< 18 September	20 September >

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Amey[edit]

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

Article restored on request at WP:REFUND from a PROD deletion of five years ago. One role in one series fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. While Casting Call Pro lists other minor projects,[1] even if factual, they are not a reliable source. If the low budget Souljacker seeking funding at indiegogo is made and if determined as notable, we might then consider an article. But for now, her career and coverage do not merit an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not seeing anything that counts toward GNG in a quick spin through Google. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her child role was substantial, but that alone is not enough for WP:ENTERTAINER, and subsequent roles have been shorts or student productions and one very low-budget forthcoming film. If her career develops she may well become notable, but just now this is WP:TOOSOON. JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted A7 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Von Liger[edit]

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

Non-notable new musician. Googling for "George Von Liger" on Google Books, News, and News archives turned up nothing but this, which contains no significant coverage, and what appeared to be a false positive from a book. A couple of album reviews from a site dedicated to "upcoming" artists doesn't equate to notability. Also note that the article was created by the subject. CtP (t • c) 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: MUSICIAN, and WP: GNG, as that source is unreliable. Electric Catfish² 22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mohammed Dammas Al-Ghamdi[edit]

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

No indications that this professor meets the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like a resume and no notability is established. It is likely a WP:COI. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF . LibStar (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PRPS[edit]

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

Delete'. Non-notable clothing brand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Daily Telegraph[2], la Repubblica[3], China Times[4] etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh it's notable according to WP:Notability and WP:RS and the sources above do explain more on the summary of the article.--GoShow (...............) 23:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Ray Lynch[edit]

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

Promotional representative of questionable notability, possible hoax. A Google search on "Bobby Ray Lynch" "promotional representative" shows only four results, all related to this article; only three results for "Bobby Ray Lynch" "Chicago Recording Company". Claims of writing the album Blue Collar not backed up by any references - Wikipedia page for the album has never had a mention of him; a Google search on "Bobby Ray Lynch" "Blue Collar" shows no reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable evidence to confirm that he has collaborated with the artists listed and the article focuses very little with his career. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant hoax, where none of the references correspond to the subject of the article, and where various search combinations via Google yield nothing reliable. Mephistophelian (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Ressdorf[edit]

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

This autobiography states that the subject is one of 14 candidates for a mayor election. As per WP: POLITICIAN, political candidates are considered to be notable if they receive coverage from secondary reliable sources, but this article does not. Electric Catfish² 20:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article may be recreated if he becomes mayor of Stuttgart. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Not an elected official and never has been; he is vying for such a position but isn't there yet. Frank | talk 16:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Viana[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOCCER Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 20:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Well, he does not. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources and no appearances in a fully pro league, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 20:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until he makes his debut in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaloklowa Chickasaw[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, article has been poorly cited since 2007 and is filled with spurious claims and original research. Under South Carolina law, this is not a "state-recognized tribe" but a "state-recognized group." -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[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 September 12. Snotbot t • c » 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Native American peoples should be immediate keeps in the same way that small countries and their residents are immediate keeps. THIS WEBSITE of the South Carolina Indian Affairs Commission indicates that the Chaloklowa Chickasaw people are a "state recognized group." That's good enough, we're done. The differentiation between "recognized tribes" and other levels of recognition is bureaucratic, historical, and to some extent a function of modern demographics. The Kalapuya people of my home Willamette Valley, for example, are not an extant "recognized tribe," having been absorbed into a tribal confederation and been absorbed through intermarriage into other tribal groups. That does not mean that this First Nation (to use the Canadian term) did not exist and does not have a history. It certainly does and we shouldn't have to parse sources to prove its notability any more than we should have to for the Chaloklowa Chickasaw people (BTW: this should be the name of the article here based upon what I'm seeing working on the indigenous peoples of the Oregon Territory this past week). Carrite (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. State-recognized tribes differ dramatically from one another; it's far more than a matter of bureaucracy, and legitimate tribes gain federal recognition on an ongoing basis. For instance, many tribes in California do not currently have recognition but were recognized at the beginning of the 20th century and were never legally terminated. Unfortunately in the Southeast, there are hundreds of groups with spurious claims of Native heritage, many of which cannot be substantiated. South Carolina has several categories for state-recognition and this group is not a state-recognized tribe, but rather a "state recognized group"[5]. Besides the South Carolina Indian Affairs Commission listing them, they only appear in self-published sites, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia mirror sites, so their notability has not been established. And frankly their claims of Chickasaw heritage has not been established by reliable, published, secondary sources either. BTW Chickasaw is the ethnic group; no claim is made in the article that this group is an ethnic group. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I think it is safe to say that this tribal band predates the internet, so one must be careful not to put all the eggs into that basket. The fact that the state Indian Affairs Commission recognizes the group should end the debate, in my opinion. Just run a search in Google Books for "Chaloklowa" and more hits will emerge: including A MENTION in Voices of Our Ancestors: Language Contact in Early South Carolina, by Patricia Causey Nichols and ANOTHER MENTION in Native American History For Dummies. And so on. We're not here to argue the merits of this claim or that; the fact is that the tribal group exists, and for me that's all I need to advise a Speedy Keep here... Carrite (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it exists, but it is not a tribe (as per South Carolina Indian Affairs Commission). -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Would you accept the word "band"??? Be that as it may, the band is a state-recognized tribal entity. Carrite (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the cited sources, it's a "state-recognized group." I rewrote the article based on what reliable sources are available, since the article's evidently not going anywhere. Now, at the very least, the information is fact-based. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 13 September 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) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 23:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agree with Carrite. The state recognition is sufficient for this demographic, regardless if it is a tribe or a group. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bhagavata Purana. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagvat Saptah[edit]

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

Not notable enough to qualify for an article of its own. May be merged with Bhagavata Purana Sesamevoila (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 6 September 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) 18:25, 12 September 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) 18:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toakai Teitoi[edit]

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

This is a person who is known for a single, not very important event and as such, probably doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Perhaps a single line of text in another article, but this article in now way meets the minimum standards of WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Jayron32 17:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the creator of the article, I am a Kiribati Islander and I created the article in order to make people know about Kiribati and may make them research on us. But if it fails to meet any Wikipedia policy, you delete it, I accept it. Long Live Kiribati! Timothyhere (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While well intentioned, this article is very much a single, not very important event. Half of the article is about unrelated maritime rescues of castaways. The story does appear to have caught some media attention, but it is all: only in the context of a single event; the person remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual; and the event is not significant and the individual's role within it is not substantial and well-documented. Benea (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while I sympathise with the intention, that is not sufficient grounds for creating an article. We should not lower the notability bar out of sympathy for small nations. Kevin McE (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the statements above. It's a 'curious' event but in no means or measure notable. doktorb _words^deeds 06:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdraw for reasons discussed below. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone[edit]

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

I'm nominating this for deletion for three reasons; a) Wikipedia is not a newspaper and most of the information here just now is of a journalistic nature; b) IT's far too soon for this article to exist, the event happened yesterday, and ;c) a similar article was speedily deleted yesterday. Quite simply, everything about this article is news and speculation, and it should not be here less than 36 hours after the event. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no such policy as "this is too soon." When school shootings happen, we have an article. When there are significant hurricanes, we have an article. When there is significant shooting/bombing in Israel or Iraq or wherever, we have a shooting. This is a highly significant event for the UK - the first time two female PCs have been killed on duty. The article is very well soured, and very NPOV as far as I can see. There's no speculation, unless you can show me because all I can see is fact with sources. doktorb _words^deeds 17:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to me. What you say is correct; the article is well-sourced and the event significant, but at this stage we are unlikely to know very much about the incident other than the fact that it happened. Not to mention there are already ongoing legal proceedings against the suspect concerning another case. This may become encyclopedic at a future time, but I'm afraid that time isn't now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your stance though I can't see why this particular event has taken your ire so strongly! This is a news event which ties into a lot of current and long-seated British news stories, including the on-going issue of arming the police, allowing us to expand the article with a number of others to avoid it becoming an orphan. Of course there's a little bit of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that's just me trying to show that news events are often turned into articles almost immediately, it's part of the way things seem to go these days. Given the nature of the killings, the character of the person who did the killing, and the wider context into which it fits, I can't agree that this article is worth removing. Indeed it seems that there's a bit of bias and undue weight creeping in to the reasoning. Is the fact that these two dead PCs are British making it easier to dismiss the artice? doktorb _words^deeds 18:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's taken my ire, though I was extremely shocked to see it here so soon, particularly after a similar article was deleted last night, and as I'm from the UK, I've seen the news reports (e.g., a significant chunk of BBC News was devoted to it this evening) so know it's a significant event here. As I said above I believe it will become encyclopedic - maybe it will lead to the routine arming of police officers in the UK, for example - but we simply don't have anything to report right now other than basic news facts. It should also be remembered that there will be legal proceedings resulting from this, and as such there are likely to be restrictions on what can be reported, even at trial, where the rules of evidence may mean that the full picture does not emerge in open court. In any case such as this - and maybe even more so here - there will be a lot of interest and speculation from the press, and it may be difficult to sift out the true facts.

