< 8 March	10 March >

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) 00:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6th-century Macedonian people[edit]

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

The whole basis of this category is wrong: a) "Macedonian people" here is deliberate misdirection since these were Sclaveni leaders, and it is by no means certain that the Sclaveni were fully Slavs or, even more, the ancestors of the modern ethnic Macedonians, while b) the list itself is hogwash: St. Demetrius had nothing to do with the 6th century, while two of the others are not even related to Macedonia, since both Akameros and Tihomir were active in Thessaly, not Macedonia, and not in the 6th century either. Constantine ✍ 23:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the nominator makes a compelling case and his analysis would seem to be backed by reliable sources. The Demetrius in question is, as far as I can tell, Demetrius of Thessaloniki, an early 4th century martyr, though the link goes to a disambig page. Anyway, for lack of any reliable sources to verify any of the contents contained therein, this should be deleted. Stalwart111 01:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like the author was intending to create a List or category; but in any case, reliable sources are needed, and there are none supplied. --Noleander (talk) 05:09, 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 will userfy this for the article creator if asked, but rather than try to use this case as a WP:COATRACK for discussion of a general problem, the suggestion of an article on Suicides for eviction in Spain sounds more promising. JohnCD (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of José Antonio Diéguez[edit]

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

Fails a whole host of things, but none of them are CSD'able. WP:MEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS. LGA _talk^edits 23:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/userfy. The thing about this is that so far this death doesn't pass notability guidelines. It's incredibly tragic and is representative of a growing issue with what seems to be an outdated eviction law and overly high rent prices, but so far this doesn't pass notability guidelines. I have no problem with someone wanting to userfy this and work on it the point comes where it might pass, but it's just WP:TOOSOON right now. If laws get passed and Diéguez is listed as the impetus for these changes, then an argument could be made for notability. On an aside, there might be enough for the protest group Stop Desahucios to have an article, although I haven't looked especially hard at that group specifically. Diéguez's death has received some media attention, but not nearly as much as say, Megan Meier.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, and as you said, it's a representative of a growing issue with an outdated eviction law. Nowadays, suicides for eviction are something very viral here, and sometimes they represent the problem of Spain with the real estate bubble. (the prices of a flat of 80m2 have increased from €80000 in 1995 to €300000 in 2008); however, we aren't here to talk about that. The point here is that Diéguez has became not only a referent for the problems with the eviction law, but also for the problems with the divorce law.

If this article is finally deleted, should an article for Suicides for eviction in Spain be adequate not only to list them, but also to explain which one is the problem?Strovem (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the articles I found did talk about a lot of people that committed suicide over these issues and the issue receives some press, I'd say that it looks to be. I'd create it in a userspace first, as you'd have to make sure to phrase everything just right and to have everything well sourced. This is kind of the sort of thing that people might get leery of since it's easy to get POINTy with one side over the other, so you want to make sure it's nice and neutral before mainspacing it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, shall this article be deleted? Strovem (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NOT NEWS. If there were to be a general article on the topic, as suggested, this would just be one sentence with a reference, and not even a redirect would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 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. That is, delete all. Sandstein 10:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duel Decks: Jace vs. Chandra[edit]

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

The Magic: The Gathering duel decks are simply reprints of printed cards. The articles are stubs, and have been since their release, with the only "references" being postings on MTG-related sites. This topic belongs more on the MTG Wikia rather than here. These should either be merged into one article or deleted outright. I am nominating the following duel decks for deletion as well:

Duel Decks: Elves vs. Goblins
Duel Decks: Divine vs. Demonic
Duel Decks: Garruk vs. Liliana
Duel Decks: Phyrexia vs. The Coalition
Duel Decks: Elspeth vs. Tezzeret
Duel Decks: Knights vs. Dragons
Duel Decks: Ajani vs. Nicol Bolas
Duel Decks: Venser vs. Koth
Duel Decks: Izzet vs. Golgari
Duel Decks: Sorin vs. Tibalt

p b p 23:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: I have nominated another batch of MTG reprints at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From the Vault: Dragons p b p 21:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there would seem to be a bucket-load of in-universe MTG stuff that just isn't anywhere near notable outside the MTG community. There are no independent sources that would suggest this is a notable product. High-level MTG stuff might be notable but we need to start working on this walled-garden stuff before it becomes Pokemon-like. Stalwart111 01:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I'd think there'd be a potential merge target where the Duel Decks product is described within the history of the MTG franchise, but barring that, delete all as unexpandable stubs/in-universe excessive detail. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and as unsourced by third party references. The wikia does a good job discussing the duel decks anyways so no info is actually lost.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Masem. Crazynas^t 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The existence of these sets of cards could be mentioned in some more general article, but there is nothing suitable to merge: the content of these articles is all in-universe cruft repeating primary sources, material for Wikia's Magic:_The_Gathering_Wiki but not for Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 00:07, 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. Consensus is that though evidence of notability might perhaps exist, it has not been discovered. If it is, the article can certainly be re-created, and I will be happy to userfy it against that possibility if asked. JohnCD (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Țapu[edit]

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

I think there's a chance Dr. Țapu is notable, but I'm a little skeptical, for a few reasons:

Barely any Internet presence. Yes, most of her work was pre-web, but she died less than a month ago. I'd expect at least an obituary.
Similar for Google Scholar.
This source doesn't mention her; this one does, but almost in passing.

No doubt she had an interesting career, but I just don't know if she rises to the WP:PROF notability level. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -[changed vote] she received the Prize of the Romanian Academy. The way these things work with honoured but boring scientists is that her passing will be mentioned in e.g. January 2014 when the 2013 yearbook comes out. Yes I realise the reality is that it was INCDA's whole durum wheat team that were notable, at least in terms of Romania in the 1970s, but we don't have sourced articles on the rest of the team, or even INCDA, so for the time being this article is plugging a notable topic area, and it isn't a BLP that we need to get all picky. Let this article stand as a testimony to that period in Romanian agro science. Aren't there any Romanian rappers and DJs we can delete instead? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting - where did you find reference to a prize?
- Believe me, I've gone after plenty of Romanian rappers and DJs - it hasn't always turned out to my satisfaction, though. And I only wish we could get rid of the endless football player stubs. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm withholding judgment until we hear more about this prize, b/c without that, there doesn't seem to be any hint of notability. Ray^Talk 17:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe not WP:PROF, but she surely meets WP:BIO criteria. Scientios (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the prize can be documented, weak delete if not. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per sources. Țapu was in charge with the Romanian durum wheat research program from 1957 to 1990 at the world-renowned INCDA Fundulea. In fact she is the only researcher cited as working on durum there. See http://www.incda-fundulea.ro/50ani/oamenii.html - Scientios (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes INCDA Fundulea "world-renowned"? And there have been sixteen wheat researchers there in the past half-century. Sure, she was perhaps the only one working on durum wheat, but with all due respect, "only durum wheat researcher in a Communist-era lab in a godforsaken farm town" isn't that great a claim to notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional keep~~ userify or delete since prize not won - Zoe Tapu appears to be notable based on claims in the article & prize. However I'm less sure about her son Codrin Țapu, born 1973; he does work in psychology and there seem to be a disproportionate number of articles in and around psychology that are WP:FRINGE. It appears on its face to be notable but needs some digging, I would think. --Lquilter (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What prize? Or, more to the point, what sources indicate Țapu may have won a prize? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The prize noted here. I'm assuming sources can be produced. Obviously if they can't and we can't verify the prize, that lessens the argument for keeping her. --Lquilter (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the participants mentioned a prize on 28 February; it's now 6 March, and despite several users questioning the existence of this prize, no evidence it ever existed has been produced. Our articles, and presumably decisions on retaining or deleting them, are based on reliable, published sources, and the burden of demonstrating claims rests on those who make them. Based on the evidence before us now, no such prize existed. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, not to be picky, but we have (a) an assertion that she received the Romanian Academy Prize; and (b) no evidence to the contrary. So that would be some evidence (albeit second-hand) that she received it. The prize itself appears to be longstanding, of international scope, and awarded in the sciences as well as the humanities, so it's plausible that she would receive it. (See google search on "romanian academy prize".) See also [http://www.acad.ro/academia2002/acadeng/pag_cont05.htm Romanian Academy on the "natural and exact sciences". So I am giving them the benefit of the doubt at this point. --Lquilter (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, Lquilter, but that is pure nonsense. Referencing stuff just doesn't work that "benefit of the doubt" way, not in the real world - and wikipedia demands quite the contrary. Dahn (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The burden of proof is on the individual making the assertion, not the other way round. Someone saying something is not evidence of anything, I'm afraid. And asking for evidence she didn't receive the prize is absurd - we're not going to find a source saying "Zoe Țapu did not receive the prize". "It's plausible" is not and never was our standard of evidence - by that metric, one could go around to all sorts of borderline AfDs and say "hey, did you know this person got this award? I have no proof, but take my word for it." That's not how we do things here, and given that your Wikipedia career is 2977 days old, the last 1866 of them as administrator, I'm stunned at your line of thinking.
        
        Yes, the prize is an important one. The Romanian Academy hands out four prizes in agricultural sciences every year: the Ion Ionescu de la Brad Prize, the Traian Săvulescu Prize, the Gheorghe Ionescu-Şişeşti Prize and the Marin Dracea Prize. (Source, in case you were wondering.) IF Țapu received one of these, it's essential that we know WHICH she received, WHEN she received it, and WHERE the evidence for that is located. Otherwise, for our purposes, she never received anything, a stray comment by one editor notwithstanding. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't disagree that we need to verify the prize -- obviously that's the key point establishing (or not) her notability. What I'm saying is that since an editor asserted she won the prize, then we need to verify or not that assertion. Since the information isn't easily available by Google (I tried) then it will require a bit more work -- you know, probably going to a library and looking it up in a book. Until someone can verify that they have looked up the prize winners and said they do or do not include Zoe Tapu, then I am personally not comfortable saying she is irrelevant just because nobody has bothered to put up the information about the prize in a google-able source. "Lack of sources" doesn't mean "lack of sources because everybody is too lazy to do something off a computer." It means no sources. Thus far, no sources have been identified, but it doesn't appear (to me) that anything remotely approaching an appropriate search has been done. So, to sum up: It is the case that notability has been asserted; it is the case that google searching has not adduced the necessary sources; it is the case that a Romanian prize winner from the 1960s or 1970s is likely to be referenced in offline sources not online; the necessary offline searches have not yet been done. (And yes, it is the case that people arguing for retention are supposed to do sources -- but so are the people arguing for deletion.) --Lquilter (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        And it still doesn't work like that. The person who claims x event happened must cite "a book" showing that it happened, and it would be the task of others to go and check that book, should they feel the need to. If the editor in question tells us that Zoe Țapu died because she was shot at short range by a drunken mentalist, should the event be trusted as real until we find a book saying it did not happen? Dahn (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the existence of the prize could be verified in Romanian Academy's printed yearbooks, that are available at the Romanian Academy Library, National Library of Romania and possibly (some of them) at the Library of Congress. I think no material from that period is (yet) available online. Until then, a notability tag could be added. If the prize is verified, the tag should be removed. If not, a new AfD might be started.Scientios (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly not the issue. The issue here is noting a claim at face value - incidentally, the only claim that, if true, would perhaps lift this article just a notch over the notability standard. Can you see where I'm going with this? (Though incidentally, such books are available online, through sources such as dacoromanica. No mention of her in connection to any Academy prize.) Dahn (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Got it. You are in favor of deleting the article now. If someone at some point later on shows up with a cite, the article can be recreated (or not) and the argument hashed over again at that point. For the record, I am in favor of keeping until someone checks the Romanian Yearbook and/or some other source on the Award & says yay or nea. Seems simpler to me. ... But I think both our points are crystal clear to everyone else at this point, so I, at least, am bowing out now. --Lquilter (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's just the point I was making above... Scientios (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy Sources have not materialized. WP:CRYSTAL seems to be invoked on a prize of uncertain significance that may materialize (see WP:CRYSTAL). In the meantime, there's barely enough coverage to meet WP:V, and no verifiable indicator of notability. I have no objection to userfication and moving back into mainspace at such time as sources attesting to notability (not merely listing her as working on something that may or may not be significant) appear. Ray^Talk 22:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Can someone nominate the Romanian version for deletion and see if the Romanian editors delete it? If they do, fair enough, but if they don't I think notably met. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hah! Well, that doesn't really count as an argument in establishing notability. Dahn (talk) 13:13, 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, J04n(talk page) 22:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As shrine of no encyclopedic interest. Dahn (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commment "first semi-dwarf winter durum wheat" in a reliable source needs some more attention I think. Scientios (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of women scientists deletion discussions. Lquilter (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the ref to the prize, I thought I had added it. Evidently not. I created a stub for INCDA, which voids my earlier argument about some testimony to what is a notable institution. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks In ictu oculi - So this means that you think she did not win the prize? If so, then I'll go with userify or delete as well. --Lquilter (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This new type of wheat set the ground for further progress in durum wheat breeding in many countries". I think the article needs attention from an expert. Salmon, Vogel, Borlaug... does it ring a bell? Now we cross wheat and maize, but without the green revolution we would be nothing. Scientios (talk) 14:34, 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. J04n(talk page) 14:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Family Guy writers[edit]

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

Unnecessary listing of people who are already on the episode list StewieBaby05 (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not seeing how people being on the episode list makes this unnecessary? I'd lean towards procedural close based on this nom, but then the article is totally unreferenced. That said, referencing this article would be extremely easy, and I see this as being a valid list with WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. The article has been around since 2009, and no objection had ever been raised before. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Names of writers are already mentioned in the episode list (and other Family Guy-related pages. Even when it was created in 2009, the page is against what Wikipedia is not: just mere spinoffs. Even referencing names and episodes do not absolve how unnecessary this list is, even if a show could reach 20 seasons. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I was unaware of this page until now. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the writers have their own articles. This list aids in navigation. Information some might want to see, all laid out here, easy to find and process, you not having to go through dozens of articles to find them. If you like an episode, and you want to quickly find what other episodes the same writer made, this is useful. Dream Focus 01:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not redundant to have a list of writers, even if the list is formatted differently elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unnecessary listing of people.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful to readers, helpful to editors, quite sensible and logical. Also, rational. — Cirt (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 05:59, 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 04:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaze no Stigma RPG[edit]

