< 19 December	21 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 01:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Security and Cooperation in Space[edit]

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

All current sources are non-reliable, either blogs or fringe conspiracy sites. Unable to find any substantive coverage in reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear in independent reliable sources. I don't see any mentions in the mainstream media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, organization is totally unreferenced in RS. DocumentError (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with the above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:47, 25 December 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 delete. NW (Talk) 21:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street Season 1[edit]

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

This article is practically empty. There are just numbers of episodes, but no reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as routine housekeeping — an abandoned start. No prejudice against recreation if somebody wants to take the topic on — I'm sure it can be achieved within notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what about List of Sesame Street Episodes and Sesame Street Season 2, which are pretty similar shape? Chris857 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the content is in List of Sesame Street Episodes (which should have the capitalization fixed) already. When somebody gets around to filling in the details, it can always be split off. Keep the parent list, as it does have some actual information. What is there is fake or useless. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Clarityfiend: List of Sesame Street Episodes has no content; it just transcludes the useless numbers and made-up DVD info and fake box image from the season "articles". postdlf (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite and WP:TNT, and judging from the fake DVD season information and the "DVD Cover" the creator also uploaded (currently nominated for deletion at Commons) I have a hard time believing this was attempted in good faith anyway. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. There is a parallel nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sesame Street Season 2, and if/once the articles are deleted List of Sesame Street Episodes can be speedied. Ansh6 6 6 02:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what do y'all think about a G3 (obvious hoax) for these two and then a G8 for the "list of"? Ansh6 6 6 08:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also same rationale for:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Courcelles 08:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relational Interpretation Competitive Evaluation (RICE) Theory[edit]

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

Article whose central topic seems to be the work of two researchers and is sourced exclusively to their own work. I cannot find papers or books that could ascertain that this is a notable or established concept. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like yet another essay. Looks like something that should have been sent to a peer reviewed journal? Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. Dlohcierekim 08:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal Dlohcierekim 08:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "not a scientific journal" - this is true, but if this theory has been published and cited in enough places that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then writing an article that explains the topic is not a problem. Many articles on graduate-level mathematical topics exist and, because the topics are notable, they stand even though they are written like a scientific journal article might be written. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the idea is not supported elsewhere. Dlohcierekim 05:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any evidence of WP:Notability in the article and lack of evidence when I did a Google web search of "Relational Interpretation Competitive Evaluation". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject may be too esoteric that it does not meet our notability guidelines. It may be a real theory but very hard to substantiate in our requirements. Mkdw ^talk 01:22, 28 December 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 List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon#Animated_2. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 06:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breadwinners (TV series)[edit]

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

The topic of the article lacks WP:Notability. The Google Search gives only one hit [1] and that is from Google+ (unreliable source). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 03:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon#Animated_2 with history. So far all I can find is that a 20 episode season has been ordered by Nickelodeon. It's confirmed in enough sources to where I could say that we could redirect to Nickeolodeon's programming page, where they list upcoming shows in production. If it falls through and the show isn't going to be made (which is always a possibility), we can always remove it and then delete the redirect. There's enough to where a redirect would be feasible, but not enough to where we can justify an article at this point in time. I've cleaned it up so that when/if the show does get more coverage, we'll have a clean copy to start from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon#Animated_2: Thank you, Tokyogirl79, for finding the Indie Wire and Deadline sources. This show can have its own article again, once it premieres (or at least once a premiere date is announced), but for now, a redirect should suffice. If the show winds up getting dropped by Nick before it gets the chance to air though, rather than removing any mention of it from List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, I would prefer that a new section be added to that article, which could cover all of the shows that had been planned by the network, but ultimately were not produced (assuming that info can be found about others, that is). --Jpcase (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon#Animated_2 per Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 09:35, 22 December 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raees (film)[edit]

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

Delete per being TOO SOON and, while being covered in sources, does not have the persistent and enduring coverage to merit being an exception ro WP:NFF paragraph 3. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Principal photography not started, so the article fails WP:NFF. Iy also duplicate of article Raees Movie 2015. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. I've tagged it as a speedy deletion as a copy of the other article. I've cleaned the article up and I've moved the info to the other article since technically it's an earlier copy. Even so, this is just too soon for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That speedy was declined (see article's edit summary). And note: per WP:NCF, THIS ONE's title is the proper title format. As nominator, I would be fine with this being userfied to its author. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 21 December 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. Courcelles 08:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish management[edit]

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

Lacks a a notable, cohesive topic. The article seems to be loosely supported by a few books on the subject of management, but there is no evidence that subject of "Spanish management" is at all notable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 21:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article appears to fail WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Seems to be an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage and Wikipedia is not a repository of essays. Mkdw ^talk 01:34, 28 December 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 delete per WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G10, WP:CSD#G12. Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youths against Settlements[edit]

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

Probably not notable. m'encarta (t) 21:29, 20 December 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 delete per WP:A10 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raees Movie 2015[edit]

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

As the article itself says, principal photography not yet commenced, so the article obviously fails WP:NFF. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as premature per the notability guidelines for future films. Also, Raees (film) already exists and should be deleted per the same rationale, as I stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fan (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 21:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON and, while being covered in sources, does not have the persistant and enduring coverage to merit being an exception ro WP:NFF paragraph 3. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just too soon for an entry. I have no problem with userfication, if anyone wants to go that route. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 21 December 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Mountain Community[edit]

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

No evidence at all that this one store would be notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: While I can't find any objective coverage of OMC as I would for say Nike, OMC is mentioned by every climbing book as a quality local resource. Just look at the "books" search above. Does that qualify as notability? —EncMstr (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For what it's worth, I have been a climber for over 35 years, so have visited lots of stores selling mountaineering gear and read lots of books on the subject. They are listed in quite a few books, but those I've found are one sentence or one paragraph directory listings. This is not significant coverage. There are similar locally beloved stores in every city or big town near major climbing destinations. Most are wonderful businesses, but with some exceptions, very few are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, that's what I thought too. I remember a cool store like that in Asheville. Cullen, one day you and I are going to Yosemite, and Mrs. Cullen will make sandwiches for us. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any time, Drmies, any time. And ChesPal (Mrs. Cullen), will make something much more substantial and memorable than sandwiches. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now - This is the only substantive article I could find, and its not that much. Nothing more than trivial mentions in the Oregonian's archives going back 30 years (I stop at that point as the historical one includes the ads, so there were a lot of hits due to ads). But, there might be coverage in trade magazines for outdoor/climbing equipment, but I'm not familiar enough with that industry to know where to look. I've heard of the place, maybe even been in there, but there is not much local media coverage. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's totally run-of-the-mill coverage by a local business magazine about a local business moving to a new location, probably the result of a press release. If that kind of coverage makes a business notable, then pretty much every small business in the country is notable. I don't think so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I'm going to go with a durrrrrrrrr! Did I say Keep? Nope. Did I say that news article made the article under discussion notable? Nope. Get the gist? Now, did I say "its not that much"? Yep, sure did. So not to get too snippy here, but you basically just commented to hear yourself think, as you added nothing. Anyone with half a brain could look at the article and see there was no byline, take into account how most news gets reported, and know it was a press release. So, in a nutshell, thanks for nothing. But hey, let's keep this side discussion thread going, maybe you can enlighten me with more things I've said or implied. Maybe you can move me from my keep vote that I didn't make? Aboutmovies (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's quite an overreaction, Aboutmovies. Try not to escalate like that in the future. rspεεr (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "I don't think so." Aboutmovies (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Uninvolved editors can decide on their own which editor got all "snippy" and emotional above, and which one didn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I already said I got snippy, which you know, so no need for an uninvolved editor to decide. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        When they read this discussion, they will decide, based entirely on the relative merits of what has been said above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a non-notable retailer from a quick perusal of the Google machine. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can accept bizjournal as a reliable source with substantial information, but that is the only one I can find (OK, I didn't find it, Aboutmovies did), so it fails GNG and CORP by not having multiple independent, reliable, substantial sources. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, and I certainly do not accept any of the large number of local bizjournals as a reliable source for anything except routine facts, and certainly not as a discriminating RS for notability . They publish press releases and trivial local news items, and apparently will publish about any local business. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 27 December 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. A redirect is an editorial choice at this point forward as I will not supervote it in considering the lack of consensus regarding anything except a delete at this point in time. Mkdw ^talk 01:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon episodes (2014)[edit]

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

While it is confirmed that Jimmy Fallon will take over as the host of The Tonight Show early next year, I think that this article is too premature have online at this time. A case of WP:TOOSOON. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is obvious and should've just been redirected. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a reason we don't have List of human settlements on Mars and Forbes list of trillionaires. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of these List of talk show episodes articles always end up deleted because a daily talk show just doesn't work well at all as an article. It's information only of interest to a select few, and yes, way too soon. Nate • (chatter) 21:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I closed this as the article had been redirected by its creator (and as Taylor also suggested), but the closure and obvious redirect were reverted by the nominator. Ansh6 6 6 21:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The non-admin closure was inappropriate and the decision to redirect the article was a unilateral decision that ignored the growing consensus of this discussion. I would ask both the article's creator and the would-be closer to please respect the views of their peers and allow this discussion to run its full course. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk for reply. Ansh6 6 6 21:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would request that this AfD be closed by an admin. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The snow here is quite deep. No one is contesting deleting the "article" (really just a bunch of formatting) and no one is contesting a redirect (not a tremendously useful one, of course, but no damage whatsoever in having it). I cannot begin to imagine what we hope to accomplish here by discussing this further. The horse is quite dead and all indications are that our continued whipping of it is merely deification of process. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:13, 23 December 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. Courcelles 08:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth or Dare (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable, not-charting single - fails WP:NMUSIC ES &L 17:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only not charting, wasn't even released as a chart single in the end. Just planned for one. Possibly merge with the album? Neonchameleon (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Neonchameleon. Would have been a WP:CSD#A9 if it weren't sung by an articled singer.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 20 December 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. Sandstein 09:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S/V Rembrandt van Rijn[edit]

