< 16 July	18 July >

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) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy-throwing Marine viral video[edit]

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

This is a clear cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, as all coverage simply covered it as it happens and that's it. Only other things were passing mentions in books that don't cover this event in a lasting point of view. Beerest355 Talk 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NEVENT (I think this is the appropriate one?). Ansh666 02:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEVENT failure; thing happened, perps get fired, life goes on. Nothing more than that and all coverage was confined to the days after the event. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 11:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two reasonably reliable books mentioning the episode well after the original news flurry, analyzing it in a broader context. This makes it meet WP:NEVENT: it received widespread coverage (at the moment of the event) and also subsequent analysis and discussion. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's this one and this one, right? IMO, both give just a passing mention, so it's really borderline. Ansh666 23:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's enough to show it's used as a prominent example, and that it is remembered well after the news flurry. The news and the passing mentions alone wouldn't be enough, but together they strengthen each other, IMHO. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the two sources found by Cyclopia are really, really slight mentions, and I don't feel comfortable saying that this passes WP:NEVENT just based on those two sources; otherwise, there is no real lasting repercussions to this event.--TKK ^{bark !} 12:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting or broader significance of what was a distasteful but minor incident. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:21, 24 July 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 Ancient Greek law. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Laws of Greece[edit]

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

Reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. PROD removed by article creator without an explanation. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal essay with no structure, nor references. BTW, we have Ancient Greek law, inherited from EB, nearly unmodified. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Staszek. This would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. On a side note, the creator has been blocked for 24 hours, and will be able to participate. (I also agree that the existing article we have above could use some improvement.) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ancient Greek law, per above. Ansh666 02:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ancient Greek law; *slaps head*. Sheesh, I should have known better. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ancient Greek law; unsourced essay, mostly PoV about modern law, not Ancient Greek Law. Arjayay (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list article seems basically to be a directory of (almost entirely) non-notable illustrators and their personal websites. Surely this falls under WP:NOT. The source seems to be the Magic The Gathering fan site. Sionk (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, I didn't notice the previous AfD discussion. Bizarre though that directories like this can be kept! Sionk (talk) 21:46, 17 July 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 Nomination withdrawn. Being half asleep and doing several things at once is clearly counterproductive, sorry. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable Half-Life 2 mod, failing WP:GNG. Tagged as such since April 2011. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These were all in the first 2 pages of a simple Google search [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] as well as the ones already used in the article. WP:BEFORE is useful here. Яehevkor ✉ 19:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Plenty of coverage. One of the most highly regarded and widely reviewed HL2 mods whose developer was hired by Valve. :) Rehevkor has posted plenty of the reviews. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:01, 17 July 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 userfied. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Townsend string theory[edit]

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

No known reference refer to this theory by the name given in this article, and there does appear to be original research involved. I've held off and given the creator plenty of time to put things right; he seems unwilling or unable to do so. Deb (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, as mentioned on my talk page, but due to this insisting, I have moved it into my user page , instead. Dimension10 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the creator has now removed the page voluntarily, I'd like to request the closing admin to salt this article title.Deb (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Search does not show this title at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been deleted; I would close, but Deb wants to salt, so I'll wait for an admin. Ansh666 17:56, 18 July 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 Elur Chetty. Sandstein 05:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elur Chetty Padmanabhapuram[edit]

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

Content fork of Padmanabhapuram, but perhaps sufficiently different to not be eligible for speedy deletion under A10 —teb728 t c 10:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 20 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The fact that it was brought here due to an edit war on the article to keep/remove the csd tag is sad. The author also blanked the article at one point. In any sense, it's poorly written with several grammatical mistakes, and from what I'm able to comprehend it's about an ancient community? Doesn't imply any actual importance or notability. Dusti^*poke* 00:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions The content dispute seems to have been about whether Malayalam is also an official language. At present, it is not clear to be whether the article under discussion here is supposed to be a neighborhood of the city. The place to clarify this is not AfD. The difference between the articles at present seems to be that the one nominated for deletion has pictures of the temples, the names of the "Association presidents", whom I take to be either the local official of the city or the head of a neighborhood association, and an expanded version of the history--which may be disputed. Neither version has sources for more than the geographic location and the population. If this is a neighborhood, not corresponding to a governmental unit, there needs to be evidence that it is a distinct neighborhood commonly referred to as such with a distinct identity--we do not automatically keep neighborhoods. If it was previously an ancient city, named as shown here, that has now been rebuilt under a different name, it would probably justify a separate article--if sources can be found. Alternatively, the sourcable information should be properly merged into the main article. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Topically, it actually seems that Elur Chetty might be a better fit, but that article is in pretty rough shape. A merge into Padmanabhapuram also would be fine. The bottom line is this material is better managed in a more central location, I see no justification (such as independent notability or unwieldy size) requiring a split. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Xymmax, WP:CHEAP, and WP:TNT. The current article is such a hot mess, and of such doubtful notability, that a merger to one place or the other is a reasonable idea. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elur Chetty (preferably) or Padmanabhapuram; this article's subject does not meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 13:23, 17 July 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) 15:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pico Park, Los Angeles[edit]

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

Not Notable. Not listed in Mapping L.A. or The Thomas Guide. Simply a small part of a true neighborhood. This and similar housing tracts have been listed by a member of a local neighborhood council with no sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no signfiicant coverage. In fact, I cannot even find any sources that identify this as a distinct neighbourhood. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Mid-Wilshire, Los Angeles, per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilshire Vista Heights, Los Angeles. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their nomination without any dissent. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outpost Estates, Los Angeles[edit]

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

No sources. Not listed in Mapping L.A. or The Thomas Guide. Simply a small part of a true neighborhood. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This neighborhood actually is notable. It is long-established and historic. See this and this, cited to the Los Angeles Times and posted at their website. And see this found in a search. A Google News Archive search finds a ton of real estate listings, indicating that the neighborhood is well established and well recognized; many of the listings are for notable homes. I also found this and this at Google Books. If the result is Keep, I will undertake to add some of this material to the article. (Watchlisting this discussion so that I will know if it is kept.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per above editor. Original story is here, and can somebody please use it for a citation? GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:30, 24 July 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 Melrose Avenue. Most sensible option. There is already a section about this place at Melrose Avenue, any content not already discussed can be added there. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melrose District, Los Angeles[edit]

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

Not Notable. This "district" is simply the area adjacent to Melrose Avenue, which is a truly Notable place. "Melrose District" is not listed in Mapping L.A. or in The Thomas Guide. A search for "Melrose" in Mapping L.A. places it squarely within the Fairfax neighborhood. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At best, Merge it to Melrose Avenue. If it's not mapped it really can't have its own article. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melrose Avenue. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 23 July 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 withdrawn by nominator; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gong show 08:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles[edit]

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

Not Notable. All sources indicate it is simply a part of Brentwood, Los Angeles, which is truly a Notable neighborhood. Go here. Not listed at all on Mapping L.A. or in the Thomas Guide. Only real info is from a property owners' association, which is not a WP:RS. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has nominated a number of local LA neighborhoods, and many of those nominations are well-considered, but Mandeville Canyon is a very real place, a named and notable geographical feature that I think passes WP:NGEO and has an interesting and distinct identity. Sources are out there, such as [6][7][8][9][10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The above editor has found good sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:13, 17 July 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 withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Massacre (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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)

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage BOVINEBOY2008 12:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original title was called Zombie Massacre, but the film seems to have been released under Apocalypse Z. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gong show 17:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep While this article was premature 3 years ago, now that the film is released and has received independent coverage under both working title and release title, it meets WP:NF. In Flux (magazine) Dread Central JoBlo The Guardian Wired IGN (et al.) With respects, I would suggest the nominator consider a withdrawal.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw BOVINEBOY2008 20:55, 17 July 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 by User:RHaworth (G11). (non-admin closure) Gong show 15:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical spills in the workplace[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no rationale. Wikipedia is not a health and safety in the workplace manual:WP:NOTHOWTO TheLongTone (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just an effort by SPA Chemstore (talk · contribs) to spam-link his own website. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:45, 17 July 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) 15:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on Standards for Judging the Truth[edit]

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

The only coverage I could find was on the china.org.cn website, and that is HARDLY a reliable source. The article fails to satisfy notability guidelines and lacks enough coverage to assert notability. James ^{(T • C)} • 10:14pm • 11:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only found china.org.cn and Wikipedia reprints. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the zh version is an unreferenced stub. The meat of this debate is found at Two Whatevers. This content should not be in its own article. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Two Whatevers. What we have here is little more than a definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If there's consensus for anything, it's that this shouldn't be a standalone article, but there's no consensus to either delete or on a target for merge. Therefore, it is an editorial decision what to do with this material. A merge would not be unreasonable, but I am not going to close it as that due the issues with exactly where the material should be. Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Talker sound suppressor[edit]

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

Promotional material without encyclopaedic value. The article is nothing but an ad for the Wind Talker sound suppressor from Smith Enterprises Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please link the AFD correctly on the article page. These two sources seem to indicate notability:

1.^ a b Leigh Neville (3 May 2011). Special Operations Forces in Iraq. Osprey Publishing. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-84908-826-8.
2.^ Kokalis, Peter (2005). "M14 reborn: Crazy Horse and the Romanian Option". Shotgun News 50 (12): 20–22, 24, 26.

Unless someone demonstrates otherwise, Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD is properly linked on the article page. Clicking on the link there leads to this page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: The sound suppressor referred to in the references isn't the Wind Talker from Smith Enterprises that this article is about but an earlier sound suppressor named "M14 Direct Connect". The references might make the "M14 Direct Connect" notable enough to have an article, but the Wind Talker can't inherit that notability. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you actually read the article in question, you would read that the WindTalker is the current evolution of that model.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I have read the article. But the Wind Talker being claimed to be the descendant of, or an evolution of, the M14 DC doesn't change the fact that the refs expressly talk about the M14 DC and not the Wind Talker. Meaning that mentioning the M14 DC in the M14 article would be no problem while mentioning the Wind Talker, especially as prominently as you do, IMHO is promotion. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And those 2 refs support its history and the current US issued sound Suppressor for the M14 family of rifles is the Wind Talker. The M14 is not an easy rifle to suppress and I would have no problem mentioning both in the M14 article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable sound suppressor design and is part of the US Military Inventory. It is sold only to Military Units and government agencies, so I fail to see how that is an ad. I think I have seen exactly one for sale on the civilian market since its introduction.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ is the creator of the article as well as a number of other mostly promotional articles about Smith Enterprises, articles that might also be possible candidates for deletion. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the coordinator of the firearms project and was improving articles about muzzle devices including sound suppressors, flash suppressors and their manufacturers. My goal is to improve the firearms resources of the encyclopedia. I do not think any of what I have written is promotional.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to smith page per WP:PRODUCT Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the list of supporting sources is not especially impressive, it is sufficient to justify this page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (add) or Merge Like the Vortex, it's a supressor - nothing special. Does not need a product-specific page - and yes, I've seen these in action too. Info belongs on generic silencer page, but no product-specific info like this belongs in an encyclopedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If the "Vortex" article is going to be kept, then this information could reasonably be Merged into that article. Otherwise, Merge into the Smith or silencer pages (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,that's very interesting that you have seen a Wind Talker in action, Mr Wilkins. Where you serving in Iraq or Afghanistan with US troops that utilized a Designated Marksman in their platoon, because these are not a part of the Canadian Military system. Nor does the Canadian Military use M14 rifles. You do realize this is a silencer, whereas the Vortex merely suppresses flash signature and that the Wind Talker attaches on the exterior of the Vortex? That is one of the things that makes it unique. The M14 is a very difficult rifle to suppress. Mostly due to the GI flash hider containing the front sight and the end of the gas tube/operating rod behind it, coupled with the fact that the bolt rides under the hand guard and expels gas straight to the rear. If you were to remove the GI Flash Suppressor, you would find the threads extremely fine and not able to withstand the rigors of attaching and reattaching the silencer numerous times. Not to mention, you would lose the front sight. So the basic attachment issue was solved with the M-14 DC/Wind Talker by attaching to the exterior of a replacement Vortex. The second key characteristic is the rear plate which keeps the shooter from getting a faceful of gas from the blowback of using a can. Yet I'm sure you were up on all this despite the fact that the Canadian Government does not allow its subjects to possess sound suppressors and the silencer in question is pretty much only made for military contracts. So again, where exactly did you see one of these in action? I am genuinely curious.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 11:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you, Mike. Resorting to an ad hominem attack in order to try and detract from my very valid, and very policy-based !vote. I'm a journalist, Mike - I have spent time with the military from various countries (usually allies, of course). (Un)fortunately, it would be unwise for me to give you additional information about locations/times, but "yes" is an answer to at least one of your points. Your disgusting PR-based crap has gotten in the way of both your humanity and your objectivity. You should learn to have good faith, apologize, and stop your spam (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if you took it that way, it was not what I intended. I will take you at your word.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~to Smith Enterprise Inc.~~ I think the independent coverage for this one is insufficient to justify a separate article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Change in target to the Vortex Flash Hider. See further below for rationale. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find where [11] says they use the Direct Connect / Wind Talker, even though it might be true. The wiki article seems to rely on too much insider knowledge rather than verifiable material. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

