< 10 August	12 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC Plus loyalty program[edit]

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

Unjustified page; a loyalty program at a single chain of stores; most of the content is totally general, and not related to the particular topic. no need for merge, already mentioned in article; redirect isn't a useful search term. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The PC Plus™ Program. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article describes a run-of-the-mill loyalty programme. Any claims it makes to uniqueness, for example "differs from traditional loyalty programs in its use of database technology to learn customers’ buying patterns, and responds by offering them personalized rewards" are commonplace in other markets: in the UK and I'm sure elsewhere. The references demonstrate that it exists but not that it is notable past this firm's own checkouts. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely standard rewards programme with no unique content StuartDouglas (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't expand upon Loblaw Companies in a useful way. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted twice there's no consensus to delete. Discussion concerning redirection can take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Jenks[edit]

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

no apparent notability. Though Keller is notable as a businessman and a writer, coauthoring two books of his 4 books isnt notability , DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Gary Keller~~ Gary W. Keller. This man wrote a third of 2 books, and neither of them seems particularly notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spam. Added on the same day and by the same editor [1] as Keller Williams Realty, Mark W. Willis, Jay Papasan, and Gary W. Keller. The one citation contains a two-sentence mention. —rybec 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This could have been speedied however, as it was a massive BLP violation being completely unsourced and the allegations involved. Secret ^account 01:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012-13 Boxing Doping Scandal[edit]

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

This is unverifiable original research and should be deleted. LGA _talk^edits 06:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Synthesis; there are no sources saying that these cases collectively constitute a scandal. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If all of this information is already in the athletes' articles, the only contribution of this article is to say that the "amount" (sic) of boxers involved was unusual, and this is unsourced opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smaart Friend Finder App[edit]

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

Two-year-old article with no independent references, and largely promotional in tone. No evidence for notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. Article lacks 3rd party RS refs. A search reveals only blogs/PR posts about the software, no RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here a a couple sources that establish notability: [2], [3]. Article is already tagged with ((advert)) but that's not a reason to delete. ~KvnG 00:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The web page listed in the article as the "Official website" appears to be about some other software, and the web page called "App store review" has a notice at the top that the App has been removed from the Android market. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources mentioned by Kvng do not appear to be reliable, and seem to be parroting some talking points from the developers when the app was released. My search does not show significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Solidarity Federation. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organise![edit]

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

Appears to be a total lack of independent sources, a non notable anarchist organisation. Fails WP:GNG Finnegas (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been updated with new content in nearly four years, and the organisation doesn't actually exist anymore; they recently dissolved themselves into SolFed. -- Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would say this article needs a dramatic rewrite and even shortening. The references don't give enough coverage for the current length, but I would say it's hard to decide if they are notable in its current state. I think when it is shortened, notability will be much clearer if there is any. Verdict78 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SolFed, for now, with no prejudice against recreation in the future. If they have been dissolved into that organisation, there would seem to be no harm in our treating them the same way , given the seemingly insufficient coverage to substantiate WP:ORGDEPTH. But if someone finds enough coverage in the future (if someone writes a book or the group becomes active again, for example), they shouldn't be prevented from creating a new article from the redirect. Redirecting will also save the edit history for that purpose. Stalwart111 02:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Vider[edit]

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

Non-notable political figure, fails WP:Politician as he has never held national office. Article already deleted once via prod. Number 5 7 22:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable for en.wikipedia as far as has been established so far. (Apparently not sufficiently notable for he.wikipedia either.) Zero^talk 02:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no real assertion of notability plus not enough 3rd party sources. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be non-notable politician for the moment, at least not notable independent from The Haredi faction in the Likud, if that group is indeed notable itself. Plausible that RS exist in Hebrew, but search of "יעקב וידר‎" also returns few ghits. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Kaye (production secretary)[edit]

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

Claim to notability is being the production secretary of The Wizard of Speed and Time at the age of 16 and being the daughter of the producer, Richard Kaye. I recommend deletion on the basis of notability not being inherited and after a search through news, no evidence that the general notability guideline is fulfilled either. There also does not appear to be any indication that the subject's involvement with films continued after this one. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination has been withdrawn (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karel De Smet[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays in the K-League, but since he is yet to make his debut, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article suggests he has played for Lokeren, who, according their article were in the Belgian Pro league in 1999-2000, which is an FPL. Willing to be corrected on this and also whether the Pro League was FPL at that time though. Fenix down (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then of course the article should be kept, but at present I cannot verify any of his appearances prior to 2008. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no doubt about his appearances in the Jupiler League for Lokeren. nl:Karel De Smet has a stats table sourced to bsdb.be, which is a free-to-register site and confirms his stats as per the nl.wiki page (apart from the last spell with Antwerp, where nl.wiki differs from en.wiki and both differ from bsdb). His bsdb page also gives disciplinary stats. He got sent off twice in those 10 games for Lokeren: this news article has him moaning about getting yellow cards against Genk, and also mentions it being his fifth game for the first team. This is a minute-by-minute against AA Gent: he played all 90. There seems to be considerable material, both footballing and personal, if a Dutch-reader were interested enough to write a decent article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Struway2. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as nominator. His appearances in the Belgian Pro League being confirmed, he obviously passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the information provided by Fenix down, Struway2 and as the nomination has been withdrawn. He clearly satisifes NFOOTBALL and thus GNG Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if I stumbled upon this article, I would have considered WP:CSD#A7 as "... is a Belgian footballer who plays as centre back." is indeed no claim for notability. But as Struway's excellent research shows, this is a notable topic and the article should be kept and improved to show why the subject is notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call: Review[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this magazine is notable. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three issues published, vanished without leaving almost any trace. No indication of any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of verifiable notability, and the only available source seems to go to a trivial self-published blog. Therefore,Wikipedia is not a collection of random information, and is not in existence to promote otherwise unknown authors and creations. Also, there is no indication this magazine has any notable historical value or has had any significant historical impact.--- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin Diannaa. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 23:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mist of Stagnation[edit]

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

Unsourced, unreleased game. Needs _something_ to show notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Ahmed Said Nassir[edit]