Delete A sad story, but this is routine news, and has not yet shown the depth and bredth of scholarly coverage necessary to maintain an article, per WP:NOTNEWS If this becomes the subject of significant interest over a longer period of time, or becomes a major international story with worldwide coverage, this may be revisited. Right now, however, this looks more like a Wikinews story than a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 17:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enduring notability with it being the first time two female police officers were killed in the UK. Easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 17:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To suggest that this article be deleted is ridiculous.(A. Carty (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comment OK guys, I'm gonna withdraw this because something tells me it'll end up as a WP:SNOW keep. We have articles on other police officers killings, such as Sharon Beshenivsky, and this is a rare incident in UK terms. I am unhappy at the timeframe by which this was created and would have liked a to see a few more days pass before seeing it here, but that's how it goes, I guess. The investigation into this is ongoing, and a second arrest was made this evening, so I suggest treading with caution. This matter is further complicated by the involvement of a suspect in another case. I'm going to add this to my watchlist, and if any problems develop it may have to come back here, or go forward for closer scrutiny by those in charge. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HeatingSave[edit]

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this article on the rationale "No evidence that this company meets the notability criteria for companies. (Hunts Post awards are insufficient in this respect.)". The Prod was removed by the article creator User:Tensorplc with the comment "Removed proposed deletion because of awards. People in the local area of Huntingdonshire want to read the article and find out about a business that has won awards in their area" (note the WP:COI as Huntingdonshire District Council say that "HeatingSave is part of Tensor plc"). The references in the article are various website listings, a Hunts Post Huntingdonshire Business Awards 2009 for "New Business of the Year" and "Environmental Business of the Year" in 2010 from Huntingdonshire District Council and the Hunts Post. These local awards fall short of the WP:CORPDEPTH level of notability, so I am bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable business. People in Huntingdonshire can look at the company website.TheLongTone (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. There appear to be socks in the history as well. Hairhorn (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability and, as noted by the nominator, doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The few references are very local and according to the interchange noted above, the article's creator recognizes the local nature of this material. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The rationale for this discussion appeared to suggest a merge, in which case this nomination was unnecessary. Consensus is that article's content is worth keeping; any merger discussions can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IOS 6[edit]

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

None of the other iOS releases have dedicated articles. This could easily be merged back into iOS version history and into each device's article. GSK (talk ● evidence) 17:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to iOS version history as per nom. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to iOS version history. Grillo7 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to iOS version history. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of topics have articles for independent versions. For example, Internet Explorer 9, Windows Phone 8. We even have articles for individual features first available in iOS 5 like Siri. One could merge all 100 Linux distros into one article but that wouldn't make for a very comprehensible article!

I know someone is going to point out how little iOS has changed over the past six years. What you may not realize that iOS 6 has 200 new features according to Apple. Some of them may be unapparent; more than the skin deep interface changes Google's Android seems to favor, but are just as important. (for the record, I'm not endorsing iOS over Android) On the contrary, the iPhone 4S has less then a dozen major changes. It still needs an independent article because it has its own distinct history associated with it, selling more than any smartphone in history and rising to account for almost half of Apple's revenue.

On iOS 6 is pinned the labors of thousands of man-hours and millions in research and development. For the next four quarters, Apple's mobile OS must stand the barrage of new Android features on the market. Its success or failure will determine whether Apple remains the leader of the pack or becomes the new underdog to Google. It will be the focus of billions in litigation between Apple and its competitors.

I need time to expand this article. I'm sure it will be in excellent shape to model other articles on when it is finished. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but articles for the other major versions should be made as well, which I think could easily be possible.Alphius (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created an article for iOS 5, to show that it would be possible to create such articles, and to help get it started. Of course, it could still use some expansion, but I think it's a good start. Alphius (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this article should remain until the next release of iOS. It is a high traffic page and many users will access it. Meff56 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, previous iOS version releases did not have their own assigned article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But maybe they should? Ck786 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above and also the Linux example, all iOS articles should have their own page. What happens when once we get to iOS 15 and we're still trying to keep it on one page? Ridiculous. Ck786 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to iOs version history (or another umbrella article for the more recent iOS versions) as the near-consensus above suggests.

"Plenty of topics have articles for independent versions. For example, Internet Explorer 9, Windows Phone 8." Which should be changed IMO, at least for lesser products. While I think that the greater ideas should have their own articles (say, OS X and Windows XP), a mere browser is not notable enough to justify one article per version. And Windows Phone & iOs are even worse. Look at it this way: an OS for a phone? Bell would be turning in his grave fast enough to power New York. Not to mention that it's quite a mediocre phone. One that attracted much attention because it integrated so much into a phone, but hey, every redneck can integrate all their appliances into their van. And it won't make the van a better van... One article per version of a cell phone OS = article perversion. Don't discard any useful info, just don't scatter it around dozens of articles.

"What happens when once we get to iOS 15 and we're still trying to keep it on one page? Ridiculous." The most ridiculous thing is to think that Apple will be around that long. Downright appalling. Even Apple followers will by then convert to phones which only have the more useful features but cost ~80% less.

OTOH, there could be several articles (just not one per OS version). The latest major revision and everything newer in one article, and the older versions in a history article. Of course, if Apple manage to come up with something truly innovative, that version could deserve an article in its own right. There has been some recent rumor that they are working on a technology to speed up communications, so that the average 3-hour text message exchange can be compressed to a 5-minute communication. They don't have an iTrademark for it yet, but it's more or less what the competition calls a "telephone call"... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Even if you don't think that each browser version and so on should have its own article, it seems to me like there is easily enough information to justify these separate articles. As far as I can tell, pretty much every operating system has separate articles for each version, and I don't see why iOS should be any different. There would easily be enough information about each iOS version to justify giving each its own article. Alphius (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, since you're mentioning Windows Phone, I don't see why other major smartphone OS versions couldn't get their own articles as well, so long as information such as their history and reception is included in addition to their features. It seems to me that there isn't really any reason to treat smartphone OS versions any differently than versions of other software. Alphius (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's funny people who vote on AFD purely based upon their own personal opinion rather than anything factual. The debate as to whether it is "mediocre" or not isn't a reason for it to not have an article. The Sega Dreamcast and Nintendo Gamecube were very mediocre (and irrelevant) gaming consoles, but we don't just merge them with their previous iterations... As for the insight that Apple "won't be around in 15-odd years time"... Quick, better tell the Apple execs and shareholders... I'm no apple fanboi (far from it in fact), but to vote against this purely because you obviously have an agenda against Apple/iDevices is both laughable and smacks of ignorance toward editors having a neutral POV when creating/modifying/deleting articles. /rant Ck786 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Quick, better tell the Apple execs and shareholders..." No really, they were a very promising computer manufacturer once, and they're down to cell phones and MP3 players already. Not exclusively but close. What's left is simple extrapolation. :P

I don't really have an "agenda" against iDevices either.

You brought up the gamecube. It's good to have an article about it, but we don't need an article per GamecubeOS version.

About "anything factual": Does it come with an install CD/DVD/floppy? Windows/Linux/MacOS: yes. Windows Phone, iOs, GamecubeOS: no. Does it install on platforms which can run other OSes (for example, some computers)? Windows/Linux/MacOS: yes. Windows Phone, iOs, GamecubeOS: no. Does it feature a command line? Windows/Linux/MacOS: yes. Windows Phone, iOs, GamecubeOS: no. So is iOs really "an OS"?

One has to draw the conclusion that iOs is not. Not because it's Apple - MacOS passes with flying colors - but because it's more a "hack that makes a cell phone work" than a true OS. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 15:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The way we have always done it" really isn't a reason to delete an article. If the nom was suggesting some sort of a reorganization, I would be willing to go along with it. However, this article seems to have a good amount of properly sourced information sufficient to stand on its own, and merging much of this material would be excessive detail for the general iOS article. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Kwertii (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I simply do not belive the nominator gave a good enough rationale for deletion or merger. None of the other iOS releases have dedicated articles, is not a good reason per WP:OTHERSTUFF and he/she gave no policy or guideline rationale for merging the information. Find a better argument.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iOS 5 has an article why can't iOS 6 have one? --JetBlast (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. That was the first think I looked for when I saw the AfD notice. --Kushal (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the iOS 5 article did not exist when this discussion was started. --GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I just created it a couple of days ago.... Alphius (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a product that undoubtedly meets the GNG by the huge number of sources you can find about it, is unique enough from other versions that there would likely be many paragraphs of distinct sourced information, and is here to stay in our society until its successor comes along in no less than a year. Sebwite (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough info to merit separate article status. Zach Vega (talk to me) 04:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many sources for this subject and IOs version history is already a bit confusing. Andries (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article is "significantly substantial" for this stage of it's life cycle, and shows the potential for further development. It is worthy of being an independent article, and not merged back into the general iOS article where it would likely languish. It meets notability and all other criteria for retention., and therefore should not be deleted. Senator2029 • talk 07:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Theo polisme 15:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what other fellows wrote above. //Halibu tt 11:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to iOS version history as per original suggestions. Also suggest same for the spurious iOS 5 article that was created above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.105.116 (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This O.S. is making tons of news stories because of it's massive failure and this article should definitely stay. Someone from Apple obviously nominated this for deletion. Sneaky Apple, very sneaky. LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I want to state for the record that as the original nominator for this article to be deleted, I do not nor have I ever worked for Apple. It was not nominated for deletion because of its success or failure in the market, nor is its success or failure a valid reason for it to be kept or deleted. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 00:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to iOS version history as per original suggestion. »Petiatil ^{( talk  contribs)} 01:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus seems to be that the coverage of the church is various sources presented is enough to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla Bible Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was created during the Sarah Palin media frenzy of 2008. As extreme as some of their beliefs may sound to some, they are par for the course in evangalical churches throughout the United States. The only thing that makes this one any different than hundreds of other non-notable churches is that Palin went there, but notability is not inherited. Was previously nominated in the middle of the 2008 election season and, unsurprisingly, there was no consensus.

Will momentarily bundle Wasilla Assembly of God into this nomination for exactly the same reasons. Actually Palin stopped attending there six years before she was chosen by McCain so the claim to notability there is even weaker. Both of these articles are just a coat rack for discussing Palin's religious beliefs, which are adequately covered in her own article.