they are pictured between pages 17 and 21 along with the Vortex Flash Hider, These are the only suppressors that mount to the Vortex. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, requires insider knowledge, rather than clearly stated info. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Shotgun News [12] runs a lot of low-quality advertorials and other highly opinionated editorials in my opinion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To give you an example [13]: "Kokalis says Ruger’s SR1911 CMD is fully loaded with custom features, making it a best buy selection that is selling like hotcakes." [Kokalis is actually the article's author, btw, talking about himself in the third person.] Or "Built from premium-grade saddle leather, the open-muzzle Yaqui Slide will accommodate a substantial number of M1911 models and sizes. It sells for only $64.95." I'm pretty sure they have ecstatic things to say about any product they review under the right incentives. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Shotgun News article cited is about the Crazy Horse rifle, which is also built by the Smith Enterprise Inc. It would be amazing if SEI didn't maximize the number of in-house components they put on that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've got myself a copy of the actual Shotgun News article cited. (The mention of the IOR optics made curious enough.) There are about 5-6 paragraphs about the M14 Direct Connect (DC) sound suppressor (maybe 400 words) in SN, and I'm being generous, because there's filler material plus addresses in that. Since the SN article says the DC only threads over the Vortex flash suppressor, perhaps it could be covered in that article as well? I know that it says later that "Sales to qualified individuals and law enforcement agencies should be directed to Fisher Enterprises" but that could be made clear in Wikipedia. The SN article never mentions "Wind Talker", by the way. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That SN article in question is actually freely available here, on Valdada-IOR's website. (The page leading to that says "Reprinted by permission"—their salesmen still need to work on their English ). Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right because its about the M14 DC, which became the Windtalker in 2011 when Fisher and Smith ceased their partnership on the can. The WindTalker has an improved backplate and an all ti body as opposed to the DC's stainless steel body, but it uses the same NSN number of the M14DC. Maybe I should have named it M14DC instead, but I went with the current name. I'd call myself an idiot but would probably be accused of making personal attacks against myself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the book of Senich is not cited about anything related to this product, but for generalities about sniping and sound suppression. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is citing that the platform is difficult to suppress and the main reasons why it is difficult. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, p. 60 of Special Operations Forces in Iraq, which is actually a page of plate captions/commentaries, has a rather trivial mention that "His 7.62x51 M14 Mod O Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) mounts an SEI sound suppressor, the M68 Aimpoint 'red dot' and a Surefire tactical sight". Not enough for WP:GNG to create a separate product page from that kind of coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to the Smith article if it comes to that, I felt at the time I would overwhelm the main article if I included it and for notability, the Wind Talker has its own NSN, which is identical to the M14DC's NSN that it replaced. Unfortunately with the restrictive laws in the US regarding NFA items there is not more widespread coverage.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the present sources for this (only Shotgun News really has enough details) and checking with Mike [14] it turns out that in practice both the old (joint-venture DC) and the new (SEI-only WindTalker) versions of this sound suppressor can only be installed over the SEI-series Vortex flash hinders. So it makes more sense to add this article as a section in the one on their flash hinder because (1) the latter is a more WP:Notable product, and (2) their sound suppressor series is currently an add-on option for their flash hinder, even if technically distinct. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Smith Enterprise Inc. or Vortex Flash Hider. My first preference would be Smith based on WP:PRODUCT, however I do see a fair amount of sense in the rational above for Vortex. That's a call that I would leave to someone more expert on the topic, but I don't see this as meriting it's own article. While the sources are reliable, and I don't think this is a promotional article, I don't believe that the coverage is "significant" according to our guidelines. -Wine Guy~Talk 22:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I promised to close this AfD, and I am going to close this AfD (unless someone else beats me, which is unlikely), but for the time being I do not see anything close to consensus, and I relist the nomination for a week. Please give more opinions and abstain from personal comments.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of not deadlocking this discussion, I'm not opposed to merging to the main SEI page either. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the Osprey ref was replaced with a 2013 Lulu.com book by Emerson Lee. I've looked through the freely available draft (from 2009), and while the M14DC is covered there, so are practically all other M-14 sound suppressors: two prior models for the US military (by different companies) and something like 6 or 7 (also by different companies) for the "civilian" market. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is a consensus to merge from both sides - even given the heat of the debate I think people have behaved pretty well on this one, no assumptions needed of good faith. Given the difficulty with the sources and that this is a version of a product (spreading information very thin) I would say delete. However, as the name has changed significantly, and it's the only attachment of it's kind - a mention in the flash hider article seems reasonable . 217.173.108.103 (talk) 13:16, 17 July 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. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MTF Ltd[edit]

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

The company is not notable and I can not find anything to indicate otherwise. NealeFamily (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was a fraud case, but the case wasn't started by the company nor does it show notability for the company. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. 3 out of 5 references are from the company itself, the other 2 prove existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:54, 26 July 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) 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BPO Plus[edit]

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

per WP:ORG. I can't find any sources for the award either. Glaisher [talk] 09:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that this organisation meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 July 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 RHaworth. --Glaisher [talk] 09:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zuber kamaal khan[edit]

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

Unreferenced vanity article about a non-notable actor who doesn't even have an IMDb page. Prod contested without reason. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio and non-notable subject. --Glaisher [talk] 09:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, didn't even notice the copyvio. I updated the CSD tag to include the URL. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:17, 17 July 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 by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Gong show 15:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete everything of your usb[edit]

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

A pointless article. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 07:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete, this article has no non-duplicative topic and acts only as a how-to. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also per WP:NOTHOWTO - Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. I'm sure he meant "how to delete everything off your USB", but nonetheless, this is ridiculous. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel's Vineyard[edit]

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

Subject of very limited independent coverage. Article is almost entirely drawn from the organization itself. No indication of broader notability. Suggest redirect to Priests for Life, of which it is a part). (Bold redirect by another editor disputed by the article's initial author.) SummerPhD (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per my initial rationale: "not notable (coverage is WP:ROUTINE announcements, non-reliable sources, promotional material)". Note also that the revert of the redirect, by the article creator, almost justifies a delete all by itself: "Don't let's stop people from getting help. This is a valuable resource for abortion survivors." The article is obviously intended to serve as promotion for the organization, rather than any encyclopedic function. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Abortion is, of course, a very controversial topic, and I would hate to see it get politicized on Wikipedia. There is already an article on Wikipedia about Abortion and mental health that addresses the existence or non-existence of "post-abortion syndrome," which goes so far as to allege that “some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the focus on "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.” Plainly, this is a political hot-potato. As an abortion survivor, who was deeply hurt by my partner’s decision to have an abortion, I urge that this article be kept up so that people might find the help they need. As a frequent contributor to Wikipedia (mostly on typography), I think that objectivity would be served by including this article, as there is a clear political motive to purging it. And as for the “encyclopedic function” of Wikipedia, I have to ask if we are here to be a bloodless compendium of facts, or a resource that people can also use to better their lives. "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it" Dutchman Schultz (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion is not about any other article on Wikipedia or abortion in general. This is about whether or not this subject meets our criteria for inclusion, outlined at WP:N. In general, subjects are notable if they are the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. This subject is not. Typically, this would suggest that we delete the article and put a redirect in its place to Priests for Life. (Note that that article is also currently lacking significant coverage.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect -- lack of sufficient coverage in secondary RS to justify a separate page. a13ean (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- the social text and the journal article are minimally sufficient. a13ean (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add material on subject such as that found in this Chicago Tribune article [15] and in this New York Times article [[16]. For an article that has been in Wikipedia for about four and a half years shouldn't we be willing to do a basic google search for reliable sources? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I did run across the Times piece. I felt (and still feel) the coverage there is trivial. I can't figure how I missed the Tribune article, which certainly looks useful, if we can find more than one article of that depth. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cosign. Trivial mentions don't support notability, nor does a single useful piece. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing well over 100 news stories (I stopped counting at 100) and about 50 books discussing the subject. I think WP:N is more than satisfied, and I don't know why the nom missed all that coverage. Also, "article is almost entirely drawn from the organization itself" is not a valid deletion reason, it's a reason to improve the article: see WP:NOTCLEANUP. And I really don't understand the suggestion "that the revert of the redirect, by the article creator, almost justifies a delete all by itself." -- 202.124.75.35 (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you would take the time to look at the "news stories" instead of just citing WP:GOOGLEHITS, you would notice what I already pointed out: they're routine announcements (probably some paid listings), passing mentions in people's lists of credentials, obviously unreliable sources. Likewise the book sources are obviously unreliable. There's a reason WP:GOOGLEHITS is a page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not seeing >100 reliable sources with substantial coverage. If you can link to several, that would be helpful. That the current article is almost entirely from the organization is not the deletion reason I gave. "Subject of very limited independent coverage. Article is almost entirely drawn from the organization itself. No indication of broader notability." I draw attention to the weak current sourcing to head off any "But it has 17 sources" claims. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak current sourcing is not a deletion reason, and sources are indeed quite numerous, as another editor has pointed out below. The book sources I've looked at devote several pages to "Rachel's Vineyard." And I see no reason to call the book sources "unreliable," unless that's a code phrase for "having the wrong politico-religious ideology." -- 202.124.74.6 (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're a well known organization with a long list of news stories. This would be akin to a pro life advocate asking to get rid of Planned Parenthood's Wikipedia page. The personal bias of the editor should not cloud their objectivity -- and I am concerned that the objectivity of this editor may be clouded by their politics. Lordvolton (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Do you mean me? After assuming good faaith: What indication of a "personal bias" and my "politics" do you see? To repeat: If you have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, please link to it as I am not seeing it. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies... I should have been more specific. I was referring to Roscelese. Lordvolton (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Except that PP's notability is painfully obvious. If RV is notable, you should be able to demonstrate that notability, instead of arguing (as the creator has done) "people need to know about them," "they have a lot of Facebook likes," "I was personally hurt by my partner's abortion," and "is Wikipedia really meant to be an encyclopedia of facts anyway?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples for Roscelese[edit]

As you know, Rachel's Vineyard is a Catholic Organization and there are numerous (too many to list) references to them in Catholic publications. However, after investing a few minutes here are a few that you might find more to your liking -- although you routinely ignore reputable sources based on my previous experience with you (e.g., Douglas Karpen article).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"Mainstream anti-abortion groups didn’t shout Koop down, and the issue seemed dead. But the Catholic Church, which began financing abortion-recovery counseling in the early 1980s, continued to do so, and in 1986, Theresa Burke began developing a model of weekly support groups and later weekend retreats for women suffering from what she called post-abortion trauma. In 1993, Burke founded Rachel’s Vineyard, an independent religious group, to broaden her reach. The gatherings multiplied across the country — more than 500 retreats are planned internationally in 2007 — as well as an annual training conference. “It just grew and grew,” Burke says. " - New York Times

The New York Times should meet a reasonable person's threshold.

