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 University of Westminster. J04n(talk page) 00:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Smoke TV is a student-run university TV station distributed on a website and via Youtube. the only references listed as well as those I could find do not indicate any notability beyond existence. There's just not that much to say about it. Merging this to the University of Westminster page is an alternative to deletion. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to University of Westminster. It should be noted that it exists, but it certainly doesn't need its own page. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Not notable enough for it's own page It's a Fox! (What did I break) 00:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect It isn't independently notable, but it is of interest as part of the University of Westminster page DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to University of Westminster. Miniapolis 16:39, 18 March 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. would have been a candidate for relisting but this is a clear G11 Secret ^account 05:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks + Scarpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is not established for this recently (2010) founded firm. While the principal architects have past credentials, this firm's notability is not yet established through major publications or awards. While there is any chance for the firm to become notable, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, for now it should be deleted. Also much of the text has a promotional, non-encyclopaedic tone. ELEKHH^T 22:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete I realise it was me that placed the 'notability' and 'advert' templates on the article. This followed a concerned message raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. It seems like Pugh and Scarpa of Pugh + Scarpa went their separate ways in 2010. Gwynne Pugh has a new Wikipedia article which admits he left the partnership. Both Pugh and Scarpa seem to be using Wikipedia to anounce their new business profiles! This office profile, for example, seems to confirm that Brooks + Scarpa are a continuation of the Pugh + Scarpa business. It may be best to merge Brooks + Scarpa into Pugh + Scarpa and rename it, if necessary, reflecting the recent change of partners. Failing that, I'd support the nominator's argument to delete the article as WP:TOOSOON and failing WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Subsequently I've noticed someone has already butchered the Pugh + Scarpa article (in 2010?) to write Brooks into the story. The problem lies with that article, while this one is unnecessary. Sionk (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With a quick internet search it appears that the Brooks + Scarpa firm is quite notable and many significant achievements are attributed to the firm and the principals of the firm. It also appears that Brooks + Scarpa is the successor firm of Pugh + Scarpa which has a 20+ year legacy including the National American Institute of Architects firm award. Public records show that the firm is not new, but simply changed its name from Pugh + Scarpa to Brooks + Scarpa when long time partners at Pugh + Scarpa, Angela Brooks and Lawrence Scarpa took over ownership and management of the firm. It seems a bit odd to suggest deleting this article or merging the Pugh + Scarpa and Brooks + Scarpa sites as that would create confusion about the firm's history or remove a firm that is one of the more significant architectural practices in North America. I would not support the nominator's argument to delete or merge the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.101.106 (talk • contribs) now presumably CalderOliver (talk · contribs · count) - Syrthiss (talk) 15:31, 13 March 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. Also clear G11. Secret ^account 05:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is not established for this recently (2010) founded firm. While the principal architect has past credentials,this firm seems to have only completed two small projects and notability is not yet established through major publications or awards. While there is any chance for the firm to become notable, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, for now it should be deleted. Also note that much of the text has a promotional, non-encyclopedic tone. --ELEKHH^T 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 22:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON and failing WP:NCORP. It seems this article has arisen because Gwynne Pugh left Pugh + Scarpa to form his own practice. Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio is claiming notability based on the achievements of another company. Possibly Gwynne Pugh the man stands a better chance of having a Wikipedia entry - he's in the Design Magazine Hall of Fame and interviewed in a book, for example. The recent work of the business has had a few write ups in questionable online architecture magazines, but not enough to meet the more stringent notability requirements for companies. Sionk (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points. It seems as if it would make more sense to do an article for Gwynne Pugh the person instead of his new company because of the notability guidelines. Is the best approach for that moving this page and adjusting/re-writing, or starting from scratch to create that article? Also, could anyone direct me to a company wikipedia article that is ideal/written in an encyclopedic tone? and maybe a biography that's good with neutral language? just for reference. thanks. Greenpark171 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting from scratch would be easier. Portal:Architecture lists all featured and good quality articles about architects. One of the most recent GAs about a contemporary architect I believe is Bjarke Ingels. Unfortunately I do not know of any good example of article about an architecture firm. --ELEKHH^T 21:46, 12 March 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 (non-admin closure) - MrX 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay G Merrithew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced promotional BLP article. Unable to find any independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in any depth. Fails WP:BIO. - MrX 21:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn - Sources found to establish notability. - MrX 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Zero inline citations, and the only "citations" anywhere are a part saying "Source: IMDb" and a list of four external links. Fails WP:BIO. Poorly formatted. Promotional. The list goes on. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Author has been going through lots of trouble to improve his work, and so it looks like it will, in fact, become a keep-worth article. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the author has done a lot of cleaning of the original submission. I've just removed some unnecessary duplication and added a reference to Joseph Pilates, given his relevance to the work of the subject of the article. Trevor Jacques (talk) 19:14, 14 March 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 Criticism of Google. Fairly even split of opinions, a merge will retain the information and search term without the stand alone page. J04n(talk page) 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scroogle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deleted via an Afd discussion, it was apparently restored without a DRV or further discussion that I can find. Still not at all noteworthy for an article. Sources about Scroogle are lacking, with online The Register (who I understand does a lot of Wikipedia stuff and isn't really the most reliable source) being the primary reference. Should be a speedy as a repost, but it was contested. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I believe the original justifications for deletion still stand, and the subject is not notable enough to stand on its own as an article. Ducknish (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, What I found in a google search does not inspire a lot of confidence. It's even worse if it indeed has been created after being deleted.^King Jakob _C2 22:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect/Merge to Criticism of Google. The citations presented in the article and in the previous AfDs suggest that Scroogle received a minor degree of press coverage (e.g. [1], [2],[3]). Although much of the coverage is tangential, there is just enough notability for Scroogle to receive a mention, albeit not enough for it to be the subject of its own article. Scroogle was developed as a reaction against Google, which Scroogle's creator believed was collecting too much information on its users. Criticism of Google would be a logical destination to redirect and merge a summarized paragraph or two about Scroogle. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: After some consideration, I've changed my vote to "keep" on account of the additional news coverage I was able to uncover via Google News (see post below). At least a half dozen of these stories discuss Scroogle as their main theme, a fact which demonstrates that coverage in RS is more than incidental and the WP:GNG requirement is met. Moreover, I took a look at the previous AfD (2nd nomination) - and it was actually a close vote (four "keep" versus four "delete" votes). In the current AfD, at least twice as many RS have been presented compared to the last time around. It seems reasonable that the consensus would have swung towards "keep" in the last AfD had the same sources presented here been available for everyone's consideration back then. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Do any of Daniel Brandt's projects still have articles, other than this one? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so; even the page about Daniel Brandt was deleted years ago. I should also add that a search of the Google News archives (search query) produced several news stories featuring Scroogle, including [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]. The news stories in French, Dutch, German and Polish demonstrate that the site received a certain degree of international notability. It is my opinion that this coverage moves Scroogle a couple notches up the WP:GNG scale relative to my initial impression, but I admittedly don't have a good feel yet for the threshold of coverage needed for a website to be sufficiently notable to be featured in its own article. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Save/Retain This article was created back in 2005 and appears to be the only source of historical information on the (now defunct) search engine service which had been available for nine years (2003 - 2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphisher (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. If Wikipedia is the only source of information on a topic, then it is probably not notable.^King Jakob _C2 18:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Save/Retain I was glad to find this article today, providing exactly the short encyclopedic description I was hoping for. From other sources I was getting only parts of the picture, often with significant bias. This article seems to me quite relevant in the context of Google-related privacy issues, a topic of mainstream interest. It makes sense to me that it has its own page, as this was an entity in itself with its own history and role played. I was not searching for general information on criticism of Google, so it doesn't make sense to me to move this there. All good encyclopedias include shorter entries, and this is a nice one. The following seem relevant: WP:DEFUNCTS (just because it is history is no reason to delete it), WP:TRIVCOV (the news coverage listed above is not trivial coverage), WP:IDONTKNOWIT (although you may have never heard of it, it was apparently used by hundreds of thousands of people and considered important enough to be covered in PC magazine and many other news outlets around the world (the article itself has additional links to such coverage)). The reasons given above for deletion are vague, except for referring to the "original" AFD discussion (the first being in 2006 (result:keep), the second (a bit hard to find) in 2009 (result:delete), the third (this one) in 2013) -- anyway, the main reasons for deletion in the 2009 discussion seemed to be the WP:TRIVCOV argument, but the many mainstream news sources listed above seem to show that since 2012 this argument is no longer valid. Is there any remaining argument for deletion? Matt Cook (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Save/RetainOn 27-dec-2011 Microsoft Registered scroogled.com with marketing set to turn the word scroogle into a verb. The history of this word is relevant.Tony Julian (talk) 4:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of any documented connection between scroogled.com and Daniel Brandt's search engine? As far as I am aware, Microsoft "scroogled" marketing campaign to promote Bing over Google and Brandt's Scroogle are entirely separate, except for the coincidence that both involve a variant of a "Scrooge" + "Google" pun. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Marginal, but iI'm not sure we would be considering deletion if it wasn't for Brandt running it. The notability in any case has increased a little since 2009. This sort of weak notability can be interpreted either way,and when it's someone we do not like, we should go out of our way not to let it affect us, and the only way to be sure is to not delete the article. Those WPedians who have, unlike me, actually dealt with Brandt, may feel differently. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to look up Daniel Brandt after I saw someone post about him here, for what it's worth. Whoever he is and what his relationship to this site is, it had no bearing on my nomination. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - More than adequate sourcing showing for a GNG pass. Note that Daniel Brandt is a prominent hardline Wikipedia critic and that probably explains much of the fuss over this topic over the years. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A weak keep. It just scrapes by as notable and while the references remain valid I'm happy to err on the side of caution DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Criticism of Google; coverage in RS is only incidental. Miniapolis 13:56, 19 March 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. Clear consensus to delete outside the article creator, which is the founder of the company. Willing to WP:USERFY however, article creator should take WP:COI and WP:NOT#WEBHOST however. Secret ^account 04:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article about a British film production company that has become a bit of a battleground for an off-Wikipedia dispute. There are also concerns about WP:COI since the major contributor is the company's founder. Regardless of all that, the subject fails WP:CORP. There is very little in the way of significant third-party coverage, what there is is largely local in nature or self-generated, and the rest of the references fail to establish any notability whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the articles founder