As to the apparent abundance of sources used, they seem to fall into three categories:

The two churches own websites

Coverage primariliy about Palin that mentions she attended on or the other of these churches

Routine events coverage from the local press

Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG by virtue of coverage in Newsweek VIA DAILY BEAST, as well as coverage as a VICTIM OF APPARENT ARSON. The church's pastor, Larry Kroon, has been the subject of coverage in THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY and interviewed by FOX NEWS. This institution was certainly a part of campaign 2008, perhaps influencing in some small way the outcome of that race, certainly obtaining the necessary degree of coverage and lasting historical and biographical notice to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the sources that are both RS and substantial, the coverage centers on either Palin or Pastor Kroon. The church itself is mentioned only in passing. The only exception is the Newsweek piece (linked above by Carrite thru Daily Beast), which does cover the church in detail. However, the piece make a few telling quotes, "is perhaps most remarkable for being unremarkable" and "Except for the national spotlight, Wasilla Bible Church resembles thousands of conservative evangelical churches across the country." This leads me to believe that coverage of this topic will not improve over time, is related to a single event (Palin's declaration of what church see goes to), and that its notability is inherited. I could be swayed by local coverage that covers the topic in detail, but the fire piece doesn't cut it for me. The Interior (Talk) 20:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. WP:ONEEVENT basically applies here as well, just substitute "church" for "person," the principle is the same. Nobody paid any notice to the churches before or after the 2008 presidential race because there is nothing remarkable about either of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect WP:ONEEVENT is a Biography of Living Persons rule, it has nothing to do with institutions. We're looking here for evidence that this institution is the subject of multiple, substantial, independently-published pieces of coverage to meet GNG. I believe this church meets that standard owing to its close association with a candidate for Vice President of the United States. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my remark I endeavored to make it clear that I understand perfectly well that it is a BLP rule but that the underlying principle still applies. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Putting another source into play, here's THE WEEKLY STANDARD with "Clinging to Her Religion: The faith journey of Sarah Palin, 'Bible-believing Christian.'" This institution is an important part of the Palin biography and it should not be a redlink. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS, with the subsection headlined Wasilla Bible Church appearing about 2/3 down the page. Carrite (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arson attack on the church was important enough to be covered by THE LOS ANGELES TIMES. This is not about Sarah Palin, is it? Carrite (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's THE WESTERN CENTER FOR JOURNALISM with a piece from 2010 (i.e. 2 years after Palin left the stage), entitled "Leftist Media Still Ignores Questions About Who Torched Sarah Palin’s Church." Carrite (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's THE MINNESOTA INDEPENDENT with a piece on Palin's religious ideology, which goes towards the importance of that topic to the 2008 race even if it doesn't count directly towards GNG here... Carrite (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are primariliy about Palin. Except the " Western Media" one which is very obviously not a reliable source. Amd the LA Times article? Well, the title of the article is "Services today moved as suspicious fire wrecks Sarah Palin's church" Right under the picture of the burned church is a picture of Palin, and three of the four paragraphs of the article mention her. So yeah, even though it is supposedly an article about an arson fire in Alaska (not a subject that would normally draw any notice whatsoever from mass media outside of Alaska) yes, the article is primarily about Palin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - undeserved attention, even if negative, implies notability. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, these articles are far from the only Sarah Palin-related coatracks out there. I grew tired of trying to point this out to the lemming-like masses who create messes like this in response to their daily talking points memo, or to obsessive coverage given by CNN/Fox News/etc., or perhaps any other equally-as-banal reason. Usually, you'll hear some excuse like WP:SOFIXIT, offering the appearance that as far as they're concerned, it's someone else's job to actually clean it up and/or do the real work, because they've already moved on to the next lost cause. Methinks numerous of these editors need to be reminded a little more often of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FART or possibly other pertinent pages. Without actually reading any of the sources offered by Carrite, just clicking on the links and browsing the articles, what do I see? Sarah Palin's name and/or photo plastered front and center. The church only appears prominently in these stories in the context of Sarah Palin's association with the church. This validates the point raised by Beeblebrox in the first place. Meanwhile, it's almost as if there is a concerted effort being maintained on Wikipedia to deny the notability of Anchorage Baptist Temple. This church's notability can be documented back to 1978, even if the overwhelming majority of it centers on the political activism of its pastors and congregation.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The well-documented arson attack puts the church over the notability line, just like 16th Street Baptist Church. -- 202.124.74.3 (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree that notability is not inherited, but having been preserved during WP:COATRACK attacks on Sarah Palin, I see no reason to delete now. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a book I am now perusing: "Palmer has a modern hotel, motel, lodge, up-to-date garages and service stations, department and specialty stores and cafes, a weekly newspaper - The Frontiersman"...Stop. The book in question is the 1964 edition of The Milepost. In other words, according to this reliable source, the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman was a going concern the year Sarah Palin was born. From reading that article, however, you would believe that the newspaper's entire history is coincidental with that of Sarah Palin's political career. Four years later, the people who created messes like that are still content to sit back and act as if it's someone else's responsibility to fix it. Deleting these articles would be a step towards fixing that problem. These churches aren't important outside of Wasilla or the Palin universe.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this was a good use of bundling... in any case, looking at google news hits leads to support a keep for both. The Assembly of God church is probably more notable though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', meets GNG, WP:NTEMP applies. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reginleif Trubetsky[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, singer, model, etc. Lots of references on this article, none of which indicate any significant coverage in independent sources. One IMDB page (listing one film, not 9 as the Filmography claims). All other links are to pictures of DVD covers, personal Wordpress pages, rateyourmusic pages for various bands, etc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable actress and the creator is probably a sock of permanently banned User:Bloomfield. I will contact Renata3 about this, too, as she has most experience in dealing with Bloomfield and his socks. Sander Säde 09:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most definitely Bloomfield's creation. Renata (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can pretty much delete the article now. Not only is Bloomfield banned for good, but there is a strong COI as well (I don't want to go to details here to protect whatever little anonymity Bloomfield has left). Just to be sure, I filed a checkuser case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloomfield --Sander Säde 07:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until the author is confirmed as a sock, I think it is too soon to move for immediate dismissal of this case. However, the questionability of the author aside, the article itself makes no viable case for the notability of this person. The citations are all to obscure blogs, facebook pages, music listing services, etc, with the barest mentions of the subject's name. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cranel, Inc.[edit]

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

Article fails WP:CORP. Has a bunch of links but they seem to be republished press anouncements, Product websites, wiki pages and other trivial coverage or mentions that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree with the nominator regarding the fact that this article's sources seem to primarily be republished press announcements. It doesn't seem to me that it has inherent notabillity from anywhere. My google news search yields nothing but the company's website, which is far from independent. So, for the aforementioned reasons, I vote delete. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete An independent internet site was added as a reference for ISOdx Solutions [[6]].66.192.200.250 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a low value personal Blog, which fails WP:RS --Hu12 (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability under WP:CORP, and unable to locate significant coverage in news or scholar searches. The recently added independent site is a blog (only one author for the site, no editorial review) and which discusses one product, not the company. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference added - Cranel CFO Recognized by Columbus Business First [7] 66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No author, from "Premium content" (ie paid press release) either way WP:NOTINHERITED--Hu12 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another reference added - Interview with ISOdx President by John Ragsdale, analyst with TSIA [8]66.192.200.250 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogged Interview about a product (WP:NOTINHERITED) with TJ Felice, President, ISOdx Solutions.. Fails as an independent source. --Hu12 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that cleanup is needed, and perhaps the list be shortened to remove fancruft, but the article should be kept. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakout characters[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, no real criteria for inclusion, crossing all mediums, all genres, full of WP:OR analysis. Also WP:LSC Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there has been a dispute about which of two criteria for inclusion should be used, or both, they are clearly defined. I don't see how the other cited reasons are reasons to delete ... of course it's meant to encompass genres outside of television, because the phenomenon occurs in all genres and media. And if a list attracts cruft, the remedy is to delete said cruft, not nominate the list for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my addition to the delete reasoning above. The criteria for this do not meet WP:LSC, they are completely subjective,and not based on any reliable source. Further, almost no addition to the list is sourced showing why it should be included, the references are mere background and not discussing that char as a breakout (with a few exceptions). Additionally I would say that the topic itself is not particularly notable (although many characters have been discussed as breakout chars, how many books/articles are discussing the phenomenon as a whole?) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally honest, when I created this article as a result of discussion at this AfD six years ago, it was just "breakout character", with just a few more obvious examples (Fonzie, Alex Keaton, Urkel ... all ones who actually displaced the intended main character on their respective shows). A year ago someone else [decided], perhaps because of all the examples that kept being added, that it should be a list. I would be perfectly happy with a separate article and list. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At first, I was leaning towards deletion as listcruft; however, after looking at the article I think it may be useful as a clearinghouse first-stop. Such an article needs periodic monitoring, though, or it can get out of hand as a catch-all. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. I haven't had the time to do the sort of purge that I used to do quite regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Daniel Case, we appreciate the work you've put into it, but it's a mess, and not what Wikipedia is about. I propose having a definition of what a breakout charater is, the one or two examples. Then link to another website which has a more substantial list, so readers can find out more if they wish. Prawn Skewers (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a deletion. That's a change in the article. I'm actually open to it, as noted above. It should be discussed on the talk page, not in an AfD.

However, the only other really extensive list online that I can think of is on another wiki and thus would not pass WP:ELNO. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO quite clearly states, "Links normally to be avoided", indicating there can and will be exceptions. It does not say, "never ever ever link to these sites or Wikipedia will explode." And besides, I'm sure there is a website out there *somewhere* that we could use that hasn't been written by those filthy TV Tropes people. Prawn Skewers (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says quite clearly at number 12: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Hey, I contribute to TV Tropes too, and while unlike us it's registered-users-only it's still open, and I clean up errors there even more frequently than I do here. I'm not saying exceptions couldn't be possible, but I have yet to see a page here link to an open wiki anywhere. If you find one, please share it—I'm sure that a great deal of angst went into a long discussion that ultimately reached consensus, at least among the editors who didn't get indefinitely blocked during the process. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look closer:

Star Trek into Darkness - links to Memory Alpha
Lost (season 1) - links to Lostpedia
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope - links to Wookiepedia
Chekhov's gun - links to TV Tropes
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade - links to Wowpedia

Need I go on? Prawn Skewers (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but to me those are exceptions that prove the rule. I'm not really familiar with them but I believe it's standard for WP:STARTREK and other projects devoted to specific episodic works to have standard xlink templates that include links to fan wikis for that work ... decisions that are doubtless the result of consensus opinion on those projects. As for the only one that isn't, Chekhov's gun, it seems to be a rather neglected article where the link was put in a while ago. And, in fact, that link has been controversial within the article.