Here are a few more:

http://www.lakeplacidnews.com/page/content.detail/id/502658/Izzo-competes-for-a-good-cause.html?nav=5007 http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/health/article/Is-post-abortion-syndrome-real-1242400.php http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20020120abortion0120p3.asp

Here are just a few books that reference Rachel’s Vineyard:

Abortion, Motherhood, and Mental Health by Ellie Lee (page 23) Almost wasn’t: a memoir of my abortion and how God used me by Sonya Howard (page 119) Backroad to the Whitehouse by Joe Schriner (page 138) Feminism vs. women by Ashley Herzog (page 97) Crises Pregnancy Centers: the birthplace of grassroots movements by Terry Ionora (page 89) I’m pregnant, now what? By Ruth Graham and Sara Dorman (page 202) The Road back to Grace: a guide to healing your past. By David Whitaker (page 164)

And the list goes on...

Lordvolton (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another newspaper article on Rachel's Vineyard, this one from the Hartford Courant [17]

Other citations:

Genevieve, Maher, P., & Ryan, T. (2009). Healing abortion's trauma and 'Rachel's Vineyard Retreat': From three participants. Australasian Catholic Record, 86(2), 200-211.
Cockrill, K., Upadhyay, U. D., Turan, J. and Greene Foster, D. (2013), The Stigma of Having an Abortion: Development of a Scale and Characteristics of Women Experiencing Abortion Stigma. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 45: 79–88. doi: 10.1363/4507913 -- 202.124.74.6 (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another newspaper article. This one is from the Straits Times (Singapore) [18] Badmintonhist (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, routine local coverage, trivial mentions, and unreliable/promotional sources, just like I said. What about this is supposed to persuade me? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'It is nice that some users here point out that reliable sources can be found on this subject. However, as long as the article isn't supported by them, it still lacks WP:RS. Please improve the article with the sources, because as for now, it still reads too much like an advertisement.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' NY Times is a passing reference, not supporting any content BananaFiend (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion[edit]

Delete Not sufficiently notable. I'm unconvinced by the examples above with the exception of the Chicago Tribune article. One would like to see greater coverage and less self-promotional material. As it stands, delete is warranted. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I see nothing . . . nothing." The Sergeant Schultz routine isn't convincing. The Chicago Tribune was under no obligation to interview Rachel's Vineyard founder Theresa Karminski Burke. This wasn't an interview about her upcoming nuptials. The Hartford Courant wasn't asking Clarissa Cincotta about her recipe for Welsh rarebit, they were asking her about her work with Rachel's Vineyard. The Straits Times of Singapore (a nation which, notably, has a recent history of both legal abortion and press censorship), wasn't asking Jennifer Heng's advice about finding the right maid for a family with young children, they were asking her about Rachel's Vineyard. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The relevant criterion here is surely WP:NONPROFIT:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

I think (1) is obvious, with sources from around the USA, Singapore and Australia. We also have "multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources" (books, journal articles, newspaper stories from around the world) providing "information about the organization and its activities." If it wasn't for all the controversy, I think notability would be obvious. When the "routine local coverage" that Roscelese mentions is happening across the USA and the world, then that's got to be an indication that WP:NONPROFIT is satisfied. -- 202.124.73.13 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another newspaper article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [19].

Keep -- I suspect that some of the votes against are due to "I DO NOT LIKE IT". 133 retreats per year and operations in several countries suggest that it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cleanup reason, not a deletion reason. -- 202.124.73.8 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, such deletions are commonplace. Gamaliel (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DEL-REASON and WP:NOTCLEANUP. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are not worth cleaning up. Gamaliel (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And they are not worth cleaning up because I just don't like them. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't like it when Wkipedia is cluttered with press releases promoting non notable organizations. Should I enjoy that? Gamaliel (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles on subjects less notable than this one. If the article, as it stands, is poorly sourced and poorly written then the answer is to improve it. Take out the fluff and add well sourced substance. If you want an example of a worse article that's been in Wikipedia for years check out Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gamaliel (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the essay points out, is a weak argument when it stands alone. In this case it doesn't stand alone because a number of reliable sources with objective information about the program have been found. What's really at work here is WP:POV: Editors looking for arguably marginal, politically uncongenial articles to delete while giving a pass to similarly marginal but politically inoffensive articles. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the newspaper articles are routine announcements, so they do not count. Many of the books mentioning Rachel's Vineyard are self-published so they do not count, either. The reliable sources that convinced me this is a valid topic are the following:

Gonzalez, Ramon (September 7, 2005). "Rachel's Vineyard offers new retreat for non-Catholics". Western Catholic Reporter. Archived from the original on October 4, 2006. Retrieved July 10, 2013. This is not an announcement but an analysis by a staff reporter.
Lee, Ellie (2003). Abortion, Motherhood, and Mental Health: Medicalizing Reproduction in the United States and Great Britain. Social Problems and Social Issues (2 ed.). Transaction Publishers. pp. 23–24. ISBN 9780202364049.
Genevieve; Peter Maher; Thomas Ryan (2009). "Healing Abortion's Trauma and 'Rachel's Vineyard Retreat': From Three Participants". Australasian Catholic Record. 86 (2): 200–211.

These were sufficient in my view to satisfy WP:GNG—they show dedicated descriptions by third parties. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The SNR is lower than I'd like but the Tribune article and Binksternet's sources are enough for notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability[edit]

Gamaliel and Badmintonhist's discussion has raised an important point. If this article is non-notable then we will be forced to consider culling a lot of other articles in order for there to be any semblance of fairness on Wikipedia.

Here is a beginning list of potential articles that Roscelese and Gamaliel can begin reviewing for notability and deletion using the same standard that they're applying to Rachel's Vineyard.

list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humanist_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Majority_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Public_Advocacy_Coalition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Incorporated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Women%27s_Health_Resource_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_for_Women_International http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider_Opportunities_for_Women http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Women%27s_Law_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Momentum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Center_for_Research_on_Women http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Foundation_for_Women http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholics_for_Choice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Women_United http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Advocates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL

list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humanist_Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Majority_Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Public_Advocacy_Coalition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Incorporated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Women%27s_Health_Resource_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_for_Women_International

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider_Opportunities_for_Women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Women%27s_Law_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Momentum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Center_for_Research_on_Women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Foundation_for_Women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholics_for_Choice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Women_United

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Advocates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL

They're going to be busy beavers! Lordvolton (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of WP:WAX doesn't really help the discussion. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WAX is irrelevant here. Article's subject does not meet WP:ORG; sources are not independent of the Catholic Church. Miniapolis 14:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources listed above are in fact independent of the Catholic Church, and even the Catholic ones are independent of "Rachel's Vineyard." The relevant criterion here is WP:NONPROFIT, which is clearly met. -- 202.124.89.17 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we need to focus on whether this organziation is notable, not some other group, or groups, or lists of groups. I am not sure. I am asking my fellow sysops to consider re-listing this, so as to gain a consensus, as the issue is unlikely to go away immediately.... Bearian (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Heading to a no consensus closure, but let me relist it to be on the safe side.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing on the piece is terrible, with self-sourcing and blogs dominating. I believe there is enough independently published material, such as THIS from West Central Wisconsin Catholic, to support a piece. This is the sort of material that an encyclopedia should include, burden of proof should be on those seeking deletion of serious content. No, as an organization IDONTLIKEIT, but that's irrelevant — there is sufficient sourcing to pass GNG out there... Carrite (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing was better than it looked, with several reputable newspapers included, but the use of bare urls did the article no favours at all. I've turned about a quarter of them into proper citations. I think both WP:NONPROFIT and WP:GNG are easily satisfied now. -- 202.124.89.10 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite and the sources brought forward during this debate. I am on the other side of the issue personally, but want this encyclopedia to cover notable topics on all sides. That being said, I have edited the article with NPOV in mind, and placed the article on my watch list. This article should not be a promotional brochure for these retreats. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: Despite WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and tons of WP:PUFFERY, lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Mentions of the organization in reliable independent sources are tangential, trivial or routine. Not enough to base a free-standing article on by a wide mile. Article is purely promotional in nature as it stands, and I doubt that reliable sources exist to create an objective and informative article in compliance with WP:NPOV. My own searches turned up nothing promising. In fact, I'm having trouble verifying that the "organization" is anything more than a handful of cranks with a fax machine. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The cited coverage in reliable publications from three separate countries, and the hundreds of events they run, doesn't suggest that they might be more than "a handful of cranks with a fax machine"? -- 202.124.89.18 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it, but I am leaning keep per Carrite, Cullen and Xymmax. FWIW, I think all of the other, pro-choice organizations mentioned above are also notable, with the possible exceptions. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 27 July 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) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redfern Jon Barrett[edit]

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

None of the works appear in Worldcat, except for (this one story --apparently a self published author. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a largely self-published author. His one novel is in paperback through CreateSpace after being published for the Kindle by Amazon (which has it for free at the moment). He appears to cross verifiability but not notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- One novel and four short stories do not create notability; certainly not without a major hard-copy publisher. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Stemkoski[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Dan Stemkoski" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Nick Plott" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

I don't think we've ever accepted a StarCraft commentator as notable. I suppose it's possible, so I bring it here for a decision. (see adjacent afd) DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can I request that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Plott and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Stemkoski be merged so as to minimize repetition? czar · · 05:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)~~ ✓ czar · · 16:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 06:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm not frankly sure that they meet the notability guidelines, but I'm sure those more active in the Starcraft community might disagree. Google News only returns one article, and a regular Google search brings up his Facebook and Twitter before most anything else, so he's not widely known. I'd say keep it for now and revisit in a year. RyanGrant (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To the nom's point, HuskyStarcraft has been accepted at AfD and Sean Plott will likely never be challenged. As for Stemkoski and Nick Plott in this AfD, they're possibly the best known of the lot. Polygon (well-respected video game site) called them "the most well-known StarCraft 2 casting duo in the world", "broadcast[ing] to millions of viewers around the world" with sponsorships and a cult following. The Polygon feature puts them both over the threshold of doubtful significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which will only increase as the nascent field expands. If necessary, I'd additionally argue for WP:ENT #3 per the aforementioned quotes. And searches for their given names (especially as a string) will yield little since the commentators are primarily known by nicknames "Artosis" (Stemkoski) and "Tasteless" (Plott). They're also based in Korea, but I don't have the prowess to find reliable Korean gaming sources. czar · · 03:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much beyond the Polygon source though? Usually it takes more than one source, even if its reliable and in-depth... Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated coverage other than the P feature include [20] and [21], and as mentioned in the article, 'The Verge's Paul Miller referred to Tastosis as "the primary practitioners of StarCraft casting".'[22] There's other coverage on their prominence, but these are the articles about the commentators in specific from American secondary sources. (I'm not familiar with the "reliable" eSports-dedicated sites or their Korean analogues.) czar · · 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find video game sources: "Tasteless StarCraft" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Artosis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Tastosis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:39, 26 July 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) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generator Rex (Toy Line)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable independent sources to establish the notability of this series of toys. The page creator themselves admit: "info is very scant as they quietly canceled series, &never sold/marketed well to begin, so there's little to nothing to source." Exactly. As a result, given the complete lack of sources to support a stand alone article, this fails WP:GNG and deserves, at best, a one line mention in the Generator Rex article. Valenciano (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already appropriately summarised in the Generator Rex article, no reliable sources exist for this level of detail. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Andrew Lenahan - no sourcing, and adequately covered in main article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their nomination without dissent. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinney Heights, Los Angeles[edit]