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

WP:OR and unreferenced BLP created prior to BLPPROD process. Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per this diff Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It took me all of 45 seconds to find and fix the ref. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to redirect retaining the contribution history -- A I wrote at WP:Articles for deletion/Khalid Saad Mohammed I think everyone here today, in August 2013, is acting in good faith.
A new contributor, who I believe is acting in good faith, turned four redirects, into a (weak) article. I suggested on the nominator's talk page that these article titles should be restored a redirects. While I think many individual captives whose names are currently redirected to the articles about the captives are notable enough to merit restoring those articles back to full article status, I think that respect for all those who have weighed in at earlier ((afd))s should prevent restoring these redirects to article status until the restored article is very robust and is obviously not a candidate for deletion.
Several of the articles that have been deleted, for instance, were for individuals who were the subject of entire books, or had faced charges before the Guantanamo war crimes commissions. Of the articles titles that are currently redirected, I think restoration to full article status should start with those that are the strongest candidate. I think those restorations should be done cautiously, with a draft somewhere not in article space, where comments and improvements can be proposed, so it really is ready, when it is moved to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 40[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. No indications of notability - Benboy00 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't see significant discussion of the star in RS. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Saad Mohammed[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP created prior to BLPPROD process Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per this diff Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, this is making for a fun morning. You really should consider a simple Google search for sources, per WP:PRESERVE, rather than immmediately shunting things off to AFD. I've added a source. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to redirect retaining the contribution history -- I think everyone here today, in August 2013, is acting in good faith.
A new contributor, who I believe is acting in good faith, turned this redirect, into a (weak) article. I suggested on the nominator's talk page that this article title should be restored a redirect to Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay. While I think many individual captives whose names are currently redirected to the articles about the captives are notable enough to merit restoring those articles back to full article status, I think that respect for all those who have weighed in at earlier ((afd))s should prevent restoring these redirects to article status until the restored article is very robust and is obviously not a candidate for deletion.
Several of the articles that have been deleted, for instance, were for individuals who were the subject of entire books, or had faced charges before the Guantanamo war crimes commissions. Of the articles titles that are currently redirected, I think restoration to full article status should start with those that are the strongest candidate. I think those restorations should be done cautiously, with a draft somewhere not in article space, where comments and improvements can be proposed, so it really is ready, when it is moved to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kefalochori railway station[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria. drewmunn talk 17:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, thanks for the interest of drewmunn to my question at WP:HD. About the minor stations on the Thessaloniki-Florina line they are all in the same situation regarding the coordinates (wrong, located in northern Thessalia) and a doubt of mine about their opening (intended as reopening?) in 2008 or 2013. By the way, the question may be to maintain or delete all the pages (Kefalochori is not the only minor station), not simply this one. Just to say, if other stations (as the preceding Loutros or the following Xechasmeni) will be considered to be kept I'll vote to "Keep" this article. The problem is about coordinates and opening datas (some pictures, as this one of Veroia station, show a building appearing older than one of a station opened in 2008 (also for their architectural style). My technical mistake was to click [mark this page as patrolled] but, for the doubts shown before, it was a mistake of mine because all the new articles about this stations need to be checked. By the way, sometimes I've seen articles about minor stations on railway lines with " station succession templates". After a control, fixing and checking the informations on the infobox and in the lead section... if they are not wrong, articles as this and others may IMHO stay. Of course, it depends also by the decisions in the discussions linked above by Northamerica1000. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your comment at HD brought me to the page, and I reviewed it according to the notability criteria. As a result of that process (I admit I'm not an expert in the matter, but the guidelines are fairly clear, and I looked at similar cases), I concluded that it was probably not suitable as an article subject, so I nominated it for deletion. The contents seem to be more suited to a larger article outlining more about the line in general, rather than a station-by-station account. drewmunn talk 21:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations have always been held to be notable at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been checked for coordinates and other datas and the same happended, for what I've seen, to other station pages of Thessaloniki-Florina line. For me, for what I've specified above and also because other minor stations on Thessaloniki-Florina line are not under AFD, could be now considered to be saved. Of course, as said by drewmunn, it could be considered to have an article outlining more about the line in general. And so the issue would be related to (almost) all the stations, not only Kefalochori. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate under different user per WP:EVADE. I was informed about this via my watchlist. --Marianian^(talk) 20:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Revdel, or deletion and selective restoration, can fix that right up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The station exists, and I corrected the coordinates, as I did with all the stations on this line. Markussep ^Talk 15:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinumi Cati[edit]

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

Claim to notability is having a world record for Longest Videogame Marathon on a Japanese-style Role-playing Game. Though there are articles that provide ample coverage of this event, this seems like a case of subjects being known for one event. I was unable to find any reliable sources covering her work as a model or singer. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator that this is a WP:BLP1E, and it was a particularly trivial event at that. Coverage may be due as much to the bizarre costume she wore as setting the record itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has a claim to notability, albeit a weak one. Still, this is more like of a BLP1E case, so she's not notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination posted in error. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanaweya Amma[edit]

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

No sources. And believed to not meeting Notability standards. and looks like a test edit for me or just really. an. incomplete article that is not ready to be published on the mainspace. SefBau : msg 15:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Source examples include: [4], [5] (be sure to scroll down), [6], [7], [8] (short article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pardon me, I didn't see the sources, however I see 1 ref showing, [9], that. it's a book, I didn't bother reading it. pardon me for my ignorance. SefBau : msg 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by Northamerica1000 establish notability, and it is certain that far more extensive coverage exists in Arabic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will provide deleted content upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of English football transfers summer 2013–14[edit]