Really, if we want to discuss this we should have the conversation at WT:EL. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After reading the discussion above, I can argue that characters put on this list don't necessarily need to be considered 'subjective'. Many creators often do state that characters that began as minor or one-time characters ended up gaining larger fanbases and more prominent roles in their respective series. This index can be good as a reference to characters that fall under that criteria. A clean up should be enough to remove any unsourced examples on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.91.15 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh they are quite notable. WP:Notability and WP:RS are all the sources it has to show on the list, unless redirect the list to the article.--GoShow (...............) 04:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny & the Dragon[edit]

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

I created this article when I first started editing in 2008 under my old username. I am not sure that three minor reviews from publications that review almost everything shows notability. This is unrelated, but it is poorly written by me as well. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 6 September 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) 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is right on the edge. Besides the three major reviews, there are quite a few that are borderline as far as being reliable sources, which describes the whole entry - borderline. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is validly sourced and significant content about a book by a clearly notable author, so, at minimum, this should be merged to Tony DiTerlizzi rather than deleted. Of possible interest, the author's website asserts that this book won a Swiss Prix Chronos award[9] ~~but I haven't yet been able to confirm this independently at that organization's website[10]~~ which is confirmed here[11]. GNews shows a few reviews of the German version.[12] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:00, 13 September 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) 15:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constellation (EP)[edit]

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

searched and does not appear to be notable enough to warrant an article Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 September 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) 13:36, 12 September 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) 14:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong | gossip _ 21:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-dimensionalization and Scaling of Navier-Stokes Equation[edit]

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

This is not a notable encyclopaedic topic in itself, in my opinion. A web-search gives not many results on the topic as such. While nondimensionalization and scaling are important, the nondimensionalization to be used critically depends on the flow problem at hand. There are a plethora of nondimensionalizations of the N-S equations possible, e.g. with possible different scalings in different directions, leading to different types of modelling for different problems (e.g. boundary layer theory). I believe the strategies to do so are typical subjects of coursebooks, but not of Wikipedia. Crowsnest (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No expert on NS-eqns yet but I know non-dimensionalization and scaling, all the article talks about is the procedure and how to do it for the NS-eqns (obviously). Someone may want to merge this into the main article in a few years time, creating work for those that would merge. Wikipedia:REDUNDANT is relevant. Perhaps the main intension is to summarize all the different conventions? Maschen (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should add the obvious - for now there are no sources, when there should be: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Not a problem in principle for now, since sources may be found later, but if not then no sources are a reason to delete. Maschen (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's no wonder Crowsnest didn't get any hits searching on the exact string "nondimensionalization of the navier-stokes equations". But something a little more flexible like scaling laws fluid mechanics give lots of hits. Also, any fluid mechanics text will devote a lot of space to the concept; I'll add an example in the references. As for there being a plethora of nondimensionalizations of the N-S equations, I see that as an argument for discussing them in one place. There can be a discussion of the different nondimensional numbers and their significance. Some of the material in Dynamic similitude could be added to this page. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that the items you mention broaden the subject as compared to the article title (i.e. about the N-S equations): your search string is about "fluid mechanics", the addition to the article's references section is the book "Physical fluid dynamics", while the WP article Dynamic similitude is not about equations but about experiments.

You remark that many fluid mechanics texts "... devote a lot of space to the concept ...", which is exactly the point why I have problems with the subject of this article. The concepts, theory and techniques as used in non-dimensionalization, scaling, similitude are of general applicability in physics, and there are not different ones for the N-S equations. The application of these concepts and techniques to various physics problems requires skill and experience. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so teaching the skills how to apply these concepts, theories and techniques to various topics is outside its scope, see WP:HOWTO.

There are so many different problems in fluid mechanics, with each asking for a different non-dimensionalizations and scalings – even for the same problem in different regions of the flows, e.g. around a wing: boundary layers, outer flows, shocks, wakes, turbulence, aeroelasticity, etc. Who is going to decide what to incorporate: text books and journal papers have a limitless variety on examples with different scalings (justifiable for the fluid flow problem they study). To me it seems much better to add the appropriate scalings and non-dimensionalizations to each article in which they apply (and wikilink to the general articles on non-dimensionalization, similitude (model), scaling law, invariant (physics), dimensional analysis, scale analysis (mathematics), etc).

Further note that the N-S equations themselves may be regarded as the product of scaling and similitude arguments, through the notions of continuum mechanics and a Newtonian fluid assumption for the relationship between the fluid stresses and deformation, see Navier-Stokes equations#Applicability. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a convincing case that a good article on this subject will be hard to write. However, that is not a criterion for deletion. The article clearly passes the notability test: a chapter on scaling in fluid mechanics is, of course, entirely devoted to scaling of the N-S equations. It wouldn't be hard to find many more sources. If you don't like the search terms I chose, how about scaling navier stokes equation? I don't see any other reason for deletion that could apply. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you that the article passes the notability test. To my opinion, it does not pass the last bullet ("Presumed") of WP:GNG: "... Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ...". I believe the article will inevitably (if expanded from its present rudimentary form) become a textbook/howto instead of an encyclopaedic article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if reliable sources can be added) into Navier–Stokes equations which is only 58 KB wikitext at present. Anyone with an interest deep enough to actually solve the equations should be made familiar with the modern way of doing so. I believe this is the current best practice, but I'm not expert enough to say with any certainty, so let's see some sources. —Cupco 02:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 58 kB is pretty large. According to a rule of thumb, it falls under "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)." However, I notice that there is nothing on scaling in Navier–Stokes equations. Something should be added on the subject as it is an important aspect of solving them. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was total bytes, not readable prose size which is typically half around there. —Cupco 18:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The readable prose size is 28 kB. Still, the most relevant reason for a merger is that the page is short and unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable time. As Crowsnest has pointed out above, if anything there is too much material for a single article. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:28, 17 September 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, Der yck C. 14:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - specialized but highly useful for the Project's core readership - college students - who are unlikely to be able to calculate dimensions on their own. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that seems to be more in line with the aims of Wikiversity than of Wikipedia, see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't think of excluding how to calculate the standard deviation. This article is even less of a how-to because, well, it requires specialized numerical methods software. It's more encyclopedic because of its difficulty and the fact that we can only hope to show an overview. —Cupco 21:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating the standard deviation is a method, as are non-dimensionalization and scaling. But applying it to the Navier-Stokes equations, for a certain flow problem, is a skill. It is like there is an article on weeding, an article on flower garden, and then creating an article on weeding of flower gardens. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - non-dimensionalization and scaling are general procedures, and need skill and practice, which is out of the scope of WP, as Crowsnest says above. Same for dimensional analysis of physical quantities. This article seems to be trying to "teach" these for the NS eqns.

On the other hand there are specialized articles like Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness and Derivation of the Navier–Stokes equations, but these are sufficiently notable on their own and relieve the main article's size and audience, and are much less on "teaching" and more on describing topics, IMO. Maschen (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: sources with inline citations have been added. I still say merge, but now my second choice is to keep. —Cupco 06:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I didn't get round to it earlier, but I strongly oppose merging. The main article (NS eqns) would become far too big and unreadable. I only suggested that if people wanted to merge, it would create extra work, and didn't think at the time that this article alone would plenty of material (as RockMagnetist and Crowsnest say). Maschen (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - someone has been adding quite a lot of content to this page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the IP 14.139.34.2, most of the additions are just references and the other cylindrical coord components of the NS eqn. Maschen (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a lot of content has been added, and a lot of effort is made by the two main authors. But all is on one type of non-dimensionalization (with only the Reynolds number being the non-dimensional quantity of importance, and only one characteristic length scale) in different coordinate systems.

In my opinion, the present status of the article gives an highly unbalanced view on the subject suggested by the article's name. As can be seen in the List of dimensionless quantities there are many named dimensionless quantities associated with fluid flow, and even many more unnamed ones can be found in the literature. E.g. the books referenced – by you and me – in the "Further reading" section contain a lot of examples of different types of non-dimensionalizations for different flow problems (not to forget those on many different flows in scientific journal papers on fluid dynamics, turbulence and heat transfer). -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Though a lot of content is available on Navier Stokes Equation but the importance of this page is that it talks about how to deal with the non-dimensionalization. Converting the same equation into non-dimensionalised form and then highlighting the importance of the same has been dealt in a crisp and clear manner which is helpful for students to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biwas Mrinmoy (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article in Wikipedia keeps changing as other users keeps updating the article. An article in itself is not complete unless various experts in the field keep updating. This article would be useful for students and faculty as ready reference and can be added various dimensions to it be updating it further. Such information may be available in text books etc. but it will be more useful if it is available online on Wikipedia as it more accessible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Om.prakashh.singh (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic contains a lot of information that can be updated and can become a big article so it is not recommended to merge with another article. Here this article has given brief introduction to the topic and described about the importance of it. The general result of the equations upon non-dimensionalizing are explained. It can further be updated by considering various conditions in a real situation and accordingly the modified equations can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teja.v36 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To my opinion, this is just as undesirable as Non-dimensionalization and scaling of Newton's second law (note that the Navier-Stokes equations are just the application of Newton's second law to a Newtonian fluid in continuum mechanics). As long as you do not know the case on/for which the non-dimensionalization and scaling is to be applied, it is meaningless. The questions one has when making/using some model to a certain problem are: which simplifications are allowable, which approximations still lead to results of a desired accuracy? Are gravity, electromagnetic forces, quantum or relativistic effects important? Can I use the continuum hypothesis, or can a body be considered rigid, or even as a point mass? Are relativistic gravity effects important, or can I use Newton's law of gravity? Those questions are associated with different meaningful (skillful) non-dimensionalizations of each problem. Where it is crucial that the important (and problem-specific) characteristic values of the key problem parameters/fields are quantified. So the vast diversity of different (types of) problems leads to a sheer countless number of different meaningful non-dimensionalizations (and associated simplified model equations or scale models), which cannot be covered in such an article. It will result in a textbook or HowTo, which are the aim of projects like Wikiversity but not of Wikipedia. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, the sources listed in this article are not stymied by the diversity of possible non-dimensionalizations. They discuss some of the general considerations, cover some of the most commonly used parameters (such as the Reynolds number), and then mention relevant parameters for various phenomena such as convection. The article would summarize such information, so it wouldn't be textbook or howto. This could be a useful main article for Category:Dimensionless numbers of fluid mechanics. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why should the article be based on just these sources? You added Tritton, and I added some additional examples of books associated with the subject. If you look at e.g. the contents of: Zeytounian, Radyadour Kh. (2002). Asymptotic Modelling of Fluid Flow Phenomena. Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications. Vol. 64. Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4020-0432-2. you see a book "... stymied by the diversity of possible non-dimensionalizations", as you put it. Each topic – c.q. fluid-dynamics equation – he treats is the result of some (set of) non-dimensional quantities being very large or small. And the author says on page xvii: "... I have been highly selective in my choice of topics and in many cases the choice of subjects is based on my own interest and judgment". Perhaps this makes the problem I have with the subject of the article more clear (a sheer endless expandable textbook/howto).