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

Not Notable. Not listed in the Thomas Guide or in Mapping L.A. Simply a real-estate development. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-established (more than 100 years old) and historic district. Plenty of material available, see [23]. The Los Angeles Times calls it "a neighborhood of large Craftsman-style houses in the West Adams district of Los Angeles." [24]. I will improve the article if the result is "keep". (Watchlisting this discussion to make sure I do.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per above editor. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:21, 24 July 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 Brentwood, Los Angeles. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenter Canyon, Los Angeles[edit]

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

Not a Notable neighborhood. Not mentioned in the Thomas Guide or in Mapping L.A. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only notable structure in the area was Kenter Canyon Elementary Charter School. I assume this is how the developer found the proposal of creating an article on this particular topic. However, I could not found any reliable sources of any verifiability for a neighborhood itself. Kenter Canyon is not mentioned in any notable newspaper or website, such as Mapping L.A., as well. TBrandley (T • C • B) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Brentwood, Los Angeles. I found a few references, but not enough to build an article around. This from the Los Angeles Times indicates that the city regarded it as a real neighborhood as long ago as 1941. And several sources mentioned it as part of Brentwood. So it should not be deleted, but a redirect/merge is appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per reasons cited above, the article fails to establish verifiability and also fails to meet GNG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Brentwood, Los Angeles. Possible search topic, so a redirect to parent location is in order. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:02, 26 July 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) 15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Archer (film)[edit]

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

Can't find any indication that anybody noticed this 2005 short film. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gong show 17:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete in agreement with the nominator. This short film has not received the coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the notable cast, I couldn't significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 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) 02:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asok (Dilbert)[edit]

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

All primary sources and in-universe. No out-of-world notability asserted. Redirecting would be controversial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". For example, the nomination asserts that "All primary sources and in-universe" but one only has read into the article a short way to find "The character is named after a friend and co-worker of strip creator Scott Adams at Pacific Bell." which is sourced to The Hindu. Warden (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, that source wasn't there when he started the nomination- I added that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information was there already and is not in universe. The article already had a NYT source which is not primary. The nominator seems to have made a cookie-cutter nomination without checking the facts, let alone doing the due diligence expected by WP:BEFORE. We shouldn't have to waste our time discussing an absurd nomination which is so far from the truth. But thanks for taking the trouble of doing a proper job yourself. The sources such as the BBC article are excellent and well demonstrate the notability of the topic. Warden (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "NYT" source is from Freakonomics, a blog owned by NYT. Also, it is mostly an interview, so it is so un-primary. Chris857 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the subject of substantive outside coverage per the sources now included in the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline: [25], [26], [27]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources from the BBC, ABC News and The Hindu in the article provide enough coverage to clear the WP:GNG bar. Zad68 00:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Really, TPH, you should know better than to not do a thorough WP:BEFORE check on any fictional element from a popular work--this could have been avoided. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 19 July 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. copyvio from [28] no clean history. Secret ^account 04:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Clinicians for the Underserved[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows that this organization is notable. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Seems to be a worthwhile organization, eminently notable, dedicated to the 45million+ people in the US who don't have health insurance. Strong web presence supposes that numerous sources could be added to improve the article. scope_creep (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first part of your comment is irrelevant to notability. What strong web presence? SL93 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article needs to be less promotional, and is in serious need of sources. Most of what I find are blogs and business directory types, but here are some possible sources: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination without dissent. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Principle[edit]

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

An extremely generic, abstract term. The article starts with a dicdef, then proceeds into a clumsy way far from complete list of various principles. I say this page is the place for disambig, and to this end I request its deletion, and page move in Talk:Principle (disambiguation) . Staszek Lem (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. One of the biggest mistakes we can make as an encyclopedia is to start deleting articles on concepts that are abstract and difficult to write about. bd2412 T 12:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be suggesting redirection which is not achieved by deletion. In any case, the topic merits more work per WP:IMPERFECT. Warden (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn after reading and understanding WP:DABCONCEPT, thanks to User:BD2412. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination without dissent. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stewardship[edit]

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

The word is a generic term, which acquired a neologistic meaning recently. The article Stewardship is basically a dicdef, mostly for the word steward, and the list of various buzzwords, such as environmental stewardship, etc. The subject is perfectly covered by the disambiguation page, similar to Guidance, Directorship, etc. To this end I requested page move at Talk:Stewardship (disambiguation). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The disambiguation page is itself borderline WP:DABCONCEPT, because none of the terms is just the word, "stewardship", but instead all of them are obviously types of stewardship, which is a clearly discernible concept of responsible planning and preservation of resources, generally with the idea that a third party will receive a future benefit from this activity. It is, of course, difficult to write articles on broad concepts that are applicable across many different fields. Nevertheless, it is our duty as an encyclopedia to write these articles and convey broad concepts to the best of our ability. bd2412 T 02:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As to the "neologistic meaning", see National Research Council Committee on Antarctic Policy and Science, Science and Stewardship in the Antarctic (1993), p. 78: "[The Environmental Protocol will impose on antarctic science and scientists an additional key role: a far greater degree of environmental responsibility toward the continent and its ecology. This added stewardship role, while challenging, also offers new benefits both to the science and to the environment. In addition, the new stewardship role and the Protocol imply that the link between science and policy will broaden, so that formulating effective policy on environmental issues will require greater ties between scientists and policymakers]". At least twenty years of use is time enough to say that it is no longer a neologism for encyclopedic purposes. bd2412 T 03:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is very notable as numerous books have been written about it such as Stewardship. And FWIW, in patrolling AFD, I consider myself to be a steward of our material, which should not be so casually destroyed. Warden (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Important concept in environmental ethics. Article is just beginning, but valuable addition to Wikipedia. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rlsheehan (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn after reading and understanding WP:DABCONCEPT, thanks to User:BD2412. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 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. Many arguments on both sides did not address sourcing, and as such were marginally helpful at best, but those which did indicated that coverage was significantly wider than local and demonstrated that there is sufficient source material. Whether this is more appropriate as a standalone article or a subsection of another should be discussed further as there is no clear consensus on that here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash[edit]