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

Wrong article name. What is the "summer 2013–14"? POV-fork of the List of English football transfers summer 2013. Redirect created by another user was reverted. See also discussion WT:FOOTBALL#List of English football transfers summer 2013 vs. List of English football transfers summer 2013–14 and merger proposal on the talk page. NickSt (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I tried turning this page into a redirect twice before, but clearly the user who started the page does not wish to go along with the consensus established by the discussions linked to above. They have been invited to take part in the aforementioned discussions but clearly have no desire to do so constructively. As well as deleting/redirecting this page, I suggest that User:Skyblueshaun is handed disciplinary action until they learn to play nicely with others. – Pee Jay 22:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PeeJay2K3, I have not edited on that page for about 3-4 days, so If other edits have been made on that page it hasn't been from me. Instead I have been editing on the List of English football transfers summer 2013 as suggested by you. I hear say that the page I created List of English football transfers summer 2013–14 should be put up for deletion as List of English football transfers summer 2013 page is just as well as documented. I vote for deletion of page List of English football transfers summer 2013–14 Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I apologise. I would suggest, however, that you contribute to discussions more ~~and add edit summaries to your edits so other users don't have to check over your work~~. – Pee Jay 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt after transferring any useful contnet to the 2013 article -- It is summer 2013. the new football season will be 2013-4. Transfers are only allowed during certain windows, and this one will close before 2014 begins. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the summer 2013-14, is that the summer 2013 or summer 2014? If there are any useful content, it should be merged into List of English football transfers summer 2013, but this title shouldn't be used as a redirect, and it should be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A10. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted twice, there is no consensus to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enaam Elgretly[edit]

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

This article has one source, which says around two words on the subject. The article also asserts no claims of notability. Mat ty.007 13:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If she appeared in multiple films or video series she might be notable , if she had a major role in them. Have you looked for further information.? DGG ( talk ) 14:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google of her English name revealed next to nothing. However, a search of her Arabic name shows possible links to sites, but I don't know if they are reliable, or justify her notability. Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as usual for Egyptians, you need to search for variant transliterations when searching for her English name. Dsp13 (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jennifer Alfonso[edit]

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

This newsworthy event does not meet the inclusion policy; the article does not demonstrate or make any claim that it will a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance It received news coverage because it was a news story, but the event has no significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. There has been no in-depth coverage analysis that puts events into context by any of the sources, only routine news reporting. LGA _talk^edits 09:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the creator of the article, Please note that the article is not created due to WP:BREAKING, but rather due to WP:CRIME and due to the unprecedented nature of the confession of the crime. There is no claim of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS here when I state that Wikipedia may not be news but the Wikipedia does contain such records of such unprecedented events (if there was precedence of such events it wouldn't have formed the headlines as a domestic violence shooting is not a first or uncommon in USA). There is no question of notability here nor I notice any one mentioning it either. I will leave it for the community to decide on the deletion. Also if I may suggest that this article be not deleted as per WP:RAPID. A m i t 웃 16:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the claim of a "unprecedented nature of the confession", the article does not mention it ? As for WP:RAPID it says "it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days" which is exactly what happened. LGA _talk^edits 20:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained in my same comment why I mention it to be unprecedented, why do you feel it is not unprecedented kind of confession - is confessing by posting a dead body on facebook very common? Yes WP:RAPID means not deleting the article right away but instead letting it mature a little bit before taking the action(that too is admin discretion based on reason). When I say don't delete, i mean the same, I put the link for the policy so that it can be read and appropriate action be taken accordingly and so that I don't have to explain the whole stuff in my comment. A m i t 웃 01:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though tragic, such domestic violence killings are far too common. In the 20th century, the distraught killer might call a friend to confess. This guy posted a photo on Facebook. Pathetic, but not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that murders are extremely common and therefore most murders may not be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, the way in which this murder came to light by posting images on facebook (a very popular social site), the husbands profession as an actor, and as an author of books that are suppose to help people deal with emotions by proper communication (which apparently he is not very good at), may in fact make this a more notable subject for an article in the future. This is a fairly new event as well, and it is hard to tell at this point in time whether it will truly be a notable topic. There does appear to be many reliable sources out there discussing this murder vs. the many murders that occur that have hardly any news coverage. I am thinking that it will be a notable event. Tattoodwaitress♥LetsTalk 18:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL with "might be notable". If for some reason this case stays on the news and have an impact on the judicial system or Facebook lets say, then the article could be recreated without a problem. Secret ^account 20:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I see no compelling evidence that the murder will become notable for inclusion in its own article, but WP:RAPID and the high number of available sources sway me for now. Tezero (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local news story only getting national relevance due to the Facebook upload. Let's not reward this guy's infamy by allowing him the 'honor' of having this death take up space here, which is what I'm sure he wanted to make a point. Nate • (chatter) 21:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the case is too new for me to judge its notability, one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The only thing that sets this murder apart from other murders is the posting pictures on his wife dead body on Facebook, thus the media incident. If it wasn't for that, it would get just a minor bleep on the local news sources for a few days (Miami media is probably the worst in the United States when sensationalizing murders and other victims of crime). As there is an extremely unlikely impact on this and coverage is starting to die out, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Also unprecedented isn't a reason for keeping an article as its only a POV. Secret ^account 20:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Lots of sources, but nothing to indicate any lasting notability. If such notability occurs, the article can be recreated. StuartDouglas (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after a read through yesterday and after a check of coverage I find this article subject to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328 and Secret. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Secret. Too much WP:RECENTISM too. A tragic domestic homicide but these happen all the time....William 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Longer term WP:EFFECT is unknown at present. If coverage in reliable sources is sustained/revisited over time then there's no need to recreate the content again, which could potentially be undeleted via Deletion review at that time. -- Trevj (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Spain Pilatus PC-6 crash[edit]

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

Non Notable Event - Fails WP:NEVENT and WP is not a newspaper, no lasting significance claimed or demonstrated. LGA _talk^edits 09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as somebody who proposed deletion in 2008 as a non-notable accident, nothing much changed it is still not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS are indeed not met: There has not been any follow-up coverage (which would indicate some kind of lasting impact). The article is purely based on (one) initial news story.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was made up for voting for delete until I came across the aircraft involved in the incident was in a live Honda advert the day before the crash so I edited the article to include this, so please relook at the article to see if it may be worth keeping. Hjay50 (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing any claim to lasting significance, the link to the Honda advert is at best WP:TRIVA and not actually related to the accident. LGA _talk^edits 08:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No lasting significance. The article explicitly states that there was no connection between the Honda advert and the accident, other than the coincidence of the same plane being used. Had the plane been doing something for the advert other than exact same thing it did every time it took skydivers skydiving and an official report had stated this was a factor in the accident then it might have some bearing on notability. It didn't though, so it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, An unfortunately common type of light aircraft accident with no lasting consequences. No changes in procedures, training, no airworthiness directives issues, no service bulletins or similar. Fails to meet the Wikipedia policy for inclusion WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of exclamations by Robin[edit]