The Dragonfly Productions Wikipedia page has been under attack recently. Mainly by a competitor production company who vandalised the page repeatedly. This has bought the page under the spotlight whereby some Wikipedia editors are concerned about its place on Wikipedia. I am the company founder and I published this page in the first instance. My name is Charlie Southall. The page has been online for many years. I do not think it is uncommon for someone who is connected to a subject matter to submit and edit a Wikipedia article. Surely the founder of the company is the person most motivated to publish an article and I believe many articles come about in this way. Those connected to the subject are also best placed to ensure articles are kept up to date. I do understand the concern that the page could be used simply for self promotion of the business, so at the point I was aware of this criticism, I set about ensuring the article contained only factual content that could be substantiated and independently verified. All content which could be seen as promotional has been stripped. I do not think that the fact that I am closely connected to the enterprise is reason enough to delete the article. There is no motivation for me to publish anything untrue.

I do invite others to contribute and edit the page, but there is little motivation for many. There is clear motivation for a competitor business to vandalise however. I do however maintain that the page is of interest to internet users, it does get looked at frequently.

Since attempting to bring the page in line with Wikipedias notoriety guidelines, their has been the comment that the references are self-generated. This is quite unfair as it is not the case. None of the references are editable by me or Dragonfly and are housed on third party sites (with the exception of the link to the dragonfly site and a video example).

The truth is that the company is extremely well known in the video industry. Its also very well known in England as a creative video agency to turn to. Dragonfly have recently worked with; London Fire Brigade, The Home Office, NHS, Virgin, Hewlett Packard, Universal Music, Sony and local government - to name just a few. The company has most recently been working with the City of London Mayors office and Cambridge University too. Dragonfly is consistently chosen by professional bodies to produce video content and is approached by freelance creatives seeking work on average 10 times daily. The company turned over close to half a million UKP in financial year 2012-2013. One single public sector video contract was worth £100,000 alone. What more can a creative agency be to achieve notoriety in the eyes of Wikipedia? What can one do to prove notoriety further?

I must defend this page and the notoriety of the company I founded. The enterprise is not 'cottage industry'. I do strongly believe it is a worthy subject of a Wikipedia page, especially considering the policy of the company to mainly focus on worthy causes and charity work. Dragonfly is effecting people and is involved in many worthwhile projects. Sure, I have a vested interest in the article continuing to exist, because I am very proud of the companies achievements.

I am going to approach all previous clients and ask for a reference and credit on their websites (I have previously not given this enough attention). I will take this action to establish more evidence as to the companies notoriety. So for now, the client list has been mostly stripped from the Wikipedia article - however, as and when clients agree to credit Dragonfly, references can be added to the article and evidence of the companies valuable work can be added to the article. I am also going to invite people in positions of authority and status to contribute impartially to the article.

Any further advise about what can be done to defend the article is most welcome. Please do not delete quickly. Give me and others a chance to amend the site to be better. User talk:charliesouthall —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The only problem is that client testimonials cannot be seen as anything that would give notability. The first reason would be that since they are associated with your company, their testimonials would be seen as WP:PRIMARY sources at best. Primary sources are anything that is put out by you, your company, friends/family, or anyone that has used you to help make/produce something. The second reason is that even if the people involved were notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the company having been associated with notable persons or even really notable films. Now if your company was given a notable award for creating something, then that could help show notability. The problem with awards is that the vast majority of them aren't notable, not per Wikipedia's rules. Only about 2% of any award for anything ever given in any scope give some sort of notability to the subject. Of that 2%, I'd say that most of them aren't the type that would give notability on that basis alone. As far as keeping the article because you do nice things for good purposes, we can't and don't keep articles because it would be nice to do so or because it'd be useful. Your company would have to pass notability guidelines. Now as far as why it's not really a good idea to edit an article about a subject you're personally involved in is because it's so incredibly easy to not see things impartially. You'll see notability where there is none, write a sentence that you think is impartial but comes across as promotional in nature, as well as other things- all without ever really realizing that you're not being neutral. I'd somewhat recommend against telling someone to do direct editing to the article, because if they're not really familiar with how Wikipedia works then they might actually do more harm to the article than good. I'm not saying that they shouldn't contribute, just that it'd be a better idea for them to use the talk page to suggest additions and edits until they gain more familiarity with Wikipedia in general. Now as far as being well known goes, popularity and notoriety do not automatically mean notability here on Wikipedia. It's fairly common to have people, things, and companies that are well known and popular that do not pass notability guidelines. (WP:VALINFO) It's actually more common for someone to be well known but not notable than it is to have someone that is well known and notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Notability is shown through reliable sources. Now as far as that goes, just because you can't directly edit or influence a source does not mean that it is reliable. I'm giving a rundown of the sources and why they might be usable or unusable:

1. [12] This is a business listings. Business listings are never usable as reliable sources. Part of this is because so many of them can be directly edited or influenced by the business, but it's mostly because all this does is show that your company exists. Existing is not notability. (WP:ITEXISTS)
2. [13] The problem with this site is that it's not exactly a proven or trusted source as far as Wikipedia goes. That the piece is also called a "reader story" is probably why some would be suspicious over how much of it was written by your company and how much was written by the website under the company's direct supervision. The bottom line here is that it's not something that Wikipedia would consider a reliable source, even if it was entirely written by the website.
3. [14] This is sort of like the business listing, although it's a list of people who work or have worked for the company. Even is some of these people are notable, notability is not inherited by them having an association with the company. At the most this might be considered a trivial source, but certainly not something that would show notability.
4. [15] This is an article written by someone who works for the company. At most this is a primary source, but it's not really anything that would show that the company has done anything Wikipedia would consider notable. Remember, popularity does not equal notability. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Being well known or popular only makes it more likely that you'll get coverage in RS, but it's not a guarantee.
5. [16] The magazine itself is possibly semi-usable as a reliable source, although in general we try to avoid using magazines as sources in general. The problem here is that this isn't actually about the company, but about a summer program. The company is briefly mentioned, which would make this trivial at best. As said above, doing charitable works is not enough to merit an article. We've had to delete multiple pages for charitable organizations, some of whom deal with some rather dangerous yet noble missions. Doing nice things does not count as notability, no matter what it is, and trust me- we've had some organizations that have dealt with some pretty nasty stuff.
6. [17], [18], [19], [20] These are just links to company websites or charitable organizations. Like with Brighton Magazine, association with charitable works or organizations will give notability based on the works themselves. Now it might lead to in-depth coverage from reliable sources, but the acts themselves do not count towards notability.
7. [21] This is just a link to the company website. Primary sources cannot show notability, no matter what they claim or show. The reason is that anyone can claim anything on their website. I'm not saying that you would necessarily lie or stretch the truth, but it's in your best interest to promote yourself on your own website. Unless we have other sources that not only back up the claims but also establish notability, any claims made in a primary source are taken with a grain of salt and are considered unproven until we find things to say otherwise. This isn't a slur against your company, just that we've had many, many people come on here and try to claim various things, only to discover that they either didn't happen or they were exaggerating the claims.

I'll see what I can find, but if I were to make a decision based upon the current sources in the article, I'd say that the company doesn't pass notability guidelines. I'm going to search, but I wanted to take the time to explain why none of the sources are usable and why some of the things you're suggesting aren't really anything that would completely benefit the article as far as keeping it would go.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done some paring down of the page and one of the biggest issues is that it read like an advertisement for the company. I've streamlined it and to me, it looks better. The thing about making a lot of claims and linking to a lot of sites is that if the article comes across as promotional and none of the sources are usable as RS, it's more likely to cause incoming editors to automatically assume that the article is spam, that there is no notability, and that if they can't find sources beyond 2-3 minutes of trying, it's because the company isn't notable. I'm still looking for sources, but I'll be honest when I say that there isn't a lot out there that would be considered anything other than a primary or trivial source.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did a search and other than some passing mentions in various articles (like this [22]) that predominantly focus on other topics, there really wasn't anything out there to show notability for this company. The best I could find were these two articles. The first one mentions that the company would be making a film, the other mentions it produced it. Even put together and counting the passing mention, these are not enough to show that the company passes WP:CORP. I have no true issue with the company owner userfying it, although I'd recommend very heavily that they get a non-COI person to help edit and ensure that the article doesn't become promotional in tone or use non-reliable sources. The company might be active, might do some nice charitable work, and might be more known than Vinny's House of Video Production, but none of that in and of itself shows that the company passes notability guidelines. The company just isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you have not looked at the reference links properly.

http://www.succeedfoundation.org/work/collaborators_dvd], [23] are company websites which mention our company as a suppler. You have claimed above "These are just links to company websites or charitable organizations", well no actually... these references were added because each time a project was mentioned on this page, 'citation needed' was added. So we were being asked to prove the work had been done. So now that the proof has been added in the form of these references... there is a problem with that too.