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

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

PROD removed by article creator. However, these boats are relatively small and I just don't see a reason that they're notable. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at first glance I find a lot of references to this subject in a google search. However, upon investigation I find that most are basic statistic pages and/or promotional in nature for chartering the craft. With that, I read the article as it is written and it seems to be so much more promotional in nature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of free advertising. Therefore, I believe the article should be removed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Google searching is not the be-all and end-all of sourcing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most is not all, as I've shown. WP:SHIPS/R has many useful sources for ship related searches. Mjroots (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google isn't the be-all and end-all of sourcing. It is, however, all that is necessary under wp:BEFORE - and to say that because they didn't go through every single check possible or through every book listed on the WP:SHIPS/R page is to IMO not stick to wp:AGF. And it's to massively extend wp:BEFORE in ways that aren't justified by the policy itself. Neonchameleon (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

`:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two ships as part of a fleet, no notability for either that I see. Neonchameleon (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. What does being part of a fleet hav eto be with anything?- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two minutes search reveals that Rembrandt van Rijn was built in 1924 and has been lengthened twice. The ship is easily in excess of the 100'/100t threshold at which it is held that ships should be capable of sustaining an article subject to being able to meet WP:GNG. It seems to me that it is likely that this article can be bashed into shape. Was WP:BEFORE followed? Article needs improvement but that is not a reason to delete it. Creator would appear to be relatively inexperienced and not a native English speaker. I'll have a bash at improving the article tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the article should be deleted because it simply needs improvement. I believe it should be deleted because it violates WP:ADV which can be a valid reason for deletion. But if it gets fixed and turns out to be notable, then I'd change my position. But not before.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've made a start. Got a family gathering this afternoon so will work on it later if not too tipsy! Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE and apparently of WP:NOTCLEANUP. In addition to the information mentioned by Mjroots, the first ship is written up in Chapman Great Sailing Ships of the World, and given its age it is clearly a case where there are additional offline sources, that, it should be reminded, need only exist per WP:V. On the second, I point to the No.wiki page on the vessel, which indicates it has, in fact, had quite a career... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting sources you seem to think should have been in wp:BEFORE to prevent it being nominated for deletion. The Dutch Wikipedia is pure advocacy, has no references at all and provides two links - both of them appear to be owned by the owners of the ship. If I knew the Dutch I'd probably PROD that page for being quite so blatant. It also resorts to padding out the page with things such as the meal schedule, and saying it has had "quite a career" isn't how I read that page. The Charterworld source is not remotely independent. The Chapman source would appear to consist solely of vital statistics and a picture (and doesn't show up in the relevant Google Books search). Mjroots mentioned a 100ft/100 ton threshold - which doesn't appear anywhere I can see in wp:GNG or wp:SHIP - the latter should probably be amended for that. Now I agree with you about wp:NOTCLEANUP here - and Mjroots appears to be fixing the article (it's already almost unrecognisable - and wouldn't appear to need much more to meet wp:HEY). Neonchameleon (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment the recent changes fail to even assert notability. Why is it notable? Gotta be more to it than "it's a big boat", right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Good point. On looking closer the Rembrandt van Rijn re-write appears to be an attempt to save the articles from deletion using wp:BOMBARD. Of the nine sources currently listed five are entries on Lloyds Register of Shipping, and a further three are referring to nothing more notable than the number the ship holds and that it has remained unchanged. The ninth, the pdf, is a simple listing saying who has owned it and when it's been converted - and nothing that amounts to non-trivial coverage so far as I can tell (a quick google finds Photomaasluis to be a photographer). What has either ship done that's notable Neonchameleon (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - All nine sources are independant of the subject. Shipping registers easily meet WP:RS. As far as I can tell, Photomaassluis is a WP:SPS, but would appear to also be reliable - data given there is borne out by RSs. I resent the accusation of BOMBARD; from my reading of that, it means just piling on references to existing text, not expanding the article from new sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Reliability is one thing. I'm confident the boat exists and I have no reason to doubt the measurements and specific details. What makes it notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Commment The question isn't about whether the shipping registers are reliable. Shipping registers tell you that boats exist. Not something that is in dispute. You could have done that with a single reference. What you have failed to do is show why the ship is notable. Yes, you have independent sources to show that you have a 100 foot long sailing vessel that goes places. But you have failed to answer why that is notable. Or to show anything more in depth than the depth of the ship herself. And it's not notable for a ship to end up in Lloyds Register, to be photographed, or to have a number. It's the lede that's entirely lacking in substance. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There's a big tag at the top of the article that says it is under construction. The lede will be attended to in due course. What makes any vessel notable? For the big ocean liners it's easy to answer. For cargo ships, particularly the smaller ones, it's not so easy. However, some of them have had varied and interesting careers. It's only by researching their history and telling their story that we can show that these vessels are notable enough to have articles, iff they can meet GNG. You say I've not done enough yet to make you change your mind. Fair enough, but there's more to come. After all is said and done, it's one person, one !vote and the closer will weigh up the arguments for and against deletion when closing. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability - I know of a few ships that have been lengthened, and fewer that have been shortened. This ship has been lengthened three times. The change of IMO Number is also a rarity. I don't know of any other ships that have had a change of IMO number (which doesn't necessarily mean that this is a unique event). Both of these facts added together must give weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Rarity does not equal notability. (C'mon, man, gimmie a crumb... seriously, I like to keep stuff).--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done what I can. WP:SHIPS have been notified of this AfD. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY and WP:GNG, which I think I've demonstrated by now. I've put the bare bones of the history of the ship in, and will look to expand the article further from other sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not changing my mind - The article has been fleshed out all right - with trivial details that barely pass the significance test (such as listing when engine rework was done), supported by sources that don't provide any notability - Lloyd's and most other sources for the article list data on every ship ever made, and therefore can never indicate notability about a ship, and no sources given do. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Neither ship is small, actually they are quite large for sailing vessels. Noorderlicht is a former naval ship of Germany and thus notable as per WP:MILUNIT. Rembrandt van Rijn is notable as one of the last veteran sailing ships still working. I can't find that the fact that these ships are operated by a cruise line featured disproportionally in the articles. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mjroots. Manxruler (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after all the changes, I still see no measure of notability achieved. What's so special about this particular boat/ship/sailing vessel?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name another ship that has - Had four different engines, been lengthened three times and had two IMO Numbers? Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. I know very little about ships. Are you saying that this ship is notable because it's a clunker that keeps needing repair? It may be unique. What makes it notable?--Paul McDonald (talk)
Keep both: Each vessel is a historic ship (in one case over a century old, having served in the German navy), and active as a passenger vessel in the expedition cruise market. Those interested in expedition cruise market and historic sailing vessels would expect to find these ships in WP. Some of the above discussion is more appropriate to a general re-discussion of the assessment of notability for ships; if that is necessary it is perhaps more appropriate for the talk page of WikiProject Ships or elsewhere.Davidships (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least Noorderlicht. In addition to being a former Imperial German Navy ship and everything, Noorderlicht has become a kind of a local feature in Svalbard during the main tourist season. People know it, they talk about it and go to see it from Longyearbyen. At least locally, it is thus in my eyes notable. About the other article, I have no opinion, but seems okay to me. However, I'm against using slash (/) in the article titles. Perhaps we could drop the prefix and use a parenthesis if disambiguation is needed? Tupsumato (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep S/V Noorderlicht as a former military vessel, no strong opinion on S/V Rembrandt van Rijn but leaning toward keep. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:33, 28 December 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. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lanka national rugby union team results[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for listing every single result of sporting teams. Espnscrum.com does that. What's more the Sri Lanka national rugby union team is a very low ranked team that is not top tier. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see the logic behind this nomination, there are hundreds of repository related lists in Wikipedia, with subjects of less significance than Sri Lankan national rugby union team results. See: Category:Cricket-related lists, Category:Rugby union-related lists, Category:Association football-related lists. Furthermore there already exists many related national rugby union team results articles... (Category:Lists of national rugby union team results), the same goes for football. In addition to List of Germany national rugby union team results, which has the same status as Sri Lanka in rugby. Moreover Sri Lanka has one of the oldest rugby unions in the world with a significant history and one of the largest playing populations in the world, even more so than many tier 1+2 nations. This article is much more detailed than Espnscrum.com or any other website with similar content. Though Sri Lanka might be relatively low ranked compared to the tier 1 teams it is one of the higher teams in Asia, with rugby being a highly notable and followed sport in the country, in some cases just as much as other notable sports in the county, as well as Sri Lankan rugby becoming more and more notable among the IRB. It seems to me you are purely basing this deletion on ranking and status in relation to other more notable rugby countries without considering any context, quite suspicious that if you are against repository articles why is it that you have only flagged this article for deletion, when there are much more and much less significant articles out there?--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a point and asking the question as to why you've singled out this article if you are so against repository articles? Also you have completely ignored the notability of the sport in the country, and the country's contribution to Asian rugby.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk about the country's contibution in Sri Lanka national rugby union team. I will nominate others as well. LibStar (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't find any policy that forbids or discourages such lists. The fact that the information in the lists is already available somewhere else outside Wikipedia is not a hinderance. If it wasn't, the list would be original research after all, and that is not allowed. As to the notability of the results of the Sri Lanka national rugby union that would depend more on the coverage the team gets in local media then it's current international performance. I can't make a judgement on that but editors from Sri Lanka may be able to. Wikipedia:Notability doesn't say that more famous sports teams are more notable then less famous ones. Calistemon (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why did then the Sydney Grammar old boys rugby club article recently get deleted? It is less famous. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article was deleted because it failed WP:GNG (I voted delete), not because of anything to do with a lack of fame. -- Shudde ^talk 08:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Calistemon and Blackknight. No reason for non-notability given other than the information can be found elsewhere (like everything on wikipedia), and that the team aren't tier 1 (a term no longer used btw). Rugby union is a very popular and high profile sport in Sri Lanka despite their lack of success. This list is notable. Poorly rationalised nom. -- Shudde ^talk 22:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy cited as a reason for deletion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
commentI refer all keep voters to WP:NSEASONS. whilst major team season articles may be notable, this guideline clearly states WP is not a stats directory. These articles clearly are just stats directory. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTAVOTE. But from WP:NSEASONS: "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article." Obviously an individual year isn't going to be notable for an individual article but an international sports team clearly would have enough sources to justify an article, thus there would be sufficient coverage of all of their results for there to warrant an article on them. 11:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  - Yeah I don't see how NSEASONS applies here. How can individual seasons possibly be more notable than say List of Australia national rugby union team test match results (which LibStar also put up for deletion). This makes no sense to me. -- Shudde ^talk 08:05, 26 December 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. Courcelles 08:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uzgörü[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Uzgörü