P.S. The given example of a non-dimensionalization in the article (in its present status) is already in Reynolds number#Derivation. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absorb LMS[edit]

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

Simply not an overly important LMS system by Wikipedia notability standards. All references are to press releases. RBrideau (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press release links removed. The existence of a list of commercial LMS systems creates the argument that vendors with a significant number of learners / notable clients qualifies as being relevant. Thoughts? ObviouslyIWiki (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: though I'm not sure whether this article is about company of service, neither of them seem to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:NSOFT. If not the awardspam, this would be a typical WP:CSD#A7 case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:06, 13 September 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, Der yck C. 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. being placed in top 20 of a non notable award does not advance notability, LibStar (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plant on a chip[edit]

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

This is an abstract for a single scientific paper. It does not qualify as significantly noteworthy for inclusion. Cubic Hour (talk) 14:29, 19 September 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 September 19. Snotbot t • c » 14:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, but I have to agree with nominator. Innovations like this usually aren't notable unless they become widely used/applied. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the name occurs in the literature, it refers to something completely different (either "power plant on a chip" or "chemical plant on a chip"). With just 5 citations for the paper, the topic of this article is not notable. I also note that the author of the article seems to be the "Ali Yetisen" mentioned, and if so, WP:YOURSELF applies. -- 202.124.74.3 (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raghav Juyal[edit]

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

Single event (slow motion dancing) notable contestant of a dancing competition. Fails WP:ARTIST. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 14:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Raghav Juyal/Crockroaxz is an internet sensation and a youth icon in India, not just a dancing show contestant known for only one event. His qualifications include winning other reality shows as well. In addition to that, his dancing style is innovative (not just slowmotion but a fusion of various styles) and never attempted before in the world and warrants its own page. There is a lot of interest in him currently with the traffic quite high for his internet searches. This page gives an unbiased introduction to him and I would strongly vote against the prospect of its deletion. Dumbledore1 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to provide reliable sources for all those claims of "innovative style", "never attempted before in the world", "youth icon", "internet sensation", etc. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate publications' articles have been referenced on the page regarding those claims including Times Of India. And being an "Internet sensation" wouldn't need published reliable sources, I would assume. Raghav Juyal generates exceptionally high traffic and hits on major sites like youtube and google. He qualifies WP:ARTIST. Dumbledore1 (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raghav Juyal has also won another significant reality show [13] so the Single event clause does not apply here. Which, in turn, invalidates the failed WP:ARTIST claim. I would request the nominator to kindly withdraw the nomination since the initial points raised have been refuted, unless it can be proven otherwise. Dumbledore1 (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The several news articles cited in the article, including in the Times of India, Garhwal Post and Hindustan Times are enough to show notability. FurrySings (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all the sources are reliable, but together with the mentions in important Indian newspapers notability is asserted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MetVUW[edit]

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

The article has been here for six years and there still doesn't appear to be in-depth coverage in independent sources. There are a few blog threads and this, but nothing that looks like notability. PROD reverted. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Victoria University or if a minor faculty then Delete NealeFamily (talk) 08:47, 1 September 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) 16:09, 4 September 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) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS to fulfill WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There's info at stuff.co.nz. The oldest news artice I found -- Malcolm Mcdonald (April 1, 1996). "Sunny outlook for varsity's site". New Zealand InfoTech Weekly (Wellington Newspapers Ltd.). p. 2. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help) -- is one news article that counts as significant coverage, but I couldn't get a URL for it. The topic probably could be covered in the Victoria University of Wellington, so merge and redirect as an alternative to or interpretation of weak keeping. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:17, 18 September 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, Der yck C. 13:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hortapharm B.V.. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Connell Clarke[edit]

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

Not notable. I could not find significant coverage of the subject by independent reliable sources. I would not object to a redirect to the article about his company Hortapharm B.V., as was done with his business partner, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Paul Watson. MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : major botanist and writer has been cited and worked for many megacorporations and governments search in google books and google scholar please keep this one we have already merged the david watson article

1-http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=robert+connell+clarke

2-http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cDCMiaORLYsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=robert+connell+clarke&ots=bFT6ABSQwU&sig=_aDBUeam5ArU-b1AGwI4HYdj3V8#v=onepage&q=robert%20connell%20clarke&f=false

3-http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8089533093556979153 Vjiced (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar results show a low-to-moderate number of citations for his three books. Maybe someone with a more sophisticated search tool can determine whether he meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Search parameter would be Clarke RC. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 7 September 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) 19:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vjiced. Withdrawing my keep. See redirect note below.AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC) ~~I found several more citations from reliable sources under the name Rob Clarke. He appears to meet WP:GNG.~~ AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share some of them that you say you found, specifically those that show significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 19 September 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, Der yck C. 14:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to, or Merge with, Hortapharm B.V. article. A Wiki page about David Paul Watson, who appears to be partners with Clarke, was redirected to Hortapharm B.V.. Clarke is mentioned in articles (mostly trade publications) as a co-founder of Hortapharm. Clarke's book Hashish! seems to be his biggest claim to fame. AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadic Theatre[edit]

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

The article does not have any independent reliable sources to support the notability, and excessive coverage, of this group. It, much like other Georgetown University student associations, is not worthy of coverage on the English Wikipedia. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This ref does seem independent and I've found a couple of Georgetown Voice bylined stories on the theatre that the nominator probably considers primary since they are from a GU student paper.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 7 September 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) 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was a focus during university outreach programs through Wikimedia's Public Policy Initiative, and may be again this fall semester. We might check with Sage if he knows which Georgetown classes are currently involved.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Sage has been notified.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 14:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, thanks for pointing me this way, Deryck. On the U.S. courses page for this term, there are two Georgetown classes working on Wikipedia, but neither is from the same professor who was leading the course this article came from. But in any case, we shouldn't treat this article differently from any other in terms of whether the topic is notable, especially well after the students' project is over. (We're starting, as a community, to be a little more gentle with beginner mistakes when we recognize that it's a student working on a class project, I think. And that, of course, we should do, since we know such editors are trying to follow the rules even if they don't quite understand them yet.) That said, in my opinion, this article has quite sufficient sourcing. The student newspaper of a large university community (about 20,000 students, faculty and staff... about the size of community served by a small city newspaper) is independent enough from individual organizations associated with the university to establish notability. Student newspapers generally aspire to the same sorts of journalism as other newspapers, including critical coverage of events within their institutions... the newspaper isn't the publishing/publicity arm of this theatre. It could probably do with some trimming, but in my view it meets the notability standard.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the origins of the article, the vast majority of student groups are not notable. If there were multiple sources beyond highly localized coverage, that would be a different story. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgetown University#Student groups where it is briefly mentioned. A bit more information could be added there. This current page is overly detailed, is written like a student guide not an encyclopedia entry, and belongs on Georgetown U's website not here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ram Gopal Varma. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amma 3D[edit]

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

The film was never officially announced. Only a single citation has been provided which is dated to November 2010. There is no evidence or sources to at least say that the pre-production work related to the film was commenced. I think the page was created way early and it fails the notability guidelines (WP:NFF). If needed the article can be redirected to the directors page. krZna (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ram Gopal Varma. It has received some coverage, but not enough to where I think it'd pass WP:NFF. There's no actual confirmation that filming has commenced, just a mention in an article that it was supposed to have started last summer. The director looks big enough to where the film will likely be notable once it's released, but we can't have an article based upon a film that is supposed to be filmed and might be notable if it is released. This is just too soon for this to have an article, but there's no reason it can't redirect back to the director for the time being.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 September 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) 19:12, 11 September 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, Der yck C. 14:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ram Gopal Verma per reasons given by Tokyogirl79. Torreslfchero (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed - wrong forum -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Fighting Championship: Champion vs. Champion[edit]

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

Merge this page to ONE FC Events. Also nominating ONE Fighting Championship: Battle of Heroes and ONE Fighting Championship: Rise of Kings for merging to ONE FC Events page. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the place to request deletion, not merging. If you want a page to be merged with another see Wikipedia:Merging. jfd34 (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion G4, recreation of a page deleted as a result of a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudeep Arun Kumar). JamesBWatson (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Kumar[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 13:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a vanity bio; only two of the three ToI articles mentions him in passing; the other doesn't mention him at all. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I started removing peacockery, noted the substantial edits by someone sharing names with the subject, noted also that this has been going around at AfC and then began looking at the references, when something clicked. I recalled seeing one of them before. On investigation, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudeep Arun Kumar, so the article has been previously deleted - I've now flagged it for CSD G4. AllyD (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per nominator's withdrawal due to the refocusing of the article to cover a related, abeit similar, topic. The suggested moves and redirects have been performed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above the Fold (film)[edit]

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

Not-notable film, was recognized for a local award, but no other coverage BOVINEBOY2008 12:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article will require correction, as film was released in 2007 and won awards and nominations in 2008. Incorrectly, the nominated article calls the film "upcoming". Can only suppose the author did not do his homework back in 2010. (see following comment) When a youngster, the film garnered Roberto Gudino a 2008 Directors Guild of America jury award for for best student film (Nice that the guild has chosen to recognize new filmmakers from accross the country) and an Imagen Awards nomination for best theatrical short.[14] Not too bad for a student filmmaker seeking his MFA at UCLA. WIll go now and see what else I can find. Back in a while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and now MOVE article to Below the Fold (film) and then redirect former title to new section at Below the Fold (film)#Remake. As the 2007 film has the accolades and critical response its planned remake does not. UNTIL such time as the remake has notability, it can be written of in context in the article on its forebear. I ~~will be~~ AM re-writing the old to be about the 2007 film Below the Fold, as we have sources asserting notability for THAT film and the planned remake runs afoul of WP:NFF and WP:NYF for its own article at this time. This was the easier choice as pretty much the same information for the earlier, applies to the later with the difference being in the title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn BOVINEBOY2008 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jason Gage[edit]