You have just set about stripping all of the companies project history.

You have also made a terrible mistake with the articles which you have searched for yourself. You said "I did a search and other than some passing mentions in various articles (like this [24]) that predominantly focus on other topics, there really wasn't anything out there to show notability for this company. The best I could find were these two articles."

Neither of these articles have anything to do with Dragonfly Productions and our company has had no involvement in these productions. So you have stripped out real references to work which is notable and you are suggesting total irrelevancies. I'm starting to wonder whether a Wikipedia article about our company is actually a liability! What with the vandalism and constant attacks. The page does not benefit me or my business one bit. The last time it was edited, it was made totally non promotional in nature, but its still being criticised as promotional. I can only guess that the fact that the page is about a business which is still in business... it will always be attacked as a promotional platform.

Just take the page down then... I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliesouthall (talk • contribs) 10:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You had no references there to begin with, at least not any that actually mattered. If you had, we wouldn't be having this discussion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The thing about proving that something exists or had happened is that existing or creating something doesn't give something notability. There's also the issue that not every project by the company needs to be listed. Sometimes it's better to give an overview of what the company does than to list every project- especially if the project is somewhat limited as far as visibility and notability goes. I'm not disparaging the merit of the item, just saying that a video on wilderness trails isn't really the same as if you were creating a video on anthropology that received an especially large amount of merit. As far as the other article not being about your specific company, that actually makes things worse because those were the only mentions I could find of any Dragonfly Productions and the only things that showed any hints of notability. As far as promotional tones go, please remember that what might sound neutral to you might not come across as neutral to others here on Wikipedia. Phrases such as "The striking result of the project has been widely distributed and shown at national conferences on the subject of child mental health" come across as promotional because while it does try to impart information, it does so by trying to put the subject (the video and company) in the best light possible. I don't necessarily think that anyone did this on purpose, but when you're not used to writing in a neutral style and more used to using buzzwords to promote your company or a product, it's easy to slip them in without realizing how they come across to other readers.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There appears to be some confusion between notability, and verifiability. Sources such as http://www.succeedfoundation.org/work/collaborators_dvd can be used as sources for the purposes of verification for statements of fact. That is perfectly acceptable and necessary to confirm infromation in an article. However, such sources are not usable for the purposes of establish that an article should be included on Wikipedia. For that, we would be looking for significant coverage in such sources as newspapers and magazines. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can only find the same material that Tokyogirl79 found whih apparently is a different company named "Dragonfly Productions". As such, there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish that inclusion guidelines are met. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the company exists[25]and produces films which themselves receive coverage,[26] simple mentions as a production company and no in-depth coverage of themselves fails inclusion criteria set by WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That is apparently a different Dragonfly Productiions. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Okay, I struck through the links I offered, but my assertion remains sound, and I agree with your own conclusions. The company has not received independent secondary coverage, and in-depth information is found only on their own website. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 13 March 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 04:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Let Dunstable Die (Long Live Dunstable) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a musical group that does not ascertain notability (two women who sing about their hometown). A Google search yields mostly results for their Facebook and website. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment - The topic may meet meets WP:N, although it is not strongly passing by a large margin. It has received national coverage from BBC (Reviving Dunstable's high street) and significant newspaper coverage: [27], [28]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about women who sing, nor is it about a band or musician. This is a community group which works towards the benefit of a town and has a great following both on social media and offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Channel99 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- At best this is a local campaign group. Possibly merge something to Dunstable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 9 March 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, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Coverage is local including the BBC link which is part of their localised coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified my !vote above to a comment, since the BBC coverage is generally regional in scale (apparently 3 counties). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough coverage to prove notability. It might be useful to include some of this article's content in Dunstable, perhaps in the Culture section. - ʈucoxn\^talk 22:38, 17 March 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 04:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heat within kingdoms of milky way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Author removed PROD. Fails WP:GNG, entirely speculative about an unreleased game with no notability. Ducknish (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And userify if the author requests it. If the game is indeed a sequel to an existing notable release then it's fairly reasonable that this will also merit inclusion. However, this is way too much WP:CRYSTAL even for future releases. And they can't make up their mind as to whether it will be November 2103 (!) or 2014 (!!). I couldn't even recommend a redirect to the supposed other game since the title is badly spelled anyway. Which also makes me believe that this might be a prank... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and don't userfy. This is either a total hoax or someone's fan material (which would probably be a copyvio if it were ever actually released). There is a real Dreamfall game in development, Dreamfall Chapters, which is actually licensed and has no relation to this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, or speedy as non-notable web-related content. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no prejudice as to userfying. The article has zero references to support WP:GNG, and further, reads a bit like promo copy. Lacking further evidence, I don't know whether or not the game/material constitutes copyvio. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do not userfy. This is WP:MADEUP -- a game by "indie developers" that entered production four weeks ago, purportedly based on an actual license (Dreamfall) that is actually still very much live, with a real game on the horizon that isn't this one. Oh, and of course, this project has a staggering zero non-Wikipedia Google hits; there are nothing like sources here, reliable or otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Uberaccount (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 16 March 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. J04n(talk page) 19:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Florida Taser incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Thoroughly trivial and created in blatant violation of our not-a-newspaper standards. The previous nomination was dominated by people who attempted to argue that it was a huge thing that would always stick around in our collected memory (e.g. "This story will not go away or be forgotten"), but no evidence was presented that such would happen. Everything presently on the article is trivial (e.g. YouTube information on how many hits the video gets) or several-years-old news sources, and the sole piece of coverage I can find in JSTOR is this article, which gives it a single paragraph as part of a discussion about the lack of civility in American culture. To quote the article, the subject of the incident became "an instant, if likely fleeting, celebrity" — this prediction has become true, because no solid sources time-independent of the incident are giving it consistent coverage. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 6 years later, we can look upon this with benefit of hindsight. It made the news at the time, but the charges are extremely trivial (he got a short probation, less than common everyday crimes like vandalism or DUI). As far as I can tell it had no impact at all on politics, law enforcement, or the university. It had so little effect on anything that I don't even think it can be merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and it's not a noteworthy event. --DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there's no lasting notable impact to this event and it shouldn't be kept here. Ducknish (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Our policy on what Wikipedia is not says that we should consider the "enduring notability" of events. Coverage of this event was, of course, heaviest in the days and weeks following the incident, but there is nothing unusual about this. This article in the New York Times published in February of 2012, well over four years later, says that video of the incident was responsible for "keeping concerns high" about the safety of tasers. A 2010 article in Wired about a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restricting taser use called the incident "famous". A 2009 NBC News report called the comment by the man tasered an "immortal phrase". Another 2009 NBC News report called this incident the "most famous" video of police use of a taser. Fifteen months after the incident, Time magazine described it in the opening paragraph of their story titled Are Tasers Deadly? That same month, Newsweek/The Daily Beast ran a followup article on the incident. Ten months after the incident, Deseret News ran a story called Are Tasers good tools for police — or deadly force? that said the student had "forever immortalized" the phrase he uttered. John Kerry discussed the incident himself at a public appearance nine months later. Three months after the incident, the editor of the Yale Book of Quotations said that the phrase, "Don't tase me, bro" was the most memorable quotation of 2007, and that it was "a symbol of pop culture success", and in its coverage, Reuters UK said it was "a phrase that swept the nation". A book published in 2010 called U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A Contemporary Reader says that the incident (the only one specifically described in this section of the book) was among several that led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to issue a 9-step strategy for "effective deployment" of tasers and similar devices. A 2009 book called Introduction to Criminal Justice devoted two pages to the incident, plus a mention in the introduction. In Charles Ogletree's 2012 book The Presumption of Guilt: The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Race, Class and Crime in America, he says that many African-Americans related to this incident because of memories that tasers were used on Rodney King. It has been five and a half years, and this incident is still being discussed in a wide range of reliable sources. It is also interesting that two editors recommending deletion are using the deprecated "WP:NOTNEWS" shortcut. Of course, Wikipedia has articles on newsworthy events of enduring significance, but the point is that Wikipedia does not function like a newspaper. When an event has been discussed in reliable sources for years, including in serious books, concerns about newspaper type coverage should evaporate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case I would say the problem isn't lack of sources but a fundamental lack of notability, which was uncertain then but obvious now. Yes, it was an example where a taser was used and it made the news. Had it been a catalyst for banning police use of tasers, or had the perpetrator parlayed the situation into lasting fame of some sort, then it would be notable or we'd at least have a merge target, but that simply isn't the case. 18 months probation, not even a trial, no lasting effects of any note. Thousands more notable crimes than this happen every day all over the world. We could cover them, sure, but that's better left to newspapers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here on Wikipedia, Andrew, we say that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that it meets the general notability guideline. You have acknowledged, Andrew, that there is no problem with a lack of sources, which I've shown have continued their coverage for five years. Then why doesn't this topic meet the GNG? You seem to be treating the topic as a criminal act that resulted in 18 months probation. The reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this event over the past five years do not discuss that aspect of the incident. It is the use of the taser in this type of circumstance that the reliable sources discuss, not the plea bargain or the probation. As I pointed out, one book says that this incident, and other less notable incidents, motivated the International Association of Chiefs of Police to issue a strategy document on tasers and similar technologies. The recognizable phrase "Don't tase me, bro" has been used in hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources over the years. That's notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most murders, armed robberies, and so on are covered by news outlets and thus technically meet the letter of the GNG, but generally only the ones with lasting historic notability or landmark cases are covered in Wikipedia because routine crimes are considered out of scope for a general-interest encyclopedia. (see WP:PERP, WP:CRIME, WP:BLP1E) If your average murder is out of scope, I'd say something like this, with no jail time, trial, or lasting effects for anyone, is a good deal less notable than any more serious crime. You are free to your opinion though and it's okay if we agree to disagree on this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with Starblind's comparison here to other "non-historic" moments reported by the media. This is, in my opinion, an event that is already faded from memory for the most point. It doesn't seem to have any sort of real lasting impact that I would consider to make an event like this notable. Ducknish (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS, yes the event was reported in the news, but as WP:EVENT points out an event should have some lasting significance and I am not seeing that. LGA _talk^edits 08:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hasn't been notable for a very long time.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the comprehensive reasons stated by Cullen, especially those highlighting the enduring notability of the subject. News events often become historical events when viewed retrospectively. It's not that hard to find a policy or guideline to support any desired outcome, but I think we would do well to avoid slavish adherence to rules like WP:NOT#NEWS, when their application likely impedes the greater goal of building an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. - MrX 02:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the incident is missing impact and its notability is questionable, I think that the overall topic, accounting for the video and "Don't tase me, bro!", is notable.
  • WP:Notability (events) (WP:EVENT, guideline):
    • Lasting effects, Geographical scope: I concede that there is a lack of real-world impact. The article's editors considered the problem at Talk:University of Florida Taser incident/Archive 2#Notability revisited, back in December 2007.
    • Depth of coverage, Duration of coverage: The incident received solid newspaper-level coverage. The coverage was most intense immediately after the event. Most of the ongoing coverage was in the local The Gainesville Sun or the University of Florida student newspaper, The Independent Florida Alligator, but there was a follow-up by the Associated Press.^[29] Today interviewed Meyer a month after the incident.^[30] The Washington Post ran a "where are they now?" on Meyer in April 2011.^[31]
    • Diversity of sources: The incident received national coverage in the U.S., and there are refs from The Times and The Sydney Morning Herald.
  • WP:NOTNEWS is a soft redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (policy). I think that the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:EVENT's may or may not be notable and escape WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.
  • There are three pieces to the topic: the confrontation itself; the video, which went viral; and "Don't tase me, bro!" The current article is somewhat of a WP:Coatrack that focuses on the incident, which may have had the least impact.
  • Disclosure: I used to edit the article, although less frequently through early 2010.

Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It's all newspapers that are connected in time to the incident. No solid coverage throughout history since then. Not a historic incident and thus not encyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, did you bother to review the sources I brought forth? Newspaper sources over a period of years? Magazine follow-ups long after the event? Three book sources, years later, including one that credited this incident with influencing a major police organization to issue a recommendation on tasers? I am curious about what you thought of those? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That there was any direct coverage after the probation agreement is somewhat noteworthy. You missed my point about the incident alone versus the overall topic, and Cullen328 provided substantial sources around "Don't tase me, bro!" Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cullen328. I think the fact that a Presidential candidate was involved should be brought to bear here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Don't Delete Me Bro. Its a cultural touchstone.[32][33].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I use Wikipedia as source of first resort. I know that Wiki will have something on whatever I am looking for. I still remember this plea-comment for all those years ago. I did not recall who said it so I looked it up. Be what you purport to be - The information provider of first resort for inquiring minds. Do not force us inquiring minds to Examiner.Patnclaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First of all, why is this being put up for deletion now . . . in March 2013? The fact that so many people remember the "Don't tase me bro" incident from 2007 shows that this is a notable moment in American politics and culture. Besides the fact that it spawned the catchphrase "Don't tase me bro." OGBranniff (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am disturbed by the number of single purpose accounts here. I see two fundamental positions, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:LASTING. Because Wikipedia is not offering a first-hand account nor is the event a WP:ROUTINE event, technically WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. NOTNEWS does state that if it was a news story it can still be included on Wikipedia as long as it was not routine and had lasting effects. The incident is part of the taser controversy, regularly cited, and "don't tase me bro" became an internet meme. I largely feel the keep camp has shown LASTING and thus avoids NOTNEWS. Mkdw^talk 23:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Appearing in books is the very antithesis of WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER.  The nomination implies that this needs to be "a huge thing that would always stick around in our collected memory", but WP:NTEMP states that once a topic is notable, it will always be notable.  Since this topic massively passes WP:GNG, the only reason not to cover it is because it fails WP:NOT.  As to whether or not this topic fails WP:Routine, I don't consider as routine an event involving a presidential candidate's apology, 6.7 million YouTube views, and an Internet meme described in a book the next year as "the wildly popular phrase of 2007".

• Jim Marrs (15 December 2008). Above Top Secret: Uncover the Mysteries of the Digital Age. The Disinformation Company. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-934708-18-7. Retrieved 17 March 2013. In fact, the wildly popular phrase of 2007, 'Don't taze me bro,' was a plea from a conspiracy theorist that exploded into the pop-culture lexicon because of the Internet.
• Joseph B. Kuhns (9 April 2010). Police use of force: a global perspective. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-36326-9. Retrieved 18 March 2013. The public nature of the TASER controversy is perhaps best illustrated by the now-famous YouTube video of a Senator John Kerry speaking engagement in which a University of Florida student says 'don't taze me, bro' to police officers right ...

Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect There is important, cited detail in the article but it needs editing and reducing as much of it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Should become part of a small section of another article such as University of Florida? DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, who joins wikipedia merely to vote in a slew of AfDs? And then leave such ambiguous comments? When books have duly recorded this event as highly notable, what are we to do with your gobbledygook?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:33, 18 March 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. Policy based arguements for the keep side is basically non-existent, potential GNG source rebutted. Secret ^account 05:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PARSIFAL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent sources to determine notability for this study, other than a few papers which were published as a result. (Note: this page refers to a medical study, not the opera.) a13ean (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete, i.e. keep or redirect. Can't hurt to redirect it to the operate if we judge it unworthy of an article. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Google scholar search for "PARSIFAL study -Wagner" gives 3,000 results. hgilbert (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "PARSIFAL study -Wagner -Steiner -Anthroposophical" returns 2720 results; 90% of the citations are related to the farming component of the study which is not reflected in the current article. This is a moot point though, any large scale scientific study hopefully results in multiple papers, which hopefully result in multiple citations. What I don't see is any sources which establish the notability of this particular study. Looking at a few other studies there's some which are clearly notable, for example Framingham Heart Study (106k google scholar results) although its article could use some work. Others are more borderline cases, for example LEAP has 15k google scholar results, and some independent coverage. What I don't see for this study is independent reliable sources that establish notability. a13ean (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - given the 3 or so primary research papers there are probably 300+ citations in total. In addition there was this news article which could also be referenced to more clearly establish notability. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a press release; it says "Source: Blackwell Publishing Ltd." at the bottom. I also don't think that raw citation counts establish notability for studies -- my research group has more than a dozen studies with more than 300 cites, but none of them are independently notable. a13ean (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We aren't in the business of creating articles solely on individual studies (and many have a lot more citations) unless they have some actual claim to notability like WP:GNG. I'll also highlight that what we have here is a Waldorf School teacher creating an article based on a primary study, which makes Waldorf schools look favourable. Arbcom has already established Waldorf teachers have a conflict of interest with respect to Waldorf schools; Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Conflict_of_interest, so I think this is an open and shut case. Nyttend's statement isn't an argument and is a classic WP:NOHARM. Hgilbert's argument is a standard WP:GOOGLEHITS argument.

Keeping articles based on 300 cites is a strange. I will demonstrate my point:

• Smith, Donald B. "Single-step purification of polypeptides expressed in Escherichia coli as fusions with glutathione S-transferase". Gene. 67 (1): 31–40. doi:10.1016/0378-1119(88)90005-4. ((cite journal)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) This article has 5646 citations. Does the article have its own article? No.
• Barabási, A. (15 October 1999). "Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks". Science. 286 (5439): 509–512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) This has 16002 citations. Does the article have its own article? No.
• Van den Berghe, Greet (8 November 2001). "Intensive Insulin Therapy in Critically Ill Patients". New England Journal of Medicine. 345 (19): 1359–1367. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa011300. ((cite journal)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) 7522 citations. Does the article have its own article? No.

IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my entire statement? It's not a comment on the contents of the article; it's simply a statement that we should redirect it if we decide that we shouldn't have an article about the study. I didn't read the article, and as such I'm not expressing an opinion about whether it should be kept as an article about this study. It's purely based on the title, because the title shouldn't be left as a redlink, and when we're talking about redirects, NOHARM isn't applicable. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get the point, the article is only linked from here: Parsifal_(disambiguation) and here: Waldorf education. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Atopy. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the history of this article is linked to that of the Waldorf education article; originally the latter discussed the PARSIFAL study findings, which were indeed positive toward Waldorf, quite extensively. I felt that the coverage was excessive, and created this article as a place for the fuller discussion of the study's results, thus allowing the primary article to summarize these briefly. I don't want to pile this material back into the original article, as the study results are only peripherally related to education. I don't really care whether the PARSIFAL article remains, however. People can always look at the original study. hgilbert (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WikiPedia is not an academic or medical journal. If the study is notable as part of wider research then it should be included there, but it is not notable in isolation DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI'd let this article stay. I am NOT an expert, but from an editing standpoint, the creator's have met a MINIMUM burden for the creation of an article. If they can not add anything, they may have to cut back and go for a stub class.johncheverly 01:41, 19 March 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 04:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This a local MMA organization whose only coverage is from it's own website or the Chiiliwack Times. This organization's claim to notability comes from trying to hold fights in a town where the city council banned MMA events at city owned venues. This seems like WP:NOTNEWSPAPER or perhaps WP:1E.Mdtemp (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP/WP:ORG. 7 events total, nothing new since 2009, link to their "most notable fighter" leads to a 70-year-old musician. Yeah, this isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient outside coverage. Ducknish (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG Luchuslu (talk) 14:19, 12 March 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 04:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Skujiņš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He's an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MMA notability guidelines. Ducknish (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. CaSJer (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No top-tier fights, not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk)
• Delete Does not meet the requirements of WP:NMMA in that the fighter has participated in a top tier organization. Mkdw^talk 23:10, 17 March 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 04:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mahler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see what notability criteria this person meets. The article lacks reliable sources--the only 2 links are to his own web page and a link to a student testimonial. I don't think his writing qualifies him as notable under WP:AUTHOR, but I could be missing something.Mdtemp (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mahler is a prominent for his achievements, his vegan diet, his YouTube videos and his advice to others. In my view an independent source of information about him on Wikipedia would be of value - the same could be said for other people with a similar profile, even though, in a couple of decades they may well be forgotten. Mahler's approach is low-key. He is not associated with any extreme or antisocial views or behaviours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.214.168.45 (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a vegan, having youtube videos, and not being extreme or antisocial are not enough to show notability. Exactly what are his achievements and where are the independent sources showing he's notable?Mdtemp (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Google turns up very little about the subject. Ducknish (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable author and lacks WP:SIGCOV. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 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 04:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amaobi Uzowuru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: According to his profile on transfermarkt he has played 1 minute in the Portugese 1st tier for Rio Ave. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's only a single appearance, less than a minute long, which appears not to have generated significant coverage, I think it's a sufficiently week claim to WP:NSPORT that it's not unreasonable to delete the article anyways, especially since WP:GNG is clearly not met. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see the sense here. So Delete is what I say. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 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 04:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GracieMag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems like a magazine that should be notable, but it's been tagged as unsourced for 3 years. The problem is that I couldn't find independent sources that discuss this magazine. If someone can show it's covered in reliable sources I'll withdraw this nomination.Mdtemp (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-The topic (a monthly magazine) seems notable. It would be better to expand the article inserting new sources rather than delete.--Goldenaster (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the problem is that I couldn't find independent sources. That's probably why it's been tagged for 3 years.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenaster, you're a new editor so I would suggest you read WP:N and WP:RS. Not all magazines are inherently notable, especially when there seems to be a lack of independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete I expected to do a quick Google search, copy a link to a reliable source and vote keep, but I'm really struggling to find any independent coverage that would let this pass any criteria of WP:NME. I'll hold off on voting to see if someone can find a source, but if not, I'm leaning toward delete. Vote changed to delete, although I'm open to changing it again if someone can find sources covering the magazine. CaSJer (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I will admit to being surprised at the lack of independent sources, but I didn't see any that would support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 18 March 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. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Boxer who fails to meet WP:NBOX. Coverage of him is just routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 18:40, 11 March 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 March 11. Snotbot  t • c »  18:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This AfD currently points to Philip Brown, a disambiguation page, not Phillip Brown, the boxer. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed that careless mistake.Mdtemp (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My search didn't turn up anything that shows he meets WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I got curious of this article, as fighting against Bowe, and hell being familiar with the old "Mahi Shrine Temple" at the old Seville Hotel in Miami Beach where he apparently fought, thus Miami Herald access but after my search no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Opponents he beat were non-notable. Secret ^account 04:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:44, 18 March 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 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Egan (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an unsourced BLP, except for a link to his fight record, about an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA because he has only 1 top tier fight.Mdtemp (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No references, only one top-tier fight. Fails WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only 1 top tier fight so he fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fighter remains 2 top tier fights shy required to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw^talk 23:10, 17 March 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 04:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crayon Shin-Chan (Gameboy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources, no real non-game guide content, nothing to indicate much notability Jac16888 ^Talk 18:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 4 Crayon Shin-Chan games for the Game Boy, anyway. --HighFunctioningAutismIsVeryCreepy (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge/Redirect to Crayon Shin-Chan#Video games. I hate it when people make a video game article and the only source they use is something like Gamefaqs. We may also need to AFD Crayon Shin-Chan: Ora to Poi Poi, Crayon Shin-Chan: Arashi wo Yobu Enji, and Crayon Shin-chan: Saikyou Kazoku Kasukabe King Wii which appear similarly non-notable.--Atlantima (talk) 21:38, 12 March 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 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not estabilshed that he meets WP:NACTORS. Prod removed by creator, who also appears to be the subject of the article. Self-promotion? Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm finding various false positives (Oliver Kieran-Jones, Gareth Kieran Jones) but nothing on Google, Highbeam or Questia (not even IMDB) to indicate that the subject meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be of only minor importance if any. Ducknish (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject's roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm unable to find coverage for him in reliable sources (WP:GNG).  Gong show 01:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per TOO SOON. Nice that the fellow is beginning to gain better roles, and its possible he might one day meet inclusion criteria. But not quite yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:49, 14 March 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 04:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cairns (Novelist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced BLP article about an author who apparently wrote one novel, which may have been self-published. Unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. - MrX 17:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources for Cairns, nor any reviews for Howash and Hooey or Silver. I also see no coverage about being shortlisted for the 2013 Historical Novel Society Award. The award itself is apparently for unpublished works, so it's not surprising the award has not receoved much attention. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 13 March 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 03:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Get Happy Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable tour. The article is cited to a single BBC News source, which is a straightforward local news piece about a band, which isn't really the sort of major, sustained, national news coverage require for an article to be notable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. By the way, the article is also overly promotional in tone, and has remained tagged for improper tone for about five years now. Unforgettableid (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing to support the event's notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 11 March 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. Secret ^account 04:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Restoration Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-noteworthy legislation introduced a few times but never even referred out of committee. Small local coverage and one partisan piece, but not enough to establish an article or its notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This Roy Moore-inspired attack on federal court jurisdiction over church-and-state issues got a lot of buzz in the press for several years,[34][35], was endorsed by the Idaho legislature[36] (and, I believe, by Louisiana's as well, although the independent sources I found on GNews for that are all paywalled [37]), and has been the subject of multiple scholarly articles[38] including this one by Mark Tushnet.[39] I don't think it benefits the encyclopedia (or civic intelligence, for that matter) to bury information like this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Although it has never gotten out of committee, it has generated a lot of notability. And once notable, always notable. I would like to see the article updated to reflect ongoing efforts to pass it, but that is a different issue. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd say its come up often enough in Congress and been covered to a significant enough degree to be considered notable. Ducknish (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject of this AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources where it was the primary subject of the content of the source. From its initial introduction in the 108th Congress it has received continued coverage since it was first written about. Therefore it passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and thus satisfies the notability threshold.--JayJasper (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Noteworthy as it is a reflection on the effectiveness of the Constitution, and has taken up some time in Congress in both Houses. However there is the issue of it being old in political terms (last mention 2006) and failed. I lean towards keeping, but I understand why this AfD was started. It's certainly borderline. BerleT (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 14 March 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. Well this AFD is piled with all types of poor policy based arguments from single purpose keep accounts, to the last two delete commentators, one of which made an strange comment that he would delete the obviously notable, and core parent articles as WP:OR. So it comes down to the decision of the article meeting WP:NOR, and Psychonaut kinda rebutted it stating that the content, while it does need cleanup, could be mergeable. That said AFD is not cleanup, and try to discuss some sort of merge in the talk page, and if the WP:NOR problems persists renominate this article for deletion. Secret ^account 05:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal versus vertical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A huge pile of WP:OR with trivial references and it isn't even self consistent, e.g. " A horizontal line is any line normal to a vertical line. Through any point P, there is one and only one vertical line and one and only one horizontal line. " Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Poorly sourced original research. - MrX 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am creator of the article. Also,consider the possibility of merging it with the old wiki article Horizontal plane which has NO sources, unlike the present article proposed for deletion which at least has readily checkable references. The two articles are useful for physics education and complement each other with overlap. Both the articles contain statements which are readily attributable, like the statement "Paris is the capital of France". As for the charge by Andy Dingley that the article is not even self consistent, I do not agree. In the two dimensional case, once the vertical direction has been designated, there is exactly one vertical and exactly one horizontal through any point P in the plane. Shanker Pur (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is WP:OR to a certain extent but also a topic that isn't really worthy of inclusion. There's no real justification for having an article comparing horizontal and vertical when they each have their own article to be seen. Ducknish (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep. The author here again. Thank you Ducknish for toning down the WP:OR issue. The article is fresh but there is nothing original in it except the use of diagrams which I mostly drew myself. But to take your main point, I disagree. The concepts of horizontal and vertical are inter-related. One is defined in terms of the other with some degree of freedom as to which is the primary concept. By discussing them in one place, by contrasting horizontal with vertical, the symmetries and the asymmetries can be displayed, as the article illustrates. Misconceptions that arise from not appreciating the inter-relationship between the two concepts can be dispelled by discussing the two together. It should be a useful article for the physics teacher and student. But this is not an argument against improving my article or merging with other wiki articles. I have already mentioned the long standing wiki article Horizontal plane which my article complements. Shanker Pur (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article adds useful material for those interested in physics education.Scotpina (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)— Scotpina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep this article. Andy Dingley's charge of inconsistency is incorrect. This article is of interest to a variety of disciplines. All the facts mentioned in the article are known. Johny the jump (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)— Johny the jump (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Two freshly created user accounts, and you're both joining us already here at AfD. How nice. Will User:Seal Boxer be along later?