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

PROD was denied and sources added (although some are dubious--e.g. Holy Smokes Batman.com). This merits a mention at the main article (Batman (TV series)), not a trivial listing of every expression in the history of the series. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than mindless trivia. His exclamations are discussed in scholarly sources and according to one have entered the "American vernacular". I think it's useful to have a list to view the range of subjects covered in the Batman series and it is pretty harmless to have such an article. It looks fairly respectable with the sources and content to me. I'd suggest a page move to Holy.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks perfectly well-sourced and formatted. Too much information to be simply "mentioned" at main article. Potentially useful to students of the "American vernacular" and communications studies in general. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If several books actually discuss this, it meets WP:GNG. ^King Jakob _C2 11:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources do cover this. Keep as is, don't wipe out a large chunk of it later on. Dream Focus 13:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Blofeld. But the website which has clips of the utterances may not qualify as a RS, and does not even specify which episode which instance came from. It would be conceivable that someone might create a hoax website with a compilation of such instances of a popular culture meme, whether it be Spoonerisms or Tom Swifties. Edison (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I would say that I would prefer to see this in some sort of table that could include episode names/#s, references, and context for what prompted the exclamation. However, until we get such enhancements, I would hate to throw out the baby with the bathwater, thus my "Keep" position. KConWiki (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree those would be great improvements. But without a WP:RS, I guess that simply watching all of the episodes and extracting that info be WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would that be OR? What is OR does not hinge on whether the work you are consulting is print or audio-visual, fiction or non-fiction, or on whether that work is a primary or secondary source. It depends instead on the kind of statement you are deriving from that work's content and the extent to which you have injected your own interpretation rather than just giving a straightforward description—see WP:PRIMARY. You can certainly verify the dialogue of a TV episode from the episode itself (Boomhauer and the Swedish Chef notwithstanding). postdlf (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + Big up Blofeld and Martin for providing the additional material. -- Holybillyholiday

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discovery of an (apparently) reliable source that documents the list Merge to Robin (comics) (or is that Dick Grayson?). I don't question that Robin's exclamations are scholarly and there's sourcing for the two leading paragraphs, but the "full" list is absolutely unneeded per WP:IINFO; the two sourced paragraphs and a few examples can be included at the merge target. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were to be merged only to one target, it should definitely go in the TV series article as it's a pretty significant element of that series' content, but is just one of many adaptations of a 70+ year character. Dick Grayson#Batman (TV series) could be expanded as well, but I think the show itself is the context in which to discuss the dialogue it used for its version of Robin and the impact of that dialogue. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, the TV show works better for the merge, in that light. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because in addition to the above !voters, WP:IINFO doesn't support a merge, regardless of what Masem thinks it says. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it does. The full list of Holy X phrases is indiscriminate info, too deep a level of detail for a general encyclopedia, and since the only sourcing for this is either a site that likely fails RS or otherwise primary sourcing from the individual episodes, it's excessive and undue details. It would be different if more reliable sourcing catalogued each version , but that's just not done here. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it so. The words you're looking for are excessively discriminate or some similar variation. Trivial, unencyclopedic, or overly detailed might be good synonyms, but an indiscriminate list is one that lacks a unifying theme, not one that is overly detailed. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Batman (TV series). Can anybody explain what policy permits a list of all the things Robin says? That's an obvious example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY:

Wikipedia articles are not:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms...