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

A non-notable light aircraft accident that fails to make WP:AIRCRASH and more critically the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The accident received the usual press coverage for a couple of days and then was ignored as all news events quickly are. There is no indication that this accident will result in changes to Air Traffic Control procedures, Federal Aviation Regulations, the issuance of Airworthiness Directives or Service Bulletins or have any other lasting effects. The NTSB is investigating, but this is not significant in itself in that they investigate all commercial accidents with fatalities as a matter of course. Globally dozens of light aircraft accidents like this one happen everyday and are similar to automobile and small boating accidents in that they are not individually notable. Please note that "keep" arguments should not be made on an emotional basis but should show how this accident has lasting consequences and thus does not violate the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue here is that the NTSB was concerned because ferry services are held to higher standards than normal airline flights, so I would like to have it here for a few more weeks to see if anything comes out of this. Regardless, thank you for nominating it for deletion four minutes after I declined the PROD. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The discussion about this article at WikiProject Aircraft resulted in a consensus to take it to AfD. I just thought I would try going the WP:PROD route to see if there were any objections first, knowing that we would probably have a full debate on the future of the article here at AfD regardless. Also what the ref you are referring to said was "the plane was an air taxi, which is held to a higher standard than general aviation aircraft", not that air taxi is held to a higher standard than airline flights. This is the same as saying that ground taxi cabs are held to a higher standard than private cars. In both cases it is true, but it doesn't impact the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in any way. - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh god, sorry about misrepresenting the article as I forgot that. In terms of this, I guess we could always do REFUND if need be if it gets deleted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls" - why aren't you notifying all the other projects "within whose scope this article falls"? What happened to notifying the Alaska project? Dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They got notified about 2 minutes later by Gene93K, as you can see. Play the ball and not the man. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the airport article, as the airline doesn't seem to have an article. (as a summary already exists at the airport article, this is effectively a redirect to the airport result) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already solved the 'doesn't seem to have an article' part (unless it gets deleted). Antonio The Pro Martin (la habla) 09:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's no rush to delete this article as the investigation is still ongoing and may well result in changes to procedures etc. In fact, this article implies that the authorites are looking very seriously into why so many accidents occur in Alaska. Besides, WP:AIRCRASH is just a project writing guide, nothing more. I'm surprised that a crash which killed 10 people wouldn't be deemed notable enough for the aviation project, but then again, perhaps I'm not. In general terms this is a notable event that has clear verifiable reliable sources to back it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the notability guideline for events is not met: there does not seem to be any ongoing coverage. All there is are initial news reports, which is not sufficient as the base of a Wikipedia article per WP:NOTNEWS. This air taxi crash (regardless of its death toll) is of no importance to the aviation industry, and as such finally also fails the WP:AIRCRASH guideline.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well WP:AIRCRASH is just one project's view of what is notable. There are other Wikiprojects involved in this article. I imagine this would be a notable event in the eyes of Wikiproject Alaska for instance. It's not all about the aviation project. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails the notability guidelines for events, doesn't it fail for all projects? (I know one or two projects claim their own precedence over GNG but not many.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that AIRCRASH isn't Wikipedia's notability guideline for articles, it's a ready reckoner against which articles which may be assessed for consideration for deletion. I would have imagined that the lasting impact to Alaska and changes that may occur within the way air taxis operate in Alaska will be significant. But as usual there's a rush to delete the article before even the investigation is complete and recommendations published. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we don't need the WP:AIRCRASH guideline. But that's why I based my reasoning on the WP:EVENT policy. So far, there is just no evidence of any "lasting impact to Alaska" (otherwise, the situation might look different). For the time being, one could thus also apply WP:TOOSOON.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we could equally apply WP:DEADLINE as the report is yet to be released with any potential recommendations. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The report is pretty much WP:ROUTINE, as any aviation accident is followed by an investigation. Just the fact that there will be a report does not establish notability.--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed the publication of the report, the findings and conclusions, could you link me to that please? Otherwise, what's the rush in deleting this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHUTUPWITHWPSALREADY — Lfdder (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Soldotna Airport. Yes, we have a lot of small plane crashes up here, but they usually don't result in ten people dying. Two entire families and the owner of this small airline were all lost. That is not an everyday small airplane crash, and that would be why national news outlets such as CNN actually covered this crash, unlike most other Alaska small plane crashes which are unfortunately an all too common occurrence due to the heavy use of air travel up here. There is and will continue to be ongoing coverage of this, but the NTSB doesn't just issue findings overnight, it will take some time before the cause of the accident is made official. If this is not enough to maintain a stand-alone article there is no reason it can't be covered in the article on the airport, such articles often contain a history of notable incidents and in fact this is already mentioned there and could be fleshed out further with the text of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of fatalities in the crash offer a degree of prominence for this type of event. The nominator does not, in my opinion, offer a sound reason to rush this into deletion. At the very least, it could become a subsection of the Soldotna Airport article, as Beeblebrox wisely suggests. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment those suggesting a merge, is that actually a real outcome from an discussion about deletion? I thought this was whether the article was deleted or not, a merge elsewhere is a separate discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it's official policy or not, but there's a very longstanding tradition that "merge" and "redirect" are possible outcomes of a deletion discussion, in addition to the official results of "keep", "delete", and "no consensus". --Carnildo (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possible outcomes - as stated at WP:AFD - are "kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another page, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a cleanup message for an AfD-merge ... ((Afd-merge to)) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks all, I knew that really; remind me not to edit when exhausted from building flat-pack furniture. Anyway, it's certainly looking like no consensus to do anything right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soldotna Airport, not really anything to Merge over and above what is already mentioned there IMO; and certainly not enough material to warrant an entire seperate article. I stopped arguing AfDs based on AIRCRASH ages ago because it is only an essay, but there are plenty of other guidelines and policies on WP that override the AIRCRASH essay, and IMO this event does not pass the threshold of notability required (and number of deaths is not a criterion for retaining the article). The "significant and widespread ongoing coverage" does not exist, there was a brief flurry of media reports on the couple of days after the crash - as happens for a very large number of events these days - and now they have moved on to other stories. If there does prove to be further and significant coverage of the crash in the future, we can reassess the situation, undo the redirect if that is the consensus, and expand the article. As for "no consensus" now, we have two (one rather weak) 'keep', one 'keep or merge' and a bunch of 'merge or redirect' !votes, and I suspect that the nominator would not be against merging or redirecting either. YSSYguy (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, I would have no objections to that outcome. Despite claims above that there is "no consensus" on this AfD, the basis of the debate was that this article does not meet the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and all the "delete" and "redirect" comments have supported that it does not, which is clearly the case. The "keep" arguments to date have failed to show how this article does comply with Wikipedia policy and have instead relied on emotional or vague arguments. I am confident that the closing admin will weigh those arguments appropriately. - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be helpful if the nominator refrained from accusing editors of presenting "emotional or vague arguments". It's a recurring theme with the nominator and is patronising to those who contribute here. Please allow editors to express their opinion without your psych assessments. Of course you're entitled to be confident, you must be genuinely pleased with the number of articles you've managed to have deleted. Good work, very enriching. And by the way, what is the rush? Why not wait until the report comes out and then assess any recommendations to see how they change the way in which air taxis operate in Alaska? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:The Rambling Man: Despite the personal attack and the sarcasm you have presented above, you still haven't shown how this article complies with Wikipedia policy. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:Ahunt, I'm not sure where the personal attack is, your continual references in these AFDs to "emotional or vague arguments" is patronising. It's not a personal attack, it's a comment on your general approach to immediately making those who disagree with your perspective on the defensive. It's a well-used ploy. I've seen it in business and I've seen it here many, many times. You have "not newspaper" as your only reason for deleting this, but yet you're so impatient to delete it you're not prepared to wait for the results of the investigation into the crash? Why the rush? Why the urgency to remove articles from Wikipedia? Why would you want to disappear an article about ten people killed in an accident that's still under investigation? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright let's address that argument: All aircraft accidents that happen in first world countries are subject to investigations by national authorities, in this case the US NTSB. These authorities take at least a year to complete their investigations, sometimes much longer. In almost all cases the accidents are found to have human factor causes or other simple failures and almost none result in changes to procedures, airworthiness directives, training, ATC procedures or anything else substantial. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should have articles on all aircraft accidents, in case, in a couple of years the final reports recommend substantial changes and then go back and delete the 99% of accident articles that turn out to be routine and non-notable. This would be reversing the onus of existing Wikipedia policy, which currently says that an event article must be shown to be about something more than just a news story that has no enduring value. We can of course do just that, but we would need commitments to create articles on the dozens of aircraft accidents that happen each day and we would also need to change Wikipedia policy that prevents retaining articles on events that are just mere news stories and indicate that events that are just news stories with no obvious long term effects are to be retained, in case they do develop long term effects, as determined by future reports due out in one to three years. Now, of course, this is not the venue to discuss changing that policy. For now we are just discussing whether this article does comply with the existing policy or not and no one yet has presented a case that it does. - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, thanks User:Ahunt. You've made some interesting points, mostly prophesy and your own opinion, but it's now down to the community to decide. You've decided there is a deadline and others disagree. Time to move onto another proposed candidate for deletion, I'm sure the aviation project won't have to wait too long. Let's just leave it here. (Sorry, forgot to sign. Just passed by the "Aviation project" and looked at the discussions there... just deletion after deletion after deletion proposal... mostly unsuccessful. Speaks for itself). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per Rambling Man's substantive points, above. Coverage continues: AP story from a few days ago [39] again refers to the potential implications of this crash for Alaska's essential air taxi services. If coverage really does die away, we can always consider a merge later but right now it seems to me that it's more constructive to maintain the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. This article is helpful too, highlighting it was the worst civilian air-crash in Alaska in at least 25 years. In another article from just a week ago, we learn wreckage has been sent to Washington and Phoenix to investigate the cause. This is clearly an ongoing event and quite why there's such a rush from the aviation project, in particular User:Ahunt, to delete it, is curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are - either deliberately or accidently - misrepresenting that story. It says one of the worst, not the worst, and it's a blog not an article; leaving that aside for a moment, it was written the day after the crash, so overall you haven't done very well in arguing that there has been significant ongoing coverage in reliable third-party sources have you? The article referred to by Arxiloxos also does not state what s/he says it does, in that it does not "[refer] to the potential implications of this crash for Alaska's essential air taxi services". YSSYguy (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AP article first reports that the crash evidence is being reviewed, then notes the importance of air taxis to the state, as Beeblebrox did above. Perhaps you find the connection too indirect. But we also have the comments last week of NTSB member Earl Weener, reported by both Occupational Health and Safety Magazine[40] and by local Alaskan media [41], the latter of which reports that Weener "suggests that their investigation isn’t simply to answer questions for those mourning the ten people lost on board; Weener hints at future changes for aviation in Alaska, writing: 'It’s crucial to understand what happened so we can help improve aviation safety for a state which relies so heavily on all manner and make of aircraft.'"--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. There were 10 people dead, I've seen accidents with less deaths written about here. 2. This accident did receive extensive media coverage. --Antonio Miss Peru Martin (loser talk) 11:59, 23 July, 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I note that you have moved the article to 2013 Rediske Air Otter crash. Ideally the article should not have been moved in the middle of an AfD discussion to avoid confusion. This could have been done after the debate is closed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies, Ahunt. I had not noted the debate before I moved it, at least AFAIR, and your comment will be fully noted next time I move an article. - Antonio Please don't change my Signature Martin (loser talk) 14:32, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the airport article. At present there is nothing encyclopaedic to be said about the accident beyond what is said there. If there are significant and notable changes to anything as a result of the investigation that can not be summed up by the simple noting on relevant pages in the single sentence "Following the crash of a Turbine Otter at Soldotna airport in 2013 that killed 10 people, X was changed to Y." or something like that, then there will be scope for an article. At the moment though all we have is people "hinting" that there might be changes which is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect To the airport article. There is no current changes as a result, but this has resulted in deaths. Airplanegod (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, did the report come out? Can you link it please? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An aircrash killing ten people is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am seeing a lot of these sorts of arguments here, that people died so the event must be notable, but this argument doesn't amount to more than WP:ILIKEIT as the article clearly doesn't meet the policy for an article as outlined in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT. I don't think many people would argue to keep an article about a bus, van or boat crash in which there were ten deaths and no other lasting significance. To successfully argue that the article should be kept requires that you show how those arguing that it doesn't comply with policy are mistaken and, that, in fact, this article does meet the Wikipedia policy for articles. - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for re-iterating your view of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please assume good faith in our editors who contribute here rather than continually browbeat them for expressing opinions. In all honesty, badgering those who oppose your perspective is now becoming somewhat disruptive. I'd stop doing it really. By the way Asiana Airlines Flight 214 lost just three lives and made it to ITN. Are you arguing we should delete that too? I look forward to the AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. A scheduled 777 flight is very different than a chartered DHC-3; 2. WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why exactly? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think many people would argue to keep an article about a bus, van or boat crash in which there were ten deaths". Well, I for one would and have done. There is no real Wikipedia policy for individual articles - their notability is determined by discussion, like the one we're having. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another situation where context is important. Number of deaths is not the only deciding factor, but it is certainly in the mix. The 2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash killed fewer, but one of them was a former Senator, so there was no doubt it was notable. Just a week or so before this crash there was another fatal crash but it was a private plane flying in bad wheather so there's not much particularly notable about it. This crash is described in press accounts as the worst aircrash in Alaska in a decade. In a place that relies heavily on air transport, where even the smallest town has an airport and a few small airlines/air taxis that is significant, and the press coverage reflects that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircrash guidelines are well intentioned, but there is usually sufficient interest in crashes that kill more than 2 or 3 people. Applying it to this one carries it too far. The guidelines of a subject group are valid only to the extent the community wishes to follow them, and there's always been sufficient dispute about articles in this area that I do not think they have the status of a de facto guideline (I tend to respect de facto guidelines once they've become established, whether or not I personally agree with them, in order to minimize the number of articles that need discussion) . The AP story referred to above is enough to show the general significance, and if it is important for other reasons than the narrow aircrash guidelines, it's notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ten people died in this crash. All notable crashes get their own articles. Category:21st-century aviation accidents and incidents You want to make a decision about this, then you need to discuss them all, not just try to pick off one at a time now and again. Dream Focus 18:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy on events, while this no doubt got news coverage in the US, but not seeing anything outside there , nothing in the article or in any of the sources I have looked at suggest that this is going to have any lasting or significant effect on aviation (see WP:EVENT) and until there is evidence of such a line or two in the article on de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter is all that is needed. LGA _talk^edits 00:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look to see if it had news coverage outside the US? UK, Australia, France, India.... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but was looking for stuff after the day of the crash, to demonstrate coverage duration. LGA _talk^edits 06:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I thought you said it had had no coverage outside the US. My mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the AIRCRASH fans, if this is not notable, why, then, does it meet the notability requirements for inclusion on the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft page? Double standards perhaps? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the requirements for a stand alone WP article are different for those dealing with content inclusion on exiting articles. As WP:NOTNEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." .... "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" as it stands this is just that newsworthy but not of enduring notability. LGA _talk^edits 06:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But inclusion in that list is wholly dependent on the article existing. It exists and meets the notability requirements of the list. I suppose, if you wish to delete this, it would beg the question how many other entries on that page should be deleted. Interesting! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG The Steve 08:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Soldotna Airport, so the article can be easily revived if and when there is ongoing coverage. Miniapolis 15:48, 29 July 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) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Da Bomb Bikes[edit]

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

I found no coverage. This company fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure they make nice bikes, but that is not an inclusion criteria here. Couldn't find much of anything by way of significant coverage, though mountain biking magazines and Mandarin language sites may have more. Happy to consider anything anyone else can find but at the moment, I can't support keeping this. Stalwart111 01:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is unreferenced, and a search revealed only user-editable reviews, no RS coverage to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an article on a Mom & Pop company won't make it. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH for a Wikipedia article; source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on Super Match. There are some suggestions to merge here, and while the sourcing in the article could be better, Xymmax' did present a source that gives a reasonable merit to the notability claims. There is no such defense on the Jijidae derby article however, and the consensus is reasonably clear to delete that one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Match[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason provided. Original deletion rationale of "no evidence in reliable sources that this is a significant, notable football rivalry" remains a concern. Giant Snowman 12:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for deletion because they both cover the same subject:

Giant Snowman 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of 'evidence' and 'reliable source' do you want to verify its significance? All sorts of media in S.Korea say it is the biggest and fieriest derby match in S.Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.10.225.210 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Super Match and delete Jijidae derby

Rivaly of FC Seoul vs Suwon Samsung Bluewinsg is a world-famous and Super Match is best derby of K League

If the this derby is not notable, How can press in FIFA website. Please refer to FIFA website. http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/rivalries/newsid=1085354/index.html

Officialy, Anyang LG Cheetahs and FC Seoul are same club. So Jijidae derby have to delete and integrate to Super Match. Offcial K LeagueSuper Match records including Jjjidae derby (Anyang LG Cheetahs vs Suwon Samsung matches)Footwiks (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is "world-famous" (not supported by reliable sources) and you also say it is "best derby" (your personal opinion). You need to evidence notability. Giant Snowman 12:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rivaly page of FIFA websites only introduce world-famous derby. Refer to FIFA website http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/rivalries/newsid=1085354/index.html

Attendace records proved best derby in South Korea. K League Highest Attendance records.