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

Game itself appears to fail notability. No reliable third-party sources. Already mentioned at Kaze no Stigma#Role-playing game (though that is unsourced as well). Atlantima (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could not locate any (English language) WP:RS. As the game was only released in Japan, I would anticipate that if any RS covered this game, the relevant publications would be in Japanese. Entering the game's Japanese name into Google produced 38,000 results [1]. While the volume of results may not be meaningful, it does at least indicate that it gained some popularity and the potential for sources exists. Hopefully someone fluent in Japanese can report to us on whether any Japanese language reliable third party sources published significant coverage of this game. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The light novel is notable, this paperback RPG is not. There is a great deal written in Japanese Wikipedia [2] which delves into the mechanics of the gaming system, but independent third party coverage simply does not exist to justify this article. It would be a candidate for merging were there any sort of substantive content which could add to the main article for Stigma of the Wind but there is none to speak of here. Jun Kayama 21:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any third-party sourcing or coverage, it is difficult to see how this satisfies the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly Redirect - I hate to say it, but there's a lack of reliable coverage, whether English or Japanese. After deletion, the page can be recreated as a redirect to Stigma of the Wind due to it being a possible search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:11, 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 As consensus seems clear that the sourcing is based on some of the works this studio hosted and not the studio themselves. Willing to userfy it however. Secret ^account 04:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YYZ Artists' Outlet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/YYZ Artists' Outlet

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

the only references are to the subject's website. There is no independent information about this organization, it is a non-notable business, it is too short to be an encyclopedic article, it would appear to be merely an advertizement for the business. Kanuk (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This one is tricky. Like a lot of articles on galleries, it is difficult to find sources that are about the gallery itself and not the exhibitions that took place in the gallery. Adding to this difficulty, YYZ has a publishing arm, YYZ Books which makes finding independent sources difficult. As well, YYZ Books is actually an excellent publisher and many top critics and scholars have books published there. There are actually two books that would serve as good sources to establish notability for YYZ except those books were published by: YYZ Books. Because Canada is so small, population-wise, there tends to be a lot of cross-over between different institutions, publishers, universities and so on. In other words, you see the same names popping up. And since only Canadians tend to write about Canadian topics, sorting through this is difficult. I have found several newspaper sources that I feel will establish notability. I will add these as soon as I can and will expand the article. There is one good book source so far that I would add but I want to take it to the RS notice board as it is published by YYZ Books and on the surface would appear self-published. On the contrary, YYZ Books is quasi-independent and government supported meaning publishing self-promotional fluff would be detrimental as funding could be cut to the publishing arm. And the writers involved with the book have no affiliation with the gallery. So I'm going to run it by the notice board and make sure that all the t's are crossed on that and the source can be used. I think with the newspaper articles establishing notability and the book providing sourced info about the gallery's history, I think this article could be a keep. freshacconci talktalk 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first few versions that contained the COPYVIO and soft delete the article so that if someone can write a properly sourced version that shows notability, it can be created. Note to closing admin: If the end result is other than delete or soft delete, please delete the COPYVIO'd versions from the version history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'weak keep agree that article could use improvement and additional sources, but notability appears to exist - just needs more independent citation. (Pcatanese (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though the studios have been there for 25 years I can't find any reliable coverage online (not even a hint of it). The article is a one line stub and makes no claims of notability at the moment, it can be easily recreated if the studios become well known in the future (or if someone discovers some offline coverage). Currently serves no purpose and fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - They are behind pay walls, but a google news archive search shows quite a bit of coverage about specific artist's works being displayed at the gallery. This would seem to indicate that the gallery has some degree of recognition or importance although arguably a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. What I don't see is coverage that is about the gallery itself. If a couple of sources of that nature could be found, I would lean towards a keep when combined with the review of the exhibitions and installations. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TB randley ^(review) 04:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Alice[edit]

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

Found the article only because there is a template at TfD associated with it (found when wondering why duration was at TfD). Not notable, fails every criteria of WP:BAND (which seems to have changed a bit itself - please review it if you have not done so recently). Speedy was declined, as there are sources in the article, but many of them are trivial - "listen to new track" is two, a few lines about a single is another, and interestingly, a list of newly-released singles for a given week is a third. Chess Club is not a major label, and without knowing BBC's airplay criteria, having airplay (or not) is not a criterion of notability. None of the show reviews as sources is solely about them, and even The Observer notes that they are at a show in a "micro-venue" in London. There's an interview with the band, but it's only ten questions or so, and that's borderline in terms of "third-party information" if there's really nothing else there. Crack is one paragraph and a linked video. getreading.com is an article about local events in Reading, though the lead is fairly focused on the group; however, it's local news whether it's on the Web or not. I'm not seeing the sort of coverage I would expect for a smaller act to be WP-worthy. MSJapan (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is easily enough coverage of the band to be considered notable via WP:GNG or WP:BAND. They didn't only get airplay on BBC Radio 1, they recorded/performed a session and were interviewed on Huw Stephens' show. Not one of the sources is a list of newly-released singles - the Artrocker article that may appear to be that from the title features reviews of two singles released that week. The getreading article is an article about the band from the Reading Post (getreading.co.uk is the website of the Reading Post) - there are a few other smaller articles bundled with it, presumably because they appeared in the same section of the newspaper. --Michig (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND criterion #1. In addition to what Michig found, there is also review in NME although it does not appear to be available online: Daly, Rhian (17 November 2011). "Radar: Wolf Alice", NME, p. 22. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:40, 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target strength[edit]

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

One-sentence article on a random technical term, this article has not been expanded in four years and probably never will be. More of a dictionary definition than the subject of an encyclopedia article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

looks like it needs to be merged into another physics article. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 19:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see A review of target strength estimation techniques, for example. AFD is not cleanup and stubs aren't dictionary definitions. Warden (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Handbook of Acoustics [3] has a subsection entitled "Target Strength" which demonstrates coverage in WP:RS and that the article has the WP:POTENTIAL to be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the reliable sources found by Warden and Mike Agricola, Google Scholar shows more than 11,000 hits for the term "target strength". The topic seems highly notable. and the article problems are surmountable--Warden has already made a nice start on improving the article. With a notable topic and surmountable problems, this article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per comments above and sources like;

Principles of Radar and Sonar Signal Processing by François Le Chevalier (Artech House, 2002)
Principles Of Naval Weapon Systems by Craig M. Payne (Naval Institute Press, 2006)

Both cover the subject in quite some detail. I think the sources provided above, and these two, should allow an editor with some understanding of the technical aspects of the subject to expand it quite nicely - probably well beyond its current stub status. Stalwart111 02:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wouldn't object to closing of this AfD if the sentiment to keep is so overwhelming. It just reminded me of another article I encountered that had similar issues and was deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should wait a few more days. Can't hurt. The initial reaction was to merge, I see. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 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 the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bùi Văn Long[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - They fail WP:BASIC and WP:NFOOTBALL. - Mr X 01:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No indication in the articles that players fulfill GNG however, also no indication that they have not played in a fully professional league. The source determining whether it is an FPL provides a 404 error (what a shock - the FPL list fails again!), so would appear that the three users above have not bothered to check this. This therefore also calls into question their unsupported statements that the players fail GNG as one would assume they haven't checked this either. Fenix down (talk) 11:13, 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 redirect to Lady Gaga discography#Special releases. Sandstein 10:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Like Lady Gaga[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and it is just a demo Plmnji (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lady_Gaga_discography#Special_releases for now - When I searched Google News and didn't see anything, I started thinking this may be too soon (still in production) or a hoax but another search provided a YouTube video and a rollingstone.com link. The link doesn't provide much information aside from describing the video and it doesn't seem to have charted or gained significant attention yet, but it is relevant to her discography. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above; seems a reasonable move for a song with minimal coverage (there's also a piece at HuffPost) with no parent album article in which to merge/redirect. Gong show 19:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now, without prejudice to revisiting the material if/when secondary sources are found after some research and/or time. — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 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 redirect to Public image of George W. Bush. The automatic headcount gives: keep 11, delete 17, merge 8, redirect 4; total "not keep": 29. After assessing the arguments advanced in the light of policy and guidelines, I find the following: The argument for deletion, merging or redirecting is that the term has insufficient coverage of the type needed to pass WP:GNG, that it is a WP:NEOLOGISM, and that it is discussed (if at all) in the context of its inventor Charles Krauthammer and/or as part of the public image of George W. Bush. The argument for keeping is that the topic has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, and is too old or too widely used to be a neologism. These are all valid lines of argumentation, and which view is more persuasive is a matter of editorial judgment. I therefore can't give one position more weight than the other.

Consequently, in view of the numbers mentioned initially, I conclude that there is a (narrow) consensus that this should not be kept as a separate article, but that there is not yet a clear consensus about whether it should be deleted or merged or redirected, and, in the case of a merger or redirect, where to. Both potential target articles (linked to previously) are suggested an equal number of times by my count.

Accordingly, I close this discussion by finding a consensus not to retain this as a separate article, but that further discussion is needed to decide whether either to merge or to redirect it (and where to), or whether to delete it outright. In the interim (and subject to change as subsequent discussions may determine), I'm implementing a redirect to Public image of George W. Bush, because that merge/redirect target has been suggested most often in the second half of this discussion. Consequently, any decision about whether the page should be deleted outright (rather than merged or redirected) would require, in my view, a WP:RfD discussion. Sandstein 09:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails criteria in WP:NEOLOGISM. No source has yet been presented about the term, as opposed to merely using the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination has apparently neglected to include WP:BEFORE; "findsources" demonstrates a wealth of available sources particularly in books and scholar. It's strange to think that 5 previous deletion discussions have got it wrong, but never mind. Apart from that, one might question the premise that it is a neologism; perhaps it's a real syndrome, in which case there's no question about WP:GNG here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources represent a number of uses of the term, but not discussion of the term. WP:NEOLOGISM was not mentioned in any of the previous 3 discussions (two were speedily closed). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient use of the term shows that it's not a neologism at all, making discussion of the term irrelevant. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America by John Avlon contains an entire chapter on just a derivative of the term, "Obama Derangement Syndrome", with discussion of that term's roots in BDS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the material you restored to the article consists entirely of uses of the term, so shouldn't affect any observers deciding whether my reason is valid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but it does go to the point about GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:GNG requires secondary sources. So GNG is not met. Yworo (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not convinced that one paragraph in a book called Wingnuts is enough to confer notability of a term. Would also support a merge to Public image of George W. Bush. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NEOLOGISM, relies entirely on PRIMARY sources so does not meet WP:GNG, which requires SECONDARY sources. Derivatives section violates WP:BLP by repeating political name-calling using primary rather than secondary sources as required by WP:BLPPRIMARY. I see no redeeming features to this article. Yworo (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: canvassing by Yworo (talk · contribs) now in progress: [4], [5], [6], [7] -- probably more to come. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not canvassing - simply notifying everyone, both delete and keep voters, who participated in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Serious People (2nd nomination). This article was brought up in that deletion discussion. Yworo (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Preponderance of delete voters there makes it pretty obvious what your intentions are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict)You could've just posted a message there. If most people voted the same way you did over there, and they are likely to vote the same way here, it could be seen as canvassing. Dream Focus 18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I'm more interested in the predominance of people who actually understand WP:NEOLOGISM. If they vote keep here, I'll be perfectly satisfied that the article meets it. I've always considered messing up an AfD with announcements of other AfDs to be bad form. Plus not all editors bother to watch an AfD after !voting in it. Yworo (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Charles Krauthammer, who invented the term. It received some use from others, but only for a brief period, and there's not really enough sources about the phrase to justify a separate article on it. This isn't a particularly notable or successful neologism. (Disclosure: I was notified of this discussion by User:Yworo, as he mentions above.) Robofish (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was coined in 2003, that makes it 10 years old now, so not really a neologism. Its been used in many different reliable sources since then. Dream Focus 18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOT Delete - I'm somewhat on the fence about whether it should be left as solo article or merged with Charles Krauthammer, but I personally find the information interesting, well written, neutral, and encyclopedic. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not is is a neologism would be shown be being included in dictionaries or specialized glossaries in political science or sociology. If these can be shown to exist, it would go a long way to justifying the main part of the article. Though in that case perhaps Wiktionary would be a better place for a properly neutral definition of it. Yworo (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6 nominations for deletion? Seems excessive. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's well past the point of a neologism and well sourced. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced, been around too long to call a "neologism", and is spinning off others -- notably "Harper Derangement Syndrome", as mentioned in the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the derivatives don't pass WP:BLP or WP:NEOLOGISM muster and would need to be removed from the article even if it's kept. Yworo (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree: they speak towards the notability of this term, so as long as they're reasonably-sourced, they wouldn't need to be removed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - They have reliable sources covering them already. I see no BLP issue with them, nor would neologism be a concerned there either, they not even having their own articles. Dream Focus 19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news sources are discussing the original creation of the term and how it's applied since. That seems to be what it should be for an article on a term. Not to mention sources like this fill it out quite a bit. It even discusses ODS. And here's an entire chapter discussing how BDS was formed and this led to PDS. Silver seren^C 20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out these books sources and the first one by John Avlon is only primary in value as it doesn't discuss the term it just uses it. The second source from Rod Parsley does summarize it and mention its origins but is not an expert in any related field that would make this reliable. He's not a journalist, a political commentator or expert and the publishing does not seem reliable for this. Seems to publish biased publications. Charisma House:"Charisma House is one of the leading Christian publishers in the world today, devoted to spreading the name and fame of Jesus Christ worldwide.".--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Holy crap! Just when I think I have seen the worst this pops up on my radar! What the heck kind mess is this. The so called sources are being so missused here I can't believe this hasn't been addressed through arbitration or formal mediation. So many of our policies and guidelines are being ignored and it isn't to improve the article its to sling mud and prop up and promote political pundits. For christ's sake the very first "reference" is a primary source! You need a secondary source to make the claim. Then I see that promotional links are embedded into the body of the article. This is against policy. Simply put, the example sections are 3 to 4 times the size of the explanation and that is nothing but a self serving tribute to Charles Krauthammer. There is a Huffington post blog from a cartoonist being used as a reference, a comedy bit by Steward thrown in and has little context, but is also just a primary source. I am going through this entire article and trimming it to policy and guidelines. This needs immediate work as it is a BLP concern if these claims are not to our policies. There are too many people being mentioned in ways that are not neutral.

Well sourced? Are you kidding me?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike for VerySeriousPeople, I've actually heard of this term independently of Wikipedia, and a few simple Googles show that it's actually in common use (unlike Very Serious People, which is heavily weighted towards use by Krugman). A term in wide use is disqualified from being a neologism at all, since a neologism "has not yet been accepted into mainstream language", so WP:NEOLOGISM is irrelevant and BDS need not be discussed as a term in order for us to have an article about it. Consider for instance United States pro-life movement and United States pro-choice movement; the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were made up by someone, but they are not neologisms because they are in too wide use, and the articles are mainly about the movements, not about the terms.

TLDR: It's not a neologism.