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

It's translated from something at tr:wp, and Rapsar, active over there, has told me that the source article has been nominated for deletion (by him) basically on the same grounds. Our article has been tagged for nonnotability since early 2008, and no independent sources are presented. I greatly doubt that sources exist: this newspaper is produced by a student group at a Turkish university. A major university's main student newspaper can often be notable (example), but the newspaper of a small student group would require extraordinary sources for the highly unlikely claim that it's notable. I've not searched for reliable sources due to the language barrier, but since the Turkish-speaking people think sources don't exist, I don't see why we should disagree with them. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The publication of a student chapter of the IEEE. The chapter itself would likely not pass for individual notability; surely its publication does not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Foresight" in Turkish isn't easy to search for - but I'm getting nothing. And the Turkish wiki page only has two links (the chapter of the IEEE and the magazine itself) Neonchameleon (talk) 19:42, 20 December 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jaroniec[edit]

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

Non-notable associate professor who does not appear to meet WP:GNG or even a single criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. No assertion of notability even exists in the article; I nearly deleted it under WP:CSD#A7 but chose WP:PROD instead. Author declined WP:PROD and has claimed on my talk page that "awards and peer-reviewed articles" (none independently cited) make him notable. Frank | talk 14:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep String of awards and citations to his work establish notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the awards seem to be anything that would be covered by WP:ACADEMIC. An NSF fellow is basically a postdoc position, not an award and not a fellow of some prestigious society. The same goes for most other awards, which are bascially all just minor awards or grants (the one from the Alzheimer's Association, for example). However, he has a GS h-index of 27 and over 3000 citations on GS. As usual, these figures are a bit lower on the Web of Science (25 and 2500), but in both cases this is a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reasoned note, but...can you show where that criterion is met? It reads (in part): "...demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Sure - he's been cited, but...that's what academics do. That does not automatically translate to "independent reliable sources". Publishing a bajillion papers doesn't automatically translate to "significant impact". If he is actually notable, why does he not show up in any news hits whatsoever? That hardly seems to suggest "independent reliable sources". Frank | talk 00:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hundreds of scholars citing him are independent reliable sources. -- 101.119.14.244 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF C1: "the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work." A GS h-index of 27 is well over our usual notability threshold. -- 101.119.14.244 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Randy Kitty - the subject is highly cited and his research has a signifigant impact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:06, 25 December 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. only (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-occupied territories[edit]

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

The topic is already covered in the Georgian–Ossetian conflict and Georgian–Abkhazian conflict in addition to articles on Abkhazia and South Ossetia . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be a good idea to have an overview of these places and others (Transnistria comes to mind; I don't know of any others) in which the presence of Russian soldiers is related to the international dispute. However, the title and contents of the article are both pretty badly not in compliance with WP:NPOV. Time to delete it under WP:TNT and perhaps recreate it as a neutral article; we'll have to be careful to make it an encyclopedia article, unlike the current news ticker format. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

The topic isn't already covered in Georgian–Ossetian conflict and Georgian–Abkhazian conflict . Can one say that because there is already article about Israeli–Palestinian conflict then Israeli-occupied territories should be deleted? You should point out exactly which part of this articles are covered in the existing articles.

This article must stay because this if there is such article as Israeli-occupied territories while there are also this article International recognition of the State of Palestine, then why shouldn't there be article about international opinions on Russian military presence in parts of Caucasus that is considered by many as Russian Occupation?

The article is about Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's status as "Occupied Territories". There is an article about their recognition as independent states - International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia. This article covers quite a different aspect of international opinion on Abkhazia and South Ossetia than artidcle about International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia.

This new article extends already amassed knowledge about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If Wikipedia claims to be a neutral entity, then both opinions about Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which covers not only the their International Recognition as Independent States but also their Recognition as Occupied Territories should stay and be heard across the world. One should have the possibility to compare both point-of-views. The only entity that harshly denies Russia's presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be called as Occupation, is Russia. If anybody deletes this article, it may suggest that he/she is biased toward Russian point-of-view. By deleting this article Interested Persons may claim that only Georgia considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Occupied Territories which simply is the cover-up of obvious facts. Wikipedia should spread new uncovered facts, not try to bury them.

There are enough references in the article to verify the facts. I don't agree with previous editor that the article should be deleted, espexcially under WP:TNT.

There is also similar article about Georgian Law about Occupied Territories in another Wikipedia https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Закон_Грузии_«об_оккупированных_территориях» — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgagloev (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article fulfills all the criteria of WP:Notability. It offers significant coverage, is reliable and presumed and has verifiable sources. --Zgagloev (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence Other than the appeal to wp:OSE (and statements like "Wikipedia should spread new uncovered facts, not try to bury them." - which are verging on wp:Soapbox), I fail to see a point having that article alongside Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence and believe that the latter article is far, far better written, actually appearing to be an encyclopaedia. Neonchameleon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Propaganda piece. An inherently POV and too general title. The whole Siberia is "Russian-occupied territory", not to say about pieces of Belarus (undisputed) and disputed pieces of Baltic States (don't forget East Prussia). The authors are advised to move useful article content into the corresponding main articles. There may be articles kind of List of territorial disputes involving Russia and Russian military presence abroad or something. You are also free to translate ru:Закон_Грузии_«об_оккупированных_территориях» into english wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have searched wikipedia, you would have found out that there are articles of this kind you have suggested: Occupation of Gori, Kuril Islands dispute, Russian conquest of Siberia, Near abroad, List of Russian military bases abroad --Zgagloev (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet occupation zone is a POV fork of East Germany. Occupation of the Baltic states is a POV fork of Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR and Lithuanian SSR. Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina is a POV fork of Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. Japanese invasion of Manchuria is a POV fork of Manchukuo. Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union is a POV fork of Western Ukraine. --Zgagloev (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inherently POV fork, from the title downwards, of Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Prove that the article is POV fork, rather than a simple statement and description of verified facts. --Zgagloev (talk) 13:28, 28 December 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. Michig (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Alliance of the Sclaveni[edit]

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

Completely WP:OR and WP:FRINGE term. The Slavic migrations are historical, but an overarching political structure simply did not exist in any form. This is a pet project of the sockmaster behind this account (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mkd07/Archive), who has repeatedly tried to transform Slavic minor tribal rulers or leaders mentioned in connection with a single event into "kings" of some Macedonian Slavic kingdom or confederation. Constantine ✍ 12:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect (without merge) to Sclaveni. If its creator has something useful to add on the subject it should be an expansion of that article. This is a horrid article, which we cannot ask the closing admin to try to do anything with. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, as Peterkingiron notes, there is not enough useful to worry about merging and the title is the biggest problem with the article. I note that the ODB has two articles: Sklavenoi and Sklavinia to deal with the same topic as our Sclaveni, and does not treat the term "Sklavenoi" as synonymous with "Slavs" the way our article does. Srnec (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entry simply doesn't make sense and is so poorly written as to be unencyclopedic on that basis alone. DocumentError (talk) 07:32, 25 December 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. Michig (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Patel[edit]

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

I don't believe the subject meets the notability criteria, either generally or for academics. There's a single reference to an article in a local paper (the Ahmedabad Mirror). Google and Google News searches haven't turned up any further coverage (though admittedly he's got a very common name which makes this difficult). He's published a single paper, but in a brand new pay-to-publish journal which very clearly accepts anything and everything with no editorial oversight [2]. (Each issue has nearly 200(!) articles in every field imaginable, and the "editors" don't even bother to correct glaring spelling mistakes in the titles [3]. Publication fees start at $100 per article. [4]) The article is very promotional in tone; that of course can be fixed but wouldn't change the fact that everything here comes from a single "local boy does good" puff piece in a local paper. Psychonaut (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Psychonaut (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Psychonaut (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has a guideline WP:AB about autobiography. The article is written/edited by only 1 user who might be himself or some one close + no serious indication that he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO - Ninney (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not this is an autobio is absolutely irrelevant. POV is not a reason to delete (unless something is so blatant that it is eligible for speedy deletion as spam, which is not the case here). In addition, we have very strict rules against attempts to out an editor. --Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Tall claims, but none is backed by multiple reliable sources. The journal in which his paper appeared does not seem to be a peer reviewed one. Salih (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it doesn't appear to have had any editorial oversight whatsoever. Here's a sample sentence: "Now a series of Is transformed into Where is as defined earlier ." —Psychonaut (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If those claims are true, wp:TOOSOON. If not (and the journal appears to be the equivalent of a vanity press), not. Either way, delete. It certainly needs editing hard for promotional wording. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously a bright young man who will no doubt go on to do great things, but not currently notable. Minor local news coverage and a vanity-published "journal" paper do not make for notability, nor do writing programs or "reading multiple novels" . I note that the article has been written by a WP:SPA. -- 101.119.14.244 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "lecture in the 50th Annual conference of Gujarat Ganit Mandal" referred to in the article seems to have been one talk within a 4-day conference. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early for this genius and prodigy. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The paper is just an abstract (and one paper, unless of "Einstein caliber" really is not a big deal, even if it were in a regular scientific journal). Way too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:01, 21 December 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. Michig (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Andrews (Activist)[edit]