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

A sad tale lacking notability $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CRIME notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real indication of notability. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While it would meet GNG, I couldn't make any progress on establishing persistent coverage or lasting effects here (and thus I have a difficult time arguing this meets WP:EVENT). --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I'll also look for more sources. Insomesia (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reflist does indicate some degree of sustained, non-local interest. In any event, it's hard to imagine that this contributes less to the sum of human knowledge than an article on a street or a YouTube "star" or the bestselling video game du jour. Rivertorch (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't clear when I voted that this was an LGBT-related crime. I'm striking my vote and abstaining. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of coverage from secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS. — Cirt (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it made National news and ongoing analysis. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Paris[edit]

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

A sad story but not notable $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 12:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CRIME notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily flies over WP:GNG, also unlikely anyone has done anything about WP:BEFORE, like looking for sources which do seem available. Insomesia (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources indicating sustained interest are added. Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree that it easily satisfies WP:N, specifically coverage in multiple secondary sources that fit WP:RS. — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Murder of Paul Broussard[edit]

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

A sad tale but it fails the notability test; it appears to only be here because of alleged evidence of an LBGT hate crime $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 12:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close for non-good faith nomination. The nominator describes an "alleged" act, the article describes one for which they were convicted. Moreover, the nominator has sent out about a dozen of these AfDs in as many minutes, demonstrating fairly clearly that he or she hasn't even read the articles in question in violation of WP:BEFORE. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport Procedural Close for reasons stated. If not, I will support Keep with arguments on the merits. Argos'Dad 19:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support close and Keep. Easily flies over WP:GNG. Insomesia (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support close and Speedy Keep - per nonsense nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it comes to that, or procedural close per Joe Decker. An absurd and offensively-worded nomination. Rivertorch (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies notability criterion, coverage in multiple different secondary sources that fit WP:RS. — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder[edit]

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

A sad tale but fails notability; appears to be here as evidence of an LBGT hate crime $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 12:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CRIME notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:CRIME apply to this article? WP:CRIME is for articles about people, and this is article about criminal act, so relevant guideline is WP:N/CA not WP:CRIME.--В и к и T 20:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily flies over WP:GNG. Insomesia (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Borderline as is, but there are several sources that can be added that should allow it to meet WP:CRIME. Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm seeing plenty of coverage with significant discussion in secondary sources that meet WP:RS. — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the crimes made National news and had ongoing analysis over many months. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Rebecca Wight[edit]

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

A sad tale but fails notability test $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 12:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~almost fails WP:CRIME, though I notice a book has been written about it, which isn't typical for murder cases.~~ Multiple books and journal coverage; enough coverage to meet WP:CRIME. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, it's not one book, but two, as is clearly stated in the article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in news, in multiple books, in scholarly publications, over decades. Two books exist about the subject, at least one of which was independently written and itself has received enough coverage to almost qualify for WP:GNG. The coverage has had lasting effects, is persistent, and has been covered from many angles and framings. This is in no way a close call. Did you follow WP:BEFORE? --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(No objection to a rename to the event, however.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Decker, no objection to a rename to “Murder of Rebecca Wight”.--В и к и T 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily flies over WP:GNG. Insomesia (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Rivertorch (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, problem nominations by nominator, plenty of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nizah Morris[edit]

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

A sad story but notability has not been established; appears to be here as it might have been an LBGT hate crime $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 12:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see enough wide coverage (beyond local news) to satisfy WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily flies over WP:GNG, both local and national news coverage, also apparently no effort on WP:Before, like tagging the article for clean-up, etc. Insomesia (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Marginally sufficient coverage in national media and sustained interest to warrant a keep per the guideline. Rivertorch (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of coverage from WP:RS secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Glenn Kopitske[edit]

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

A sad story but simply fails the notability test $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 10:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant national coverage beyond the local reporting you'd typically see with a murder. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after a perusal of some simple research I was able to find significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject matter that fit WP:RS and WP:V and WP:N. — Cirt (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This murder and the trial have recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources:

--В и к и T 20:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Insomesia (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ohnoitsjamie. Rivertorch (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guin Richie Phillips[edit]

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

A sad story sure - but what's the notability; appears to be here as an LBGT hate issue and no more $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 10:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event is notable because it is covered in multiple reliable sources, including local news in multiple states and national magazines, such as The Advocate over multiple years after the event. Argos'Dad 20:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Borderline WP:CRIME notability; some coverage outside of local news. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. Insomesia (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Amply sourced, meets general and specific notability guidelines. Have "LGBT hate issues" become automatically non-notable? Rivertorch (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Warren[edit]

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

A sad story of a murder - but what's the notability? The article seems to be here just to list a possible hate crime $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 10:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Murder of Artur Warren. The event is notable because it is covered in multiple reliable sources, like:
- Gay rights activists say West Virginia killing is a 'hate crime' - CNN
- Motive a Mystery in Gay Man's Killing - ABC News
- West Virginia bishop speaks out on man's murder
- The life and death of 'JR' Warren etc.--В и к и T 16:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just enough coverage outside of national news to meet WP:CRIME. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. Insomesia (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of WP:RS coverage; easily meets WP:GNG. Rivertorch (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keep. No prejudice towards a rename. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate why these murders are notable. Sad - yes ; notable? Not so sure. They seem to be here as a record for LBGT issues and crimes. $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 10:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (no prejudice against a rename to the event, however):

Creation of a community center named for the victims: [15]
Crime motivated attempts at federal legislation: [16]
Decades later, subject of a television segment just last month: [17]
Breadth and longevity of additional coverage: [18], [19], [20].

These sources demonstrate persistence and lasting effect. Did you follow WP:BEFORE? --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Decker and perhaps rename to “Murder of Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill”.--В и к и T 19:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Name change is a good idea. The duo is not notable, but their murder is. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with name change; wide enough coverage to pass WP:CRIME. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Insomesia (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Decker. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Video of private fundraiser. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Romney video leak[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion with the following rationale: "This article was written too quickly (and in a sloppy manner). It is notable enough to be a page. see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER". While I agree that this article was made WP:TOOSOON and we might forget about this event even in the next few months, I think this demands a proper discussion first. Weak delete (or merge to ~~Mitt Romney~~ Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012). Keφr (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for deletion: I do not see how this subject warrents an entry into Wikipedia. This is obviously a political move and this artical should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikenbridge (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another article created during the political climate leading up to the elections about some minor gaffe that a candidate made. Yes, there are current news articles that talk about this, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is nothing to indicate that this has any lasting signifigance. The incident is already discussed at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, and that is about the extent of the coverage that this topic warrants. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable enough event to warrant its own article. I have no objection to a merge/redirect - indeed, it's already given ample coverage at Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Leaked_fundraiser_video. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait before deleting - I am the author of this article and let me start by saying that I agree with you on most of the issues that were raised. This event was a political blunder and, at the moment, I quite agree that it may not be worthy of a page. However, I do feel, as do the articles I cited, that this issue could make or break the 2012 presidential election and over time I believe that this event will play a major role in the election. I understand that due to the nature of the article it may come off as sounding biased in many respects, but let me assure you that in no way was I trying to support Obama nor disgrace Romney. I was merely trying to write an article about a major event that I feel was not adequately represented on Wikipedia. In response to the comment made earlier about the article being sloppy, I could not agree more. My article is simply the platform in which (given the proper time) the article will mature from. I do not know (as none of us do) how major this event will be. If in the grand scheme of things, the event turns out to be unimportant, than I will surely agree with the deletion of this article. However, I feel that this event may have a huge impact on the 2012 elections (as numerous reputable sources have stated) and I am in favor of leaving the article on (for a couple weeks, at least) and seeing how both the article event evolve and mature. I hope that the article will be given a fair chance and that if any issues do arise, we, as the Wikipedia Community, can come to a fair and appropriate resolution. Thank you. Mister Pip(talk) 10:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think anyone is questioning your sincerity or good faith effort. That said, the idea to keep the article just in case it becomes independently notable is a bit sideways. Another choice would be to merge the additional content into the primary article and break out the existing section if the event one day becomes the touchstone moment as you've suggested. Don't be discouraged either way. Your work is appreciated. Cindy(talk to me) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just one the many campaign gaffes of an election. It should not be regarded as being anything else but that. Harpsichord246 (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mother Jones (magazine). This incident may or may not prove to be pivotal in the campaign; there will be opportunity to write history after the results are in and there is time for reflection... But it is a major incident in the history of Mother Jones, for sure. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to duplicate Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Leaked fundraiser video, in effect. I don't think it merits a separate article. Prioryman (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. There is a real liklihood of this becoming an important in Romney's campaign, worthy of a spinout article. But this event could also fade away as just a minor gaffe. Merging allows the article to be recreated and expanded without much effort in the future, were the first scenario to come true. Them From Space 05:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This material about the video and its effects is going to go somewhere. Having a dedicated article may be the best way to provide details that don't need to be included in larger articles. Main points: don't confuse "article titles" with "subject importance"-- one of the best ways to deal with trivia is to make a subarticle. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way to deal with trivia is to incorporate it within another article about a more important topic, not make a subarticle for it. The question we should be asking is, is this gaffe trivial or is it important? Them From Space 17:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that adding details into a main article can unbalance it. For example, we've got criticism quotes from prominent Repubs over the comments (Noonan, McMahon, Brown, et al). We've got detail on the fundraiser location and host. But does such level really merit inclusion in the main campaign article, or would it be better "under the fold", i.e. living one click away on subarticle. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a WP:BHTT argument? More articles are more difficult to maintain and keep track of, and they make the reader more likely to be exposed to one side of a controversy over others. Please avoid WP:CFORKS. Keφr (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Leaked fundraiser video, where it is relevant and already discussed. WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Leaked fundraiser video. While Mother Jones may have released the information, it would be an odd place to merge, outside of a brief mention. IMHO, merging to Mother Jones would be akin to merging the political process to Time magazine. Cindy(talk to me) 21:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not need a separate article, and the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article already has more on this matter than this article does. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Leaked fundraiser video. No need of a separate article. Cavarrone (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is arguably the most notable event of Romney's presidential campaign thus far, and has has significant impact already. And I know 'otherstuffexists' isn't much of an argument, but it's worth noting we have an article on Obama's 'You didn't build that' comments; I'd say this is simply the equivalent on the other side. Robofish (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - I find it interesting on how many "This is the most important thing thus far" arguments that are made. I thought Seamus or his Taxes or his "I like to fire people"....were the most important things. No worries though I am sure next week will be an even more important "notable" event regarding the presidential campaign will be dredged up by the left from some time in the past. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair comment, but for what it's worth, I strongly supported deleting Seamus (dog) (now renamed Mitt Romney dog incident) as an utterly trivial story. I think it would be bizarre for us to keep that article while deleting this one, but whatever. (To be fair, you're probably right that Romney's tax returns were a bigger story than either, but we do have an article on that: Mitt Romney's tax returns. And yes, we have one on Barack Obama's birth certificate as well.) Robofish (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that article has much more sourced information, which would be unfeasible to integrate into the main campaign article. Keφr (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for its own article. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for its own article, Wikipedia:Fancruft.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like somethign that may be a big swing. Worse case MERGE if not Keep. 2607:5300:30:101:0:0:1:561 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The basic question is whether or not to invoke WP:SUMMARY style in this instance. My gut suggests the answer is yes-- this will be a big enough issue to merit a dedicated subarticle. But what do I know? --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, although the subject is notable per WP:GNG, it appears to be a an unnecessary split from the parent article. At the time of its creation 1757 18SEP12 there was already a section which existed that covered the subject in the article Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 as of the edit that existed prior to the this article being created at the time of 1308 18SEP12. Therefore, the verified content can be merged and redirected to the appropriate section in the parent article. If the parent article meets the criteria set forth in WP:TOOLONG, then this subject or a larger subject can be spinned off into a sub-article. But right now an independent article appears to be WP:TOOSOON.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the presidential campaign page. Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable sources have been found, and the consensus is that these establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Breton International Drum Festival[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. most of the coverage is PR web or the local newspaper, needs wider coverage to be notable. [21] LibStar (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The coverage is plenty wide; it just hasn't yet been added to the article. Canadian Musician has coverage nearly every year (since 2002), as does Modern Drummer in most years (for example, "Cape Breton's Year of the Legends Celebration", Modern Drummer 34. 10 (Oct 2010): 94). The National Post writes (Grainger, Lia. "summer festivals" National Post 10 Apr 2010: WP.10), "... Cape Breton's annual fest has become one of the marquee drumming events in the world. Drummers for everyone from Billy Joel to Frank Zappa have attended, and Australian legend David Jones described it as 'a festival that is the jewel in the crown of drumming festivals worldwide.'" There is also coverage in the Southland Times (Lineup for drum festival released: Roxburgh, Tracey. The Southland Times [Invercargill, New Zealand] 28 Jan 2005: 17). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Canadian Musician has coverage nearly every year" you've only linked to the 2002 article. notable people attending does not make an event notable. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to an example that I could find online, but most of the Canadian Musician articles are not available through online links. Here's another example from 2009: [22]. I fully agree with you that notable people attending an event does not make it notable. My intention was only to demonstrate that the festival has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, online links seem to be a bit hard to find but we now have a couple, and this is a truly international event and notable IMO... hey, I've even heard of it from Sydney, Australia and wished I could get there. True, one or two names wouldn't make it notable, but the list in this case is particularly impressive. Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critics and Awards Program for High School Students[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews [23], and google does not reveal reliable indepth sources. I wonder if the usual suspects turn up. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Washington Post feature article coverage [24][25][26][27] etc (tons more). New York Times feature. I'm sure there is plenty more in other cities where the Cappies are held (search with "site:nytimes.com" in Google, replace with paper in the local city). The award is most commonly called the "Cappies", this name doesn't appear to have been searched on by the nom. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional source: Cappies coverage on NBC News affiliate WRC (Washington DC channel 4) Nov. 6, 2011 at about 9:22am (the local morning TV news program). Sourced at TV News (search on "Cappies"). Green Cardamom (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panabo Faith Mission Academy[edit]