That being said, someone should look at SilverSeren's sources for the term. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and the first one is a primary source but might be used with attribution as an opinion...but only if the author gives an opinion somewhere in the source about the term. From what I see they only use the term, they don't comment on it. Its basicly an extension of a partisan site called the Daily Beast and is published by Beast Books. I am not clear if this effects reliablility but partisanship doesn't necessarily denote bias. The second source is not reliably published as it is a biased publisher and am not clear on editorial oversight as its self proclaimed reason to publish is to spread the fame of Jesus.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH of material provided by primary sources, and obvious BLP coatrack. Title is a one-sided and loaded neologism, and the attempt to counterbalance with "Obama derangement syndrome" is evidence that neither belong here. Basically there's nothing to indicate that the topic merits inclusion. Redirect to Krauthammer's bio if anything, and add a single paragraph there. When we republish political epithets like these we stoop to the level of the people who create them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT: Doesn't have notability independent of President Bush p b p 21:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect.. It is about time we went through and removed the urban dictionary aspects of WP. Arzel (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as per discussion. POV "urban dictionary" prattle. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Amadscientist. — Ched : ? 22:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a neologism and well–sourced. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could see keeping this as a merge and redirect toCharles Krauthammer (as long as it stays within guidelines for sourcing and BLP), but don't see this as being strong enough for a stand alone article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Krauthammer the only third party content about the phrase place it entirely as a (very) minor footnote in his notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still on the fence about this article, but in digging through sources, I did find a few that are noteworthy. For example,
- "Bush Derangement Syndrome is now a full-blown epidemic"

This is an opinion peice and would require the author and source be attributed in the prose/text.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" "Bush derangement syndrome" - the irrational hatred of George W. Bush and the embrace of conspiracy theories about him - has moved from fringe websites to mainstream publishing houses."

If the point is to show that these sources prove notability it might be better to use non conservative souces. This is a conservative think tank. It is becoming clear who this subject is notable to.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bush didn't come by this distinction with help from family connections or the Supreme Court. No, he earned it."

Another Eugene Robinson editorial. Undue weight to claim this for notability along with the above but at least this is not a conservative. Only one of these could be used in the article for due weight and must be attributed to author and source.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Eugene Robinson opinion peice. Now three. Undue weight for consideration for notability this many opinion peices from the same author. This doesn't prove much.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Four months after President George W. Bush departed the White House scot-free, the Bush Derangement Syndrome persists."

Editorial from conservative editor of the magazine, The American Spectator. Another conservative opinion piece.

At least some of these sources seem to discuss the phrase (as opposed to simply simply using the phrase), and thus would pass WP:NEO. I don't think this will ever be a lengthy article, but it does seem as if it might meet our inclusion standards by a small margin, in a similar vein as Binders full of women, also the subject of multiple AfDs. - Mr X 03:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part these are editorials and opinion peices and three of them are from the same author and source. The rest appear to be more conservative opion peices and for such an article I would think we would require far more balance to calim notability, expecially when the term inludes the name of a living person, and has an implication of simple name calling.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that other ridiculous political toilet water has managed to !vote its way onto wikipedia is not a reason to allow more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous Political Toilet Water is my new favoritest descriptor. David in DC (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It prefers to be called political Eau de toilette. - Mr X 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that MrX be blocked indefinitely for failing to include the adjective "Ridiculous". This editor is clearly out to disrupt the Very Serious People hard at work here. David in DC (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would make you the second person today to demand that I be blocked. - Mr X 05:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that the other demander be blocked for stealing Doc Brown's Delorean (or Mr. Peabody's Way-Back Machine,) in order to stymie my quest for a gold medal and leave me whimpering on the lower block, holding a silver medal, and listening to some crappy 3rd world country's national anthem. David in DC (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Oh, I see this term has to do with George Bush. And here I though this was a fancy medical term for "bush fever", also known as "(being) bushed".Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with or redirect to Public image of George W. Bush. And round up a whole school of trout. There appears to be an inordinant amount of personality conflict and chain-yanking going on here. David in DC (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Charles Krauthammer, since it's his invention and says more about him than, George W. Bush. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Charles Krauthammer. It's all very juvenile on both sides, but worth a small mention there. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is not a neologism, and is sufficiently established and attested in op-eds, columns, etc to meet WP:GNG. Please note: GNG does not require secondary sources, despite claims made above. Lots of other claims made on this page do not endure much scrutiny, notably the ones about BLP. (The only criticism of an identifiable person comes in a direct quote from Howie Kurtz, the pre-eminent meta-journalist in the US.)
Comment: decent encyclopedic coverage (like this) of this topic involves lots of stuff that has nothing to do with Dr. K, notably ODS. So merging this article into his BLP will be ... problematical.
Cheers, CWC 10:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:NRVE states clearly (bolding for emphasis): "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." But with this topic almost everything is one sided conservative opinion or coverage (but mostly opinion).

As for the BLP concerns there were several issues and many living persons involved before trimming and whether you wish to agree on this or not, the term involves a living person not directly related to article, George W. Bush. It does not have to be negative or positive, even neutral mentions require multiple relaible sources in the article if there is any mention of a living person.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is a conservative criticism of liberals, obviously you are going to find sources among conservatives. Similarly, Wingnut (politics) is a liberal criticism of conservatives, so sources are going to be liberals. It's in the nature of any sort of criticism--the subjects of the criticism aren't ever going to validate the criticism. That's like claiming that the sources for Contempt of cop are unacceptable because they are biased against the police. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so we cannot use mainstream science sources to source intelligent design articles? thats nonsense. the required coverage must be from reliable sources, and what is considered "reliable" will depend upon the context. For a smear of conservative origin and used almost exclusively within conservative bloggospher, conservative bloggers and opinionistas are not reliable sources. and if Wingnut article is sourced entirely to liberal bloggers, then it too as more ridiculous political toilet water needs to go.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards. This *is* the equivalent of using mainstream scientists to source intelligent design articles--just like mainstream scientists oppose intelligent design but are not considered biased sources for criticism of ID, conservatives oppose liberals but are not biased sources for criticism of liberals. Likewise, people who criticize the police are not biased sources for Contempt of cop. 38.104.2.94 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charles Krauthammer. No sufficient coverage by reliable independent secondary sources for separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that "delete and salt" option is also completely acceptable for me.--Staberinde (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Public image of George W. Bush, subject has to do with a certain segment of the populations perception of George W. Bush. This clearly falls under the scope of the article Public image of George W. Bush, the stub which is the subject of this AfD can easily be redirected to Public image of George W. Bush and the article is still well under WP:LIMIT and the content and the search title is preserved. I think this is a compromise that may be acceptable to most of the involved editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Public image of George W. Bush - The subject is probably too narrow to merit a separate article. It's notable enough for 1-2 paragraphs in the Public image of George W. Bush, but will likely diminish in importance over time. - Mr X 15:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, nor would the arbitrary addition of another round of tendentious, POV-laden material through merger be desirable. It boggles my mind that this didn't close Delete the first time around, clearly not even up to the standards we look for in neologisms in terms of general use or agreed upon definition. Both Bushes suck, by the way, this isn't a recommendation based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this is based upon WP:WHATTHEFUCK. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much too narrow to begin with and already getting smaller in the rearview mirror. The best redirect choice would be No wonder people don't take Wikipedia seriously. First Light (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Amadscientist, and Yworo. The misrepresentation in past versions of use and sources is astounding; there's little relevance to anything when the article is reduced to decent sources giving actual treatment. Do not redirect to George W Bush's biography: biographically insignificant in relation to his lifelong accomplishments (the supposed phenomenon is not even really about him, but the person undergoing the experience anyway). And personally, I don't find the topic as a neologism encyclopedic either (per Carrite), however I think sourcing alone is the best reason to !delete. JFHJr (㊟) 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many cites in New York Times including by Krugman and many others. [8], [9], [10] and dozens more examples in that single reliable source. Several hundred distinmce books using the term. [11] academic journals. Multiple regular magazine articles. HighBeam finds well over a hundred places where the term is used by many different people. [12] shows current use indicating it is now "in the English language" here. In short: In current usage by multiple authors, including Paul Krugman, Tom Kuntz, Mike Nizza, Eric Etheridge, Kate Phillips, Rom Zeller, Sewell Chan, and the Editorial Board of the New York Times. Assertions of "not notable" and "single person" fail in spades. Usage in 2013 pretty much destronys the "recentism" argument as well. Collect (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, no re-direct. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per WP:NEO and Amadscientist. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant What_Wikipedia_is_not or as another editor put it. No wonder people don't take Wikipedia seriously VViking_TalkEdits 11:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I don't object to merging into Public image of George W. Bush. The topic has been around long enough and survived enough AFDs that concerns about notability and WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't really apply. Peacock (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term had widespread use in the media and by well respected bloggers(Disclosure- I was a full-time blogger on Politics plus Florida and Sports from 2005 to 2009 and part-time since then. My blogging includes covering a sporting event for Newsweek. If Michelle Wie Derangement Syndrome gets to be widely used, I might be called its inventor.). Paul Krugman and the NYT made use of it, notability is established....William 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Ridirect to Public image of George W. Bush. Per nom. & WP:GNG, subject does not warrant standalone article. Per RightCowLeftCoast & MrX, relevant enough for inclusion in Bush public image article.--JayJasper (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with JayJasper, as a subject the subject of this AfD has not received continued significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, IMHO; therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. Sure the term has been used multiple times since origination, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary for every politically loaded term. That being said, it is directly related to the subject of the article Public image of George W. Bush; therefore a redirect of the content to that article would preserve what can be verified to a reliable source and maintain the term as a searchable item on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Amadscientist, Ched, and just about every other delete here. I mean, seriously? Intothat darkness 18:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not have a article on every 'clever' little phrase that becomes popular among the chattering class. WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:GNG. Show me widespread and significant usage and i might change my mind. Bonewah (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - per Yworo and Amadscientist's rationales in particular. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm on>Redirect to ridiculous political toilet water.</sarcasm off> Makes more sense than some of the redirect targets proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or how about List of pundits who resort to name-calling. Though that would just be a redirect to List of pundits, right? Yworo (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and salt The small size of the article would warrant a merger into the article about the former President. If anyone wants to save it, it needs a lot more detail from reliable sources. As it stands it can't really stay in my opinion. I'm happy to change my vote if someone will expand it appropriately. BerleT (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is what the article looked like when I came across it for this AfD and this is what it looked like when the AfD nomination was posted. As for the delete positions, Wikipedia widely uses newspaper articles as papers to source information about topics discuss in Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There are plenty of sources betwen 2003 and 2013 that are (1) independent of Charles Krauthammer (who provided a primary written source for the term) and independent of the primary source events that surround the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and (2) provide information about the topic beyond mere use of the term, including:
"Bush Derangement Syndrome isn't new", Lexington Herald-Leader, p. A12, September 14, 2006, * "FISA and Bush Derangement Syndrome", Washington Times, p. A18, August 6, 2007, * Tony Blankley (September 26, 2007), "Swooning over Ahmadinejad \. A bad case of Bush derangement syndrome", Washington Times, p. A21, * Leonard Pitts Jr. (December 9, 2010), "From Bush Derangement Syndrome then to Obama Dementia now", St. Paul Pioneer Press, p. B9, * "Obama Dementia supplants Bush Derangement Syndrome", Charlotte Observer, December 9, 2010, * Barbara Kay (February 9, 2011), "Is George W. Bush a war criminal?; Another symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome", National Post, p. A15.
A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. See No original research. These newspaper articles have Bush Derangement Syndrome in their article title (making Bush Derangement Syndrome the main topic of the newspaper article). Primary sources for Bush Derangement Syndrome are the events (mostly political events) that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and the above cited secondary sources are at least one step removed from those political events and they provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and provide independent information about the topic. The deletes appear to be requiring secondary sources that analyze Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column for the term. They are mistake in that the Wikipedia article is not about Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column. Rather, the article is about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic. In addition to papers such as newspapers, Google books also provides plenty of source material for the topic that are about the events surrounding the topic as does Google scholar papers. There are more than enough reliable sources that provide information about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and that provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome provide source material for the article to support this topic as its own article. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's long, but I think it's worth reading. This article isn't about a phrase; it's about a topic. If the phrase qualified as a neologism, and we had to take it out, the article would then have to have an awkward title like Right-wing theory about left-wing attacks on George Bush, but that wouldn't itself be reason to not have the article. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Wikipedia should have articles on modes of thought, even if someone coins a phrase to describe it. I could find you hundreds if not thousands of articles that discuss why liberals hate Christians, or why conservatives hate foreigners or why everyone hates hipsters, but that does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on them. The mere fact that this particular opinion has a popular phrase doesn't change that. To me, this is less about WP:Neologism and more about common sense. Wikipedia is not and should not be a cataloger of opinions, even popular ones, if for no other reason that because it creates a bias towards those who write editorials. The mere fact that someone somewhere wrote something does not make it significant by itself, even if that someone is David Brooks, or Charles Krauthammer or Paul Krugman, or whomever. Bonewah (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is an implication behind this that because it is said by notable people, it is notable. But notabilty is not inherited. Yworo (talk) 03:34, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Media in Ghana[edit]

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

No other article with the prefix New media in country exists. Wikipedia is not is appropriate here as it is can only be an essay. Additionally it is not notable as you don't see New Media in Europe or America articles due to the fact that New Media or media 2.0 is a globalised idea. GAtechnical (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD reason: Information on my country's progress and beginnings in new media use is totally lost to researchers. This article allows Wikipedia to be the only archive online to have all there is to know about new media in Ghana. Ghana is known for our democracy, one of the best in sub-Saharan Africa and traditional media and new media have roles to play in this. Social media got many Ghanaians to vote and kept the youth who could otherwise be making trouble in the streets occupied during the Election 2012. New media is notable to us Ghanaians.