#	Competition	Date	Home Team	Score	Away Team	Venue	Attedance	Notes
1	2010 K-League	2010-05-05	FC Seoul	4 : 0	Seongnam Ilhwa Chunma	Seoul World Cup Stadium	60,747	Children's Day
2	2010 K-League	2010-12-05	FC Seoul	2 : 1	Jeju United	Seoul World Cup Stadium	56,759	Weekend K-League Championship Final 2nd Leg
3	2007 K-League	2007-04-08	FC Seoul	0 : 1	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	55,397	Weekend
4	2011 K-League	2011-03-06	FC Seoul	0 : 2	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	51,606	Weekend 2011 Season Home Opener
5	2012 K-League	2012-08-19	FC Seoul	0 : 2	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	50,787	Weekend
6	2010 K-League	2010-04-04	FC Seoul	3 : 1	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	48,558	Weekend
7	2005 K-League	2005-07-10	FC Seoul	4 : 1	Pohang Steelers	Seoul World Cup Stadium	48,375	Weekend
8	2004 K-League	2004-04-03	FC Seoul	1 : 1	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	47,928	Weekend
9	2012 K-League	2012-05-05	FC Seoul	2 : 1	Pohang Steelers	Seoul World Cup Stadium	45,982	Weekend (Children's Day)
10	2003 K-League	2003-03-23	Daegu FC	0 : 1	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Daegu Stadium	45,210	Weekend

High attendances at a match is no indication of notability. Lots of matches around the world have crowds of 40 or 50k on a daily basis. Giant Snowman 13:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40 or 50k may not be a significant number in some countries, but considering the size of local football league fanbase in Korea it is a HUGE number. If you see the attendance record of other matches in Korea you will see its significance.

Keep Jijidae derby is exist until now. Suwon Samsung Bluewings and FC Anyang's match is it. FC Anyang have taken over Anyang LG Cheetahs's legitimacy.--Fetx2002 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an actual reason to keep the article, not just that it "exists". Giant Snowman 12:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004, Anyang LG Cheetahs has moved to Seoul and changed the name to FC Seoul. In a instant, Anyang citizens lost supported team. So Anyang citizens were furious and they were founded team by their effort. That is FC Anyang. Anyang LG Cheetahs and FC Anyang's identities are recognized equal. Jijidae derby's another name is Original Classico. If different in their opinions, Footwiks is famous to other people's personality profanity. I only speak the truth.--Fetx2002 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Super Match Fetx2002 tells a lie. Officialy Anyang LG Cheetahs and FC Seoul are same club. and FC Anyang is new club which founded in 2013. Please refer to official club prophile at K League website http://www.kleague.com/kr/sub.asp?avan=1006010000&league_id=3&team_id=K27& and check out official founding year.

Suwon Samsung and FC Anyang rivaly called not jijidae derby. It is called as Original classico and had a just one match with small spectators in May 2013. Therefore this match is not notable also in South Korea and Definaltely not notble in the World. Controller have to this article in English Wikipedia. Footwiks (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 June 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) 21:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Super Match Jijidae derby have to be delteted or redirected to Super Match. This is very obvious without discussion. Super match is including jijidae derby. Why same contents exist in English Wikepedia? Currently Super Match article including jijidae derby results. New jijidae derby Suwon Samsung vs FC Anyang is not notable in Korea and just one matches happend in May. Article regarding football rivaly with just one match have to be deleted. Footwiks (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on Super Match, delete Jijidae Derby. There is some support even in English language sites for this match being the most notable in South Korea, see this article. Though identified as a blog, it appears to be within the editorial control of the magazine publisher, and therefore an appropriate source under WP:NEWSBLOG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Super Match to Football in South Korea, delete Jijidae derby. Neither article meets WP:NRIVALRY for a standalone article. Miniapolis 13:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jijidae derby and Super Match are different. Jijidae derby is Suwon Bluewings and FC Anyang's rival match. There is no reason to delete or merge.--Fetx2002 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Jijidae derby is Suwon Bluewings and FC Anyang's rival match, Definitely we delete Jijidae derby, There is not notabilty in South korea. Just done one match in May 2013 and We don't know that when next match happen, Because FC Anyang is 2nd division club. If the Jijidae derby is allowed, I think that all football match over the world can become derby match and we can created it on wikipedia.

Keep Super Match and definatley delete Jijidae derby .Footwiks (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said, Anyang LG Cheetahs supporters were founded team by their effort is FC Anyang. So Anyang LG Cheetahs and FC Anyang's identities are recognized equal. Therefore Suwon Bluewings and FC Anyang's relationship is established as a rival.--Fetx2002 (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FC Anyang is not founded by Supporters. Exactly, FC Anyang is founded by Anyang City Governmentd. And Suwon Samsung and FC Anyang's rivaly is not important. Although the rivaly is exist, It's don't have notablity, Just one match held and only both team supports are intertested inFootwiks (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You must read South London derby#Wimbledon and AFC Wimbledon. Millwall F.C. and Wimbledon F.C. were rivals. but in 2003 Wimbledon F.C. was relocation to Milton Keynes and in 2004 rebranding Wimbledon F.C. as Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. but now Millwall F.C. and AFC Wimbledon are rivals. Also Millwall F.C. and AFC Wimbledon are different division. Two teams were only met once in FA Cup. If your insistence is correct, Millwall F.C. and AFC Wimbledon's relationship can't established as a rival. What's the difference between South London derby and Jijidae derby?--Fetx2002 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall v AFC Wimbledon[edit]

As of 9 November 2009.

	Played	Millwall wins	Drawn	AFC Wimbledon wins	Millwall goals	AFC Wimbledon goals
FA Cup	1	1	0	0	4	1
Total	1	1	0	0	4	1

Suwon Bluewings v FC Anyang[edit]

As of 8 May 2013.

	Played	Suwon wins	Drawn	FC Anyang wins	Suwon goals	FC Anyang goals
Korean FA Cup	1	1	0	0	2	1
Total	1	1	0	0	2	1

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:56, 17 July 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 Redirected per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. matt (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin School (Berkshire)[edit]

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

This school educates students from 3 to 13 years old. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hurst, Berkshire#Education per the usual practice on non-notable primary/pre-secondary schools. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hurst, Berkshire where it is mentioned per standard procedure for non notable schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't notice the education section. Anyone who wants to close this as a redirect is free to do so. SL93 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer: If this AfD is closed as 'Redirect' please remember to add the ((R from school)) template to the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 18 July 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. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity Peterborough[edit]

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

There are no independent sources in the article nor can I find any on the internet, which indicate notability of this company outside of the city of Peterborough. I am One of Many (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try clicking on the Google News archives link atop this nomination, where some links to reliable sources exist. The depth of coverage may be an issue, though. Please consider utilizing Google News archive and Google Books searches prior to nominating articles for deletion, per point D of WP:BEFORE. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - Reliable sources linked from Google News archive appear to provide only passing mentions at this time. E.g. [42], [43], [44]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for improvement -- My guess is that this is an emanation of the Economic Development Section of Peterborough Borough Council. I would be happier if the article gave its full name, and ownership. The importance of economic development in different councils varies, partly with the finacial position of the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:59, 26 July 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 Philippine Senate election, 2013. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marwil Llasos[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:POLITICIAN and the article appears to simply be a campaign ad. I am One of Many (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He may have been a losing candidate in the recent senatorial elections, but he did receive fairly decent coverage in reliable sources, and was frequently interviewed in the media. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Philippine_Senate_election,_2013. As a losing candidate for a national legislature WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests a redirect is an appropriate action. Enos733 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philippine_Senate_election,_2013 for reasons stated above. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:38, 17 July 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) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Patrick's Battalion (MLS supporters association)[edit]

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

Association football supporters group that has been unreferenced since November 2007. Can't find extensive reporting on the supporters group. Blogs and social media links, then the mirrors of Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom EBY (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem notable. --MicroX (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:17, 22 July 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) 02:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Meppen-Walter[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted by PROD and then re-created by a new user. Fails WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league). Coverage of his crime comes under the remit of WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA. Giant Snowman 10:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He obviously fails WP:NSPORT, having never played in a fully pro league, and I agree with nominator's assessment regarding general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet notability. EBY (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not notable. --MicroX (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's not notable for his criminal offences, and he's not notable for his football. Bottom line: he's not notable. – Pee Jay 00:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He has never been a professional footballer, only an apprentice. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 20 July 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) 02:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tradeinfo365[edit]

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

The prod was removed by the creator. I found no notability for this company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would almost qualify for G11 speedy deletion as it's basically just an advert. I found some coverage in industry blogs but nothing I think we would consider reliable sources for meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. It may well be a case of WP:TOOSOON but an ad like this, created by an editor with an obvious conflict of interest, shouldn't be kept. Stalwart111 01:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the article content was a straight copy of a page from the firm's website; though they had almost certainly done the copy-paste themselves, without formal permission it is a WP:COPYVIO so I have deleted it. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS evidence of notability found (on Google, Highbeam, Questia). AllyD (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I would note that bringing an article to AFD because of a disagreement over whether or not to redirect it is not generally appropriate. Discussions like this should go on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Alexander[edit]

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

Recently replaced with a redirect, but that has been contested. See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Chris_Alexander Accordingly, it's here at AfD. Discuss. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My views on its deletion are simple. The lack of notability. I stated on a few pages that while I know that Fangoria is an iconic publication, I just don't think the guy who is editing it is. Taking over the editorial duties of an established magazine doesn't really make the editor notable unless he's goes beyond just being an editor or is influential in the genre. I came across a few articles about him but these are from mostly horror related blogs or websites that talk about the genre as a whole. These type of blogs/sites also talk to independent horror film makers, make-up artists, and countless other people who are into the genre but don't have a whole lot of notability in the process. His page basically reads as a resume more so than anything and there really isn't a whole lot that can be written about him outside of him editing Fangoria and reviewing movies for a free newspaper. While he had composed music in the past and made a film, how does this separate him from the countless others that make films or compose music in today's Internet age. Does every person who makes a low budget film deserve a wiki page? If so then Wikipedia would be 3 times a large as it is. Its not so much as making a film or composing music its about them being notable enough. As it stands these are just hobbies more so than anything. I always suspected that either he or one of his friends created the page in the first place, and after the page was redirected sure enough apparently Chris himself showed up to contest it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Chris_Alexander

To top it off he accused me of being someone else and that I troll him which is hardly the truth. I never even met this guy in personGiantdevilfish (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Alexander here: strongly you investigate giantdevilfish's "nobility". I assure you this person is exactly who I cite him being. And again, I urge your team to properly investigate me with a casual google search that will reveal thousands of features penned about my work in and around the horror film genre as both writer, filmmaker and musician. Do you not find it interesting that giantdevilfish only uses his time at wiki to discuss King Kong and other giant monster film culture and I am the sole exception. Again. This person's name is Michael Bianco. He goes under the name DevilFish69 on YouTube, Giant Pacific Octopus on a classic horror forum and countless other handles elsewhere. He always hides behind avatars. And because he fancies he knew me in high school, apparently spends a great deal of time thinking about me. Again, I stress, I'm easy to investigate. Giantdevilfish should in turn be investigated as should WIKI's screening process. If unbalanced internet trolls with axes to grind are running rampant at WIKI, I as the EIC of a major print and web publication seriously question the integrity of this very site.