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

It appears to be a clear case of one event - Andrews only seems to have had any real coverage as a result of a comment he made in a blog post in 2009. I had a dig around, and I found instances where he made a comment to the press in regard to his role as President of student groups, but not sufficient non-trivial coverage to pass the notability requirements. Bilby (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete none of his positions confer notability. Is blogger really his full time occupation? Being a notable blogger usually means recognition by mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So does one punch the delete button extra vigorously to make it a "strong" deletion??? Carrite (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's not even a wp:BLP1E demonstrated. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill fluffy puffy promo piece on behalf of an unelected politician. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete per all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:21, 25 December 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. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of gadgets in the Spy Fox series[edit]

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

In-universe, unsourced fancruft. The "gadgets" are gameplay elements with no out-of-universe notability, and the "locations" likewise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to parent article where it and its content (except for any analysis/intepretation per WP:PRIMARY) would be a valid internal article list. Keep per WP:CSC, WP:FICT, WP:AOAL, WP:SALAT, WP:LC, etc. WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INUNIVERSE are not valid reasons in and of themselves for deletion; both require one or more ACTUAL policy guidelines which support deletion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not good enough (i.e., "Delete as cruft"). ~~Merging all of these (one more not listed here) back into the main article may make that article WP:TOOLONG.~~ VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about "could find no sourcing that wasn't the game proper", "no out-of-universe notability asserted"? Or do those just not count anywhere in your little alphabet soup here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The alphabet soup is in support of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Lists of fictional elements. WP:CSC allows lists where no individual item has notability. WP:SALAT allows lists which are not too broad or too specific and leads into WP:NOT which leads to WP:INDISCRIMINATE which leads to MOS:PLOT which allows "character descriptions" and to WP:Real world which allows "Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative". WP:LC defines when a list should be broken out into a separate article due to WP:TOOLONG, what qualifies as listcruft, and that being listcruft should not be the sole factor for deletion. WP:AOAL is probably the weakest one as far as supporting keeping these lists, but, for example, item #5 does support including detailed info in lists. So, no, I wasn't just puking out random guidelines and essays. Each provided at least one valid reason for supporting Keep. I do realize that a video game is not a book or video, but it is still a work of fiction, so I believe WP:FICTIONPLOT applies here. It explicitly allows "statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices" to be sourced from the primary work. Per WP:PSTS, no secondary source is needed unless there is "interpretation". So "could find no sourcing that wasn't the game proper" doesn't count unless the list contains "interpretation" which of course should be removed from the list if it has no secondary source. "no out-of-universe notability asserted" is pretty much negated also by WP:FICT, ... VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the [Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion|list of video game-related deletion discussions]]. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, no indication of notability of any of the individual list entries, and notability is not inherited. Per WP:LISTN no evidence that this content has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so no evidence of other notability. In addition, the content is in large part how-to/original research.Dialectric (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response above. I believe it responds to your issues. See particularly WP:FICTIONPLOT. I agree that there could be some "interpretation" here, but without buying and playing the game, I don't know if stuff like "The ultimate gadget" is something stated in the game (i.e., "it is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" who plays the game) or the writer's "interpretation". VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The idea that we can have a non-notable list of non-notable entries simply flies against the spirit of our guidelines even if some of them haven't been thought through thoroughly enough. WP:GNG clearly says " Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia." The other guidelines were never meant to overrule that. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these three lists (one is in a separate AfD) were probably broken out of the WP:N main article because of WP:TOOLONG, would you support merging them back in to that article instead of deletion? WP:N only applies to the topic of an article ("These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list"). Inside the main article, the lists meet WP:NOR and WP:V per WP:PRIMARY. I don't believe the remaining core principle (WP:NPOV) is an issue given that the contents appear to include little if any analysis/interpretation. I guess my main issue here is that many editors in WP:FAITH followed WP:TOOLONG without knowing that the lists would be deleted years later (in this case ~6.5 years) instead of being merged back. FWIW, I had never heard of Spy Fox before (I'm not a gamer) until I saw these AfDs. The editor who did the split (I believe done in good faith) appears to no longer be active. I suspect if he was still active, he would be willing to do the work required for a merge back. As far as the guidelines I cited, I don't believe nor did I claim that a "non-notable list of non-notable entries" article be allowed without a supporting WP:N main article, just as I wouldn't claim a list of seasons and sub lists of episodes of a TV series be allowed without a main article on that TV series. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LISTN is not satisfied here. There need to be sources that discuss the concept as a whole. However, this is completely unreferenced plot details. Just because it exists does not mean that Wikipedia should catalog it. If the main article is too long, then non-notable, unsourced information can be simply deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAILN gives the suggested action for WP:LISTN: "Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted." So why is the default position in this discussion 'deletion'? If merged into the very closely related (i.e., it was once part of it) notable article, notability becomes a non-issue per WP:N, and the list items remain sourced per WP:PRIMARY and WP:FICTIONPLOT. If the article is too long, then so be it, given that WP:TOOLONG clearly states "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see Wikipedia:Content removal#Reasons for acceptable reasons." VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it isn't really a list. Any notable items can be merged back into the main article, which can be trimmed if it is too long. - Pointillist (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. (Has even less coverage than the characters article.) Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The items are minor/peripheral, with no coverage in video game reliable sources. There is nothing to merge back to the article because there is nothing able to be sourced. (It's kind of silly to argue that anything that was once a list is worthy to be merged back to its parent article, especially when there's zero notability for the elements of the list.) Please ping me if significant offline sources show in the future. czar ♔ 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:VG/RS#Video games: "Games are primary sources in articles about themselves. Whether it is good to use them as a source varies by perspective, subject and game." WP:PRIMARY and WP:FICTIONPLOT (so far no one has objected to the game being a fictional universe) both allow primary only sourcing for this type of in article info so long as no "interpretation" is involved. WP:CSC #2 explicitly permits lists where all items have zero notability. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty easily per WP:NOT and WP:LIST. VMS Mosaic's keep rationale is wholly unconvincing. Them From Space 19:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I do realize that keeping this as a separate article from its parent article was a long shot, but it was pointed out to me elsewhere that merging an article back to its parent after it has been extensively changed is a somewhat difficult process due to the required history merge and/or editor attribution (difficult to me at least), plus it would have been in the spirit of WP:TOOLONG. Merge now looks like the only option (other than restoring the list to the article as it existed 6.5 years ago prior to the split.) VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources focused on the topic (list of gadgets/locations). A more lax WP:LISTN with topic not necessarily passing GNG, but having notable entries does not fit, as individual gadgets/location don't have coverage either. The material is also WP:GAMECRUFT, which makes it unsuitable for a split from the main article(s) due to size unless it has reliable coverage. Beyond that, this fails WP:WAF more than anything with no real-world context, rather just in-game cruft. As an editorial decision, I don't see anything to merge--readers don't need such detail to understand the game in question, and a couple paragraphs of quality prose would suffice. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears video games are treated differently from other fictional universes (i.e., books, manga, films, etc.) per WP:GAMECRUFT. Perhaps sections explaining the nature of gadgets and the types of locations with a few examples of each would be more in line with WP:GAMECRUFT. That would be useful to a non-gamer wanting to know how this game is like/unlike other games. One would have to be careful to leave out any analysis/interpretation in order to meet WP:PRIMARY and WP:FICTIONPLOT. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:30, 24 December 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 procedural close. Article was never tagged with AfD tag. I will immediately renominate. Non-admin close. Safiel (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunbatz Men[edit]

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

Hunbatz Men is apparently a New Age guru. The page hardly discusses him and instead pushes his fringe New Age interpretations of Maya culture. I've Googled for reliable sources and only found a load of New Age dross. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 December 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. Michig (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook statistics[edit]

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

There are two main problems with this article. The first is that it is original research compiled from a single data source. The second is that even if it were not, it would be perennially out of date, and would in any case be the job of Facebook not Wikipedia. Facebook is independently notable, the precise geographical breakdown of its users is not.

These issues have been noted for some time and there is no obvious way of resolving them and making the article compliant with policy. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely pointless miscellany. It was created as a linkfarm for Socialbakers and serves no purpose. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:RAWDATA.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 01:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Keφr 14:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT! — Jared. Jared 14:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.159.227 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

JC I[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence that this is a notable album, only links I could find where downlaodsites and sales sites, mostly very recent additions, not reviews or the like. [5] is not the kind of results one expects for a notable album, and other searches give similar results. Fram (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I have added Jeff Cullen (musician) and Circus (Featuring Jeff Cullen) to this nomination, as some form of elaborate WP:HOAX. When you look at e.g. the Jeff Cullen (musician)#JC Band members, none of them return any reliable sources in combination with Jeff Cullen. Note that this band supposedly released 13 studio albums! There is no trace of Jeff Cullen on Allmusic, and the entries on e.g. Amazon are all recent additions and digital only. You can find the band on Youtube and so on, but I wasn't able to find a single reliable source about this. I don't know whether the author tries to create a hox on Wikipedia, or whether he is trying to use Wikipedia to support his brainchild (for commercial reasons? To see how you can fool all of the internet?), but Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing.