Even Wikipedia contribution is being taught to schools in Ghana this year. Now more than ever Ghanaians are accepting responsibility for our content online.If this is not notable then? This article is going to built via a collaboration by the official community of Ghanaian bloggers and social media users. Time will tell if this is just an essay or an encyclopedic article capable of serving anyone that wishes to learn about the state of new media in this important African country. About there not being a new media in Europe or America articles, are you trying to say what is notable to an African country should be decided by some other culture? For social change that new media has achieved for mankind I am surprised there aren't even articles for Europe and others yet. It's long overdue, they should be created. Allow this article be. Watch it grow and then track the page views it will get and you will understand how much such an article is needed. Sandister Tei (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could merge to Telecommunications in Ghana, although this might be a notable topic in itself if people can find the sources. The fact that there's not other articles "New Media in X" is irrelevant; while consistency is good, we don't delete an article just because nobody's written a similar article before. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I can be pretty zealous about consistency, but the primary argument for deletion seems to be WP:OTHERSTUFF. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely disagree that the article "can only be an essay." It shows promise despite covering a topic that is less popular due to the nature of Wikipedia's WP:BIAS. This is not to say that any Africa topic should receive immunity (indeed, I recently had another one deleted), but this one is clearly located at an intersection of topics that has received coverage in popular and scholarly sources alike, namely the digital divide. For now, WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 1 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sandister. Boogerpatrol (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This will never be confused with a featured article but the argument for deletion makes little sense. Deletion should be based on the content and the topic, not the title. For instance, it would be very reasonable to move this content to Internet in Ghana (which currently redirects to the awfully thin Telecommunications in Ghana) and expand this article using the somewhat larger scope. That simple move would instantly dismantle the deletion rationale. Pichpich (talk) 22:01, 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. The consensus here is a clear delete, but I am not entirely convinced this is a non-notable subject. This decision is therefore without prejudice to future recreation with clearer referencing and I am willing to userfy the article for anyone who wishes to work on it. It would make it a lot easier to assess whether or not all those links to foreign language sources are reliable or not if the source publication was properly formatted and a translation of a key sentence or two provided for the facts being verified. I would also suggest including only WP:RS sources to avoid criticism of due to unreliable sources. Spinning Spark 12:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sando Kaisen[edit]

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

No indications of notability. Although Kaisen appears to be a prolific writer, indications of his writings or his life having been the topic of any independent coverage cannot be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he is what the article claims he is (a specific teacher of soto zen buddhism in Europe, ie. in more than one country in Europe), I think it is clear indication of remarkability concerning the "actual buddhism in the west" topic. But with the wiki based notability could be a problem, he is probably below the horizont. He is one of the hundreds of second generation europian teachers who had non-european masters (Deshimaru for his case). Whether he will be remembered by history is due to the "liquid modernity" question we cannot solve right now. :) If the potential relevant independent sources for notability are not in english, but in czech or polish for example (Kaisen lives in France, but he does mission to the several countries of eastern europe), it is relevant for "english wiki page" ? --Tomaham (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Tomaham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources do not need to be in English, but the sources must be independent of the subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, in that case, there are many of independent sources documenting the claim that "kaisen is zen buddhistic master/teacher doing mission in the eastern europe". There are dozens of newspaper interviews (polish, czech) in the past twenty years of his active career and at least one book concerning the present (2010) buddhistic groups in czech republic, which make it evident fairly well. Are they relevant enough for wiki notability? In what form they should (could) be part of the wiki article? --Tomaham (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And these references?
France:
http://www.buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article2395 http://www.buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article20371 http://buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article20591 http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=7,8474,0,0,1,0 http://www.sudouest.fr/2010/11/16/le-bouddhisme-zen-au-pic-lumineux-240329-1731.php http://sweepingzen.com/794/ http://enews.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/1777 http://www.omyogapages.com/yoganews/news_item.php?newsitem=836

Poland:
http://www.buddyzm.edu.pl/cybersangha/page.php?id=309 http://www.dharma.pl/component/content/article/17-k/26-mistrz-kaisen---trylogia-mistrzow-zen http://cojestgrane.pl/miasto/krakow/wydarzenie/afy/tytul/pyl-swiata http://warszawa.dlastudenta.pl/lokale/?act=show_impreza&idi=10698 http://krakow.studentnews.pl/s/8/53030-Krakow-imprezy-koncerty-informacje/273977-Mistrz-Kaisen-w-Krakowie.htm?c1=11535&c2=11813

Czech republic:
From Czech TV: http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/1185258379-cesty-viry/206562215500009-rosi-kaisen/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5uwMnpDs0M&feature=share&list=UUrr9nrp59T2PwBjGQ9Xthzg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbp8HP0XQas&feature=share&list=UUrr9nrp59T2PwBjGQ9Xthzg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1iI_hFXlJM&feature=share&list=UUrr9nrp59T2PwBjGQ9Xthzg

ISBN 978-80-7436-006-0 (one book concerning the present (2010) buddhistic groups in czech republic, which make it evident fairly well) http://www.dharmagaia.cz/kniha/800-jan-honzik-jednota-v-rozmanitosti-buddhismus-v-ceske-republice PDF: http://www.dharmagaia.cz/knihy/jednota-v-rozmanitos/Jednota-v-rozmanitosti-minibook.pdf

http://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/spolecnost-mistr-kaisen-08n-/p_spolecnost.asp?c=A060929_115728_p_spolecnost_wag http://www.metropolislive.cz/detail/6015/0/ http://www.htf.cuni.cz/HTF-80-version1-13Buddhismus.pdf http://www.htf.cuni.cz/HTF-154-version1-NZCR18Buddhismus2012.pdf http://is.muni.cz/th/74822/ff_b/BAKA.txt www.sacra.cz/Scany/2010_1.pdf http://www.christnet.cz/magazin/zprava.asp?zprava=11821 http://dspace.k.utb.cz/bitstream/handle/10563/7844/adam%C3%ADk_2009_dp.pdf?sequence=1 http://www.dingir.cz/archiv/Dingir406.pdf http://www.portal.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=3479 http://www.ivysehrad.cz/data/products/down_1880.pdf http://www.havelka.info/p_zen.html http://www.fdb.cz/film/hra-mysli/67344 http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazen http://www.carreau.cz/dokumenty/Zen%20buddhismus.docx http://www.kinoartbrno.cz/film/prach-sveta

http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/clanek2009.pdf http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/mp3/rozhovor.mp3 http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/ostrava1.gif http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/ostrava2.gif http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/ostrava3.gif http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/zenovy_mistr_v_praze.htm http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/lidovky.gif http://www.sotozen.cz/texty/rozhovory-a-clanky/seznam-clanku/

Slovakia:
http://www.topky.sk/cl/5/127158/ http://www.ludmila.sk/zazen.php http://www.obroda.sk/clanok/26027/eSiak-Majstra-Kaisena/ http://aktualne.atlas.sk/kaisen-ak-sa-chcete-stat-osvietenym-budhom-tak-sa-nim-aj-stanete/dnes/zaujimavosti/ http://www.sme.sk/c/2144129/kultura.html http://gregi.net/clanky/majster-kaisen-v-bratislave/

http://zazen.sk/index.php?id=361 http://zazen.sk/fileadmin/chefs/images/ucenie/Kaisen-Vitalita_1-2007.pdf

Russia:
(мастер сандо кайсен) http://www.sunhome.ru/interview/exclusive_interview/kaisen http://www.sunhome.ru/religion/11295 http://ariom.ru/wiki/Kajjsen http://www.chaskor.ru/article/dzen_-_praktika_antirazvitiya_20398 http://zen-russia.livejournal.com/18477.html http://www.tamqui.com/buddhaworld/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD-%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D1%85%D0%B5 http://buddhismofrussia.ru/news/113/ http://lurkmore.to/%D0%94%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD http://www.nofollow.ru/detail131715.htm

Ukrain: http://www.artukraine.com.ua/articles/458.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zendojo (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6080092/French-game-of-boules-hailed-by-Buddhist-master.html http://www.lesboules.hk/petanque/fun-facts/petanque-meditation-tool http://www.franceculture.fr/oeuvre-l%E2%80%99art-de-la-petanque-enseignements-d%E2%80%99un-maitre-zen-de-kaisen.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.1.197 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-notable topic, article enough sourced. Language could be improved.-Knight of Infinity (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References currently in the article are poor quality (1 of them is to French Wikipedia, the two others don't look very reliable). The link spam below doesn't look convincing; unless the article starts sprouting reliable refs, this will keep looking like a vanity page/ad. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of questionable notability in the light of WP:GNG, and the concern that the article is used for promotion and that nobody else is interested enough to look after it. The references in the article appear to be either superficial, humorous coverage about a comment he made regarding the game of boules, or catalogue- and list-type entries, but at any rate not the substantial third-party coverage that we'd need as the basis of an article. (There may be better references, but there are too many - and too many crappy ones - listed here that I'm not inclined to look at all of them.) Sandstein 10:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in the article or the linkdump above indicates to me that this person meets the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:21, 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 PSR B1257+12. Whether anything should be merged from the history is unclear from this discussion and can be subsequently decided through the editorial process. Sandstein 09:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PSR B1257+12 D[edit]

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

I have been unable to identify any reliable sources for the existence of this planet. AstroMark (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative Keep~~ Redirect to PSR B1257+12: The article about PSR B1257+12 states that the name is "sometimes abbreviated as PSR 1257+12." Using this abbreviated name as a search term, I found an entry for Planet PSR 1257 12 d in the Extrasolar Encyclopedia. That encyclopedia also linked to a news story dated to October 2002 which reads, "The detection of a fourth planet orbiting the pulsar PSR B1257+12 has been withdrawn." [13] However, I also came across a BBC News story dated to February 2005 which states, "The new world, which is about one fifth the size of Pluto, is the fourth planet to be discovered orbiting around a pulsar called PSR B1257+12." [14] (See also [15].) So it would seem that there's a rather complex history behind claims about a fourth planet orbiting PSR B1257+12. I'm not particularly familiar with the latest exoplanetary research, so it's possible that the claim of discovery has again been withdrawn. Otherwise, it does appear the planet exists and is discussed in reliable sources. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: See comments below; discovery has again been withdrawn; I'm not aware of any presently standing claim that existence of PSR B1257+12 D has been verified. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Extrasolar Encyclopaedia uses a different naming convention to Wikipedia when it comes to pulsar planets (starting at b rather than A). The page you linked to actually refers to PSR B1257+12 C. Nonetheless, the references in the comments are useful. I would strongly caution against using news articles and websites as reliable sources for a scientific article. I've now tracked down what I believe to be the important references.

Joshi and Rasio 1997 [16]

We find that the simplest interpretation of the frequency derivatives implies the presence of a fourth planet with a mass of ~100 MEarth in a circular orbit of radius ~40 AU.

Wolszczan 1997 [17]

A very intriguing possibility is that the observed P is due to a dynamical influence of a distant long-period fourth planet in the pulsar system.

Wolszczan 2012 (sorry, no open access version of this one) [18]

Further attempts to pursue this idea have led us to believe that there may be a sub-Pluto mass body in a 2.4 AU, 4.6 yr orbit around the pulsar (Wolszczan & Konacki, unpublished). Unfortunately, as shown in Fig. 5, the TOA variability observed over the last ten years is not periodic and can be fully explained in terms of slow changes in the pulsar’s dispersion measure.

In summary, there was some slight evidence for a fourth planet, but the evidence has since been shown to be explained by other means. As I see it there are three options here.

Delete the page and remove all references to the object since those that detected it are now unconvinced by their own data.
Keep the article, but significantly rewrite it to make it clear that this is not a confirmed planet.
Delete the page but include some of the information about the tentative detection and subsequent retraction in PSR B1257+12.

AstroMark (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In light of Wolszczan 2012, it does appear that Wolszczan's 2005 claim [19] for the discovery of PSR B1257+12 D has been retracted. My preference in this situation would be to delete the page, include some info. about the tentative detection and subsequent retraction in PSR B1257+12, and redirect PSR B1257+12 D to PSR B1257+12. The latter article already discusses the first tentative claim + retraction, and it will only take an additional sentence or two to bring it up to date with discussion of the second (which I've already added). The retracted claim is notable enough to mention in PSR B1257+12 (e.g. a general media organization, the BBC, reported on it). But I don't see the need to maintain an article with content about a planet whose existence is dubious; a revised PSR B1257+12 D would simply be a stub that largely repeats what is already available in PSR B1257+12. However, converting the article about this planet into a redirect may be helpful to anyone searching for information on claims about PSR B1257+12 D.

Regarding the use of news articles as reliable sources for a scientific article, I'll just note that in this instance, Wolszczan 2012 reports that the 2005 claim by Wolszczan & Konacki was unpublished - but it was reported in media sources such as the BBC that are generally regarded as WP:RS. Had a paper been published at the time, I would have used it instead of the BBC article, but in its absence, the BBC provides a reliable source that the claim was made back in February 2005. As an analogy, Chebarkul meteorite largely uses media reports for its sources because insufficient scholarly sources are available to provide adequate coverage (too soon for peer-reviewed papers to appear) - and I consider that quite acceptable given this circumstance. Moreover, WP:SCIRS#Popular_press states that "one possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source." It seems to me that this is an appropriate strategy in light of WP's standards on sourcing, so I cited the BBC article together with Wolszczan 2012. Anyways, please do review my edits of PSR B1257+12 and revise as needed. Also note that I didn't remove the entry for 12D from the "The PSR B1257+12 system" table as I wasn't certain if others would want some form of it kept for "historical purposes", but I would prefer to just delete it. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That all sounds good. I don't see any point in keeping the table entry. I feel it will confuse people into thinking that the fourth planet is confirmed (as it did when I saw it). I'm not entirely clear on how the AfD process works now. Do we wait for the 7 days to pass or can we just change the page into a redirect now? AstroMark (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Usually an AfD is kept open at least seven days (unless circumstances warrant a "speedy" keep or delete). That gives others an opportunity to weigh in. Once a consensus has been formed, someone who has not been previously involved with the discussion (usually a WP administrator) closes the AfD and implements the consensus. So we've still got a few more days to go - and since we're the only two participants thus far, it's a good idea to leave things open for a bit to allow other interested editors to have their say. With regards to your removal of the table entry, I also made an edit to replace "D" with "C" in the following sentence: "The planets of PSR B1257+12 are designated from A to D (ordered by increasing distance)." --Mike Agricola (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There's a mention on an Exoplanet.eu article about this being a possible comet. Maybe it should be merged into PSR B1257+12? Praemonitus (talk) 03:38, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fascinating history! Given the contentious nature of the discovery, the subsection in the main article on the pulsar seems appropriate weighting. The existence of its own article is dubious at this time not due to any particular guideline, but due to the fact it can't be definitively classified at this time. WP:HAMMERTIME is the closest thing essay I can think of, and it says that future speculation on a musical release should be deleted if no definitive information about the release is available. It seems this is a bit of an analogous situation in that we don't know what this object will be. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the star system article. Though the claim has been retracted, does not mean that the announcement itself is not worthy of mention. The retracted claim existed for many years, so is a valid search term, so should in any case redirect to the star system article. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it should be mentioned, such as Vulcan (planet), the infra-Mercury planet found to not exist. Or Planet X, the trans-Neptune/Pluto planet also found to not exist. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:12, 15 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. Opinions for and against are fairly balanced, but the nominator's withdrawal tips this to keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity[edit]