The subject of what Robin says may deserve some coverage on Wikipedia, probably as part of a wider discussion of the TV show and character, but that is no grounds to have such a long list of quotations. I can't find any other TV shows that get comparable lists of catchphrases, jokes, or memorable sayings. The minimal option would be to rename this to a non-list article on the Exclamations of Robin (if that's really independently notable which personally I'm not convinced of), or better to an article on Robin (character in Batman TV series), but in its current form it fails to meet policies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can these quotations be deemed to be "loosely associated"? I don't quite see how they could any more closely associated, unless he had uttered them all in one single episode. And what if only this sequence of exclamations had achieved such penetration into popular American popular culture that it was unique? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're just a list of "Holy X" phrases, given without context. The fact that Robin said a lot of these, that's valid information to keep, but it is inappropriate to list out every single one. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought the context was provided by the preceding sections. Where else could that be given? Um, Robin didn't just say "a lot" of these, he said all of them. That's why the article is titled as it is. There is no point having any list unless it's as comprehensive as possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we're talking about a merge here. Again, I fully agree that WP needs to have some section in some appropriate article about Robin's "Holy X" statements that have entered the popular vernacular. But - do we need to know every single one? No, just that there were a lot of them, and a few examples of how they worked. In other words, we don't need this list article, but we do want the first two paragraphs kept somewhere approprite (as suggested above, the TV show would make sense since they come from there.) There is also a secondary problem in that the reliability of the source for the complete list is not very strong and while it could otherwise be sourced directly to every episode where the phrase was uttered, that would make this list weigh far too heavily on primary sourcing. So it is basically an undue weight situation. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every entry in the list has an audio clip from the 60s series, that makes it trustworthy as the proof is there. You seem to completely misunderstand the purpose of lists on wikipedia, and I agree KCon on the finding episodes, date of airing and context/notes in a table format would be more encyclopedic.. Any Batman fan here can feel free to to do that. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still makes it extensive detail from a primary source (the show itself) even we had the table of the episode and context of the exclamation. WP's purpose is to summarize information, and explaining how Robin's "Holy X" phrases have entered the vernacular is appropriate (and necessary, in fact), but we don't have to be the site that lists them all out. We avoid having enumerated lists that only include details from primary sources with no secondary commentary. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd be happy with a secondary source, with commentary, that listed them all? That would satisfy you? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a secondary source - (not holysmokesbatman.com) that in discussing the importance of the phrase decided it was necessary to list them all out, that would be a reason to think about including the list. As such, the collective list appears to be a fan endevour and not appropriate for us to reproduce being a summary, tertiary source. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audio clips are not a reliable source that some person or character actually said something. A skilled voice impersonator could create phoney "George W. Bushisms," for instance. A great many people can mimic a great many celebrities and characters in TV and movies, and have made a living doing so for decades. At least indexing the utterances to the episode would make it possible to confirm it by viewing a few minutes of the episode, rather than starting at season 1 episode 1 and listening for it. Edison (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, the clips are not faked, so your general argument is redundant in this context... I agree though that if a reliable source containing the context of the quotes and what episode they were can be found then that would be far better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone sincerely doubts these clips [10] are genuine. It'd not be a BLP issue, they not slandering any real person at all, so each one doesn't need to be referenced individually. Dream Focus 10:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we typically address individual entries in a table just so the readers can check the veracity for themselves? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they are fake, and I don't have to prove they are fake to object to this compilation of clips as a reliable source.At this point, the list is plausible but unverified. Folks are saying that the clips "are real" so that makes the site a reliable source and "verifies" the clips. To make verification feasible, the episode for each clip should be noted. I'm saying you and i couldn't tell the difference if some or all of them were done by a skilled impressionist. The site is anonymous, and does not qualify as a RS. Rich Little, Frank Gorshin and many members of the category "American impressionists (entertainers)" made a good living doing very credible impressions or impersonations of the voices of celebrities. Edison (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this is a basis of my point for a merge: the full list of every "Holy X" statement that Robin made is along the lines of what we would call original research, since every mention requires a good amount of effort to review and the like. If it is original research, then we as Wikipedia editors can't do it, and expect it to fall onto a reliable source to do it, but there's no indication that holysmokesbatman.com is a reliable source. The fact that no one else has bothered to document the whole list shows how trivial that knowing every "Holy X" variation is. We need to discuss the factor that Robin's utterances have made it into pop culture, but at a high, summary level that doesn't require us going away from reliable sources. Thus a merge is better supported here rather than keeping the list. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you have just described ("good amount of effort to review") has anything to do with original research. You're better off sticking to your other arguments. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one of the utterances in the article and at the website were "Holy fuck!" we would only know it was a hoax by virtue of the fact that the network would never have broadcast such an utterance. Yet any number of voice actors could have recorded such an utterance and sounded like the Robin actor. Or the Robin actor could have recorded it not for broadcast, as humor. That shows the folly of assuming that recordings purporting to be the Robin character on some person's personal website must be accepted as a self-verifying implicitly reliable source. No editorial board is identified, and nothing on the site is signed by its author. Not RS. But at the same time all of the utterances are plausible and akin to remembered Robinisms. Edison (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. In fact, the whole thing could have been secretly manufactured by the media to discredit all right-thinking and clean-living American bats. Ah, "reliable Robinisms" - I remember them!! ("List of exclamations, my arse!" - Robin Tomlinson) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It's very borderline OR. I do not contend that one could create this list by running through every episode of the show and identifying each utterance and adding episode # and approximate timestamp when it occurs. But unlike the summation of an episode for a plot summary which is built on broad unequivocal terms, you're looking at something very detailed requiring review of every single line of dialog. It is the type of data collection that we would normally expect to have been published before. Yes, it's not that much synthesis or the like, but it is a novel cataloging, hence it is a borderline aspect. But the fact that only one source, and one that doesn't meet WP:RS guides, has gone to the trouble of cataloging does beg the question of that source's reliability (I personally have no reason to doubt, but this is why we consider what are RSes), and the necessity for a tertiary work to fully include it. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've seen articles on films with memorable quotes given. Not "timestamped" and in many cases, not supported by secondary source. The quote is simply regarded as notable, memorable and in the public domain. So is this a question of scale? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memorable quotes are usually ones recognized by reliable third-party critics - and if people are inserting quotes in the prose without stating their importance, that's not good as that is OR to say that quote is important. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't propose deletion as it acknowledges the appropriateness of the topic and just wants it covered more concisely in the main article. That's not a deletion issue and our editing policy applies. And the claims above that this is OR because there's no reliable source are easily refuted as the The Official Batman Batbook contains a complete list of "Every Holy Word uttered by Robin". Holy hypotheses! Warden (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What an excellent source. Many thanks. Surprising that so many of us can forget all about ancient relics sometimes. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming in good faith that it is "official" (eg licensed/blessed by the content owners), the list should be immediately re-sourced and checked against that book, and to that end that would satisfy that there was a RS that cataloged the sayings better than a random fansite. Though, hmm, as I'm typing this, I have to wonder a bit if there's a copyvio potential problem here (regardless of whether the list came from the book or mashed together from individual sources). I might be overthinking this, though, since while the sayings are creative, it is a factual list of what those sayings were, which makes it uncopyrigthable. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think they count as facts, don't they? The audio clips themselves might well be under copyright, provided they were not not very good voice-actor fakes, of course (yet how would one tell?). But not a verbatim transcribed list of their content, surely. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's why I think I'm overthinking it. The baseline case we do use is that we can't include the full text of a Time 100 list because there is creativity in creating that list, and thus the list itself is copyrightable. While the shows and the associate dialog is copyrightable, the fact that Robin said "Holy X" in this and that episode is factual, and thus the list compilation should be non-copyrightable (there's no creativity in that). --MASEM (t) 16:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - This book is in no way reliable. Read AuthorHouse — it's a self-publisher. You can publish anything you want with them, as long as you can pay for it; they're basically a printing company who will help you work out the technical side of making a book. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd argue that this is the kind of publishing best suited to the niche fan-based market. You're suggesting that, because it's not been published by a main-stream publishing house, it's therefore bound to be "unreliable". But as far as I can see, a fan-based publication, containing these sort of arcane facts, is likely to be just as reliable as any from an established publisher, is not moreso. Joel Eisner's book (at a second revised edition) is already used as a undisputed source in Batman (TV series). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that's what I'm saying, because anyone can claim to be an expert with a self-publisher. Please read WP:SPS — this is precisely the situation for which that section exists. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's one of the few Wikipedia policies I have read, thanks. And anyone can claim to have watched all the episodes of Batman and noted down all of Robin's exclamations - not sure one needs to be "an expert" for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - so, is the consensus here to keep the list of expressions in the article or not? Or has consensus on that question not yet been reached? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikpedia is not a list, this is definetly an indiscriminate list that's not in anyway notable. Delete per policy KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 11:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is more to this article than just a list, despite the existing title. Perhaps a re-title is required? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is policy that Wikipedia contains lists: "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information." This particular case seems to satisfy WP:LISTN. So User:KoshVorlon's claim that "Wikpedia is not a list" seems blatantly false. Warden (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's been trying to pull that stupid shit for awhile now, no matter how much people tell him he's wrong. Definitely one of the worst cases of WP:IDHT I've ever seen, if not deliberate trolling. postdlf (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Holy Keep, Batman - meets WP:GNG, holysmokesbatman.com might not be reliable, but other sources which mention several of these are. A merge/redirect is not appropriate, because the expressions appear in several, such as Batman (TV series), Batman (1966 film) and Batman Forever (albeit in the latter as a cheesy joke), so the only really appropriate target would be the general-purpose Batman article, which is big enough anyway to treat this as a legitimate content fork. This is a job for cleanup, which AfD is not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PostPdf - You may want to strike the trolling bit, since it's not true, and a violation of WP:CIVIL. Comment on the content, not the contributor Anyhow, I do realize list can be kept per Not Dir within articles if certain conditions are met. It's not met here, in fact, this isn't an article, but rather a definition of WP:NOT DIR #1:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).