I'll gladly be proven wrong, but please, don't just claim that they are notable, provide reliable souorces (not Amazon, spotify, Youtube, ...) showing evidence that this musician has been active and noted for twenty-plus years, that the band members of JC band really are band members, that these thirteen albums really exist and have existed before 2013, and so on. Fram (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are not a hoax at all Jeff has been around for a long time. He is just not a famous as some of the other. I don't want try and fool anyone with a prank or anything like that. What ever info you are looking for to keep the pages on this site I will do my best to get the info. MDSanker 09:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you or someone else doesn't, I'm going to have to say delete. His web presence is almost non-existent. I thought I had something with an NME page, but all it had was a youtube clip. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled pages relate to:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know anything about how to search for reliable sources covering popculture topics, so I also can't agree or disagree with the suggestions of hoaxing. However, the nominator's clearly done the source-searching without finding anything, so I can't imagine how this guy passes our inclusion standards. Recreate if he gets coverage in places like books or academic journals. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!

Up until 2013 fans could go to www.JCster.com to stream most of Jeff Cullen's studio albums. On JCBand there has been an active CD store with merchandise that has been open for business since 1998/99

SOME JC WEBSITES

^[1]
^[2]
^[3]
^[4]
^[5]
^[6]
^[7]
^[8]
^[9]
^[10]
^[11] (NEW cd)
^[12] (Comedy Rock n Roll TV Show)
^[13]
^[14]
^[15] (JC Band)
^[16] (zany rock n roll TV show)
^[17] (Circus)
^[18] (Circus photos)

MDSanker 17:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC) MDSanker 21:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JC is a legit musician, the fact that someone did a websearch and couldn't find something has nothing to do with it. Also, musicians don't need to be cited in academic journals. ChrisLTH (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)— ChrisLTH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have known Jeff Cullen for over 20 years and he is TOTALLY legit and in fact I played an instrumental role in 2000 when I was the Executive Producer for his album - Holywood as well as orchestrating the sessions for the album with Monique Mizrahi at Sunset Sound and Westlake Studios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.53.90 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — 24.184.53.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP!

JC and Circus is not a WP: HOAX. I worked for the band intimately and was their stage manager (among other numerous tasks) from 1989-1992. I lived with the band then and have remained friends with Jeff since then. I also designed 7 JC albums in the 90s and witnessed the band's progression and studio albums being recorded over the years first hand and redesigned the JC logo.

I helped produce most of the Circus shows mentioned on JC's page at Gazzarri's, Roxy, The Whiskey, etc. and I also worked with Trudy Green at Howard Kaufman Management via Jeff to help promote Heart's new album. (at that time)

An early Circus album was produced by Dito Goodwin, who produced the early No Doubt material. Jeff has worked with numerous well-known musicians, including Matt Sorum from Guns and Roses as a band member and tons of others.

Jeff owned Cole Stages in Hollywood where he helped pre-production on several notable acts like Air and Remy Zero, who I also worked with via Jeff. You can't make up the amount of detail contained in the JC/Circus pages. I was in New York with them when Jeff and Angelique filmed the George Michael video Outside. I have been to the castle in Hollywood Hills. I have seen Circus and JC Band many times live and Jeff always strives for excellence.

Jeff has been involved in a lot of rock and roll history and it would be a shame to dismiss his story. When the band was started there wasn't digital media or Wikipedia to document this story so there is a lot coming out at once, which may be raising some eyebrows but that doesn't make the story untrue or uncredible.

JC has been instrumental in my music career and introduced me to many people and situations that have helped my with my success over the years. I am currently the spokesperson for www.guitartricks.com/channel and have been for the past 4 years. Our website has 20,000 visitors a day and I put my reputation behind everything stated on the JC Wikipedia pages as the truth.

I can be reached at nealgt7 at gmail dot com with any questions regarding JC's creditability. Neal Walter— 2602:306:321A:7470:226:BBFF:FE0E:D11B (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:20, December 21, 2013 (UTC).

One of the most talented & humble people in music. JC music does the talking. I love the man and his songs. EG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.216.201 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC) — 98.64.216.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete all - As the editors of the articles (and in favour of them being kept) seem to have close connections with the subject, this looks like a breach of WP:Conflict of interest (Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships.). Unfortunately, rewriting to meet WP:BIO, etc. seems impossible as the nominator has pointed out the total lack of reliable and verifiable information on the subject. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no proof that I know this person (Jeff Cullen), please don't accuse me of this. I have never met Jeff Cullen, and I don't know him. MDSanker 07:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then this photo [[6]] is improperly sourced. You can't take a posed headshot of a person having never met him. DocumentError (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the clear and obvious case of WP:HOAX, I advise the hoax tag be placed at the top of the various pages being used to craft the "Jeff Cullen" storyline pending their eventual deletion. Unfortunately, my attempts to do so have resulted in repeated undos by the story-master so I am unable to do it without edit warring. DocumentError (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I see no reliable secondary or tertiary sources unrelated to the subject. If this article does end up being kept, it needs a massive overhaul, and what little information may be worth keeping MUST be cited I feel like a tourist (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! I have seen JC live and own JC 2 and Union Station which I think is one of the best cd's ever recorded. EVER!~ There needs to be more on JC it's crazy that you are trying to remove one of the greatest songwriters in rock. Cisco Hernandez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.168.231 (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC) — 189.149.168.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP! The JCBand.com domain name has been active since 2000-03-03 with ICANN, and cross verified by various WHOIS records.

^[19] ^[20] ^[21]

An active band & music site was captured by the Web Archive during this time. This cannot be hoaxed and is an accurate copy of what was accessible to the public and confirmation the artists presence from at least this time to present. ^[22]

Looking at the basic verifiable facts above, JC Band is NOT a hoax and has a history of providing credible music to the public.

124.171.131.16 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Mark Spillane— 124.171.131.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No references listed, RS or otherwise. Therefore, no notability. Further, clearly WP:HOAX. The photos used to accent the articles show EXIF data from Burns, Tennessee from last month. International rock sensation "Jeff Cullen" visited a town of 1500 in rural Tennessee last month where he performed multiple concerts and also had his official headshot taken? DocumentError (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Even if the references to Rock On magazine and the French edition of Rolling Stone can be substantiated, these pages are hopeless fancruft and should be completely rewritten. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the clear and obvious case of WP:HOAX, I advise the hoax tag be placed at the top of the various pages being used to craft the "Jeff Cullen" storyline pending their eventual deletion. Unfortunately, my attempts to do so have resulted in repeated undos by the story-master so I am unable to do it without edit warring. DocumentError (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-JC is a real person, I should know, I dated him something like 15 years ago. I have heard all his wonderful music. He is a talent that deserves recognition. And I adore him and his wife and their chihuahua Lyla who is Diva, my chihuahua's good pal. So if this isn't real then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.113.73 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — 108.0.113.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP! I remastered all of JC's studio albums in 2013 and have known him for two years. In this time, I have seen his phenominal ability as a singer/guitarist and a songwriter. He is held in very high regard by the music industry in LA as well as by myself. This page is certainly not a hoax, nor a commercial enterprise. I have worked in the record industry for 20 years as a music producer and JC is one of the finest I've worked with. I can be contacted at www.anthonycormican.com if anyone wishes to discuss this further.— 142.136.65.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:43, December 24, 2013 (UTC).

KEEP! - I have know the artist and band JC since my early days as an A&R exec at Geffen/Outpost records. I've seen many shows and have most of his albums. If my boss had permitted me I would have offered JC Band a recording contract. JC was one of the best rock performers to make the LA scene in the late 90's early 00's. His guitar skills were so good members of Beck's band tried to convinced him to try out for guitar player for Beck's Midnight Vultures tour....fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidealer (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Sidealer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - I have known JC for almost 10 years, seen his band perform, been to his rehearsal studios he used to own and he has played guitar in my home many times. Eugene Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.56.174 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — 24.205.56.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete all for lack of WP:RS. I'm getting tired of all these "keeps"...is there some conspiracy going on? --みんな空の下 (トーク) 04:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The article Jeff Cullen (musician) has only one independent source cited, this page being used to support the claim that Cullen was named one of the top 100 guitarists by a poll. However, nowhere does the source mention Jeff Cullen at all. If the only cited independent source is not valid, it seems unlikely that the subject is all that notable. If it turns out that Cullen really is notable, the article can be re-created later with valid independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete all. Metropolitan90, you have a good point, I think for now the pages need to be taken down. Let someone who is better at this start one up for him with the proper citations. He is a real person not a hoax, however is he worthy of the pages today? Maybe, maybe not. If they can be removed and replaced later when and if he is more noteworthy that is fine with me. I did a few months work on it however, obviously not hard enough since it was not written the correct way.

MDSanker 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babener & Associates[edit]