As to "inconsistencies", then read the quote within the nomination above and ask how many horizontal lines are there through point P ? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep. It is good to see new contributors to wikipedia. As for the charge of inconsistency, I hope the following helps. The charge is based on a misreading of the article and a confusion between two dimensions and three dimensions. In two dimensions, once one has designated the vertical, there is through any point P in the plane, only one vertical and only one horizontal. This is quite clearly laid out in the article. In three dimensions, the situation is quite different: once the vertical has been designated, then through a point P, there is only one horizontal plane but a multiplicity of vertical planes.Shanker Pur (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a confusion between two dimensions and three dimensions. " Exactly. That's the problem with this whole article. It's badly written crackpot science that over-emphasises the exceptional at the cost of the mundane. Is the intersection of two planet-sized horizontal planes really the primary issue for a general public level encyclopedia article? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep. (I am a contributor). It appears that the charge of inconsistency against the article has been dropped. So that is useful because it would be difficult to justify the inclusion of a self-inconsistent article in an encyclopedia. Actually, the article should help to sort out the type of confusion which led Andy Dingley to make his accusation of inconsistency. Concepts of horizontality and verticality are very slippery and change their meaning as one goes from two dimensions to three, as one goes from a flat earth scenario to a spherical earth, as one goes from a uniform sphere to a non-homogenous spinning earth. Perhaps the article should be expanded but not deleted. Let it grow. Shanker Pur (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Shanker Pur (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I agree that it is nice to be allowed to join you all on AfD using a freshly created user account. The text is clearly written and very relevant. What is the definition of "general public ?". I believe I am a member of the "general public" and I understood the article in question when I first read it. The issues/facts included in this kind of article are what motivates people in their pursuit of knowledge. I look forward to many more articles of this calibre.Johny the jump (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Johny the jump (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny the jump (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• Process check - Traditionally, each editor gets one !vote in an AfD discussion. If you wish to add comments, you should write comment instead of keep in front of your comment, and indent the comment if it is a reply to another editor's comment. - MrX 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thank you Mr X for helping a relative newcomer. Should I go back and delete the superfluous 'keeps'? I assumed that it was one vote for one person but that I had to keep on indicating that I had not changed my mind!! Shanker Pur (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You may want to change all but one "keep" to "comment", which will make it easier for the admin who closes this discussion. - MrX 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck out the superfluous 'keeps' and entered 'comment' on your behalf, Shanker Pur. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Malcolmx15. I appreciate your deletions and entries. So much to learn.Shanker Pur (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article usefully distinguishes the senses of horizontal and vertical in various contexts, such as 2 dimensions, 3 dimensions, a spherical earth, etc. Its points are correct, and there is no inconsistency.DonaldAGillies (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)— DonaldAGillies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• This question is addressed to Andy Dingley and other editors who have voted to delete. The article has evolved significantly in the last few days, hopefully for the better. If you have a look at it and change your mind, are you allowed to change your vote to keep? Shanker Pur (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge from horizontal plane and keep. The article has a number of issues that need to be addressed. However, these can all be handled through means other than deleting the entire article:
  • Many of the references aren't reliable. The claims are sound, but better sources are required.
  • There are some statements in the "Observations" section which look like they might be original research. Either sources must be added showing these observations to have been previously published, or else the observations should be removed from the article.
  • Some of the material presented here is redundant with that of horizontal plane. I'd like to see the purely geometric aspects of "horizontal" and "vertical" migrated from horizontal plane to this article, leaving in the former the material specific to radio science (as is currently the case with vertical plane).
  • The text isn't really written like an encyclopedia article. It needs editing for tone, style, and structure.

—Psychonaut (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have contributed to both the articles mentioned by Psychonaut and I very much agree with him about merging the two. There is nothing original in either of the two articles (except the diagrams but that does not matter). All the facts are well known and long known even if they may strike some readers as slightly surprising and that should not be a reason to exclude an article from an encyclopedia. I will look into improving the sources. Shanker Pur (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have just spotted another article - Vertical direction - which is relevant to this discussion. It is an old wiki article, is unsourced and in content overlaps with the article Horizontal versus vertical. Further to Pyschonaut's suggestion, this article could also be merged into Horizontal versus vertical which I created. Shanker Pur (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, horizontal versus vertical, vertical direction, and the non-radio science parts of horizontal plane are all redundant with each other and should be merged into a single article covering both horizontal and vertical directions (each of which can't be fully discussed without reference to the other). Call it horizontal versus vertical or horizontal and vertical or whatever. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Horizontal and vertical" is probably a more elegant choice although "Horizontal versus vertical" does raise the question as to which of the two is primary. It seems that the two concepts are on par in the 2-D context but in 3-D "vertical" has priority. The situation is fluid and the modern laser level technology may reverse the situation. Shanker Pur (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Interesting, but Wikipedia:NOR DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOR. PianoDan (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does WP:NOR apply to Horizontal plane and Vertical direction? Shanker Pur (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things - 1. The existence of another similar article may not be used as a justification for an article - they must stand or fall on their own. 2. That said, I would support deleting each of those articles as OR as well. PianoDan (talk) 02:21, 19 March 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. Discuss a merge in the talk page. Secret ^account 04:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, or WP:NPOV take your pick. Anything salvageable should be merged to the main articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First a procedural note: The article was inappropriately cut down before this deletion notification. In its present state it makes little sense.
  This is a previous version in which it becomes clear why this topic is so important, and that it is composed of a number of highly notable incidents. The PR stunts were highly successful. As the article said before today's manipulation: "The U.S. government's public relations campaign was largely successful in getting the American public to accept false beliefs to support the war. Approximately 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein had a role in the 9/11 attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this. [5] As late as 2006, 85% of U.S. troops in Iraq said the U.S. mission was mainly 'to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks.'"
  Maybe the scope should be widened, as the manipulations of international public opinion continued during the war, e.g. with the infamous invention of embedded journalism. Hans Adler 15:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There are sources of the highest quality for the topic of this article:
  • "This paper examines the influence of American public opinion towards Iraq on the administration of George W. Bush from September 11, 2001 to the start of the war on March 19, 2003. [...] [The administration] attempted to persuade public opinion to support the use of force in Iraq, principally by using references to weapons of mass destruction to prime public opinion. Second, it suggests that the administration accurately perceived the dimensions of domestic public opinion. And third, it shows that its leadership efforts did not dramatically change public attitudes on the desirability of war although it did appear to affect public perceptions of whether the administration had ‘explained’ its position. It concludes that if the administration successfully ‘led’; the public to war, it did so in large part because, after September 11, the public favored such a war. Public opinion also caused the Congress to support the Bush administration's position." - Douglas C. Foyle, Leading the Public To War? The Influence of American Public Opinion on the Bush Administration's Decision to go to War in Iraq, International Journal of Public Opinion Research. [40]
  • Jon Western, Selling Intervention and War: The Presidency, the Media, and the American Public, Johns Hopkins University Press, has an entire chapter (45 pages) on the PR for the Iraq War.
  • "Techniques of public relations and propaganda were an essential part of the 2003 war in Iraq. The government framed the issues, story line, and slogans to serve its purposes. Embedding journalists, staging showy briefings, emphasizing visual and electronic media, and making good television out of it were all important to fighting the war.
    Propaganda of all shades was evident, and the trend toward deception in the future is likely to continue, since the current administration succeeded to such a large extent with its own electorate. But while it seemed to win the public relations war at home, it probably lost it abroad. All strategies at the White House and Pentagon seem designed for more public relations and propaganda in future wars. The government will have to keep wars short, at least somewhat clean, and to give the impression at least of some transparency, lest the public will to fight withers, as it did in Vietnam." - Ray Eldon Hiebert, Public relations and propaganda in framing the Iraq war: a preliminary review, Public Relations Review. [41]
• It may not be apparent to Americans, who get their information filtered through American media, but objective information about the US government's propaganda is neither fringe nor in any other way biased or surprising. These sources are all of the highest quality imaginable for such a topic. They are scholarly articles. Hans Adler 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is a very strange nomination. It's far more than Mr Adler says, that there are scholarly sources available. It is that the war was launched on an untrue basis, founded on some extremely shaky intelligence, and seemingly thought of well before the casus belli (WMD) was chosen. Whether one decides to personally believe it or not, there are credible arguments to suggest that thinktanks such as the Project for a New American Century, as well as senior individuals such as Cheney and Wolfowitz were promoting this idea well before the ostensible rationale (WMD) was chosen. The truth has yet to finally emerge, and Wikipedia would be acting against its mission if it suppressed this article. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to Iraq War. Reads like an essay. There maybe sufficient reliable sources that discuss this subject, however it is directly related to the article Iraq War and falls under its scope. If that article is too large this article can always be recreated and spun out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Merge The subject matter is already covered in relevant articles. Anything worthwhile in this article should be folded in with the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.190.113.66 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly merge any salvageable material into Iraq War. POV fork and essay apply. --DHeyward (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Buckshot that this is a significant and notable topic which deserves an article (many very serious books provide coverage of the efforts to 'sell' the case for war, especially outside the US). While there isn't much here to save in the article's current form, I also agree that the earlier versions of the article appear to provide a potentially useful basis for further development (though all the editorializing would need to be stripped out). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I fail to see how this can stand on it's own in an encyclopedic state. It's far better and makes more sense to merge it into the article on the invasion itself as it represents a part of it in effect. BerleT (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rationale for the Iraq War. No practical need for separate article here.--Staberinde (talk) 13:42, 16 March 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 04:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kanik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