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

Notability of this lawsuit not established by secondary sources. The sources cited are all primary: court documents and the blog of one of the lawyers involved. BigJim707 (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, it has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however non appear to be significant coverage of the subject of this AfD, and if taken in total I do not believe they would add up to significant coverage. The case has been used as a reference for multiple books, but this is a case and not a book so WP:NBOOK does not apply. Therefore, failing WP:GNG I have to hold the opinion (at present) for deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One click on books, and one click on [20] shows a secondary source that shows that this case has had long-term effects on society. The article already has 15 references. Unscintillating (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books listed only seem to mention it in passing, and were not used as sources for the article. Same with Google books, no real in depth coverage or discussion of this event. Borock (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - JSTOR shows some significant discussion of the topic in the articles "Cults and the Ideology of Individualism in First Amendment Discourse", by James G. Zorn, in the Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1989), pp. 483-530, "Combating 'Cults' and 'Brainwashing' in the United States and Western Europe: A Comment on Richardson and Introvigne's Report" by Thomas Robbins, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 169-175, and at least more than a few passing reference elsewhere. A tweaked set of results for "Molko Unification" at Google books here seems to show additional significant coverage of the topic. Unfortunately, this seems to be more of a legal than general academic subject, and the databanks I have access to are more the latter than the former, but I have every reason to think it probably has at least one more significant mention, beyond the Zorn article, which would be enough to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article's kept I will add some more secondary material. Borock (talk) 05:59, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of in depth coverage shows lack of notability, also this is really just a civil case of which there are hundreds every day. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a major case from our largest state's highest court, which was a precedent. However, it needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article's notability is established to be quite solid per Unscintillating, John Carter and Bearian. Hardly "just a civil case." Jus da fax 03:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn Enough secondary sources have been provided so that notability is clearly established. Regardless of the fact that some of the "voters" seem to have been involved in the case. BigJim707 (talk) 22:43, 15 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Hill[edit]

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

I'm listing this as a test case. I'm not sure what notability guidelines are for a fictional character, I can't find anything. But, if we were treating this as a real person, this article would fail monumentally. There are absolutely no sources, other than the character bio on Fox, which I would argue is not third person. I don't know if I'd consider a fictional character notable, and the content of this article could certainly be merged in with the show page, and the episode lists. Fbifriday (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is an essay on the notability of fictional elements. –anemone projectors– 17:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination talks of merger which is not achieved by deletion. It is easy to find third-party sources such as Masculinity and Popular Television. Warden (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we delete the page for this guy, who seems to be the main character in this show, we should also do so for all the obscure supporting characters in The Simpsons we've got pages for, like Cletus Spuckler and Nick Riviera. Wimpyguy (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, becuase WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. –anemone projectors– 16:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for noting that. This nom was not intended to start the deletion of all fictional characters on wikipedia, it was intended to delete this one, which I argue lacks notable third party references, or at least enough third party references to determine notability and inclusion on wikipedia. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant WP:ALLORNOTHING, AnemoneProjectors. ;-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:56, 15 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this article is not particularly well-sourced, coverage in books of Hank Hill indicates that it should be possible to improve the article with respectable book sources. I may do so myself if I get a chance. Much of this article could be described as fancruft: "Articles on episodes of television series, or fictional characters in movies are more likely to be labeled fancruft if they are primarily summaries, biographies of made-up people, or collections of trivia that relate to the continuity of a series rather than its critical or social reception." Nevertheless, this article should be tagged for improvement rather than deletion because we can edit it to focus on the critical and social reception of the character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure what the nominator means when he says, "I don't know if I'd consider a fictional character notable". There are myriad fictional characters here on WP and the nominator should be careful about nominating articles simply because they are about fictional subjects, if that was the intention. I think there is something to be said for the notability of main, title characters of notable television shows, fictional or not. In this case, there are some additional independent sources that discuss the subject. On balance, those things push me towards keep. Stalwart111 02:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My intention with my nom was not simply because he's fictional, but because there isn't a single thing that is sourced third-party, and is entirely written in-universe, in which everything that is discussed is taken directly from episodes, all of which are detailed on the episode list for the show itself. Because I don't know about the notability of fictional characters, I'm using the notability of people, and due to the lack of sources, I believe the character itself is not notable. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood - I'll strike that part of my comment on that basis - was just worried about that comment in particular. All good. However, I still think the book sources linked to by Metropolitan90 probably get us over the line. That's not in-universe stuff (fan fiction, spin-offs, etc) and there's actually a bit of academic stuff there. Like I said, I think you'll find most main or title characters from major television series will probably be covered enough to be considered notable. Perhaps not always the case, but I think it is in this case. Stalwart111 07:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is not a very good reason to file an AfD. That said, the article is primarily in an in-universe style and that needs to be fixed. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the article's state when you filed the AfD, I see now that it was bereft of reliable sources at the time. Hopefully, the ones which I and others have added since then will demonstrate that they do exist and the article should be kept and improved. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per WP:SNOW Boogerpatrol (talk) 16:11, 15 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 to delete. Notability is clearly somewhat borderline, and reasonable editors seem to disagree on exactly whether it crosses the line or not. Ultimately this is the kind of topic that does very little harm if the page is left up, so we'll err on the side of keeping it at this point. ~ mazca ^talk 02:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bevilo tutto[edit]

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

Just noticed this article was was proposed to be deleted once before last. Bringing to AfD as notability seems thin. Curb Chain (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Since the topic of drinking games is definitely notable, this content should be kept somewhere, as there's potential to be included with other similar games. I would suggest to merge it somewhere, but there's no likely target right now. In the future it could be merged with other games [21] to produce a viable article; therefore its content shouldn't be deleted. Diego (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 February 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG only source given seems to be self-published and coverage within the brief article is far from analytical. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:45, 2 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The edit summary when the article was de-PRODded linked to a Google Books search which shows plenty of hits for "Bevilo tutto", but that is just Italian for "Drink it all"; only one of them repeated the phrase, and that went "Bevilo tutto, bevilo tutto, finché il bicchiere rimane asciutto!", so it was not about this song/game. We are left with this single source, and that is not enough for notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - evidently a song exists in various forms from the version recorded in 1881 to the version on Amazon.com, it is only the game element which is unsourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 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. A two-year history of concerns about the reliability and independence of the article's sources, combined with no support for its retention in this debate. The consensus appears to be that this article is based on a very shaky foundation of unreliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 02:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMOD (herbal extract)[edit]

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

It comprehensively relies on primary sources. No successful results has been announced by independent sources. There are no RS coverage and no secondary sources (under WP:RSMED) in the article and all are unreliable medical sources. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unproven and non-notable therapy. The few links found at Google Scholar claim effectiveness for lots of other conditions, but not AIDS as this article claims - a classic snake-oil approach. The articles at Google Scholar are minimally cited, and no secondary sources are found to demonstrate notability per GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 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 04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Brooksby[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NACTOR: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She is a working actress, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- The fact that she is now a full time presenter (where?) implies that she was an unsuccessful actress. However the article is so stubby that it is difficult to tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - It seems she is by far not notable as an actress or a "presenter" (I agree, this is vague and searches don't seem to clarify it). In addition, I haven't found anything about her property company but a management profile here says "Specialist in construction and property refurbishment". She mentions all of these occupations at both her Twitter and website, her website also lists one radio appearance. That centreofattention.org link mentions the Camden Arts Centre performance but the link itself doesn't provide much information and searches haven't provided anything else. Searches for the two roles haven't provided anything either but then again they appeared to have been minor and were nearly ten years ago so she probably didn't pursue that much. I have no prejudice towards a future article when she is notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 9 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 Dave Wolverton#Ravenspell Series. J04n(talk page) 14:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mice And Magic[edit]

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

Book fails to meet WP: GNG. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David_Farland#Ravenspell_Series. I did a search and other than two reviews from Kirkus and the SLJ, I was unable to find anything to show that this book is notable outside of its author. I was going to see if there was enough for perhaps a series entry, but I can't really even find enough sources to justify that. It's better to just redirect this to the author for now and perhaps in the future if he releases further books that gain reviews, we can create a series entry. But right now? There's not enough out there for this book to pass WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 3 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Farland; there's enough info in the cited reviews to produce a paragraph or so in his article (and people may later add a bit about other books in the series - there's a review of the third here[22]), but the book doesn't seem to be independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ravenspell series - given that there's a review for the third book, it seems as if the series as a whole might squeak by notability. Caseylf (talk) 21:21, 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. Keeper | 76 14:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiana Madeira[edit]

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

One notable role (Really Me): Fails WP:ENT. Poor sourcing (a blog and a dead link to that show's page): Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The bar for ENT is already low enough. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 3 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 9 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 194th Regional Support Wing. Consensus is that there is no real indication that this flight is independently notable. Interested users can feel free to merge any useful information to the target page as the article history has been left intact. ~ mazca ^talk 02:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

116th Weather Flight[edit]

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

This stub with 320 characters (not including external links or templates) does not have enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable. Generally units of this size (smaller than a squadron/company) are not considered notable by WP:MILUNIT, nor is it a combat unit. — -dainomite 01:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — -dainomite 01:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why on earth would the fact that it isn't a combat unit be relevant? Combat units are no more inherently notable than non-combat units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of my statement was misinterpreted. I didn't mean delete it just because it isn't a combat unit. Non-combat units more often than not lack notability due to a general lack of coverage from independent or reliable sources. — -dainomite 17:33, 2 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 194th Regional Support Wing. Redirect to notable higher level command authority.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 194th Regional Support Wing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 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 redirect to 113th Wing. This seems the most agreeable redirect target from the discussion, as there is no indication of independent notability here. Interested users can feel free to adjust the redirect target and/or merge any useful information to the target page as the article history has been left intact. ~ mazca ^talk 02:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

121st Weather Flight[edit]

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

The article does not have enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable. Generally units of this size (smaller than a squadron/company) are not considered notable by WP:MILUNIT, nor is it a combat unit. — -dainomite 01:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — -dainomite 01:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why on earth would the fact that it isn't a combat unit be relevant? Combat units are no more inherently notable than non-combat units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of my statement was misinterpreted. I didn't mean delete it just because it isn't a combat unit. Non-combat units more often than not lack notability due to a general lack of coverage from independent or reliable sources. — -dainomite 17:33, 2 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 121st Fighter Squadron. Redirect to notable parent command authority.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 113th Wing, as the 231st Combat Communications Squadron etc. were also served by this Flight, but all fall under the 113th's umbrella. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Bushranger. — -dainomite 03:56, 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. In view of the low participation, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Setebaid[edit]

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

No references and a Google search reveals almost nothing but databases/directories and sites written by the camp itself. ^King Jakob _C2 23:06, 16 February 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 February 16. Snotbot t • c » 23:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Undecided. Google Books hits for "Camp Setebaid" all look like directories or those books that copy from Wikipedia. Google News archives, however, brings up a decent number of results, but it looks like they're all behind paywalls… CtP (t • c) 19:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the news results, and, if I'm not mistaken, most of them just mention the camp in passing.^King Jakob _C2 23:36, 25 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 23 February 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, Funny ^Pika! 12:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP: kids' summer camps are generally not notable enough for their own articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 9 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adjacency[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bg9989 (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and turn into disambiguation page. -- intgr [talk] 13:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. Per ingr's suggestion I have turned this into a disambiguation page. I agree that the previous content was too indiscriminate to support an actual article, but I think it is fine as a dab. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved this from Adjacent to Adjacency, thereby automatically creating a new redirect page, then made it into a disambiguation page. Then I edited this present page accordingly, so that it's about adjacency rather than adjacent. Then David Eppstein made the new redirect page into a disambiguation page. Then he apparently redirected adjacent to adjacency. Usually when I get redirected, I can click on the word in the notice at the top of the page saying I'd been redirected, and I can see the redirect page and its history. This time that didn't work: I just got redirected again. What is going on? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fixed now. All but the misspelled link in your comment now point to the dab page --Mark viking (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in your (that is, Hardy's) talk, we were both making incompatible changes at the same time: me making it from an article into a dab and you moving it from adjacent to adjacency. In the process the edit history got split into two and fixing that involved making even more moves. I think it's all straight now. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be moved back to "adjacent" because it's much more common and nearly all of the disambiguated links start with the word "adjacent". -- intgr [talk] 19:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article titles policy states "Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech [...]. Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun". Deltahedron (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adjacency has multiple disparate meanings with no one meaning clearly dominant, so I agree that disambiguation page is the right approach here. As a dab page, there is no reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. Deltahedron (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's perfectly OK as a disambiguation page. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Line-line intersection[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a textbook Bg9989 (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTTEXTBOOK states "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." The topic is not presented in this way and, even if it were, the issue would be best addressed by editing not deletionn, per WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CANTFIX Bg9989 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a new editor and so are in a weak position to assert what is or isn't possible. It takes just a few seconds to find a source which discusses an algorithm for determining the intersection of lines in 3D. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Historical reference to it's proof or origin is needed. When, how and who derived it is part of what would make it more encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a brief but thorough exposition -- a reference -- on a topic that clearly merits a place in an encyclopedia, at a time where Honey Boo boo -- Here_Comes_Honey_Boo_Boo -- appears to be making a vital contribution to this encyclopedia and seems beyond challenge. Lutusp (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inadequate nomination rationale. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I'll repeat what I already wrote on the companion AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distance from a point to a line: The nominator has badly misinterpreted NOTTEXTBOOK, which is properly a style guideline rather than a notability guideline (we shouldn't present topics like this with lots of worked examples and exercises the way a textbook would — but this article already didn't do that). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is far better than the title led me to expect. It's not written at all like a textbook. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The formulas for line-line intersection must be there, that's obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.234.32 (talk) 10:32, 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from a point to a line[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a textbook Bg9989 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTTEXTBOOK states "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." The topic is not presented in this way and, even if it were, the issue would be best addressed by editing not deletion, per WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CANTFIX Bg9989 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:VAGUEWAVE. An encyclopedic source for the topic was easy to find. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep It needs historical context on the concepts and proofs like who did it first (Euclid? Pythagoras? - I don't know). That's what would make it more encyclopedic. ~~Listing just the equations and proofs however, is not.~~ --DHeyward (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Euclid certainly knew how to construct the line segment from a point perpendicular to a line, and would have considered that construction to be the answer to the question "what is the distance?". For the formula presented in the first section of the article, I think we have to wait for Descartes and his Cartesian coordinates, in the 17th century. Nowadays we think of the Pythagorean theorem as a distance formula for pairs of points given by Cartesian coordinates, but I don't think that is a historical point of view — it was about areas, not distances, and possibly of use in constructing right angles rather than in measuring things. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned Pythagoras only because the point on the line that forms the right angle with the point being measured can ne derived using his theorem (all other points are further away as b^2 is non-zero and c^2 is a minimum when b^2 = 0). The proofs, especially from different disciplines is encyclopedic. I also find the history behind the proofs to add the encyclopedic value of the article. That doen't mean that mathematics articles without history aren't encyclopedic, but it makes them more interesting. Donald in Mathmagic Land is the ideal way to present these topics :). --DHeyward (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly an encyclopedic topic, as Warden's reference indicates. The nominator has badly misinterpreted NOTTEXTBOOK, which is properly a style guideline rather than a notability guideline (we shouldn't present topics like this with lots of worked examples and exercises the way a textbook would — but this article already didn't do that). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Would the nominator, who started editing on 3 March but has shown much knowledge of AfD procedure, care to tell us if he has edited Wikipedia before?
Keep What David Eppstein said. This is clearly a notable topic. -- Taku (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- very useful material. I see the original poster's logic, though. If not keep, then move to Wikibooks and provide ample links from appropriate related topics. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It could use some cleanup though. a13ean (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not perfect, but perfection isn't required to survive a deletion challenge. Certainly an encyclopedic topic (more than the various folks who were on some reality show last decade), Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:56, 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 04:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indraprastha Abasan[edit]