If there are thousands of features penned about your work then use them as citations. The thing with the Wikipedia is that its primarily about discussion. I actually discussed if the page was warranted with other editors and not once did I put up the deletion template. That was an editor named Andy Dingley. I actually used a redirect to the Fangoria page. I think perhaps a small section devoted to you (if this is Chris Alexander) could be on the Fangoria page rather than an entire article. However you can use various citations to beef up your page and make it more notable. In fact if you don't know how to put up the citations simply list them here (the URL's) or on my talk page and I'll add them to the page for you.Giantdevilfish (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Chris, I would like to warn you about making statements that accuse other editors of having a bias against you. The problem with this is that unless you can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, you should absolutely refrain from saying that someone has an agenda against you and that this is the only reason your article is up for deletion. If you want to prove your notability, you must do so by showing coverage in reliable sources. Just telling us to do a Google search is not enough, as in most cases about 95% of any given Google search is absolutely unusable as far as proving notability goes. It doesn't mean that the remaining 5% might not be enough to show notability, but the fact is that WP:GHITS isn't a rationale that will keep an article. In the end, if you have enough notability to pass WP:BIO, then it'll come about. If not, then the article will be deleted. Accusing an editor that's been here for about 6 years of being a troll is not a good way to argue for your article to be kept. Rather than him having an agenda, he could be making a truly good faith deletion nomination. I'll see what I can find, but attacking the credibility of a Wikipedia editor is not a good way to set the stage for an AfD. It just makes incoming editors tense up and be less likely to want to help you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've gone through and found where there's just enough coverage for his Blood of Irina film to where I'd say Alexander merits his own page. I wouldn't say that there were thousands of sources, though. Many of the hits were to "junk" or basic database type articles that confirm Alexander's existence but are completely unusable as far as notability or sourcing goes. Of the remainder, many were blog sites that just can't be used to show notability either per WP:BLOG. The problem with blogs is that even though some are well thought of within their community, it's very very difficult to prove that the blogger is someone that's so notable, so much of an authority that their blog would be the rare exception. Of the rest, many were WP:PRIMARY, meaning that they were things that were released by Alexander, Fangoria, or one of the outlets that he has worked with or been associated with. However I still found enough to show that he passes notability guidelines. If his notability were only for achieving the status of EIC of Fangoria I'd recommend a redirect, but there's just enough here to warrant a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm still uncertain about the basic notability of this particular person — but what I do have to say here is that he is absolutely not more notable than the politician of the same name, such that he should get plain title while the politician has to be disambiguated. If this article is kept, one of two things must happen here: either he gets moved to a disambiguated title and the plain Chris Alexander becomes a disambiguation page, or he gets moved a disambiguated title and the politician takes over the plain one. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 22 July 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. General consensus is to keep places that are proven to exist; That seems to of been done here (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dazgon[edit]

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

Non existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [45][46] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 14:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unsure There is definitely a settlement at this location but I am unsure of the name. Mangoe (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geonames calls it Razvaliny Dazgon (Развалины Дазгон) and calls it an "abandoned populated place", for whatever that's worth. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:16, 17 July 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. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Photo Editor[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only sources provided are to a blog and a web forum. Google searches can only find similar mentions and directory entries - and very few of them. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This graphic software product is relatively new but does seem listed extensively on software download sites such as http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-Editors/Smart-Photo-Editor.shtml and http://download.cnet.com/Smart-Photo-Editor/3000-2192_4-75451073.html Its defining feature is the sharing nature of photo effects. No other photo software currently has this feature. Hoffdav (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed in a directory is not an indication of WP:notability. We need much more than that. noq (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken WP:notability. Any examples of what you consider notability would be really useful. Could we incubate the page until we get other improvement submissions from other people? Hoffdav (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No proof of notability. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:05, 26 July 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. Consensus in this discussion is for the article to be retained, and that source availability and depth of coverage is sufficient regarding the topic's notability. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Bull's Blood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not seem notable. Sources from Daily Princetonian and Rutgers Centurion and Youtube do not indicate notability to be. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles from New York Times, The Week, and New York Observer do indicate notability. Since the Daily Princetonian has been printed since 1876, and is affiliated with Associated Press and wins prestigious awards for its writing, it would qualify as a reliable source. Hierophant443 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and U.S. News & World Report [47], and dartblog (Dartmouth) [48]

Redirect per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 17:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Rutgers University student organizations. Articles from The Princetonian are not really independent of the subject matter here, as the relevant content involves the rivalry between the two schools. Coverage of this rivalry, for all we know, may be just a form of promoting it, and indirectly, its own school. Otherwise, the two sentences in the NYTimes article the five sentences in the Mental Floss article and otherwise are not exactly impressive coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of references in independent, reliable and verifiable sources about the club establish notability. Hopefully the additional exposure will lead to some improvements to the article, especially in terms of formatting of the references already in the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N, WP:RS, doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cleaned up the article's references, and made some modifications to the structure of the article. That being said, WP:ORGDEPTH states that "a company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. ...Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." This organization has been profiled in the New York Times, New York Observer, and The Week, thus easily meeting the above notability requirement. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by David; striking my support for redirect above. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet notability requirements. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 00:46, 18 July 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. Secret ^account 20:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last Chance Garage[edit]

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

A 4 min. documentary short that has garnered no coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NOTFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. The film has completed but apparently has received no coverage. Lacking confirmation of its screening, we have a failure of WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This 4 minute film was released a year ago, according to the article and IMDb. I don't see WP:TOOSOON or WP:NFF even applying. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is that IMDB does not actually tell us the film was released. The film's data page states the project moved from "in production" to "completed" and provides that the project had its "Status Updated: 30 June 2012"... but no release date. And apart from the short existing, other information in the article is unverifiable. I cannot find it shortlisted for an award at the Northern Nights Film Festival in London... and with apologies, I cannot even confirm in reliable sources that THAT festival even exists. Neither can I find reliable sources confirming this short being in any way involved with WorldKids International Film Festival.[49] I The AFD template's Find sources give us lots of false positives for businesses or television episodes by that same name.[50] In focusing the search, I include the film + director's name and find a lot of primary sources such as wordpress blogs speaking about how the film was "shortlisted" at various places, but nothing deemed as reliable. Same when including that of the "star".[51] We can watch the film online, but cannot independently confirm that it has screened at any festival anywhere. No disagreement from me that it definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NF and its sub-sections. For a film that has been completed, is unverifiable as being screened at festivals, theaters, or television, and has no coverage in reliable sources, I think that my acknowledging WP:NFF and TOO SOON and that this project has not yet but might one day receive coverage, are the kindest of considerations I might opine for this director self-described "documentary-style reality promo". A delete is a delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And okay... the "Northern Nights Film Festival" does exist, but itself fails our inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Smith Jackson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER as she only has done bit parts in movies/television shows, with her largest role being in a non-notable film. Beerest355 Talk 19:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage and no significant roles. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She does appear to have had roles in multiple TV shows an a few minor movies, but none of her roles appear to have been significant. -Wine Guy~Talk 00:28, 18 July 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. Wizardman 15:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for New Culture Technologies/t0[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Founded in 1994, the Institute for New Culture Technologies / t0 was among the first media initiatives in Europe that further developed and criticially analysed the emerging Internet culture, and it is still (very) active. In the Austrian context, there is relevance beyond this because of t0's activities in developing cultural and media policies, and because of wahlkabine.at, which is the most prominent online 'polling booth' in Austria. So I think there is a number of reasons to consider the organization relevant. Concerning the practical question of developing the article: I am currently working on updating Wikipedia-pages which are related to the Institute for New Culture Technologies / t0. Being a German native speaker, I am starting with updating the entries in the German Wikipedia (a new comprehensive list of projects in the German "Public Netbase" entry will be completed beginning of next week) and will then continue in the English Wikipedia. In the English article on Institute for New Culture Technologies / t0 I have just added a few titles in the reference-list and slightly updated the 'external links' section. I hope that the article will not be deleted and could then develop a new version before end of July.Becomingx7 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it currently stands, possibly userfy on request. On the basis of the article, it's not possible to determine to what (if any) extent this topic has received coverage in reliable independent sources, for instance whether or how it is mentioned at all in the cited offline works. You'd expect that a Web organization that's been around since 1994 has left some mark in online sources, no? Sandstein 05:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As announced in my earlier comment, i have now updated the article. i added a chapter on history, extended the project descriptions and added a number of references. Becomingx7 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until the article meets WP:CORPDEPTH; references don't indicate independent, non-industry sources. Miniapolis 13:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmina Siadatan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most content has been removed on the basis it is contentious

This article has had most content removed by another editor who considers the content contentious and the references inadequate. The remainder content is little more than a promotional item for the subject's restaurant. I therefore consider the article should be deleted.Tomintoul (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 9. Snotbot t • c » 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An edit war does not justify an AfD, and this should be resolved elsewhere. BTW, the previous AfD was a unanimous "keep". --Technopat (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've no wish to engage with the editor who removed most of the content and made aggressive comments/used bad language. Current version of article is merely a few words basically promoting a restaurant – I suspect few will want to keep it.Tomintoul (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was little doubt expressed about her notability in 2009 at the previous AfD and she continues to receive coverage whether in Hello Magazine or The Independent. Much of what is written about her elsewhere is trivia or concentrates on her personal life, neither of which has much place in WP, but since she was described as a restaurateur on entering the competition her connections with a named restaurant are clearly relevant to notability, as is the brief description of her participation in The Apprentice and subsequent career. --AJHingston (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There were only three comments in total on the previous debate.Tomintoul (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AJHinhston that there is sufficient notability. I would also posit that the article fulfills WP:GNG too thus shouldn't be deleted. It appears to me that the nominator created this AFD because he was in an edit war and didn't want to talk to the other person. That is not what AFD is for. I would suggest that this AFD be closed and the nominator takes it to WP:DR. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have little interest in the article and certainly don't want to engage the other editor in debate. Unless somebody else picks up the baton or challenges the other editor, what is left is barely a stub, let alone an article.Tomintoul (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56](subscription required), [57]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to an article on the series. I see nothing notable in her bio, except her appearance in a show, which is best dealt with in an article on the show, not a separate one on the winner. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK). Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG. There are plenty of other articles not directly relating to her winning The Apprentice or quitting her job at Alan Sugar's company Amscreen Healthcare; [58][59][60][61][62]. Also if there are problems with the article then this can be addressed through normal editing not deletion, WP:SOFIXIT. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:59, 26 July 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. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Gladiators (2008 TV series) results[edit]

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

List of competitors on a game show. Individual episodes do not meet WP:GNG, and parent article already lists winners of the tournament. One ref is dead link. AldezD (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No actual sources for a competition only cared about here by three editors doing 'type what I see' recaps of the episode; all other edits were for maintenance. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:02, 17 July 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. When all is said in done, the many delete voters have a very strong argument that this is an example of what Wikipedia is not. The incident was sad, but unfortunately this sort of thing is not uncommon. The only effective argument that the keep voters have is the amount of coverage, although much of this is attributable to the 24-hour news cycle. Some arguments in favor of keeping, such as counts of YouTube comments, were completely irrelevant and not given any weight. At best, this is a WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NOTNEWS conflict. If the incident leads to national laws and extended protests, if we can look at it in a year and still say it was a big deal, it might be worth trying again. For now, NOTNEWS wins out. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident[edit]