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

The article is about a law firm, but three quarters of it is a detailed CV for the main attorney and founder, and there is no actual claim of notability for the firm. I do not believe that the sources show sufficient notability for the lawyer either, but it is just possible that he might be notable enough for an article about him. In addition, this article reads like a bit of a puff piece. bonadea contributions talk 08:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for sources comes up with some, but they are trivial mentions. I even checked the Bar's site to see if the firm had been covered in the Bulletin, but nothing in the online archives I could find. On a side note, I'm an attorney in the Portland area and have never heard of this firm. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [I thought for a minute I had a copyvio - it was just them saying they were on Wikipedia]. But I'm not turning anything notable up other than random go-to for quotes on MLM. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional/vanity article; also, vis a vis User:Neonchameleon's observation of the 'WE'RE NOW ON WIKIPEDIA' announcement on Babener & Associates' blog, this article probably further merits deletion for violating WP:CLUELESS DocumentError (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment WP:CLUELESS is redlinked. Could you please identify the page to which you are referring. James500 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 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, a WP:SNOW close. After the deletion, a redirect will be created.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable for a standalone BLP; article is mostly about the Perth Group in any case: any usable remnant to be merged there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would you think that someone who has influenced government policy in South Africa and played a role in a high-profile legal case is not notable? Note that this is a comment, not yet a keep vote. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She is one of many who are said to have had that influence, and that can be perfectly well covered in the Perth Group article, the HIV/AIDS in South Africa article, or elsewhere (as suggested). However, Papadopulos-Eleopulos herself is not sufficiently notable as a subject for a biographical article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the fact that other people may also have been influential on the South African government takes away the importance of Papadopulos-Eleopulos being influential on the South African government. I'm concerned that there is a rush to delete this article simply because people dislike and/or disagree with the article subject. People should feel free to dislike or disagree with the subjects of articles, but it's absolutely never a valid reason for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the article duplicates The Perth Group. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos has no notability outside the activities of The Perth Group (which consists of 2 or 3 people). Even the activities of The Perth Group have very borderline notability, with a handful of news sources describing their attempt to give evidence at a trial. -- 101.119.14.20 (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nomination. Is there any RS that states Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos had any influence on South African gov't policy as an individual? An purported influence was as a member of a group that was a part of a panel. That the subject was among a group, disqualified from testifying at a trial is not notable wrt to the subject as an individual and discredits the subject as a expert, much less a notable one. I don't see any information not covered in The Perth Group and HIV/AIDS denialism. I see no support for notability of the subject as an individual. Per WP policy the subject is notable for only one thing which is already the subject of another article and is adequately covered in the two articles mentioned. An uncredentialed fringe theorist with minimal publication who was found by a judge as completely unqualified to testify at a trial who and who has been explicitly described as not working on HIV/AIDS research by their employer seems clearly deletable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What does the fact that her views are fringe have to do with anything? You seem to be implying that Papadopulos-Eleopulos isn't notable because her views are fringe. That's not actually how things work. There are plenty of subjects - creationism, for example - that are obviously seen as "fringe" by the scientific establishment, but which are in fact extremely notable, because they are widely debated and influential. Hopefully, you wouldn't support deletion of articles about creationists simply because creationism is a non-mainstream view, so why would the fact that Papadopulos-Eleopulos's views are non-mainstream count against her? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I said at FTN it was probably worth keeping, but actually, no I haven't seen any evidence of notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrBill and nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside the activities of the Perth Group. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with possible redirect to Perth Group. No indication that the subject is notable outside of her 'contributions' as a member of the Group. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect would be fine yeah. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perth Group. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then make a redirect. I suggest closing this with SNOW--I can not imagine any other result. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (SNOW close) completely then make a redirect. I also can't see this being kept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 21 December 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 Legoktm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (A7). NAC as nominator. tutterMouse (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of reddit jokes that are made in every thread[edit]

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

Though this'll be subject to heavy meatpuppetry just like the article, there's so little reason we should be keeping this. Obviously its just a WP:IINFO list and seems like little more than a troll attempt, this has been speedied (under G3) and then countered several times over so here we are. If you need basic criteria then it fails WP:GNG, WP:IINFO and has no WP:RS at all to the point of passing WP:CSD easily. Let's try and make this quick. tutterMouse (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No real-world notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This should not be under discussion. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 09:28, 20 December 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 delete per WP:G11 by Nyttend. (non-admin closure)★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NewQuest Properties[edit]

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

entirely promotional article on relatively small and unimportant construction company. The references are local press releases and nothing more. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Badly promotional, and there's no point in waiting for the AFD to conclude. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 21 December 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. Michig (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Coal Ventures Private Limited[edit]

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

From the article, it seems they have not yet actually done anything. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter that organisation should have reaped some business objectives so that it can be part of wiki .. I don't think so. Gaurav Pruthi^talk 08:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it very hard for the organisation to have any in depth coverage. There are a few press releases - but I see nothing in depth. Merely standard announcements, nothing to pass wp:CORP Neonchameleon (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No solid reliable coverage from completely independent sources. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also think I wont be able to update the article till the time organisation comes into picture somehow because of its operations Gaurav Pruthi^talk 04:29, 23 December 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schmidt (designer)[edit]

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

I think he may be notable, but this is pure promotion, starting with the long quote in the lede paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've largely cleaned out the promotional puffery and sourced the Emmy nomination. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've improved the article and there's just enough coverage from various outlets to where he would pass notability guidelines. It still needs work, but it should be much better than its initial puffy state. On a side note, I'd like to warn that there are a few Schmidts out there that will give some false positives. (Our Schmidt, for example.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79's edits. Not very notable but enough to pass wp:GNG Neonchameleon (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources have been provided. The article now shows enough coverage to pass GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:22, 20 December 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. Michig (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Santoyo[edit]

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

He plays in the bottom rung of American soccer's (football for Brits) minor league system. He's not ready for Wikipedia yet. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Hasn’t received significant media coverage therefore fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn’t played in a fully professional league or represented his country at senior international level. The USL Premier Development League is not fully pro it’s amateur. (I think you mean football for most of the rest of the world ☮) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amateur league. No major awards. Neonchameleon (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Sputnik (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 December 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) 02:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Gervasoni[edit]

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

After some research, she appears, sadly, to fail WP:ACADEMIC at this time. Perhaps others can show otherwise! SarahStierch (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AUTHOR #3 book reviews. Well she has multiple book reviews in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald[7] and others in Australian Journal of Politics and History Australian Book Review Lilith Quadrant Magazine Journal of Australian Studies Australian Journal of Politics & History. -- GreenC 21:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reviews of books by Gervasoni? They seem to all be by historian Clare Wright, whose biography[8] doesn't match that stated for Gervasoni in the article (Gervasoni is an art historian). So I don't think they're the same person? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was confused somehow with a different Clare. -- GreenC 06:22, 20 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 11 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Keep vote seems to be talking about someone else. Competent academic, but not seeing WP:GNG or other criteria being met. No prejudice to recreation in future if sources are found.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is one meaningful mention of here in The Age, linked already in the article, but that's probably not enough for our purposes. Avram (talk) 07:21, 20 December 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. Michig (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Dempster[edit]

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

Not notable, no reliable sources available. Creator is User:CliffordDempster Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 03:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several sources noting Dempster and his involvement with very notable Canadian productions. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing anything to source out this unreferenced BLP. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not enough sources, and all sources show the subject as not notable. Epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no minimally substantial quantity of RS DocumentError (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of the reliable source coverage that is necessary to properly demonstrate notability. As always, a person is not entitled to keep a Wikipedia article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 26 December 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. Due to the lack of wide ranging coverage (only one RS) and the fact this proposal still needs to pass a board approval. May be recreated at a later date once further along the process. Mkdw ^talk 19:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Western Reserve Conference[edit]

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

Nominated for two reason - first, it is merely proposed, and therefore may never happen, making to too soon for an article. Second, do high-school athletic conferences really have notability? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Athletic conferences are covered substantially by newspapers in the region and are worth including. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that it hasn't started yet, and possibly won't? Ego White Tray (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can delete it. The cited source discusses the subject quite substantially. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, delete what, the article? I'm confused, are you changing your vote? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FUTURE. I quote its fifth point:
Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.
This is functionally a newly revealed "product"; we have no substantial knowledge about the entity, and we have no guarantee that it's ever going to exist. It can't even have any sources that are completely independent: newspapers are only going to mention it while reporting the news, and we need sources that aren't newsy. Wait until the newspapers cover it as an established entity, or until it appears in books and academic journals. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to RS reference, conference does exist in a legal capacity, even if it hasn't played any games yet. As to above editor's comment, topics do not need to be mentioned in "books and academic journals" in order to meet notability. DocumentError (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTALballery. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:07, 28 December 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) — Keithbob • Talk • 23:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doge (meme)[edit]

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

The Doge meme is not content suitable for an encyclopedia and is not notable per WP:N guidelines. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. This is just an internet meme no more notable than Good Guy Greg, Scumbag Steve, Web Developer Walrus, or First Day on the Internet Kid. Pilotbob (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Internet meme. Three of this article's "sources" are BuzzFeed, one is MTV and the rest do not really assert notability in any meaningful way (unless you count Dogecoin apparently being "the most Internet thing to happen, ever"). Not that this is the time or place to fight against the inclusion of meaningless fluff pieces on Internet fads, but I really don't think this can be proven to deserve its own article. ZigSaw 05:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Know Your Meme is for. Coverage is, unsurprisingly, heavily biased towards current-internet-stuff loggers and column fillers. Merge, and if after the current explosion of popularity dies down there's sufficient coverage in non-ephemeral sources to suggest this has lasting impact it can be built back up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deletion reasons are all personal and subjective. It was a notable meme of 2013. Memes are part of human culture, like them or not, thus worthy of inclusion. Davedx (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with reasons given below. The first is that we don't delete articles because the nominator thinks they are not suitable for an encyclopedia. That's subjective and just plain biased. Somewhat in relation, a lot of internet meme articles including Dogecoin have been subject to Afds because of this IDONTLIKEIT mentality. Second is that Dogecoin has been receiving a lot of coverage lately, and since it is related, it is fair to assume that the Doge meme might be explained in some of them, and they can be used as reliable sources to prove notability. KonveyorBelt 17:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that being mentioned as a humorous aside in a news article confers notability, no matter how many times it happens. Verifiability != notability. ZigSaw 21:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously great deal of secondary source discussion from a multitude of references. — Cirt (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy Sawdust (talk • contribs)