1. BLP lack of sources fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO 2. unrelated to AfD: ongoing COI / disruptive editing on this problem article Widefox; talk 13:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now - My first two searches at Google News provided two news links here (for a comedy documentary he co-created) and here (event listing for Bamboozle appearance). His LinkedIn page lists him as an "entrepreneur" and listing him as a partner with New Hollywood Entertainment, a Google News search for this provided nothing but I did find this brief mention in another search and a page at the company's website. His LinkedIn page also lists him as a co-CEO and President of Affirm XL but searches for this provided nothing but social media. If the IMDb page listed is really his, there isn't much information there either (one minor role in a 2010 short and information about his parents). His LinkedIn page also lists him as receiving an "American Chemical Society" Scholarship which I found this confirming he was a research assistant. His LinkedIn page doesn't mention studying at Boston University but I also found this which lists a Chris Kanik as an ACS scholar at Boston Univ. I'm not an academic but this doesn't seem to be notable for a Wikipedia article to me, or notable as a comedian either. He has kept himself busy but he's not notable for Wikipedia at this time. As always, I have no prejudice towards userfying or a future article. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - being the president of a company leans to notability, but nothing else he's done (stand up comedy, commercials, etc.) has been talked about in reliable sources, just things like Facebook and Twitter. --24.145.65.56 (talk) 04:15, 18 March 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 04:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New media factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a company that does not satisfy general notability or specific notability for companies. The company operated for less than 4 years, and the coverage recieved was routine business news as shown by the referencing and external links in the article. I tried to find other sourcing but turned up nothing. Whpq (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Nothing this article says suggests the sort of lasting significance needed to make this business an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Liquidated in 1997 with no apparent cultural significance or lasting notoriety.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:01, 13 March 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. As proper sourcing was found to meet our guidelines. Secret ^account 06:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnos (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and no indication of coverage in reliable independent sources here or at the equivalent article at cs.wiki. C679 12:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. C679 13:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. C679 13:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. C679 13:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ok, lets take a look at the WP:BAND criteria:

1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself: No 2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart: No 3) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country: No 4) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country: No 5) Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable): No 6) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles: No 7) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability: No 8) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award: No 9) Has won or placed in a major music competition: No 10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.: No 11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network: No 12) Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network: No Also, supporting links are the bands own .com website, Facebook, YouTube & are not reliable sources. Barada wha? 00:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The band Hypnos was formed by former members of notable Czech metal bands: Krabathor and Root. Their official website lists independent reviews in Spanish, German, French, Dutch, Italian, Greek and English language. Their music was reviewed by a well known Czech metal magazine Whiplash (the author is the guru of the Czech metal scene, Big Boss). The magazine Muzikus (a reliable mainstream music magazine published in the Czech Rep.) claims that their last album was produced by Harris Johns and mastered in Morrisound Studio in the US. I found independent and non-trivial Czech reviews published by AbbysZine, Muzikus, [42], FobiaZine etc etc. I think that Hypnos is a notable metal band. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can't give them credit on the own .com site for reliables, runs into WP:COI and other issues. Can't give them credit for the YouTube or Facebook material as they are not considered reliable. However, since I am not Czech, nor am I able to attest to the significance of publications thereof, I will defer further eval of the news blips to folks more able to state their notability. Barada wha? 21:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the sources found by Vejvančický, foreign language sources are permissible. J04n(talk page) 23:55, 10 March 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, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 13:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not cite any sources. Delete now, edit later per WP:NRSNVNA DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm on the fence about this one since I'm not sure how reliable the sources are. I did find it interesting that the company Vodaphone wrote about them in the Czech edition of their magazine. Unfortunately, I don't speak Czech. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:06, 18 March 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 Seismicity of the Chilean coast. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 23:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Puchuncaví earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable earthquake; it had no lasting consequences. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 18:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Delete - Having an easier time finding at least one source for this one. It's quite good and could be used to expand this article a bit, maybe even up to start class. But even then, I haven't seen anything that shows there was any significant damage or that there have been any lasting effects. This probably means there weren't any real issues with this except for the minor landslides that's mentioned in the article (no source there though). This earthquake wasn't exactly shallow, at 45 km, and is part of the reason why its effects were apparently minimal. [43] The coast of Chile is literally littered with dozens of M6 and above earthquakes and this one doesn't seem to stand out at all (and probably doesn't meet our notability guidelines), with the exception of this study (where it's referred to as the Michilla earthquake). [44] Dawnseeker2000 19:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Seismicity of the Chilean coast, preferable to deletion. J04n(talk page) 21:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this were a notable earthquake it would already be listed there. Probably not anything to say about this event, even on that article (the noteworthy events already seem to be listed). We're not going to lose anything with this one gone. Dawnseeker2000 21:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Seismicity of the Chilean coast: the quake itself is not notable since it had no WP:LASTING consequences. The information and sources contained in the article would be useful to support the assertion in the "Seismicity of the Chilean coast" article that the top quakes recorded in Chile occurred in two distinct periods. This quake falls exactly within one of those distinct periods: 2004—2011. - ʈucoxn\^talk 22:17, 10 March 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, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 13:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable WP:NOTLAST. If any editor thinks it relevant to the article above they should go ahead an add it DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:55, 18 March 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. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Vorperian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All sources now are dependent on Rita Vorperian for content. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree with the nominator, do not see any notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to being Glendale woman of the year. Rita Vorperian has appeared as a writer and publisher to numerous peer-reviewed journals articles, newspapers, and books. She is an often cited authority in his field, and passes the requirements for articles on WP:ACADEMIC. Her writings are respected by the Armenian diasporan community at large (it has appeared in Beirut, Cyprus, Canada, etc etc. newspapers). I would also like to add that searching her name with Armenian characters on google reveals more results than with English characters. Her community activism is notable too as she is a high ranking member of organizations that are notable in amd of themselves. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please reconsider your votes to the additional information I have added to the new "Awards" subsection of the article. On March 25 2011, she was awarded the prestigious Mesrob Mashtots Medal, the highest award of Armenia, from the Archbishop of the Western Prelate of the Armenian church on behalf of Aram I, Catholicos of the Holy See of Cilicia for her literary accomplishments and dedication to the Armenian community. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Meshrop Mashtots Medal is NOT the highest award of Armenia. National Hero of Armenia is.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its the highest award for Arts and Culture. National Hero of Armenia is the highest for Military accomplishments. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Pls check the list of recipients.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Many sources claim it is the highest medal, especially for those in dedication to Armenian culture (See:"Armenia’s highest medal", the country's highest award - the Order of St. Mashtots.the highest state award of Armenia "St. Mesrop Mashtots"). Even if you don't agree with me, Mashtots award is still one of the highest ranking medals of the Republic of Armenia. It is handed to recipients by the Catholicos of All Armenians and the President of Armenia. I repeat PLEASE REVISE YOUR VOTES IN ACCORDANCE TO THE NEW INFORMATION I ADDED. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just do not find the info you added makes her notable. And please DO NOT YELL. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ACADEMIC criteria #2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. P.S. I wasn't yelling at you...I just wanted to raise attention to the fact to all voters of the new additions I added to the article that display her notability. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an academic, so that WP:ACADEMIC does not apply. This is not an academic award. Nobel Prize would make her notable, for instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely argue that she is academic but I won't have to due to #1 of WP:ANYBIO. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she is academic please tell us in which university she is a professor. I do not think that the Mesrop Mashtots medal qualifies for #1 WP:ANYBIO. WP:GNG could be the best chance for your article, but then we need not only Armenian press or local newspapers, but smth more solid.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced that the "Mesrob Mashdots medal" she was given by some church official has anything to do with the "Order St. Mesrop Mashtots" given by the country's president. They have different names and they don't look the same. So what is the evidence that this medal has any significance? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein. The person handing the medal to Rita Vorperian is not just another "church official". Per [45] the Order was bestowed by "Western Prelate Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian on behalf of His Holiness Aram I, Catholicossate of the Great House of Cilicia." The Catholicos of the Holy See of Cilicia is the "Pope" of the Armenian church. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David. Don't know if this would answer your question, but this is from the LA news article I refer to below. "Retired California Supreme Court Justice Armand Arabian, the first Armenian American to serve on the state's highest court, has been honored by the head of the Armenian church for his contributions to public service and scholarship. His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the See of Cilicia, bestowed the Mesrob Mashdots medal upon Arabian last Monday at a ceremony in Bikfaya, Lebanon... The award is usually presented in the honoree's home country by a local Armenian organization." I do not have a source, but reading the couple of stories about it leads me to believe that it is the same award and that the source of the award is always the Catholics of Cilicia, but it is presented by different people (i.e. the president when it is diplomatic recognition, local groups when that is appropriate, etc.) But this is just being pieced together and not at all clear. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably keep. Seems needlessly deletionist. It's certainly not the case that "all sources now are dependent on Rita Vorperian for content", given the Congressional discussion. I feel in a case where notability is marginal but the article is not a PR puff, it's best to err on the side of caution. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, in looking for references, I did not find any significant coverage of the subject of this AfD from multiple reliable sources; what coverage I did find appeared to be passing mentions, therefore the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. However, Proudbolsahye has provided a source which claims that the subject was awarded the Mesrob Mashtots Medal, which might be considered a significant award that would make the subject notable per WP:ANYBIO. That being said, I do not know if allvoices.com is a reliable source, and I don't know how significant the Mesrob Mashtots Medal is. So I am neutral regarding the subject's notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RightCowLeftCoast...Here are some additional sources that say the Mesrob Mashtots medal is considered a very high ranking or prestigious medal in the least:[46],[47][48][49][50][51]).Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this article Awards and decorations of Armenia, the medal appears to be a a 6th level civilian award, equal to say the National Medal of Science. Therefore, not being a high level medal I am changing my opinion to Delete.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RightCowLeftCoast Those medals aren't in any specific order. The official website doesn't even specify any certain rank of order as well ([52]) which is alphabetically ranked. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient sources as explained by MelanieN below. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Though the sources cited don't do much, the subject of the article seems to have been recognized to a degree significant enough to merit an article. Ducknish (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to the official website of the Armenian military, the highest title of Armenia is given to Armenian citizens only. Rita Vorperian does not qualify for obvious reasons. Therefore, the Mesrob Mashtots Medal is the highest medal of the Armenian Republic that can be bestowed to her and if she were an Armenian citizen, it would be in the least. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I probably have a less rigorous opinion of what it means to be reported on and discussed in a reliable source independent of the subject - this does not mean, to me, that the source is not allowed to use information from the subject, merely that the source has editorial independence and makes some effort at checking the facts of the situation. In this context, the Armenian government, the local Congressperson and his staff, and the Glendale News-Press will suffice. It's a barely passing thing, though. Ray^Talk 10:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to KeepEdit: Not clear to me. I was finding nothing to justify the Mesrob Mashtots Medal as even a notable page or award itself. Then Google thankfully suggested trying Mashdots instead and I found enough to justify it and change my opinion to keep. Lexis search revealed: Metropolitan Express News of LA "It is among the highest honors the church gives" and (this really weird one) Deseret News (Salt Lake City) "Kocharyan presented Huntsman with the St. Mesrob Mashdots Medal of Honor, the nation's highest civilian award, and made him an Armenian citizen." With those two sources, I think a very tepid keep is my decision. @Proud: Help out and include alternative spellings of Armenian people and awards if it will help non-Armenian folk find out more about the people and awards (is her name Rita or Rima like the Mesrob page calls her? or both, possibly). Rita herself is still iffy on sources in my opinion, but the award does seem to pass WP:Anybio. _{Addition: just read David Epstein's comment: for sources above the first was given by the Church (high ranking member) and the second was given by the President, but both are given same name--But yes, if they are different awards, my opinion changes.}AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Abstractillusionist...The Armenian Apostolic Church has two Catholicos ...one in Cilicia and one in Echmiadzin. Both have the same amount of executive power. The same medal is given by the Catholicos of Echmiadzin too. Like here Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm sorry, I just don't find her notable. Google News search finds a grand total of two mentions of her, both in the Los Angeles Daily News,[53] plus one mention under an alternate spelling at Asbarez.com.[54] She has a PhD, and she taught at UCLA for 17 years - without ever rising above the post of "senior lecturer". She writes for newspapers. She was given a couple of awards - woman of the year in her congressional district, and a medal which is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article but IMO does not rise to the level of "a well-known and significant award or honor" as specified at WP:ANYBIO. Others may disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's a Mashots Medal recipient. Mashots Medal is one of the highest awards of Armenia. That alone automatically makes her notable. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Could a merge be warranted? Specifically a merge of basic content with the Mashtots medal page. It seems there is some feeling that sources for Rita herself are not great (reflected in comments by ymblanter, RightCowLeftCoast, Xxanthippe, Ducknish, MelanieN, and me). The division is whether the Mashtots makes her notable or not. It seems if the award is the only thing that would make her notable, a merge to that page of content could be a wise path. Some info would need to be cut, but a brief bio of her on the Mashtots page seems to me a reasonable solution. (I'm still not sure the Mashtots medal is "well-known and significant" (to pass WP:ANYBIO), it may be significant but shouldn't the medal at least have been mentioned once by any of The Times of London, New York Times, AP, AFP (non-obit) to be considered "well known"?) AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @AbstractIllusions. I do not agree with the merge. She didn't win an award for doing nothing. The Mesrob Mashdots award wasn't something that fell from the sky. She won an award for her philanthropy, community activism, feminist advocacy and literary works. These are all merits that make a stand alone article. Especially when she has been accredited by House of Representative's in Congress and the Catholicos of the Armenian Church for the above mentioned reasons. Although the award is well known (a mere search of "Mesrop Mashtots Medal" reveals dozens if not hundreds of results), I feel compelled to show some of the notable news sources that have mentioned the medal. Here are some widely recognized newspapers and agencies: (Deseret News "Kocharyan presented Huntsman with the St. Mesrob Mashdots Medal of Honor, the nation's highest civilian award, and made him an Armenian citizen.", BBC: "Miller was awarded the Mesrop Mashtots medal for his remarkable contribution to the development of economic ties between Armenia and Russia." (I found many from BBC), Voice of Russian: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been awarded with Armenia’s St.Mesrop Mashtots Order for his “considerable contribution to the development of the Russian-Armenian cooperation.” Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The question wasn't whether she deserved the Mashtots or not, the question was whether she is notable or not? I found most of those same sources (as I noted above and quoted from) and they still don't show that the Mashtots is a "well-known" medal. The few news sources, and they are few sources (particularly if we exclude wire translations like your BBC report which isn't actually from BBC), actually seem to show the exact opposite because every source immediately has to explain what the medal is. That tends to mean that the award is not well-known. Regardless, this isn't a debate about the Mashtots, it is about Rita/Rima. Regardless of how great she is or how much she has done, she still seems unnotable to me except possibly for the Mashtots medal. That makes me wary. In the end, I've moved my vote to neutral and will keep it there. It just isn't clear to me based on the sources that she is notable. And I'm not going to make a firm decision based upon the Mashtots to claim she is notable. If that wikipedia page were better or if it showed up to any substantive extent in international news coverage, I'd think twice. But my closing vote on the issue = Not clear either direction AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Notability not established yet WP:BIO or WP:GNG DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:57, 18 March 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 No Motiv. (non-admin closure) TBrandley 07:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hershey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Musician. Only evidence of notability seems to be links to a local newspaper. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. This article is promotional and may not meet WP:V. We should get rid of it. Redirect to No Motiv, since the subject is a vocalist in No Motiv. Unforgettableid (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as Unforgettableid said. No sense in keeping it, may as well have it lead to the group article. Ducknish (talk) 23:20, 11 March 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:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Mkdw^talk 23:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who Made Huckabee? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about one skit during the writer's strike that went through three shows. One article about the three shows coping with the strike that mentions the "feud" is not enough for notability or verifiability, most of this relies on primary sources or blog sources. Somehow slipped through the GA process. Prior AfD atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart_feud