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

The estate do not meet notability per WP:GNG. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started this article in 2005, when I did not know much about WP:GNG. Afterwards, I forgot about this article. Thanks Amartya for bringing it up here. Yes, this does not meet notability, and should be deleted.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realised that you created this article. Hope you didn't mind. :) Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did not mind :) This was one of the earliest articles I created, and completely forgot it exists.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deleteshould be removed immediately. Jussychoulex (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, That is defiantly not notable. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:59, 15 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. Sandstein 10:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theatres in Karachi[edit]

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

An article for the list of movie theatres for every city isn't needed in an encyclopedia. Tentinator (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright you made a point, what about a list of movie theatres for country...? I think we should moved it to the 'List of movie theatres in Pakistan' then. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 12:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of movie theatres in a city does not seem very notable and the page needs references. Per nom. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:53, 15 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Slender Man sitcom[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced, unaired Canadian sitcom. Funny ^Pika! 11:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete appears to be a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and saltNo citation of sources or anything.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess this was a joke. Could have been speedied as a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:47, 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. A complete lack of sources (WP:V) mandates deletion. Sandstein 10:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMW 2 Series[edit]

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

Crystal ball. No sources to show that the car will be produced. Biker Biker (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The relevant wikiproject, WP Automobiles, has established a convention (Unannounced vehicles) that an article like this is a crystal ball until formally announced by the manufacturer. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:14, 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. Sandstein 10:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SY Patea[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:RS. Dewritech (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The page is badly laid out and contains irrelevant information but more importantly I don't believe it's notable. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:56, 15 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsito Das[edit]

Considering subject to be WP:REVDEL

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

10:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Further Verified Notability and Contribution to the Bengali SocietyWP:ARTIST also falls under WP:ANYBIO as publisher of India's Bengali fashion magazine. http://www.myfashion19.com/ipsito-das-fashion-photographers-terns-magazine-publisher/

10:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC) 10:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Notable Photographer-"Awarded by Netherland Effie. Information found in WP:NEWSORG website as WP:CREATIVE photographer.

ref http://www.ftkindia.com/indian-fashion-photographer-ipsito-das-awarded-by-effie-netherland/ 10:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Poorly referenced BLP of a non-notable photographer. I was unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish that the subject is notable per WP:BIO. - Mr X 09:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Freelance photographer with a 2 year career behind him. Only the unreferenced claim to have "Introduced new techniques in photography" stops this being a CSD A7, but unless evidence to verify that can be produced the subject fails WP:CREATIVE. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable photographer, obviously fails WP:GNG. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 10:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Introduced new techniques in photography" - yeah, right, Santa Claus exists! Non-notable amateur photographer, that claims himself to be a genius - that what he really is, judging by all the information there is on him on the internet. Olderon (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joaco[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated - Nabla (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet our notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Seems to be the usual issue with people jumping in with the typical "not played in a fully professional league" without having done any real research other than looking on the FPL page where the Philippines is not discussed at all. Would be useful if rather than being over-keen to get their tuppence worth in, that some reasearch was performed. The UFL article is confusing as it describes it as a professional league, but also as one that started semi-professional. Would be useful if the opportunity could be taken to show it one way or the other. If it can be shown to be fully professional, given that the player has won a national cup in the Philippines, I would suggest that there was sufficient to warrant passing GNG, though maybe only in offline sources. However, at the moment it is unclear, so best to delete until GNG can be shown. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Typical"?? I think that just says that you yourself are not in the know therefore you deem this as "typical". It's not in the FPL page because the Philippines does not have a fully pro league! Heck, there isn't even a "recognized" league. If you look at the Philippines' page at FIFA.com here, you'd see there isn't even a link for "National League". No recognized league, let a lone a fully pro league, definitely does not satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. You could also do all the searching you want, there would be very little, if any at all, that would even begin to satisfy WP:GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 09:19, 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 keep. My rationale is basically the same as the closer's comments at Afd3. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have nominated this article for deletion twice before. One debate resulted in delete, and the other resulted in keep. I am nominating it for a fourth time because I feel that enough time has passed to make it clear that this article meets all three criteria of a BLP1E, and should thus be deleted. A lot of the information in the article is only mentioned in local news, uncited, and cited with links that no longer work. This article has become a Pseudo-biography, and I feel that most of the information presented in the article is not encyclopedic. Rogerthat94 (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is incorrect that a musical artist with multiple sourcable projects is a BLPE. As estabalished at earlier AFD's this person with sourcable coverage for multiple aspects of her career meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ARTIST. With respects, the consensus established by AFD's #2 and #3 were the result of a lot of policy and guideline based discussion. I am hoping this repeated return to AFd by the same nominator is not a result of either WP:DONTLIKEIT or WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. That links that worked two years ago may not all be available is a result of linkrot of sources once readily available and previously considered at AFD (and perhaps recoverable through diligent use of the Wayback machine... but loss through linkrot is not a valid rationale for deletion of something previously found notable. I remind the nominator that even with online sources evaporating, their hardcopy equivalents have not vanished from hardcopy archives, and notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree on the Pseudo-biography topic. Most of the sources and information about the artist is not really reliable, seams very fake and there is definitely the Conflict of Interests.Olderon (talk) — Olderon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Your very first Wikipedia edits began this morning, March 9 2013, and are all involved with deletions.[23] With your being an eleven-lifetime-edits-ever editor, you're gonna have a real hard time time convincing experienced editors that the multiple reliable secondary sources used to cite the information in this article are in anyway fake or unreliable. Disagreeing with what WNYW or Newsday or Patch might report through their reputations for fact checking and accuracy is one thing, but calling these publications "unreliable" is ridiculous. I would invite you to study just how a source is determined as reliable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has enough sources to hsow it's notability, on the surface at least this is the fourth or fifth deletion attempt and somewhat WP:POINTy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obvious bias is obvious.

1. The nominator left notice on Talk pages pointing to the first deletion nomination, not this one. That's a pretty wrong way to treat editors, given that the nom knew it was the 4th nomination, and the nom's 3rd, as the nom carefully explained at the top.

2. The result of the 2nd deletion nomination was No Consensus. Rogerthat94 then rushed the 3rd nomination, just 20 days after the 2nd closed. The result of the 3rd deletion nomination was Keep, and that was endorsed upon review. All the keep reasons then are valid now, and the nominator's problem with Swerdlow personally, rather than article's merits, are to me, obvious.

3. I am, in this numbered item, about to question the nominator's motives. Look away if you don't like to see such things. Rogerthat94's persistence in trying to delete this BLP about this person seems obsessive. I want to know if this editor has a conflict of interest - that is, an interest in supporting any young female performers who aren't Jenna Rose Swerdlow? Does this editor have any contact with or beef with Swerdlow? Is this editor one of the swarming anti-Swerdlow "haters", given the claim of being "a student", with a (presumed) birthyear of '94 (age 16-17 in 2011)? Note that the contributions history started with 17 innocuous edits, then on 18 May 2011 became singularly focused on deleting this article. Why the sudden interest where there had been none before, student? In June 2011, Rogerthat94's user page was amended to self-declare as a deletionist, stating clearly that some articles "have no place on Wikipedia" - was that only a reference to Swerdlow at that point, and was self-declaring merely cover to mask singling out Swerdlow? Since then, those remarks have been deleted, but not retracted, or explained in edit summary. My point is, if there is any such conflict of interest, or obsessive agenda, about Swerdlow, Rogerthat94 should simply and honestly declare it and retract this nomination. It's obvious that nobody else currently cares to nominate this article - especially after a keep & endorse - only Rogerthat94. This is a low-edit-count editor (387 after 6 years, nothing wrong with that) with over 63 edits (16%) related to Swerdlow. That's a very high degree of interest in deleting this article, IMHO.