NBC News, Business Insider, etc. Zappa O Mati 17:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know this is a popular meme, but does this really need its own page? I do not think it is notable enough to and Wikipedia really does not benefit from having an article like this. Especially one this small. This is not very appropriate for an encyclopedia, if you really think about what an encyclopedia actually is. But at the same time I do not think it should go to Internet meme. At most I would say make an article for List of Internet Memes for a compromise. Or else it should just be deleted. Secret Agent Julio (Talk) 04:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Business Insider, NBC News, The Verge, International Business Times, plus the reliable sources that are already in the article, mean that notability for this is easily established. Dogecoin and the meme itself are directly interlinked, of course; the nomination statement, and the one delete vote above me, are mostly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with vague notability claims thrown in there to try and hide that fact. There are more reliable sources out there than I have listed, but my awful internet connection right now is preventing me from analysing them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources are available, and additional are also provided by Lukeno. Also, the arguments to delete sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and comparing this to other memes without pages could be dealt with using WP:OTHERCRAP: just because a meme has a page, but others don't, doesn't make the former non-notable. Zappa O Mati 17:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until it gets coverage in books or academic journals, or until the news sources treat it as a past event. We are not the newspaper, and we're not KnowYourMeme either. We need independent sources, and none of the sources are chronologically independent. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was that policy? The meme clearly meets GNG, and the rubbish about it needing coverage in books/academic journals X time in the future has absolutely nothing to do with policy; be honest, you're trying to make it look like your IDONTLIKEIT vote is policy-based. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, Nyttend, but I doubt that an Internet meme will be the subject of an academic paper, let alone a book. KonveyorBelt 23:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The points outlined by Ziggy Sawdust i agree with. This article has been subjected to many deletion requests because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the result was always keep. Although I do agree that BuzzFeed may not be reliable and knowyourmeme is not reliable at all, there are many reliable sources that are outlined above. Retardist (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the deletion requests are meat puppets.Retardist (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "meat puppet" 76.243.102.88 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with ZappaOMati and Lukeno94. Further, we shouldn't prejudge the memorability of this meme. If it's forgotten in six months or a year, deletion will be appropriate; if it's still lively, we should keep the article, and would regret have deleted it. --Thnidu (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep From an historical perspective, a record of popular cultural items - however short-lived - is appropriate for an encyclopedia. The treatment here is informative and increasingly authoritative. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created Shibe as a redirect to this article; if the article is deleted the redirect should be as well. L Faraone 02:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the last 24 hours alone there have been mentions in The Times of India[9] and The New York Times[10], not to mention many others previous to that. Simply do a Google news search and you'll find a great deal of references from sources other than non-notable blogs. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Numerous reliable sources to verify facts and general notability. Steven Walling • talk 08:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to the majority of delete votes offering little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT-toned arguments. Sure, BuzzFeed is hardly a reliable source (and I'm surprised it isn't blacklisted as spam), but the rest are a-okay. There also seems to be evidence of purposeful disruption from the nominator, himself, including past history of suspected sockpuppetry also raising concerns. [citation needed] 17:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - I checked the nominator's contributions, and the AfDs for Doge and Dogecoin are the only thing they've involved themselves in since January 2012... Slightly suspicious, that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They've? It's only Pilotbob I've noticed. Atomicthumbs doesn't have any connection whatsoever. If you want to have fun with them at WP:SPI, go right ahead but I doubt there's a connection. [citation needed] 18:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep reliable sources and delte comments don't have enough evidence for delete. ElectroPro (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above. Benny White (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the increasingly authoritative reasons mentioned above. Even potential ephemera has its encyclopedic place. kencf0618 (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Dogecoin is now a currency on the market just like bitcoin. This isnt a joke or a meme anymore this is a real world currency worth currently worth 1000/$1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.115.79 (talk)
Keep. Per Lukeno94 and similar above expensivehat (talk) 09:22, 24 December 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. Michig (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IT New York[edit]

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

Non-notable PR company, with the only sources being press releases DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORPDEPTH and lack of independent sources. Blue Riband► 04:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No substantial sources presented or found that are not linked with the subject; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puff, puff, puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Sources here and there go nowhere within the passing limits of WP:CORPDEPTH, not sure about any puff pieces on the article though. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 10:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH, provided sources are unsubstantial, trivial press releases, and the article also lacks of independent sources. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH, provided sources are unsubstantial. An originally commercially written article that doesn't in any way pass WP:NOTAB. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS, vanity article DocumentError (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Revisions have been made to meet the criteriaWP:CORPDEPTH, sources have been listed for IT New York that are unbiased. Articles that prove IT New York is a real company have been listed, they are not press releases and the sources have no affiliation with IT New York. I believe that notoriety has been established from the websites referenced, as well as any other problems with this page being deemed to not meet criteria. talkDanimajor1988 (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)— Danimajor1988 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Biggest Loser (UK TV series). It's a WP:ONEEVENT case, but redirects are cheap and it's a somewhat plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Edmond[edit]

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

I don;t think any of this is notable. He has been a trained or various TV program, but that is not notability. For good measure, the article is clearly of a promotional intent, for it takes care to include the name of the agent who represents him. And the key career he is listed as pursuing is that of a "media personality". DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP In line with Wikipedia:Notability_(people) policy demonstrates he is notable - This guy is a presenter of a prime time UK TV programme with over 2.5 million viewers, this is the most famous and popular show format in its field, he took a primary role in the show, appearing on other wiki pages before this new page was written. He seems to be one of the most notable in the UK in his field. There are a good number of sources shown on the page but a large number of other sources can be easily found which meet the criteria set out by wiki to indicate a person to be deemed notable, due diligence search will confirm this. He has appeared again on a different prime time TV show - BBC1 Sport Relief where classified as a TV Personality by the BBC he joined an all celebrity Team to represent his country http://www.bbc.co.uk/sportrelief/news/2012/first-nation-home-launch.shtml . He has a significant fan base interest in him / his methods, evidenced on social media and google searches. Through looking at his own website under media http://robedmond.com/media.aspx it is clear that there are a number of offline sources which suggest and support notable interest in this person, significant articles about him in the wider media - national news papers, such as The Sun, magazines such as FHM. Radio and TV chat shows. The guy seems to regularly appear in the media being chosen to provide expert comment in his field. The reference to inclusion of his agent being mentioned and linked - I would agree if the agent was not notable himself and if the connection was not interesting but the agent in question is widely regarded as one of the most controversial and famous in his field himself having a wikipedia page, that this agent also represents Rob Edmond is an notable connection. The reference to Media Personality, as per my above comments and links he meets the criteria of celebrity albeit a low tier one, but never the less a celebrity, the BBC highlighted him as a celebrity and searches show him being classified as a celebrity by a high number of sources including established media - a simple google search of his name including the word 'celebrity' reveals this. I am new to wiki and I am a fan of this person which is why I have commented here but that does not change the actual facts, which show clearly he is a notable person worthy of inclusion. I am sure I may have missed additional aspects/reasons and an experienced editor could add other supporting arguments for Keep.Acbingham (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Acbingham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Acbingham (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Acbingham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vanity article. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please can you give more detail as to your decision in view of my counter arguments to the original nomination reason? Acbingham (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mere appearances in shows and celebrity teams, other Wiki pages, having a fan base, etc. are not claims of notability. Really needs independent, significant coverage from reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do you think then additional sources need to be added to the page and it needs modification, to delete it without a proper look into the page subject and reliable sources may be a bit harsh? The claims of notability are already backed up by sources on the page and this was not used as an argument for deletion. But the page can be backed up with more sources, again anyone doing a quick due diligence search shows this. As a quick search for example finds The Biggest Loser Cookbook which he has contributed to and appears in. This is a widely distributed book by Hamyln and sold a high number of copies in its field. Another example is a full page article on him in the highest circulation newspaper in the UK The_Sun_(United_Kingdom), surely this is a notable newspaper if not then all the wikipedia articles which have used sources as reference it need changing, this article in this paper I had already mentioned above and provided a link to. Let me know your thoughts, it would be a shame to delete when it may be more appropriate to edit which would go with the spirit of wikipedia? Acbingham (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Acbingham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes, if you can add independent sources that show significant coverage, that would help. The sources on the page right now don't show significant coverage, or are not independent of the subject, or are not reliable. The rationale for deletion presented above, however, also suggest that the article is a promotion puff piece that would have to be completely rewritten to fix it, and that is a valid rationale for deletion regardless of notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I think some good sources can be added which shows notability and in that case, if the consensus shows that it is a puff piece then it should be cleaned up, which looking at the size of it would be a quick and simple process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acbingham (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Biggest Loser (UK TV series) - he's a living person notable for only one thing and it's that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ritchie. There's no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources; it's a mix of trivial mentions in reliable sources and appearances in unreliable sources. I would have said "delete", since this content doesn't belong, but Ritchie makes a good point that it would help to retain this as a bluelink. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His website list magazines and newspapers that he's been featured in. [11] Any of these talk about him outside of the television show? Dream Focus 20:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can see BBC, Bodypower do. He has been an expert contributer to Health Cookbook also shown on your link. Have had a look on the web and can see these links some of which may be relevant - [12] , [13] , [14] . Will see what others I can find. Acbingham (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any of those are reliable sources. Ilkestoneadvertiser does mention something he did outside of the show. The other two are about the show. Is this just routine coverage though, a famous person did something that got mentioned because they are famous? Google search for site:www.BBC.com "Rob Edmond" shows no results. Please provide links to where he has been interviewed, or talked about, not just the show he is on mentioned. Dream Focus 15:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth noting that anyone familiar with the specific industry or with the show format will be aware that it is the by far the biggest fitness & health show format in the world. The role he took on has only been done by 3 people before him in the history of the UK show, it is a significant and crucial part of the show format. By nature the show chooses the best in the training field, he will have been chosen and recognised as one of the top experts in his field in the UK, being seen by around 1 in 24 out of the UK population as such and being notable. As the show is such a big deal in training this title of association with the show will follow him round with his ongoing career and media interviews. The Body Power Expo is the largest fitness expo in europe (link shown on his website ref the media link you put in above, it shows his appearance as a guest expert speaker this year and details about his notability training world record holding athletes). Ref the BBC - here is a link which covers BBC coverage, it is a link from their Sport side ref Sport Relief page detailing participants in the show [15] there seems to be newspaper coverage of his involvement in this too [16], this is for the other completely different show format which he appeared in. I have found this which shows a good interview, (this link sometimes needs refreshing a couple of times before it engages properly) it is quite detailed about his notable background and career [17] , these have some mention of his work [18] , [19] Acbingham (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one consistent apperance on one TV show doesn't normally pass WP:NOTAB, and this article certainly doesn't. All the sources linked by Acbingham go back to a series apperance on one series of one TV show; these are hence secondary sources to support the fact that he appeared, not his notability. Originally a commercial written article, its publicity-spun puff rubbish. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:12, 25 December 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SQS United FC[edit]