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

Most of the article is not suitable for an encyclopedia, half of the article is the rules of the academy (WP:NOTGUIDE) and the remaining is all advertising/promotional material (WP:NOTSOAPBOX). jfd34 (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.deped.gov.ph, the Academy is a "Christian PreSchool Learning Center". Secondary schools are usually kept if their existence can be verified, but preschools? Braincricket (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a preschool and primary school, which are not usually kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expel. As this is only a primary school, unless there's a school district we can merge this to, there's no point in keeping this. It's just not notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, and I wasn't able to find a school district page to which this article could be redirected. Braincricket (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were notable, it needs TNT. --Nounique names 15:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as I can tell it is a Primary School. As a private school, merging it to s school district would not be appropriate. If there is a parent missionary society, a few words might possible be mereged there, but the best course is a plain delete. The whole article smacks of WP:ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celica Church of Christ[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG. A Google search for "Celica Church of Christ" failed to find "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it passed notability, it looks like a clear case of WP:TNT. --Nounique names 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not suggesting that these in any way help it qualify under WP:ORG, but did find a couple of hits, including this 224 page self-published 1999 book, The Voice from Celica, Volume 1 by A. 'Sesan Ayodele and Adetunji Adeonigbagbe. Agree that there is no way this article can continue in its current form. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It seems to be another article on a NN local Church, even if it (apparently) has offshoots for the Nigerian diapsora. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Mitchell Award[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. 10 gnews hits in 16 years [28], and mostly small mentions. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Australian called it a "leading literary award" [29]. Recent winners have been reported in major news outlets in articles devoted solely for the award (sourced in article). Number of Gnews hits irrelevant. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:GHITS, "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search". LibStar (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are away that you're quoting from essay that discourages your Google-argument to begin with and that the Google-Test is listed under "notability fallacies"? The line you quote says nothing regarding the notability as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News is a source, use it, but has limitations, AfDs are weak if that is all you do. Green Cardamom (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article includes multiple references, Google News indicates press coverage for a decade, and articles give info on the prize beyond just who won (what its purpose is, judging panel, shortlists, controversy over lack of young writers, etc). There's no rule that you need 11 or more Google News hits to be notable: this passes notability requirements for significant coverage in multiple sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

google news covers up to 100 years of coverage. And coverage of many major English language papers over the past 50 years. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News is a weak source, tons of missing articles that show up in a normal Google search. But even of the outlets included, tons of material not indexed at all. There is also Google Books (important for literature topics), JSTOR and the other dozens of commercial databases available online for free though library cards, TV News database, etc.. why do you limit yourself to Google News? It's a shallow basis for starting an AfD. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lack in Google news hits is no proof for for lack of notability, but at best a hint. In doubt we go by what sources say (see Australian newspaper mentioned above. Moreover I have a hard time seeing which benefit WP would get from deleting this article, since it not a promotional piece or an article with quality issues and it is definitely of benefit for readers being interested in Australian literary scene.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. can you provide evidence of sources you've found? LibStar (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a search of an australian major news site yields 2 blog hits. [ www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22Kathleen+Mitchell+award%22+site%3A.news.com.au&btnG=Search]. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the arguments was not "no harm" but rather "no harm and beneficial for readers interested in Australian writers". Secondly some general considerations which imho point towards notability. There's a prize money of $15,000, the prize has some well known recipients and it seems one of the most important prizes for young Australian writers. Then as far as Google-Tests & alike are concerned. One has to keep in mind is that this is a rather specialized subject and that the prize is around for only 16 years, so obviously you cannot expect a large media feedback as you would get for Pulitzer or Booker prize. Now keeping that in mind the prize and its winners are mentioned in various Australian newspaper & news sites ([[30], [31] [32] [33]), mainstream Australian TV (ABC), book magazines ([ [34]]) and websites or blogs dealing with Australian literature ([35], [36]). All in all it is certainly not (highly) notable in general but certainly notable enough for people with an interest in Australian literature. So if one see WP just as n somewhat expanded Britannica then indeed it lacks notability. But if one sees WP scope and content wise as a combination of a general purpose and special subject encyclopedias collecting the world's knowledge, which it is currently de facto anyhow, then it is certainly notable.And as you can tell, I'm in the latter camp. Oh and the source I was referring to further up ("going by sources rather than google news hits") is already in the article and was mentioned by cardamom at the beginnings of the discussion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It gets wearying to see the same tripe about google as the only source worth considering - ... try trove and some imagination. Satu Suro 15:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no reason is actually given here for keep. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - you want a reason - adequately sourced Satu Suro 01:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently sourced, no reason to delete this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Son of God vs. Son of Man[edit]