4. I agree with MichaelQSchmidt's rebuttal citation of policy, guideline, and essay, and that notability is not temporary, due to the persistence of offline verifiability, even if online verification has rotted, as it often does. BLP1E doesn't apply, for two reasons: multiple Swerdlow videos were released with similar "hater" popular response, and her videos are part of an larger ongoing news-mentioned trend of remarkable audience responses to mundane videos by kids. Coverage of her has occurred over multiple years. BTW part of that remarkable response was the rampant destruction/vandalism by hackers (script kiddies?) of most of her official online presence, which did hit the press. --Lexein (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the following response out from inside my comment. --Lexein (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When leaving the talk page notices, I had attempted to use the template ((subst:Afd-notice|ARTICLE NAME)) which was recommended here. I apologize for doing so incorrectly. I did not intentionally try to mislead anyone and all of my actions have been conducted in good faith. I informed the article's creator, involved admins, and people who voted in favor and against keeping the article in the past in order to have a fair debate. Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I apologize for posting two separate comments. The above was intended to solely be a response to Lexin's first item, before he moved it. I have been advised that it would be bad practice to now try and consolidate these two. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These personal attacks are untrue. Nothing other than the "My Jeans" song was reported in any sources that would be considered reliable enough to demonstrate notability outside of that single event. Just because she's released additional videos and gotten some additional blog coverage does not demonstrate notability beyond BLP1E, unless this coverage meets the proper guidelines. None of the sources reporting her later works that I found have met these guidelines. I wasn't using linkrot as my primary reason for deletion, it was merely something I was noting to show that a lot of information in this article probably can't be verified. The reason for deletion is because she only received significant coverage for the "My Jeans" song, which makes this a BLP1E. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she were sourcable for having done only one thing ever, then your repeated AFDs and repeated cries of BLP1E might have credibility rather than appearing more simply of WP:IDONTLIKEHER . There is no demand or requirement that anyone found suitably notable through prior discussion and consensus "must" continue to remain in the headlines, and not every verifiable activity in her life needs to make headlines. Again... WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My response above was to a long set of comments now refactored. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The lack of any coverage in the year and a half since the last consensus speaks to how sensational the coverage was. She is in fact "sourcable for having done only one thing ever." The "Jeans" song. That's it. None of the sources about anything else meet the notability guidelines. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] WP:NOT#NEWS is not quite applicable here, as what we do is neutrally report what has been shared over a span of time by reliable sources elsewhere. Even two years of coverage elswehere is no simple news blip. WP:MUSICBIO#1 is met. That Swerdlow may have for a while turned her attentions to education or family does not make the earlier coverage vanish. And you forget WP:NTEMP. We do not expect a topic once found notable to remain forever in the headlines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The substantial coverage only lasted for a few days and it did not go "beyond the context of a single event" (The "Jeans" song). Yes there has been two years of coverage, but that coverage was not substantial and falls under "routine news" as per WP:NOT#NEWS. I'm not forgetting WP:NTEMP. This article is a WP:BLP1E, thus the subject is not notable enough to have an article in the first place. Rogerthat94 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage for various activities that have been reported in the media and have been shared to such a broad demographic over a many month/years period are not quite what is defined as "routine coverage". Per WP:BLP, information about someone must certainly be verifiable, but in building peoper BLP it is not mandated that every reliable source used to verify some aspect of a persons life must itself also be SIGCOV. The policy and applicable guideline, though related, are not interchangable. We do not require that notable topics must all be earth-shattering in importance, and I believe that in your repeated attempts to remove this topic, you are indeed forgetting NTEMP, and ignoring that she is verifiable for far more than just that one item... as are most folks who meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENT. When you perhaps bring this topic back to AFD a 5th or 6th or 7th time, there may be far greater concerns about WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:KEEPLISTING, and WP:POINT. I suggest you might take a look at two enlightening essays: WP:STICK and WP:WALK. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources about something other than the "Jeans" song that you would consider more than routine coverage? I'm not saying every source must be SIGCOV, but in this case, "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" (per WP:BLP1E). I understand that subjects do not have to be "earth-shattering in importance" but they do have to be notable for more than one event, as per the guidelines. I resubmitted this to AfD because my first AfD was successful, and I felt enough time had passed without any significant coverage on another event to make it clear that this was a BLP1E. If I am wrong in this analysis and this AfD fails, I can assure you I will not submit it again. Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should likely fail, and a better understanding of WP:BLP1E in its entirety would be of benefit to you as to why. In its summary, it states "BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals" (my emphasis). As Jenna Rose has done more than just My Jeans, has actively sought out attention, and has performed at public events, she is NOT low-profile... whether found notable or not. No matter what the coverage is for, Rose is per definition not a "low profile" individual. To further aid in your understanding, please read Wikipedia:What is one event. Had Jenna Rose been verifiable for creating and performing ONLY My Jeans, and absolutely nothing else ever... THAT would be a 1E. But as she "high profile" and is sourcable for doing more, even if the additional works did not have the same level of coverage as did My Jeans, per policy her BLP is NOT a BLP1E. Your feelings that a previous closer may not have understood applicable policy and guidelines should have been taken up with the closer so that he might have educated you so that "feelings" or a personal mis-interpretation of applicable policy would not become a flawed rationale for another deletion attempt. Since your previous deletion effort was only 20 days after an earlier close, only history will show if that promise to not repeatedly re-nominate is true or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actions you mention all fit under the characteristics of a low profile individual mentioned on Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual. She has "been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication." She "has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group." I haven't found any evidence of "press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings," or actively seeking media attention. Yes she has released more songs, but these have not been reported outside of the context of the first event. It's all been something along the lines of "This is the girl who created the Jeans song. Look how edgy her new song is." No other event has been reported outside the context of the first. The lack of any coverage of her recent work is a testament to this. It was a mistake to submit the second AfD so soon, and I apologize for doing so. I don't feel the previous closer misunderstood anything. I feel that enough time has now passed without any significant coverage to make it clear that this was a BLP1E. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Were we even reading the same pages? Or is it that you've apparently mis-read and mis-interpreted again. Is this intentional? I am not asserting that being "high profile" equates to notability. Conversely, being "low profile" does not automatically equate to non-notability. That's not the issue I brought up. Others are invited to read "Characteristics of high- versus low-profile figures" to see for themselves that, notable or not, Jenna's verifiable actions specifically fit those ascribed to high profile persons through definitions at "media attention", "promotional ativities", and "appearances and performances". This activities do NOT have to be at high profile venues nor cost lots of money. It is the actions toward self-promotion that count (and were apparently successful). Verifiability of her "high profile" activities does not itself have to be SIGCOV. As stated further above, policy WP:V and applicable guideline WP:GNG, though related, are not interchangeable. To simplify for you: While SIGCOV must be in reliable sources, verfiability in reliable sources does not have to be SIGCOV. Different issues. Like my conclusions or not, and Jenna Rose being notable of not, this BLP is not a case for using BLP1E as a deletion rationale. Simple. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we were reading the same page. If you look back at my comment, I quoted the characteristics of Jenna Rose that show she is low profile according to those definitions. In fact, I had quoted parts of every definition you linked to. Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had she NOT made any sourcable personal appearances or public performances, or if she had not recieved the attention of such not-local sources as Time Magazine and Newsday, your argument might have merit. The definitions of "high profile" fit Jenna, and p. Per policy, BLP1E is not to be used as a deletion rationale for BLPs of "high profile" individuals... no matter how "low" you may personally think her profile is. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her appearances and performances qualify her as low profile, according to the guidelines. Newsday is a local source, but you are right about Time. Regardless, profile changes over time. All of this coverage you're referring to is almost two years old. Currently, she is a low profile individual. The lack of any coverage for the last year and a half indicates that she is likely to remain a low profile individual. BLP1E still applies here. Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her voluntary public appearance and performances meet the definition of "high profile", now matter how low you think her profile is. That you think she "is likly to remain a low profile individual" is a personal opinion based upon mis-interpretation of policy and guideline. And Newday is not exactly a neighborhood gazette... and as for "local"... if it were, I would not be able to access and read it in 2,500 miles away. The internet has caused some definite reconsideration of just what "local" means. If someone in Shanghai can read a source from Long Island, is it really "local"? Local in geo-location is not local for a global online readership. And if a source is only online to a global readership, such as articles abou her at Perez Hilton, and Houston Culture how is it reasonable to claim it only "local"? We have to consider just how far and wide she is being covered. But THAT issue will not be decided here. At least that truly local neighborhood gazette is local and covers only local news and events. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were all for "a limited group," which falls under the definition of low profile. I don't see what policy or guideline I am misunderstanding with my prediction. After all, one of the requirements for a WP:BLP1E is that the subject "is likely to remain a low-profile individual". Most local newspapers have websites by now. This doesn't change the fact that they are local. Newsday only covers stories in and around Long Island. This makes it local. The last two sources you mentioned are examples of self-published sources which are not appropriate for a BLP. I never claimed all of the coverage was local. In fact, I agree that a bit of it is somewhat substantial. However, all reliable coverage is "in the context of a single event". Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WAX is WAX. And you did not acknowledge that Perez Hilton does not source the article. It was offered as an online source with a global readership to indicate that declaring something "local" is up for interpretation if it has a global readership. However, I was quite surprised that you made the decision here to personally declare Culture Map Houston, a source with a paid staff and editorial oversite an inappropriate "self-pub", specially as this source speaks toward actions of Rebecca Black and Jenna Rose as "reviving an East Coast-West Coast music rivalry.[24] Substantial coverage and not "local" to Long Island... making a comparison of two artists... properly sharing the differences and similarities of the two by speaking about their past works... and unless the reliable sources noticeboard declares it unreliable, it would be quite suitable for use in the Jenna Rose article. Good night. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sources are blogs. It's debatable whether or not they meet WP:RS. That's the point I was trying to get across. Did you even read the culturemap article? It's clearly satirical and mentions untrue information for the purpose of satire. Do you really believe "a violent and bloody showdown" occurred? Does this article really have to go to WP:RSN to be deemed unreliable? Rogerthat94 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN is not required. Being a "blog" is not exactly the nasty you would have others believe. Read WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:USEBYOTHERS. You fail to acknowledge that policy allows that in some circumstance certain blogs are allowed as citations. Perez Hilton.com is one such and is used as a citation for numerous articles that are entertainment related. See links Further, you have yet again failed to acknowledge that PerezHilton.com does not source the article, and that it was only offered as an example of how an online global source is difficult to call "local". Worse, I am still mystified why you made the decision here to personally label CultureMap Houston, a source with a paid staff and editorial oversite as a "blog" or "self-pub" when it is not. Sheesh. Who are you trying to fool?? I read the entertaining CultureMap article. It is an article wherein the author poses a hypothetical future event as a satirical hyperbole. If the reception section of the Jenna Rose article included the sentence "Sarah Rufca of CultureMap Houston offered a tongue-in-cheek article in which she compared Jenna Rose with Rebecca Black, and humorously predicted that were Jenna Rose to release an song lambasting Anaheim Hills, the result could be a violent and bloody showdown between the two."cite being a reviewer's opinion it would be allowed if presented as attributed and cited opinion and not as fact. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are special reliable source guidelines for a BLP. Blogs used as sources in a BLP have to meet much higher standards, and rightly so. I agree that Perez Hilton's website may be an appropriate source for some articles, but not for a BLP. Yes there are some BLPs sourced with it, but two wrongs don't make a right. WP:USEBYOTHERS merits how "sources use a given source," not other Wikipedia articles. I "failed to acknowledge that PerezHilton.com does not source the article" because I didn't see what it would add, and it isn't true. Granted it's only citing an opinion, but it's not considered a reliable source that would discount this article from being a BLP1E, as you allege. I never called PerezHilton.com a local source. I called Newsday a local source, and I stand by that. The list of CultureMap Houston contributors that you keep posting does not mention that any staff is paid. We can reasonably assume that they are, but being paid does not necessarily indicate that the "writers are professionals" so WP:NEWSBLOG doesn't necessarily apply. In addition, I've seen no evidence that content is subject to any news organization's "full editorial control" as required by WP:BLPSPS. I would argue that the author poses more than a hyperbole, and rather something she deems as impossible since this is not 90s hip-hop culture. So claiming she predicted such an event would be taking her anecdote too much out of context. But that doesn't matter at this point. It still only provides coverage of the subject in the context of the one event. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just easily further sourced the followup videos O.M.G. and Don't Give Up, and response to them. Also found a TIME cite, and a source for the website/YouTube/Twitter hacks. So much for BLP1E. Next, I checked, and questioning motives aren't listed in WP:No personal attacks, and anyways, my questions weren't personal - I would have queried any editor whose actions were the same as Rogerthat94. --Lexein (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the "Comment on content, not on the contributor" part, as well as several other parts, but that's neither here nor there. The Time source was just reporting the single "My Jeans" song, which doesn't make any case against this being a BLP1E. Your other source is about Rebecca Black, and it makes only a small mention of Jenna Rose at the end. This does not demonstrate notability. Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoosh - this stuff is easily sourced, and multiply reliably sourced, was my point. And, also, whoosh - ~~WP:NA~~ WP:NPA' isn't intended to silence all discussion of suspect editor behavior, such as possible COI and apparent bias. --Lexein (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC) (fixed obvious typo --Lexein (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, things can be sourced, but they fall under the category of WP:NOT#NEWS. Nothing there shows this is more than a BLP1E. I'm not sure what WP:NA has to do with anything, but WP:NPA mentions "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which I feel applies here, but that really doesn't matter at this point. Obviously you feel differently, but arguing about this isn't helping the AfD discussion. Rogerthat94 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1E claim is utterly void, and based on a complete misunderstanding of the word "event". Original research which I'm about to delete aside, other videos she created at a different time provoked a large number of views and a counter-reactions, and press: boom, down goes 1E. --Lexein (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that can be considered reliable covers her outside of the context of the jeans song (which was one event). Views and counter-reactions don't have credence with respect to coverage unless there are reputable independent secondary sources to back them up. BLP1E still applies here. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein is correct. The difficulty arises when you refuse to accept that external coverage about Jenna's later activities IS allowed to include references to the work that first brought her to public attention. Is is normal and expected. On cannot write a proper BLP article herein without covering pertinent aspects of an individual's life. This is true for external media coverage as well, even if the subsequent coverage does not approach the level of initial coverage. One would certainly expect that a journalist might include the back-story and write something like "Remember that girl who, similar to Rebecca Black, raised a furor with the publication of My Jeans, an amateur music video that was created (when) and was shown (where) and went viral, and then raised such controversy in (A) and (B) and (C), and remember how she was cyber-hacked (when) and (where)? Well she has (written another tune or made appearances at X, Y & Z)." Such is expected. You need to accept that sources used to verify an aspect of a BLP do not have to be solely about the item they are verifying nor is it mandated that the source be SIGCOV of the verified activity. Different issues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "On cannot write a proper BLP article herein without covering pertinent aspects of an individual's life" is exactly what is addressed by WP:PSEUDO. I have no problem creating an article on the song "My Jeans" and redirecting this page there. However, Jenna Rose has not yet demonstrated notability beyond this one event, and should not be the subject of a BLP. A lot of the sources on the current article are from news and blog websites that border on self published, and thus aren't appropriate for a BLP. There are no reliable sources that cover her in the context of a second event. I am aware that sources tend to provide a back story, but they then focus on the subsequent event, thus covering the subjects in the context of the this subsequent event. Some reliable sources mention some details about the subjects's future songs, but they still only cover her in the context of the first event (the jeans song). Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The major concern of the essay WP:PSEUDO is to prevent harm. A problem with citing that essay as a reason to delete is that it would actually prevent the creation of stubs on individuals. If you find something in any article that is harmful, then it should be removed if uncited. But please know, that in building an encyclopedia, we allow stubs grow over time and through editorial contributions. We do not delete stubs for failing an essay. Please get BLP1E out of your head, as it is inapplicable. However... a couple additional sourcable events are 1, she making public performances, and 2, she being cyber-hacked... and then she has also made a few minor television appearances and has written additional songs. As with ANY entertainer, it was an initial notable action that caused/resulted subsequent sourcable events. Every career has to start someplace. We have enough per policy and guideline to allow this one to remain and grow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:BIO1E specifically mentions WP:PSEUDO. There are no sources appropriate for a BLP that mention the subject in the context of these other events. Careers start somewhere and if the subject is notable, there will be additional sources published that mention them in the context of future events. That hasn't happened to this subject. The lack of any coverage in the last year and a half indicates that it may not. This information would be better served if this article were redirected to one on the Jeans song. Then if the subject becomes notable for something else, it can be recreated. This is what was done with the article on Sandra Fluke and her single event received significantly more coverage than this subject. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is disturbing that you have repeatedly redacted or modified certain of your statements AFTER I post responses... hopefully not done intentionally to confuse others. Also, through your zeal you share yet another error in your choice of argument immediately above {if not again redacted or modified after this response). WP:BIO1E is not a policy... the policy would be the already-repeatedly-explained-as-inapplicable-and-not-to-be-used-in-this-case WP:BLP1E... inapplicable as has it has been repeatedly explained to you that she has coverage in reliable sources for events beyond (even if related in context to) the triggering events. And, rather than being a policy, "BIO1E" is a guideline "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"... and yes it does mention the essay that would limit or curtail stub articles. More telling perhaps, is that in your granting below that many sources discussing her are quite reliable and significant you have (purposely?) ignored her meeting WP:MUSICBIO#1 in that she "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". I do wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity to research your (hopefully well meant) arguments and, in learning their flaws and misapplications, gain myself a better insight.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only edited a statement you responded to once before in order to shorten it, and I informed you about it on your talk page. As you recommended against doing so, I have stopped. I did not edit the content of this comment after you had responded. I added a sentence I forgot, and this was not an attempt to confuse anyone. In fact, I re-signed the comment so the time would update, to make it clear this extra sentence had been added. I apologize if this was improper. I meant to refer to WP:BIO1E as a notability guideline, not a policy. This was a genuine mistake. I was just trying to get across that WP:PSEUDO should be treated as more than just an essay, since it has been referred to in a guideline. You are correct about WP:MUSICBIO#1, but wouldn't WP:BLP1E supersede this as WP:MUSICBIO isn't a policy? I know you don't feel WP:BLP1E applies, and you are much more experienced than I am. However it was brought up in the last discussion, and someone else has agreed with it here as well. Yes she has received significant coverage, but it is only in the context of a single event. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:WAX argument aside, you seem to be repeating the argument as was made above by SPA User:Olderon that Time, WNYW, Newsdayand Patch are either unreliable or inappropriate for use with a BLP, even with their reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Sorry, no sale. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my argument at all. Some of these are incredibly reliable sources. But the reliable sources only cover her in the context of this one event. I was not using the other article as an argument for why this should be deleted. I was providing a successful example of another BLP1E that was redirected to an article on the notable event, and then recreated once the subject was covered in the context of other events. WP:WAX states that comparisons "may form part of a cogent argument." Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU for what must have been a very painful concession by you to admit that "Some of these are incredibly reliable sources", and that many are not local. Read WP:MUSICBIO#1. She's notable. And I am tired of repeating myself. I do hope you keep your promise to accept consensus this time and not renominate a 5th, 6th, or 7th time. Good night. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a concession as I never claimed there weren't reliable sources. I have just claimed these sources cover the subject "only in the context of a single event." I agree that WP:MUSICBIO#1 has been met, however according to WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E this BLP should be redirected to an article on the Jeans song. You can rest assured that I will not renominate if the discussion does not result in a delete. I only submitted this again because I felt the passage of time without coverage of her subsequent work made if clear this was a BLP1E. If I am wrong, there are no circumstances left to change. Our back and forth WP:BLUD probably hurt this discussion, but that is my fault, and not a reason I would renominate. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rogerthat94: This has been discussed before, elsewhere, by thoughtful people who have done a lot of editing. See essay WP:What is one event which holds against your position, viz: "When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E have not been held by the Wikipedia community to be compelling reasons for deletion." This conclusion is drawn from AfD discussions and closures themselves, so it has a bit more weight than just a random opinion essay. We're not making this stuff up. I like this nutshell from WT:What is one event better: "If a person gains additional coverage in reliable sources beyond the first event that made them famous, then WP:BLP1E no longer applies." See also User:ErrantX/Essays/BLP1E, whose key thrust also opposes your position. Your continued hyperextension of "context of first event" is inappropriate, and more editors than have responded here disagree with you. Oh, and I hope you're not (even unintentionally) pushing BLP2E . --Lexein (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are great essays, and they both support the conclusion that this article should deleted and redirected to one on the Jeans song. The example given in WP:What is one event of "One event' applied successfully' is very similar to this subject. The assertion in User:ErrantX/Essays/BLP1E that "The thing worth recording is all in association with their notable event - perhaps with some background - judged suitable - context. We can do all of that in event articles, there is little requirement for a biography." applies here. The problem mentioned at the end of that essay also applies to this article. I apologize if I misinterpreted the meaning of context in the policy. However, BLP1E still applies as the sources that cover her in the context of of other events are all problematic with respect to WP:BLPSPS, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:RS. The reliable sources only cover the Jeans song. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First: there is no article on My Jeans, yet. We do not propose redirection when a target does not exist. However, at the close of this ADF I will be happy to set a redirect of that title to that of its creator as being (the primary topic) And second: sorry Roger... but Lexein's response is sound, and your continued insistence on the inapplicable-in-this-case BLP1E flags in the face of wider consensus elsewhere allowing that a triggering notable event can (and logically is almost expected to be) mentioned in subsequent coverage for events which follow that trigger. And while one can find an essay to cover almost any side of a debate within Wikipedia (even I've even written a few myself)... and yes essays are sometimes mentioned within some guidelines to help illustrate such, as essays they are not given the weight of either guideline nor policy. One reads an essay and then determines its applicability to a given situation. His examples soundly apply. Yours are a stretch. Again, sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many examples of BLP1E discussions where people suggest redirection, and then an article on the notable event is created after this solution is decided upon. If this is deemed an acceptable solution, I would be happy to move over notable information to create this article. I agree with your analysis on triggering events. However, there isn't any coverage of a second event that is in line with WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BLPSPS. Rogerthat94 (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like in an earlier AFD on Swerdlow when you suggested and defended that it be redirected an article on someone else. But do not worry... when this is closed I will create the redirect for My Jeans so that readers seeking information on it can learn more about its creative artist and learn about her and what else she has done... as currently presented in a sourced and encyclopedic manner. Thanks for sharing your views. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as per above). I don't often get caught up in AfD, and this action explains why: a nominator with 102 article edits, and a supporter with two article edits (both to do with article deletion). Give me strength. Both of those editors need to get out there and add content (for at least a few years) before settling into this sort of delete mentality. GFHandel ♬ 19:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --Lexein (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PSEUDO and WP:BLP1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both ~~disproven~~ refuted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. There seems to be plenty of reliable sources to establish general notability. Even if you think this is a case of WP:BLP1E, which I do not, the one event itself remains in the public consciousness. "My Jeans" was used as bumper music on the most recent episode of Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, which brought me to seek out this article. -Dewelar (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Futile Delete !vote - (Yeah, the nom invited me here. Whatever; it won't matter. Easy to see the snow in the forecast.) The spotty coverage of this not-quite viral would-be Rebecca Black still doesn't impress me. Headline, circa March 2011: "Kid posts youtube video, gets laughed at by a few bloggers". Headline, circa any time after that: "Local kid, who was laughed at in 2011, to play at local park" or "Completely different kid has similar experience, 2011 kid mentioned". Whatev. It's going to be a keep. As for all of the drama above: TL;DR, lol, ttfn. yawn. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Straightforward WP:BLP1E, despite the insipid hyper-inclusionism that usually surrounds these sorts of articles and AfDs. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again? Really? [25] [26] and elsewhere cover her. Live television interview also at [27] Performed at a charity event and was mentioned, although not much. [28] Dream Focus 12:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 unique Newsday articles cited in the article: first four clustered around the same event, fifth IMHO a new event, the last clearly another new event. Re your 2012 WPIX interview link above, I wish TV stations archived their own pop culture interviews on YouTube, so we could cite them as RS. Just added the related December 2012 WPIX website item, though the song video was IMHO sadly undeserving of Ms. Warwick's involvement, IMHO. Some of this interview with Warwick and son Damon Elliot is priceless, and some is excruciating. --Lexein (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Straightforward meeting of WP:GNG, despite the insipid hyper-deletionism that usually surrounds these sorts of articles and AfDs. Most of human knowledge is subjectively stupid to someone.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion arguments invoking BLP1E are misreading said guideline. From BLP1E: "Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.", the last three words are linked to an essay which defines low-profile, saying "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile." BLP1E is not correctly applied to artists, authors, entertainers, that is, creative professionals who actively seek media attention for themselves and their works. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, I see this is discussed above. Newsday is in fact non-local enough to provide evidence that this is not a low-profile individual, nevermind Time. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great reminder of both points above, which had not really jumped out at me. --Lexein (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SummerPhD and Tarc summarize my feelings on this nicely. AniMate 20:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see I had previously closed an AFD on this for its first discussion, but now at this present time the subject matter seems to have ample coverage among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Cirt! Feel like applying some of that source-fu that you do so well? I sense that you could find a few more sources that we haven't seen or considered reliable yet. Not to put you on the spot er nuthin'. --Lexein (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, got a bit of a headache at the moment, maybe later. — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BLP1E-1: The sources do not cover her in the context of a single event. Rather, it was the single event that prompted the sources to then cover her life outside of the context of the event. This biography should have originated from a Wikipedia article on the event as a major subtopic of that event BLP1E-2: There's no doubt that she likely will return to a low-profile individual. However, she actively has sought to not remain a low-profile individual and in fact reached being a high-profile individual. Some people do not want the limelight that comes with a BLP1E event and it is those people who BLP1E is meant to protect. BLP1E-3: She is central to the event, so it is the case her role within it is substantial. You could say that the event is not significant in that shoot to fame via You Tube happens all the time. But the event significance and whether it is well-documented depends on the amount of reliable source coverage.-- Jreferee (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rogerthat94, I think you would have a better chance of deleting this biography if you created a Wikipedia article about the event My Jeans, add some of the sourced bio info to the My Jeans article in addition to the event, and then propose to delete/merge Jenna Rose into My Jeans stating that there is not enough life information beyond what already is in the My Jeans article to justify a need for fuller treatment of the biography subtopic Jenna Rose per Wikipedia:Summary style. Since the My Jeans article would be about the event, there would not be that much biograpy information about Jenna Rose relevant to that event. In that way, you can restrict how much biographical information is posted in Wikipedia about Jenna Rose (assuming that you can get Jenna Rose redirected to My Jeans.) -- Jreferee (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion is provocative, in that it prompts disruptive behavior: "you can restrict how much biographical information", flying in the face of continued ongoing, year by year coverage in RS of both the artist and the music (no matter its aesthetic appeal to us). It is egging on an inexperienced and narrowly focused editor with a very low edit count, and a vanishingly low count of contributions to articles, who has created no articles at all, to deliberately disregard and bypass N, GNG, V, BLP, etc. We've determined, and sourced, that there are multiple events in multiple years in multiple RS, so none of this one-event discussion is relevant. Just sayin'. --Lexein (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is instructive. Not much biographical information would be needed in a My Jeans event article to provide major facts/details about the event and place the event topic in context. If consensus redirected the Jenna Rose article to a My Jeans article, the My Jeans article main topic itself would restrict how much biographical information can be place in the My Jeans article - there would be no disruption or deliberate disregard or by pass of N, GNG, V, BLP, etc. Keeping the nominator and other editors who are reading this AfD in the dark to continue to believe a best course of action is to list Jenna Rose AfD nominations is not helpful. Determining whether there is a need for fuller treatment of a biography subtopic Jenna Rose in a separate article in view of a My Jeans event article per Wikipedia:Summary style is an issue that is different from BLP1E and would be a productive approach. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with MQS' verdict --he is the most reliable judge I know about the sufficiency of sources in this area. I also note Silk Tork's keep close in the previous AfD. If she was notable in 2011 she remains notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"MQS" would be user User:MichaelQSchmidt, (with whom I agree here) most commonly displayed as Schmidt. --Lexein (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't buy the argument that a one-hit wonder is a WP:BLP1E case. Plenty of sources to indicate notability, and not much has changed since the last AFD where this article was kept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:18, 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 04:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlin protests of 2013[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements. 132.162.87.96 (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may have been a big story at Oberlin, but national attention was focused more on the fact that the purported sighting of a person dressed in Ku Klux Klan robes was more likely to have been a person wrapped in a blanket. [29], [30], [31] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of any lasting significance to this event, fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. LGA _talk^edits 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content into Oberlin College for reasons given above. Fitnr (talk) 19:58, 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Roycroft[edit]