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

An amateur club that fails WP:FOOTYN, and the references are just only for the team members, no any kind of source for the results and accomplishments of it which also fails WP:NOR in my opinion. FairyTailRocks (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable club playing for a non-notable league. And an amateur one at that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:36, 22 December 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 all. Michig (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Storage Wars (Season 1)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete all - Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, not an indiscriminate collection of information, not a database and not a trivia repository. No independent reliable sources indicate that the individual seasons of this series are independently notable and Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for the statistical minutiae of which buyer bought how many lockers and what their profit or loss was per locker or that one buyer gave another buyer a sack of fur coats he didn't want to sell himself. The only sources on any of the articles that aren't directly from the parent network are ratings data which should be at the main episode list. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Popular TV shows often have episode listings. The infobox television template has a specific field (list_episodes) just to link to a list from the main program article. The amount of detail may be excessive, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list article: List of Storage Wars episodes. These are not list articles as contemplated by that field and using that field to link to any of these articles would be an error. "Cleaning up" the "excessive detail" from these pages would amount to removing all of the "detail" beyond episode names and air dates, which makes them all redundant to the list article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. As Clarityfiend stated, popular television series usually have episode listing pages. If you think there is too much information, Be bold and clean it up. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cleaning it up" would leave nothing but episode names and air dates. Suggesting that separate season articles for episode names and air dates are needed is absurd. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - This is a typical list (per WP:CSC, etc.) except some of the financial info may be too much detail. Possibly all could be Merged, but that may be WP:TOOLONG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "typical list article". The existing episode list article is a "typical list article". These are trivia magnets collecting meaningless data. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, please go to WP:MOSFICT#List of exemplary articles and chick on Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), then go to the 'Episode lists' section where if you follow the links, you will see an "exemplary" example of this being perfectly acceptable. There is nothing redundant or absurd here. It is simply how it is supposed to be done. Yes, some cleanup of excess detail may be in order. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference of course is that each individual season and each individual episode of Buffy has garnered sufficient attention from independent reliable sources that seasonal and episode articles are warranted. That is not the case here and regardless WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no justification for keeping garbage. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I can't stand any of A&E's reality shows, but they all have had the cultural and ratings impact to justify their shows having season articles. No different here; beyond some fine detail that can be reduced with talk page hashing out, there's no reason for deletion I see. Nate • (chatter) 21:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the reliable sources that indicate tat the individual seasons of Storage Wars are independently notable. There are no such sources? Oh. Please explain why the only information about these seasons that is independently reliable, the episode names and ratings, are sufficient to justify articles beyond the episode list. There are none? Oh. There is literally nothing in existence that supports these articles. But by all means, let's keep articles that are supported by literally nothing. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, while I am all for debating the proper application of the various guidelines (I am in such a debate elsewhere right now), we all WP:HEAR you, but WP:CONSENSUS appears to have been reached in regard to this type of situation at some point in the past. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:22, 22 December 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. If text is needed for transwikifying, please ping any admin including myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promo Tape[edit]

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

I came across this when I closed the AfD for an earlier demo tape by this band. This one also seems to fail WP:NALBUMS by a mile. --BDD (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: before you guys delete this, let me save this article into the Music Wiki --Saviour1981 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this comment is relevant to this discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saviour1981, it would help if you'd move it as soon as possible. If you find that you can't finish moving it before the debate is done, you can ask for help from any admin (I'm one) by leaving a talk page message requesting a temporary undeletion, or you could also go to WP:REFUND and ask for a temporary undeletion, for the sake of copying the contents somewhere else. Still, the easiest thing for everyone is if you move it before the discussion closes. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:NALBUMS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 21 December 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nadji Tehrani[edit]

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

This appears to be a vanity page for a business person. This subject does not meet the criteria required for a biographic article. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I apparently created this article in 2006 based on one news article that is no longer online. The apparent beginning of notability in 2006 does not seem to have been followed up by other evidence supporting notability (just did some checking via Google). With no disrespect to the bio subject, I agree with nominator that this article does not meet Wikipedia criteria for a bio. betsythedevine (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the claims are supported by RS DocumentError (talk) 07:58, 25 December 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 Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. Consensus is that this event is best covered, at a reduced level of detail, in the context of the legislation it led to. Sandstein 09:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Abigail Taylor[edit]

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

The claim to notability for this tragic death is that it eventually led to Federal legislation, presumably the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. It turns out though that this legislation was passed before her death, and there is no evidence to show that one event led to the other.

I am also concerned that while we have a 'do no harm' ethos relating to living people, this article ignores the clearly foreseeable harm to the parents in seeing their child's death discussed in detail by strangers, particularly on their 'responsibility as parents'.

If it is true that this event did lead to legislation, then a mention in that article would be the most appropriate place. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The question here is this: did this death lead directly to the passage of safety legislation? If yes, it is a keep; if no, it is a delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that the posting of the nominator contains an error. If I understand correctly, there was indeed legislation passed as a result of Taylor's death. It is called the "Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act". Though similar to the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, the Taylor Act is separate and distinct legislation. See this link: Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act. Since her death clearly led to the passage of this legislation, and since this legislation is named for Taylor, I oppose the deletion of this article. In addition, the article should be edited to include a discussion of the "Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act": its passage, its details, its safety requirements, its history, etc. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pertinent info is also found at this link: Little girl's death caused by pool drain inspires action by counsel and lawmakers. It states: "While the case was ongoing, the Taylors also began lobbying lawmakers to pass laws to protect pool guests from harm. In May 2008, the Minnesota legislature unanimously passed the Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 144.1222, requiring pool operators to, among other things, properly install and maintain pool drains and perform daily inspections of all drains. Congress passed a similar act, the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8001 et seq., which took effect in August. Bennett says the act had been going nowhere but was revived after a letter from Abigail’s father was read on the Senate floor." So, Taylor's death lead to the Taylor law being enacted (unanimously); her death also helped to push along the passage of the Virginia Graeme Baker Act. As such, Taylor's death is notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spadero does seem to be right about the influence of the incident, but there is not a lot of non-local coverage on this matter. It had some coverage following the incident and some more coverage following her death, but most of it was centered around the few days following each event and even that seems to be pretty sparse. It gets some trivial mentions whenever some other pool safety event is in the news, but nothing major. Having some influence over federal legislation on pool safety seems like a bit of a stretch when it comes to notability and there is not much indication that the sources are there. Not sure a merge or redirect is logical, since she died after the most significant piece of legislation passed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act and add a mention in that article of the Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act. The gory details are overkill and need not be included. →Stani Stani 07:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect ~~per Stanistani~~. I particularly agree with there being no need for the gory details, and share Kevin's concerns over the potential of harm to Abigail Taylor's parents from this article. — Scott • talk 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Having thought further about this, the VGBPSSA article is of very poor quality. If overhauled to fix its structural issues, it would appear much shorter. That act, and the ATPSA, along with the legislation mentioned at Pool fence#United States, would be better contained together at an article called Swimming pool safety legislation in the United States. The document Guidelines for Entrapment Hazards: Making Pools and Spas Safer by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission contains an overview of known deaths of this sort, which should be read when considering the notability of any one such particular accident. — Scott • talk 13:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act - A tragic and horrible death, but the actual incident only received local coverage for the most part; most of the legislation had already been passed prior to the incident. The inclusion of some of the details is questionable - to put it mildly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Merge & Redirect makes good sense to me. I think there may be a problem with the chronology between the time of the death and the passage of the legislation. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC) (Striking: I missed the link to the Minnesota law.) I'd like to think the law is notable, the death redirects to that, but that's not an option on the table, so I'll just shut up. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very selectively merge and redirect to Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, which should also carry some mention of the "Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act". In particular, any reflection of the responsibility (or otherwise) of Taylor's parents should be ruthlessly excised per WP:BLP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
STRONG KEEP Please don't close this yet the nominator is really misguided here. Let me take some time to explain myself. IF anyone would actually take the time to thoroughly research her death and the pool and safety act they would understand. I did the liberty in doing so already. Abigail Taylor's accident occurred in 2007. Virginia Graeme Baker's accident occurred in 2002. The Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act became a law in on 12/19/2007. The house bill was introduced in March of 2007 but presumably died in committee until in July The senate bill was introduced and somehow got merged into The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (scroll all the way down to Title XIV: Pool and Spa Safety). Although yes she died after the legislation was passed her injury received lots of attention and her injury is ultimately what caused the legislation to be introduced anyways. Now I can find many news articles on this horrific accident even years after it occurred which makes this event notable and distinguished [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. As for the Abigail Taylor Pool Safety Act that became a law in 2008 in Minnesota. I know this event was very gruesome and sad but remember Wikipedia is not censored. The parents however, have recieved national attention for their daughters injury so I think they have more to worry about then 'strangers' viewing the details of what happened on Wikipedia. So I think the articles Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act and Death of Abigail Taylor need to be cleaned up, clarified and remain individual articles. I hope this clarifies all the confusion so I rest my case.JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your argument that this article must remain separate would carry more weight if Abigail Taylor was known in some other context, rather than just for the manner of her death. A mention of her passing in the relevant legislation article is the appropriate place in my opinion. Kevin (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, at JayJay's request, reread the article and considered his points. I remain unmoved. The redirect and merge is still in my opinion the best way to proceed. →Stani Stani 10:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm likewise unconvinced, I'm afraid. I have also changed my opinion on the nature of the merge required; see above. — Scott • talk 13:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made by JayJay above. This article should neither be deleted nor merged and redirected. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 30 December 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.