That said, if you really want it kept, feel free to change the policy, otherwise, there's only one way this could possibly close, and that's per the policy WP:NOTDIR KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 16:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your deletion review request. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it's helpful to delete large sections of an article that's still being discussed for AfD. Maybe gross violations of BLP would have to be dealt with swiftly. But not here. But you didn't answer my question. And why do you think this list of quotes is "loosely associated"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holy enduring cultural remnants of ephemeral TV shows first aired almost half a century ago, Batman, people are still using this as a snowclone. One does not simply delete a meme that preexisted The Selfish Gene by ten years into Mordor, etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many above. Also, once again, would people please stop trying to redefine the word "indiscriminate" to mean "trivia". An indiscriminate list would be something like: green, Jupiter, the number 5, and Chicago. - jc37 21:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current title is nowhere close to specific enough. I would expect this title to be a list of things like "tweet", "cheerily carol", and fluting and warbling. If we keep it, a title such as "List of exclamations by Robin (comics)" would be substatially better. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Basis for deletion not established. Does appear to be properly sourced, and is at least somewhat notable. The nomination appears to be reflect antagonism between two editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beats Electronics#Personal Audio. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beats Pill (portable speaker)[edit]

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

Not notable enough on its own. Recommend deletion and merge content into Beats Electronics. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I originally proposed deletion, and then restored this discussion (which was first created by accident) after the article's creator removed the PROD. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beats Electronics#Personal Audio Article reads as an WP:ADVERT completely with the video appearance mentions and convenient 'references' blatantly links to purchase the product. Nate • (chatter) 21:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per Nate. Nothing really worth saving in the article itself. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tender shepherd[edit]

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

Non-notable future film. Can't find any sources about it. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or userfy to its creator per WP:NFF as being TOOSOON. Only allow back to mainspace "IF" this thing begins filming late next month and only "IF" it then gets the requisite coverage. Until then, and per policy, any sourcable information can be included at Dan Schneider. No sources, no inclusion. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a spin-off from Sam & Cat? The article seems to suggest it is, and if so, could merge/redirect there, but there seems a total lack of reliable sources. Certainly is not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the article somewhat, but was still unable to find out if this is a spin-off or a planned film to be included as part of that series. My conclusion is that in either case, it fails WP:NFF and is at best simply TOO SOON. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 23:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NF. Non-notable upcoming film. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Sounds like a merge might be in order, but that's an editorial decision. -- Y not? 05:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in early Christianity[edit]

