comment as a expert on Sri Lanka. If you say Rajarata is not a kingdom what is it ? Is it a city in Sri Lanka ?

seach following term in google.

Elara from the Pandyan state invaded and ruled Rajarata from 205-161 BC - for 44 years

If you search about famous Sri Lankan kings eg: Parakramabahu I - most of them introduced as king of Rajarata. In your own definition for Rajarata in Rajarata is Land of the king. So you also accept Rajarata is land of the king but you want to play with the words and references.

Roman Empire is divided into Western Roman empire , Eastern Roman empire. Who cares about divisions. still all of them are used.

This is what I get from the Roman empire wiki page

27 BC–476 AD (West);

1453 (East)

Before judging how kingdom of Anuradhapura, pollannaruwa are parts of kingdom of Rajarata can you please tell me how Western Roman empire , Eastern Roman empire are parts of the Roman empire ?

I think since you live in western country you should correct it before raising concerns why Sri Lanka use several names. --Himesh84 (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obi2canibe, This is Rajarata page. What do you say about it ?

Rajarata (Raja = king, rata = country, or preferably land, thus the Land of Kings) is the name given to the region of Sri Lanka from which monarchs ruled the country from approximately the 5th Century BCE to the early 13th Century CE. It is centered around the ancient cities of Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa in the North Central Province of Sri Lanka. Uttaradesa is the northern portion of Rajarata which includes the Jaffna peninsula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajarata&diff=497921759&oldid=497920989

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajarata&diff=521390189&oldid=520734383 --Himesh84 (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material - you. You have not provided a single reference to prove that there was a kingdom called Rajarata which lasted 18 centuries. If I am so wrong and you are right, you should be able to provide RS. This discussion is about Kingdom of Rajarata, not Rajarata - they are two distinct things.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs ruled the country from 5BC-13CE. It is centered around cities Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa,.. If you are not talking about a kingdom what is it ?

It is useless to argue with you because what you raise is a useless and very much minor thing. Can you double check how many wiki-pages which haven't annexed English word "Kingdom" in any source but mentioned as kingdoms ? You are searching English words in a Sinhalese culture. Search Short History of Ceylon for the meaning of Rajarata. It clearly says Country of the King. Country is similar name used for the kingdom at those days. Since you want to play with words and references, for your request I can give you this article ( http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/07/16/fea03.asp ), but it is not fit into the current content of the wiki page.

I am adding following sentences since I am feared that you will not be able to find

Padaviya: the Eastern Capital of the Rajarata Kingdom

But gradually the region had developed as the centre of the Eastern Division (Pacinadésa) of the Rajarata kingdom.

Note. Meaning of the "Rajarata kingdom" is 100% equal to the "kingdom of rajarata". Please don't ask for reference but it is the word order of Sinhalese culture. If you ask, I will report you to administrators.

Can you please correct the duration of the Roman empire too. It was ended in 300, But in this article says Roman empire lasted until 1500. Western Roman Empire ruled the west half , independent Byzantine ruled the Eastern part. So what was ruled by Roman empire in this era and who are the kings ? Don't you smell something is wrong ? --Himesh84 (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in continuing this duologue if you consider Verifiability to be a minor thing. I'll leave it up to other editors to comment.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything needs to continue. You said you can't find any reference. I have given one. Now I am going to edit the page since I have provided required info and you have leaved the discussion without accepting you got a what you asked (a reference) --Himesh84 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My time here on Wikipedia has been mostly spent on creating and developing articles relating to ancient Sri Lankan history. In fact I have created and spent many hours on the articles that have been linked above in the first few paragraphs. And in my time researching I have never come across the Kingdom of Rajarata. As Himesh84 has described Rajarata himself, it is a term meaning "King's country" and was an internal division or subdivision of the various successive kingdoms up until the 13th century. To put it more simply Rajarata was the traditional area in which the Sri Lankan King governed. An area that can probably be compared to a modern day province but not an independent kingdom. However calling it an administrating center is much more acceptable.