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

Clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS. Wikinews exists as a separate project for a reason. There is absolutely no way that this has lasting encyclopedic value. Will it change laws? Will it become a permanent fixture in American jurisprudence? Will it appear in history textbooks? First, we can't know, so WP:CRYSTAL applies. Second...come on, are we kidding here? The police shot a dog. Maybe unjustifiably. Maybe as some sort of revenge. That simply is not a notable event. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The incident is both Notable with available sources and cover the other Wikipedia criteria. There is a similar incident Puppy-throwing Marine viral video already in Wikipedia with other Animal cruelty incidents. Please refer Google News; the amount of media coverage is more than enough for the inclusion of the incident on Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to some coverage of the event that examines more than the event itself (i.e., that places it into a historical context) that was published more than a few weeks after the incident. Also, WP:OSE. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally such coverage should be in a non-news source (i.e., a non--WP:PRIMARY source). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough - Hawthorne police dog shooting shows need for debate on use of force on animals: Opinion. Why you need in a non-news source? The event has happened only a few days ago to appear in some of the law enforcement or animal rights books and manuals.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you've proven my point: the incident happened only a few days ago. Currently, it's news, because some people love to hear news about bad policemen or animal cruelty. Why am I asking for non-news sources? Because until you have some, you have no evidence of lasting notability. In the way news is distributed nowadays, the mere fact that an "interesting" story is covered by hundreds of news publishers does not make the incident notable. As for the source you've provided, that is the opinion of the "Los Angeles News Group opinion staff". It's an opinion article, by someone of so little importance that their name isn't even attached to it. Not even close. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not prophets to predict whether some incident has lasting notability. And the above incident has more than news worthiness since it has created anger for many and dead threats to the police. You have mistaken the opinion of someone which appeared in the dailynews.com to Los Angeles Times. If we could give enough weight to the comments/opinions of Anons on Wikipedia, why it can't be on a newspaper. Please note the Los Angeles Times articles have gone under writers names - Los Angeles Times - 1 By Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times - 2 By Kurt Streeter, Los Angeles Times - 3 By Jim Newton. Because of the only reason the incident doesn't have non-news sources currently, doesn't make the incident for an outright deletion on Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the police officer had bitten the dog it would be notable per Man bites dog. However, in some parts of the world shooting things is simply not notable. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Los Angeles Times's Editorial Board is unaware of the Man bites dog and so stupid when they allow three articles so far - Los Angeles Times - 1, Los Angeles Times - 2, Los Angeles Times - 3 on the incident?HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Thincat, but I would say that the LAT frequently has multiple articles about things even they consider not important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that is your WP:OR on LAT.HudsonBreeze (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. However, in this case, I believe the LAT believes it notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They may be right in their thinking when another newspaper editorial thinks - Hawthorne police dog shooting shows need for debate on use of force on animals.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The only evidence we have of notability is that it is news. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable in this case; it has created an angry community in large; there are dead threats to the police; even there is an Opinion that Hawthorne police dog shooting shows need for debate on use of force on animals.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable in this case; it has created an angry community in large; there are dead threats to the police; even there is an Opinion that Hawthorne police dog shooting shows need for debate on use of force on animals.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are hundreds of such incidents every year. Aside from the unusual amount of media attention, I don't see why this one is so notable. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason is there are no enough Wikipedians to create articles out of those hundreds of such incidents every year. After I have read an article on a blog that Wikipedia is ungrateful to María Santos Gorrostieta Salazar, I created María Santos Gorrostieta Salazar.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep per HudsonBreeze, Mercurywoodrose and Qwyrxian. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although I feel this is one-off event that no one will remember in a week, the backlash to this has been fairly large, and I think it's more than something that would qualify for deletion as WP:NOTNEWS. There may be hundreds of animal shootings like this each year, but they don't generate such a massive, national backlash like this did. --TKK ^{bark !} 17:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jethrobot --TKK ^{bark !} 23:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll grant that the outrage exploded on this one beyond the usual mediums, but there's no evidence of persistent coverage for the event because, as the nominator notes, this has only just recently occurred. Furthermore, as HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs) points out, We are not prophets to predict whether some incident has lasting notability. Well put. So why is this article here if this is the case? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.HudsonBreeze (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but failure to show persistent coverage certainly isn't doing to article any favors. We can also look at the type of coverage in the sources. Much of it consists of first-hand reports of the incident or the video (as an aside, this tone is reflected in the article, and is inappropriate per WP:NOTNEWS). This is exactly the kind of coverage that does not constitute in-depth coverage because the event is not contextualized. News sources now pour over and describe second video released by the police department; it's more of the same. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google News Search Within 24 Hours, there are various newspapers publishing developing stories other than the first-hand reports of the incident or the video.

Please refer ..............However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're essentially citing WP:CRYSTAL, which is more of a reason to delete more than anything else. I'll also contend that the various newspapers you talk about above is a good example of why not to create an article about something written in 109 newspapers. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the hacker group anon has targeted the pd, and a high level of death threats against the pd are ongoing. footage caught on camera of a killing by a police officer, even a dog, is an unusual "man bites dog" event. We cant help it if news stories nowadays get massive coverage, often worldwide, compared to similar stories 60 years ago. as long as there is coverage beyond what would be normal for a police arrest at a crime scene, we need to keep it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mercurywoodrose. Kanatonian (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are protests, massive public comment, web site shut down, etc. This is similar to, for example, Death of Kelly Thomas as there has been long lasting coverage of the incident and it attracted significant media attention. Here's an article about how the issue continues to reverberate. http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_23629881/fallout-from-hawthorne-dog-shooting-continues-reverberate It also has national implications to other cities unfairly targeted. http://www.northjersey.com/news/215097091_Hawthorne_officials_deal_with_phone_calls__attempted_website_hacking_over_confusion_with_deadly_California_dog_shooting.html

Please do not compare the shooting of a human being, with both basic human rights as well as rights granted him by being a resident and citizen of the United States, with the shooting of a dog. A dog. I'm trying to remain calm, but I almost cannot put into words how obscene and offensive a comparison that is. It gets media attention because the US has a morbid fascination with anything that might appear to be "animal cruelty", so long as it's cruelty directed at animals that Americans like. This is still not the sort of substantial, long term coverage required by WP:EVENT. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely WP:NOTNEWS; if I opened the door or left the window open while under arrest to let my dog out I wouldn't be surprised if the police shot it, or me, because that puts them under threat, and how would some random police officers know this guy was suing them? Also really tired of 'Anonymous got involved, so it's notable' articles being put up (and involving stupid things like not checking the White Pages before 'unleashing their forces' on some innocent artist supply store). Please HudsonBreeze, don't bother with throwing another random 'it's notable' link at me like you've done everyone else; I'm not changing my rationale without major sourcing and notability. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When all is said and done it's just one incident, as the title of the article says.Borock (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I give the police officer credit for trying to restain the dog first. That took courage. I know rottweilers. Borock (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some thought, I agree, it's a dog, and there are likely no policy changes because of this. The Kelly Thomas death generated continuous radio and TV coverage, weekly protests that drew hundreds, and a recall campaign. I don't see any of that here, as the last protests generated a few dozen people. So I will withdraw my support for keeping the article.Calwatch (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Qwyrxian, Nate, Borock, Calwatch

A comment at Facebook Page Dogs Shot by Police under Rebuttal to Hawthorne Police Department statement by ex-chief: An editorial will better respond you;

"Just a reminder. The focus here is on the behavior of the police. We don't pile on the dog's guardian for what he or she did or did not do. The issue for this page is whether the police were facing an immediate threat of serious harm with non-lethal options not having worked to reduce the threat sufficiently to allow for escape. A dog being loose is never by itself a legitimate justification for a dog being killed. It really doesn't matter for this analysis whether the dog's guardian us a saint or a serial killer. The issue for this page is whether the law enforcement officer was justified in shooting a dog. It doesn't matter how the dog got loose, only whether the dog was dangerous in a way that could only be addressed by killing the dog. Additionally, there is the issue as to whether the officer shot to disable the dog from being a threat or intentionally shot the dog to death by shooting more than once. On all of these points the Hawthorne police officer was wrong. First, Max was running towards his guardian who happened to be with the police. There is nothing in his demeanor or body language that indicated he was intent on attacking or harming anyone. Second, the officer did not attempt any non-lethal means of dealing with Max, including the obvious one of letting Leon get a hold of Max. Leon was not a danger to anyone and could have been released. The police officer could have backed off rather than approaching. He had multiple options or would have if he had even some very basic training if Max had in fact been attacking him. Finally , he did not shoot once. He shot Max multiple times, in his body, causing immense pain, obvious to all of us, and inflicting horrendous suffering on Leon. Our position is that the days when an officer could shoot a dog with impunity because "it's just a dog" are over. If they are not aware of that and have not adjusted their policies, procedures and training, then they had better get to work or they will be dealing with protests & litigation until they do."

Please note there is an online petition campaign - Petitioning The U.S. Senate which is signed by more than 101, 931 supporters at the moment.

Please note people are engaged on the issue in every other minute in the following YouTube Threads.

YouTube - 1(5,012,728 Views - 78,843 Comments)

YouTube - 2(1,437,863 Views - 30, 616 Comments)

YouTube - 3(410,999 Views - 9,079 Comments)

YouTube - 4(632, 670 Views - 5,086 Comments)

Please note in the era of Information Super-Highway, we don't want to get into the streets to show our protest. The on-going impact validates it is more than WP:NOTNEWS.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than 100,000 people signed a petition for Piers Morgan to be deported because he called for aggressive gun control laws in the U.S. It's (rightly) not even mentioned in his article. More than 100,000 signed a petition asking the U.S. government to let Texas secede from the Union. 100,000 is trivial. Again, come back in 2 months and show us the sustained coverage of the case. Again, and I cannot stress this enough: we don't have an article on the vast majority of murders. This was not a murder. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, For a dog(A dog!), more than 101, 931 supporters signed on the petition; is not that an important issue at all? Why we should come back in 2 months and show the sustained coverage; now itself the impact at the YouTube(Please note YouTube is another Social Media like Wikipedia) totaling more than 100, 000 comments validates, keep this article from deletion at Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for once again making my point: Wikipedia is not a Social Media; it's an encyclopedia. Despite your either opinion or confusion, notability is not the same thing as popularity. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: "Please note YouTube is another On-Line Tool like Wikipedia."HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But according to WP:N, Popularity may enhance the acceptability.

Again,

Please refer It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.

Please refer ..............However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeated this argument many, many times to the point where it is disruptive. We get it, and you don't need to repeat it to nearly every person who supports deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? I wouldn't trust YouTube commenters to make my lunch, much less have a view that makes sense, and a police department's ex-chief has as much pull as your average CNN talking head at this point. As IJ just said, stop hammering your point. We get it. This isn't a forum board where posts float to another page and everything you wrote remains here. Nate • (chatter) 19:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to I, Jethrobot and Nate

Please note, I am not hammering my point, but they are from the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (events).HudsonBreeze (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. My condolences to people who, like me, love dogs. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and partial merge someplace per WP:PRESERVE of this well sourced and documented case of "possible" police over-reaction. Enough blame to go around. certainly. Had the owner not drawn their attention by being vocal toward police about an event which did not concern him, or afterwards rolled his car windows up high enough, the dog would not have been able to jump out of the car to "protect" its master from a created "perception" of threat. Only the future will tell if this incident has resounding implications. If so, then the article can be recreated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William 18:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contact Basemetal here 01:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to provide a rationale as this is not a vote? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A conspicuous case of Animal cruelty and written to the best of the encyclopedic standards. --CuCl₂ ^(talk ^. ^contr ^. ^mail) 17:23, 23 July 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.