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

This article is a content fork from Christianity and anti-Semitism and covers same material located at Anti-Judaism. Comments on the Christianity WikiProject noticeboard indicate the article is fraught with original research and was tagged as OR soon after creation. ColonelHenry (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Antisemitism in early Christianity is a very different topic than Antisemitism in other periods, with its own controversies and sets of cultural assumptions. I don't believe it is a mere content fork. I also don't see OR as a major problem in the article, though we should always be vigilant against OR. It's easy to imagine that the controversial nature of the topic will sway some editors to vote "keep" or "delete" at least in part in an attempt to over- or under-emphasize the importance of antisemitism in early Christianity, but when you simply look at the application of policy, this doesn't look like a content fork to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it was tagged as WP:OR for 6 years. Once I removed all the un-referenced WP:OR,[11] there were 7 basically off-topic references that fit better into other existing articles (e.g. anti-Semitism and the New Testament). The idea that anti-Semitism (as opposed to anti-Judaism) existed prior to roughly the 13th century is a minority view. I'm all for keeping minority views off in their own articles but some editor has to at least go through the effort to find even one radical scholar somewhere in support of the basic thesis of such an article. It's been 6 years, and no one has yet bothered to do that. Even the external reading list is suspect. Three Popes and the Jews, as one I picked at random, is about 3 Popes who lived in the 20th century! Editors can't just throw a bunch of random claptrap on Wikipedia and hope that it sticks. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a POV or content fork, but rather a valid spin-off on a particular historical period. I don't see any obvious OR, and the sourcing looks solid. Article MAY have been tagged as OR at some point in the past, but there is no evidence of a problem at present. I see no article talk page activity for almost a year. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the original research. The problem is, afterwards, there was no there there. The remaining research is only vaguely relevant to the topic at hand. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a POV or content fork, notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Fix per WP:SUMMARY. This must be seen as a spin-off article of Anti-Semitism and Christianity, but it's not done the right way. The spin-off article is supposed to be the more detailed one, and the main article shall include a summary of the spin-off. Here it's the opposite: The main article covers anti-Semitism in the early period and in the NT far more extensively than the spin-off, which is very light-weight and has very little historical facts; in addition to being very short, about half of it is made up of opinions of scholars about how anti-Semitism then relates to current days anti-Semitism. I have nothing in principle against a spin-off article for early Christianity if there is consensus that the main article is getting to long, but than it must be a real spin-off, adequately synchronized with the main article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Iselilja that this reverses the spin-off with Antisemitism in early Christianity being the summary of a section of Christianity and anti-Semitism. It appears that Antisemitism in early Christianity is a fork of the early Christianity section of Christianity and anti-Semitism. But the section in Christianity and anti-Semitism isn't adequately sourced and is also problematic. One would hoped that the early Christianity section of the original article would be improved and expanded before editors felt the need to move it to an article of its own. By the way, Anti-Judaism has the best referenced material on the same topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and merge info from the relevant sections of Christianity and anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism here. Ansh6 6 6 06:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue. The topic of this article should clearly be covered in Wikipedia, so this is a question of how to organise our coverage. That's something that should be discussed on article and wikiproject (I hate all these wiki- prefixed words, but I suppose we're stuck with them) talk pages rather than by considering one article for deletion in isolation. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, per WP:HOAX, should a topic which can't be reliably sourced be covered in Wikipedia? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:HOAX is the thing you were looking for here... Ansh6 6 6 17:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - The article in its current state isn't much. Having said that, from what I can see, this topic on its own seems to meet basic notability guidelines. I agree it should more or less probably be a spin-out of Antisemitism and Christianity, and that there should be a bit more effort to coordinate those articles. I am still (it's been months now, I admit that) in the process of getting together lists of articles and sub-articles in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is 10,000 or so pages long, has a really sickening number of article subdivisions in some cases, several articles included in one edition not included in the other, both ways, and other difficulties in getting it together, but I think/hope/pray/irrationally optimisticly believe that it may be finished in the next week or month or so, and that we can hopefully should be able to do a better job on a lot of these articles at that time. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this albeit shortish article (as it stands now, but will hopefully be improved soon) that, reflecting a core WP:CONSENSUS of a WP:NOTABLE topic is that it has been around for six years now [12] (WP must take the length of its own existence seriously!) and it does WP:CITE a few good WP:RS. This is serious topic in and of itself that deserves at "worst" a Template ((Expand)). IZAK (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing reliable sources is very easy to do. I could cite an article from Time Magazine about nuclear power on an article about those Alien bats living on the moon. And, hey, gee, you can't delete that article now: it has a WP:Citation from a WP:Reliable source! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - the topic is a the subject of much serious academic debate among theologians and historians. It is a very controversial topic. Contrary to the rationale given in the proposed deletion that preceded this AFD, it is not necessary for a Wikipedia article to "prove it's thesis". It is sufficient to demonstrate that the thesis is a notable topic among academic and/or professional circles. There is no doubt that this is true for this topic. The article needs expansion and better sourcing. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing, such as it is,[13] does not support the topic of the article. The first source is about a tax created by pagan Rome. The second source is about a modern interpretation of the New Testament, for which we already have an article. The third source is to an obituary of an academic who died recently, whose opinion in the fourth source is, again, on the topic of anti-Semitism and the New Testament. The fifth source is to that same author's opinion regarding the need for Christian repentance about the 20th century Holocaust. The sixth is more or less talking about anti-Judaism. The seventh and final source is about how to translate a certain word from ancient Greek. It's all sound and thunder signifying nothing. If, as per the above "the topic is a the subject of much serious academic debate among theologians and historians" then why, after all these years, has there not been a single relevant source brought to bear on the article? And, now even after days of this deletion discussion, why hasn't anyone above who has voted "Keep" been able to muster a single relevant source? I'd strongly suggest the answer is that WP:HOAX is fully in play. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for me, it's because I'm advocating merging other sections that are better-sourced into this article. Ansh6 6 6 21:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - N.B. I would have no problem with the re-creation of this article at a future date if an editor could pull together real sourcing. I would gladly change my vote should someone rescue the article from its continual state of non-repair. Normally, I'm that guy in most AFD discussions, but as I mentioned above, I agree with mainstream scholarship, and believe that claiming Christianity was poisoned by anti-Semitism from day one is anachronistic. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic is irredeemably POV and SYN. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start again -- This is essentially reporting the view of a few modern writers. The subject is much more fully and better dealt with in Christianity and anti-Semitism. An article with the presetn title might well be useful, but this is not it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Just read the article in its entirety and I can't see how it's content is actually on topic at all Jasonfward (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back, or delete - the consensus has become very anti-FORK lately. 17:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. It's rather hard to find an exact criterion to cite, but the article's content simply doesn't reflect the subject, and claims of "antisemitism" are drawn by the article from a variety of sources, none of which really mention "antisemitism in early Christianity" as an explicit topic. I guess maybe WP:original synthesis works? At any rate, the content's not enyclopedic. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm the creator of this article and I've already !voted above to Keep the article. However, I thought a short explanation might be helpful to help the closing admin and other editors understand how we got to the current situation. This topic is very controversial and some editors have argued that it should be deleted because the "case is not proven". IMO, Wikipedia is not about reporting what the truth is but about reporting what other reliable sources assert may be the truth. Thus, if this is an important topic of academic scholarship and debate (which it is), then it should be kept. Originally, this article was intended to be a spin-off detailed article from the main article Christianity and anti-Semitism to allow for a lengthier treatment per WP:SUMMARY. Over time, the article has been eviscerated to the point where there is more information in the main article than there is in this article. So, of course, it looks like this article should be deleted or merged back into the parent. I disagree with this recommendation. This article should start with the relevant content in Antisemitism and Christianity (much of which is currently weakly sourced) and then expand it with better sources and more detail. I would like to do this but I haven't the time at the moment. So... I think the proper resolution is "Keep but expand and improve sourcing". If the decision is to "Delete", I would ask the closing admin to add a closing comment that leaves open the possibility for re-creation of an article under the same title but with encyclopedic content. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If consensus is to delete, you can ask for WP:Userfication as well. Ansh6 6 6 21:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But edit and update thoroughly. This is a very important aspect of antisemitism that must be addressed- deleting this article (without replacing it) would be whitewashing much of early antisemitism. This article should include many more specific details, but be kept overall. 98.216.189.103 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Adam Druit[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Trump (card game)[edit]