The article itself is poorly structured and poorly referenced, and seems to be a mash up from other articles. The article Rajarata (which is now a redirect to this page) correctly informed us of what Rajarata was. Therefore this article should be deleted or any reference to Rajarata being a kingdom should be removed and the article properly written and referenced.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you work on Sri Lanka having some pre-knowledge. At least please read the comment before you. http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/07/16/fea03.asp --Himesh84 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka has a written history of over 2500 years and your only proof of a Kingdom of Rajarata is that article you have linked. Furthermore in that article there is only one instance referring to a Kingdom of Rajarata. Obi2canibe has already asked for proper evidence and verification (not newspaper articles) yet you still have not provided.--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said you never come across Kingdom of Rajarata. Now you asking one is not enough for you. But you must check Verifiability. No mentioned about number of examples. It is enough to have a document, article, paper, or book. So I have given a article by PROF. W. I. SIRIWEERA. Publisher is well recognized news publisher in Sri Lanka. They sell lot of news papers within Sri Lanka since 1918. Can you be on standards and tell under which wikipedia policy does it say one article is not enough ?

2500 years history written in Sri Lanka. That is correct. But Mahavamsa has many reference about Rajarata, Anuradhapura, Pollonnaruwa, ... Does the written history distinct what is the kingdom and what is the capital ? These kingdom kind of definitions are later derivatives. Some called it by Area (Kingdom of England,France,Italy,...). Some called it by capital(Rome. anything else please ?). You can't say only one is correct. Rome empire, Kingdom of Italy, Kingdom of papacy,.. for one area. Likewise in Sri Lanka so written 2500 history Mahawamsa state ancient kings ruled from Rajarata some other source says they ruled from different capitals of the Rajarata area. If you read those ancient history of Mahavamsa,chulavamsa,.. most of them talking Rajarata as the kingdom. I don't know which books you read and why you unable to find Rajarata is a kingdom

You can find lot of books in here which talking about Rajarata as a kingdom.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mahawamsa+rajarata+king&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=rajarata+%2B+kingdom&hl=en&client=firefox-a&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=bks&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=WgKmUNnBEOaLjAKAs4HQBQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=f316b7445f503d95&bpcl=38625945&biw=1356&bih=583

articles

http://www.island.lk/2003/02/22/satmag04.html

http://www.dailynews.lk/2004/10/13/artscop12.html

--Himesh84 (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.island.lk/2002/01/27/featur01.html

http://www.island.lk/2010/05/11/news29.html

Obi2canibe and Blackknight12, If you are not sure about something or don't know something happened in far distance country in which English is not the regular language please don't mark it as AFD. First you can use search engines like Google or Yahoo. You can enter search term (keywords) and search for books,articles,... If you are unable to search there is a feature called "Citation Need". In which you can ask author to provide required sources. --Himesh84 (talk) 12:34, 17 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of the references provided by Himesh84 mentions a kingdom called Rajarata which lasted 18 centuries. When they refer to Kingdom Rajarata they are actually referring to Kingdom of Anuradhapura or Kingdom of Polonnaruwa as I mentioned in my first comment.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This your first comment. "Google does provide some RS which mention Kingdom of Rajarata but often when they refer to Kingdom of Rajarata they actually mean Kingdom of Anuradhapura". Now you have added Polonnaruwa. Also has used incorrect word "or".

It is not "or". It is "and". http://www.dailynews.lk/2004/10/13/artscop12.html. Editor called me and asked don't directly pick sentences due to copywriter issues. So when we says it in our words Kingdom of Rajarata had been lasted at least from Anuradhapura to Pollonnaruwa. That means 347Bc to 1215 BC. 1562 years. I am not able to get a relation between Tambapanni and kingdom of Rajarata since when I type it in the Google thousands of hits coming on about Anuradhapura " It was 3rd capital of the Kingdom of Rajarata after Tambapanni and Upatissa Nuwara". Can't find the bottom. If it hadn't lasted 18 centuries please correct it without deleting the wikipage.--Himesh84 (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but heavily prune -- A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is used in academic literature. I would however suggest that the article should be redueced to little more than a dab-page, since it would appear that historians have normally referred to the kingdom by its successive capitals. If the term is used, we ought to have an article so that people who come across it can look up what it is. I have to confess that I am no expert on this subject, but this is suggested as apossible solution to the conflict apparent from this AFD discussion. The citations indicate that this is NOT a HOAX, but their very limited number suggests to me that this is not the name preferred by hisotirans for the polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many academic references to the "Kingdom of Rajarata" as a general Kingdom/civilization that excited in the area known as Rajarata for several centuries. The capitals of this kingdom changed however the population or the ruling class, with the exception of invaders didn't change. Therefore this article should be kept and expanded. Cossde (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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