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, coverage in literally numerous secondary sources. Currently a Good Article level of quality rated article. This nomination is ridiculous. — Cirt (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, obviosly notable per multiple reliable sources. Cavarrone (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the arguments made at the first AfD: good selection/variety of sources (not all blogs), GA status, well written, etc. DP76764 (Talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mentioned in the New York Times and other news media so happy it satisfies the WP:GNG. However, being rated a good article has very little bearing on notability. AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Cavarrone. BerleT (talk) 03:07, 13 March 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 04:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Window Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-noteworthy organization. Per WP:PRODUCTS, a company's products do not necessarily confer notability onto the creator. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the company is not notable enough to stand on its own as an article. Ducknish (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. --Boson (talk) 13:51, 13 March 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. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone who wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 01:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bigband (band) Filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Filmography for a primarily music group. Most of the films/tv shows listed don't have the entire band in them. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 09:12, 11 March 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 March 11. Snotbot  t • c »  11:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Even if this is kept, it needs moving to another name - the (band) appendage is in the wrong place, and is probably invalid anyway. I'm inclined to say Merge to Bigband (band), if there's anything not present there. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if longer and sourced, this could perhaps better be moved to List of Bigband flms. But If Bigband (band) were itself shown as notable this short list would be best merged to an article about Bigband as suggested above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

• Comment - band name appears to be BigBang, so even if by some odd chance this was kept (or renamed), the name needs to reflect this. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an incorrectly named article (thus a poor search term), and Merge whatever proves sourcable to Big Bang (South Korean band). With the clue provided above by User:Lukeno94 (thank you), it appears this an incorrectly named and poorly sourced spinout list article that can best be covered at the primary notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my comments earlier, and Schmidt's summing up of them. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Potentially poorly named, but regardless a poor article that does not meet many WikiPedia standards. Start again rather than try and salvage DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:00, 18 March 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. Retaliatory nomination that's going nowhere good. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warm glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide - I suggest that this instruction manual on glass-blowing be deleted or merged to the main article on Glass. Anthony Seldon (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• snow keep Sheer bad faith retaliatory nom. See nominator's history. Anthony Seldon (talk · contribs) also User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Your_call_for_my_blocking

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Note As pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seal Transportation, ""Bad faith creation" or a user's contribution history are not in and of themselves valid rationales for deletion". The article should be considered for deletion on its own merits. Anthony Seldon (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article merits inclusion based on its encyclopedic content relative to the art of glassblowing and it sufficient citations to reliable sources. I agree with Mr Dingley that this is likely a bad faith nomination made in retaliation for the deletion nominations of several of Mr Seldon's articles. And while Mr Seldon correctly points out that an article author's history should not be the reason for an article deletion, a nominator's history may well be the the reason to ignore a nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 11 March 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. J04n(talk page) 01:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip H. Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Please see the DRV where additional sources/citations were provided. The consensus is that these need to be discussed. I am relisting this as an adminstration action in connection to the DRV and am therefore neutral Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]