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

Article appears to be original research. The only source is the bible. This article was PROD'ed but the template was removed by the author without addressing concerns. Jschnur (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was just created within the past day or two, so an AfD is probably premature. While I agree that in its current state the article only references primary sources, the topic is clearly notable. Consider Googling for "Son of God" "Son of Man", e.g. this Google News search, which shows that the terms frequently occur together in RS discussions of Christianity. I wonder if there might be a better place to merge/redirect this, such as somewhere within Christology perhaps. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The way to fix things would be to fix the Son of Man article. As is that article is pretty hopeless. See my comment of a year or two ago Talk:Son_of_man#Information_vs_lists. Both Son of God and Son of Man are notable but the intersection does not deserve a separate article. The solution will be to make a solid Son of man (Christianity) page, and have an informed comparison in a section there. I am not working on those any more, but that is the way to fix it. And it should be fixed by someone rational, not this group of puppets. History2007 (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - By the way, the easy way to see how far off the attempt was is that they missed the most important item: "unlike the title Son of God, proclamation of Son of man has never been an article of faith in Christianity". That is the key issue, which I have now added to the lede there as well as the Comparison to Son of God section there. And while the puppets seem to feel that they know it all, as the references in the Son of man (Christianity) now state: "The interpretation of the use of 'the Son of man' in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars." And as can be seen from the references there, the material in the Afd-ed article is way, way off the mark and completely incorrect. I just have one more section in the Son of man (Christianity) page to touch up now (the NT passages) but the comparison is done. There is no need for this article. History2007 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, quite original. There is no record of a King of Israel named Immanuel or Immanual, also not in the Gospel of Matthew; the last person who might be considered to have been King of Israel was Antigonus II Mattathias, who died 37 BC and can hardly have been the father of Jesus. Perhaps the author of the article directly received a revelation from a Higher Power; an alternative, more mundane explanation is a rich imagination. In any case, the content is unsalvageable. Although the two terms often occur together in Christological texts (they also appear together in both of our articles Son of God and Son of man), an article with this title does not make sense unless we have reliable sources that discuss these terms as being in opposition. --Lambiam 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why then is it Gospel that Jesus was born King of the Jews?
Comment - I think if the article were renamed Son of God and Son of Man and the info didn't include Original Research, there seems to be a WP:GNG basis to keep such a topic. Source material may include: "The 'Son of Man'" as the Son of God, The "One like a Son of Man" Becomes the "Son of God", The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Give the article time to become great. Wikipedia is not about uploading finished articles. It's about people working on them over time. Also, Oral Roberts book is a secondary source, and Matthew includes things he did not witness himself, and so is a secondary source to maybe a large extent. I think comparing the terms Son of Man and Son of God in one article is a good idea. When I Googled the subject, there are some non-Wikipedia hits. I contributed to the article. I added the Oral Roberts quote because it helps promote understanding. Also, the article is new and will improve if given time. Experts will eventually find it and work on it. A1812pm (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oral Roberts is self-published and thus not a reliable source. Also, the text quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the article and thus is not even a source at all. It would serve fine as a primary source for the claim that at least some people, when they were young, liked and believed in Jesus while not yet believing in God. --Lambiam 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems to a certain extent redundant with Son of man and Son of God and the content might be merged into one or the other of those, but I'm willing to wait a few days if as people say it will be improved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is meant to be about the dual substance of Christ (i.e. divine vs. human), then it is redundant with Person of Christ. I agree with Jclemens that the AfD nomination may have been premature. Spt172012 is a new editor and just needs a little guidance with regard to Wikipedia policies. I think he's trying to make a positive contribution to the encyclopaedia, and needs more than two days to do so. As for the article, I don't think it should be merged, because it's all original research. I don't think it should be redirected, because the title is too arbitrary. Do you think userfication would be a good option? It would give the editor time to learn about policies like WP:OR, read existing articles related to the topic, and to better structure his work before he releases it into the wild. Braincricket (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I put the initial tags on the article for notability and sourcing. I really like the userfication idea that Braincricket brought up. I think the creator should take the content to his/her userpage and work on it more there and then submit it for AfC to get more guidance and advice. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content and the approach used by these multiple accounts fail WP:Competence in a New York minute. Pretty confused and irrational edits... And they are making new sock puppet accounts every few hours. This user shows low rationality in edits and even less respect for policy. No salvation in sight here. History2007 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the edit history for the page, I'm worried that their may be a sock puppet problem. Since the article was created 3 days ago, there have been 8 brand new accounts that have worked on it, and only it. I sent a message to the page creator, assuming good faith, to ask if the user is editing on the different accounts. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reading that. I shouldn't care less what you're rules are, because trying to find secondary sources wasted my time. Keep the article or not. I think there's a comparable difference between the two terms, and I do not intend to use this account again, because what would there be to do with it? Criticise new articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kxrt (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kxrt is a sock puppet. This user has no respect for policy. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Comment: Sadly, AdventurousSquirrel is undoubtedly right. Look at the contributions of the following single purpose accounts, all created in the last few days and the only significant contributors to this article. The author is dishonestly trying to make his article look like a collaborative effort.

Spt172012 (talk | contribs),
Shrpics1812 (talk | contribs),

Joewey (talk | contribs),

A1812pm (talk | (contribs),

A2drysorsithnk (talk | contribs),

Someecrefs (talk | contribs),

Greataveragewriter (talk | contribs),

Zsubti (talk | contribs).

It's the worst and most blatant sockpuppetry I've seen. But the worst thing about this article is its complete failure at WP:NPOV. As an encyclopaedic article it is abysmal. If I were a Buddhist or Muslim I would see this article as nothing more than proselytising. As a Christian I would see it as fringe theology unworthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Jschnur (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely add Kxrt (talk •contribs) to the list. Jschnur (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sockpuppets for sure. Given that sockpuppetry is an inherently deceitful activity says something here. The next puppet account they start should probably be called "Son of Sockpuppet"... History2007 (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for sure, for sure. And look out for spill over of the junk from here to elsewhere, e.g. Person of Christ. Looks like a new account was created as Aebvtu to ship out the half-baked thoughts here elsewhere. The edits are pretty confused about the subject anyway. These accounts need to have a CU look, then be zapped altogether. History2007 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can not be bothered to start a SPI, but someone please do it. This is blatant. Note how one puppet retired another. This is just disruptive and "less than upfront" editing with so many puppets obviously created to fool the system - yet so sloppy both in content creation as well as in attempts at concealment via puppet creation. History2007 (talk)

Now the use attempted to delete the Afd page itself! History2007 (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puppets have been indef blocked The key puppet which retired the others hasindef blocked now. So this may be an academic exercise to get that user to do anything. But their irrational behavior got me upset enough that I will now clean up the Son of man article anyway, and add a comparison to Son of God, so it will be done right. Did not want to work on it. Yet.... History2007 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Anyway, I have now finished the Comparison to Son of God section in the Son of man (Christianity) article with proper WP:RS sources and explained teh Christological issues. And as stated above, near the top, they show the content in this Afd-ed article to be totally incorrect, and pure WP:OR. There is no need for this article. History2007 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the article wasn't original research written by an army of sockpuppets, it would be redundant with Son of man (Christianity), Person of Christ, etc. There's nothing worth saving. Braincricket (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yea I'll go ahead and change my userfication suggestion to a vote for deletion. Looks like the user won't be capable of turning it into anything encyclopedia worthy. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Brunken[edit]

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

Actor who, according to article, is principally notable for appearing in Apparition (2013 movie), also listed in AfD. Film not being made by large producer; to be released in 2013. Google searches for ("joshua brunken" apparition) and ("josh brunken" apparition) yield no evidence of notability: hits for Facebook pages, imdb.com, and film producers' own websites, but no evidence of significant coverage by independent sources. Google News searches for the same keywords turn up only this WP article and imdb.com. Appears to fail WP:GNG and more specifically, WP:NACTOR. Ammodramus (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film is a low, low budget release done by a company working on its first film. It filmed in Nebraska and hired local talent. One small film does not fulfill WP:NACTOR. Bgwhite (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself tells us that Joshua Brunken's first-ever film is Apparition (2013 movie). That singluar role fails WP:ENT and lack of wider coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparition (2013 movie)[edit]

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

This independent film appears to lack notability. A Google News search for ("apparition" "leesley") yields exactly one hit: this article. (Note that this is not the same as the 2012 film The Apparition; Google searches, etc., need to distinguish between the two.) A Google Web search for the same keywords produces no evidence of notice in independent sources: there are lots of hits, but they tend to be imdb.com, Facebook pages, or Leesley Films' own websites. Film has not yet been released: according to imdb.com, to be released in 2013. Currently fails WP:GNG, and in particular the standards at WP:MOVIE; running an article on the presumed notability of a small-company film to be released next year smacks of WP:CRYSTAL. Ammodramus (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So far there is no indication that this film has any notability. As it is not out for some time yet, there is the possibility that it could become more notable upon its release, but its WP:TOOSOON for this article to exist. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEDAY; a search engine test shows that this is an amateur film with no coverage from reliable sources. It's possible that it could be notable given time and attention, but like WP:ONEDAY says, "Editors often protest the deletion of their articles on the grounds that their new idea is bound to take off and become popular soon, so why not have an article on it now? Sometimes they might be right, but other times they might not be, and once again there is no way for the reader to verify that their idea is going to be the next big thing." I would also delete the following categories also created by the article creator: Category:Films directed by James Leesley and Category:Films shot in Nebraska (U.S. state) (the latter which is redundant to Category:Films shot in Nebraska). Erik (talk | contribs) 16:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. I prettied the thing up a bit before coming to this AFD. Good exercize.[37] Filming has apparently commenced, but has not yet been completed and the film not yet been released. Lack of any sort of coverage makes this article premature per WP:NYF. And as this is only the second film ever by James Leesley, a category for the filmmaker's projects is itself unneccessary. I would okay with it being USERFIED to article author User:Billiefan2000 for continued work over the next few months, but he/she really should be sent to WP:PRIMER and other help topics to understand what creates notability and our requirement for the availability of proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Andreas[edit]

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

Was nominated via PROD but contested due to havin been nominated and contested a couple years back. Basketball player who fails Wikipedia:NCOLLATH in his college career, played briefly and without distinction in a couple of European Leagues taht do not connote automatic notability, and has not achieved GNG since the close of his basketball career. Also the article has been around for six years and has never evolved beyond a stub. Rikster2 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an eager fan probably wrote this when Wikipedia was new and this article stuck to the wall. As the project has expanded and stricter standards have been set, this article falls short in notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete college athlete are rarely notable, as are minor players in the Euro league. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Athletic Club[edit]

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

This club does not meet the notability criteria. Mootros (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This club meets the notability criteria. Warden (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This club is eminently notable. Its 1904 Olympic gold medal win and subsequent Olympic participation alone fits WP:N. Its membership, historic status, and prominence in Milwaukee make it further notable.Clubwiki (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Wikophile (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has references also members are notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep About 2 days ago I was going to comment that the article is too poorly sourced but my internet connection died before I could comment. I never trusted this article. Now I see that Clubwiki was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Wikophile. I see that their clubhouse is notable but I want to see more proof that the club has multiple independent sources. So I looked and easily found that the club did indeed win a gold medal in the 1904 Olympics. Royal broil 12:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Demetriou[edit]

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

He wrote a book, which doesn't appear to have been reviewed. Is the (unsourced) winner of an award of questionable notability. He had three pieces in the Observer almost 10 years ago (cited in article) but I'm not sure that establishes notability especially since it doesn't appear to have led to anything else. Question whether he passes WP:BIO StarM 00:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "lifestyle" Observer pieces are by himself. The EMI Music position does not meet notability itself. Mootros (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:BIO - self promotion. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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