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

Surely there must be a CSD cat for WP:ONEDAY? Ignatz mice•talk 04:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Super Trump was created by high school students Ameet Kallarackal and James Zhong during the summer of 2013-- that about says it all. In response to the nominator, I wish. There is always WP:IAR, and with sufficient participation, WP:SNOW that can bring this AfD to a quick end. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adding my flake to the likely snowstorm: no references, no notability. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding any coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:V and WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and completely lacking notability. A genuine and pure case of Wikipedia is not for things that you and your friends made up one day. Perhaps snow will fall in August. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Ansh6 6 6 03:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete, no notability, likely made up. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wynton Rufer. Since the edit history still exists, anyone is free merge however much they'd like to at any point, so long as they indicate as much in their edit summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Rufer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no FPL or international appearances, the fact that his father is a famous footballer does not infer notability. Fenix down (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2013 (UT
Merge and redirect to his father Wynton_Rufer, which is where the notaibility lies. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above - NealeFamily (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - similar to the Brooklyn Beckham situation. Giant Snowman 08:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kwabena Boahene[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, has not played in FPL. Fenix down (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choobleh[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not for random slang words made up by soccer fans to refer to other teams. Mesoderm (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable neologism. Can this not be CSD'd on the grounds that there is no context in the article as to what the word means, why it is applied to a specific club. The article barely makes any sense as it is. Fenix down (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable term, not even worth putting in a dictionary. Giant Snowman 08:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Giant. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lee (athlete)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for track-and-field athletes nor can I find evidence of coverage that fulfills the general notability guideline after a search through news sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable athlete. Tassedethe (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for track athletes or WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NTRACK at this time. Gong show 21:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ōhama Domain[edit]

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

This article has no specific verifying support other than a link to ja:大浜藩 which cites only 二木謙一監修・工藤寛正編「国別藩と城下町の事典」東京堂出版、2004年9月20日発行(351ページ). A review of Nihon jinmei daijiten here is unhelpful. A quick search of Google books produces no information. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Enkyo2 (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Enkyo2 (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are ref. in ja. See the middle of the page, [14], [15], and [16]. Oda Mari (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in Japanese Wikipedia, 国史大辞典 and other Japanese-language sources as indicated above. There's no reason that Nihon Jinmei Daijiten would be expected to be helpful here; "Jinmei" means "name of a person"... This is a place. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readding to log. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Xbox One. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Orth Twitter incident[edit]

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

Trivial Twitter 'controversy'. Yes, it led to a resignation, but Adam Orth is not actually a notable person. Virtually all the coverage of him is to do with this incident, which was over a brief period, by mostly unreliable sources, with little evidence of enduring notability. Keeping this article raises issues with WP:BLP1E (even though it technically isn't a biography). It could be merged into Xbox One, but I think we'd be best off just deleting it. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete - He got fired for his comments on social media - a pretty common occurrence these days. It can be covered in far briefer terms on ~~his~~ the Xbox One article, though this probably isn't really that great of a search term as a redirect... Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xbox One Clearly lacks standalone notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Xbox One Generally WP does not have articles on incidents by WP:Not news. The topic here is the Xbox One. Mr. Orth does not seem to be notable yet, at least no article here. If he keeps going and one is written the material should be added there too. Borock (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable executive shot off his mouth on Twitter and had to resign. As Gertrude Stein said, "There's no 'there' there". And there is nothing here worth merging.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xbox One - a curious incident which falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, but is quite notable (not WP:N notable, just normal notable) in the development/unveiling of Microsoft's new console. Ansh6 6 6 03:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A guy shot off his mouth on Twitter and then resigned. A simple screw up. Please explain how discussing that improves encyclopedic coverage of a new game console? It is a Biographies of living persons violation, not anything appropriate for the Xbox One article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "simple screw up" was covered for weeks in major news sources and on the web, both on its own and in relation to the (then unrevealed) Xbox One and its competition with Sony's PS4. If we stick to reliable sources, it won't be a BLP violation. Ansh6 6 6 03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Covered for weeks? All the substantive coverage was within days of the comments and resignation. We've got one sentence a couple months later, plus an announcement that the guy has been scheduled to speak at a non-notable industry event. That blurb recounts the April events for context, but adds nothing new. Please read WP:BLP, which is policy. The fact that trivialities reflecting poorly on someone are reported in reliable sources does not justify their inclusion in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I guess not in major news sources, but I know people were talking about it long after, and the fact that it was remembered after a few months is more or less enough of an impact in the video game scene. Also, WP:BLP actually says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." WP:BLP does not prevent us from adding negative comments about a person, so long as it's not in bad taste. Ansh6 6 6 04:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "People were talking"? Which people? Certainly not me. And certainly you know that people talk about all kinds of irrelevant crap that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Certainly, there have been hundreds of articles published in reliable sources since April devoting significant coverage to the development of the Xbox One. Do those articles discuss Adam Orth's resignation as a milestone in the history of the development of this game console? If not, it is original research, synthesis and undue weight for Wikipedia editors to insert any such trivial, irrelevant and defamatory crap into this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, well, to be honest, I wasn't expecting an article on this to ever be here. It was a splashy WP:NOTNEWS story, but I personally think it's worth a mention in the Xbox article. If you disagree, sure, but 3 and a half others agree with me. I won't discuss this further. Let's see where this goes. Ansh6 6 6 06:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I certainly understand both sides here. I'm more under the opinion that its worth like a sentence or two in the history section, as part of the early issues regarding the systems initially oppressive DRM set up. It doesn't even deserve a subsection or anything; its a very miniscule event in the scheme of things. But that can be worked out on the xboxone article talk page... Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (further addition that I forgot to save) Besides, have you seen how huge the section about this in Xbox One#Reception is? There is no WP:UNDUE concern here, as a sentence or two about this is about all we need. Ansh6 6 6 18:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as 1/2 sentence content to Xbox One. Not otherwise notable and would be given undue attention otherwise. As mentioned above, a common appearance, in this case covered a lot by media, but still WP:1EVENT. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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