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

What is so special about the "information" alleged herein that makes the subject deserving to have an article on Wikipedia. The answer: nothing. None of what is alleged comes anywhere near to asserting, much less proving, any form of notability. Furthermore, the article sounds like it was written by the subject of the article himself. On top of all that, a BLP violation warning has been affixed to this article for nearly six (6) years. Delete. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Gaige, Sunnucks, Golombek, and Hooper & Whyld each consider him notable enough for paper encyclopedias. Definite keep. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added references and some inline citations to the article, done some general editing, and removed the "BLP sources" tag. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bubba. Sasata (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another reckless AfD by nominator drawing time & attention from others needlessly. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least it had the effect of getting us to improve the article. :-) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and, I got to learn who John Roycroft is. (Interesting man.) But I'm sure this is a misuse of process, and like Bash, will soon choose to no longer respond.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard of his book Test Tube Chess for decades until I finally got it a year or two ago. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plentiful sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 15 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. Keeper | 76 14:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Reuben[edit]

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

A mere chess organizer and author of some books on poker nobody bought. Not notable. The title of Candidate master fails to impress as well. Potential BLP issues abound as this article not only is not sourced to anything substantive, but it cannot be sourced. The subject here has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. "[...] author of some books on poker nobody bought." On what basis do you say that? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a highly respected author on poker, as a brief search of Google and Google Books will show, and was a very successful poker player, amongst the best in Britain. I'm not sure which poker websites are considered reliable sources, but I added some cites to books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes author criteria, including recommendation of French translation of his poker guide in the Las Vega volume of Frances' equivalent of Lonely Planet travel guides. That alone passes notability for a non-fiction author. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think either his chess writing and organizing or his poker writing would make him notable enough. Together it's definitely a keep. Quale (talk) 08:08, 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 nomination withdrawn (per speedy keep criterion 1). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Zytogorski[edit]

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

Not notable. None of the "facts" alleged in the article make for any notability. They say he beat Staunton with a pawn and two move odds. I say, Big deal. Fodder for speedy deletion if any. Pure tripe. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per User:Sasata's sources. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a fairly substantial obit of him in British Chess Magazine (1882) that could be used to flesh out this article. Sasata (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an article about him by Tim Harding in ChessCafe ("The double life of Adolphus Zytogorski"), and entry in Gaige's Chess Personalia, Boase's Modern English Biography, and a full article about him by Tomasz Lissowski in Quarterly for Chess History. There's more sources available; some are harder to find because his name has been spelled incorrectly by various authors. Sasata (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What makes chess players notable? I have to say that even as an inclusionist I am not seeing any sources (checked Google Books and the regular web). Nothing in Polish at least that has been digitized helps to even verify his existence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And with that, my friends, it shows the article subject is not even WP:V, verifiable, much less notable. Let's then just speedily delete this guy off the wiki! Zap, failing WP:V. Out! OGBranniff (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sasata. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sasata's sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Sasata's new sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator switching to keep and withdrawing nomination. OGBranniff (talk) 19:41, 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. clear consensus; clear notability DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Löwe[edit]

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

Just how any of this makes is subject notable is a mystery to me. This article should be on the speedy delete dustbin of Wikipedia history. Not notable in any way. Wikipedia is not an antiquarian society. Delete. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chess master prior to 1900. Nominators rational became invalid as I read the opening sentence of the article. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check in Google Books before AfD - Frederic Boase Modern English Biography: I-Q 1897 Page 1531 "LOWE, Edward, b. Prague, Bohemia 1794 J emigrated to England about 1830; played a match with H. Staunton 1848; one of the first class chess players of his time; kept a lodging house at 14 Surrey st. Strand 1851-8, kept a private hotel there ..." and so on. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. London 1851 is one of the most famous chess tournaments in history, the first international tournament and the prototype for all future chess tourneys. Every participant is notable, and we have an article for all the players except one. Even without London 1851 he would be notable enough for a short article due to matches with Staunton and Morphy. Quale (talk) 08:01, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul List[edit]

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

None of the information in the article even as much as alleges that the subject is notable in any way. If this is all that can be said for the subject, then this article should have been speedily deleted. In short, this fellow is NOT NOTABLE in any way, shape, or form. He has been weighed, measured, and found lacking. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His best resuts establish notability (drawing a match with Levenfish in 1910 is no mean feat). Toccata quarta (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mention in London Illustrated News and Russian sources pass GNG. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of those sources covered the topic in detail or substantially. Passing mentions don't cut it. OGBranniff (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won at Odessa 1908 and Riga 1937, consequently linked from List of strong chess tournaments and List of mini chess tournaments. Second at Birmingham 1939 and tied for first at London 1940, consequently linked from 1939 in chess and 1940 in chess. Linked from five other bio pages, so deletion would break the web and create more than seven red links. Sources are adequate. Quale (talk) 07:57, 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Alexander Kennedy[edit]

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

None of the claims in the article even allege notability, much less prove it. All this chap seems to have done is lose chess games. Is this a "losers hall of fame"? Wikipedia is not an antiquarian society to be filled with whatever curios about which anyone wants to write. This article definitely should have been speedied. Not notable in any way, shape, or form. OGBranniff (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep I added a reference to the Oxford Companion to Chess - Hooper and Whyld considered him notable enough to include in their paper encyclopedia. Also, most of the players in London 1851 chess tournament are notable enough for articles and he finished above some of those notable players. In fact, everyone who scored more than zero points in the first round (and a couple who did not) are considered notable enough for a WP article. Kennedy went 2-0 in the first round and 3½-4½ in the second. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A chess master prior to 1900 is a considerable claim. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bubba73. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Bubba73 said, if the Oxford Companion to Chess list him, he is notable. Dream Focus 14:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This chessmaster is notable enough for mention in several chess books Keep him. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article demonstrates that Kennedy is notable. Quale (talk) 04:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice W. Johnson[edit]

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

Correspondence chess Grandmasters are not inherently notable. This article also has had a BLP uncourced tag since June 2012. No sources available. Delete please. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is linked from International Correspondence Chess Grandmaster and contains cited details that are not suitable to merge into that article. There are actually a lot fewer ICCGMs than over-the-board grandmasters, so it's possible that being an ICCGM is more notable than being a GM. Three British Correspondence Chess Championships is also a claim for notability. Quale (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + complaint. First "Women's champions are not inherently notable (not being men)", and now this?! I've been reading about AfD, and it is not supposed to be used as a "cleanup" mechanism, and discussion on article Talk is supposed to absorb much of the challenges before precipitating to an AfD. Is this the nomninator's way of learning about Notability and etc.? That is abuse of the deletion process, and I for one am sick of it. Notable title earned by article subject. Notable achievements. Like Brash, this user won't be responding anymore to these AfD wastes of time & attention to the tune of OGBranniff's whims to throw nukes for others to fend, when he skirts homework and legwork prescribed in all the AfD documentation anyone would care to read. The comparison to Gestapo and Nazi SS was particularly offensive, in addition to recent German quip from the nom. The AfD justifications I've read are indefensibly exaggerated and unaccountably hyperbolic, and I'm not going to waste my time reading them anymore, they don't warrant serious attention just because this new, uneducated User decides to make a hobby (or joke) of lobbing AfD nukes whenever he pleases. It is an abuse of the AfD process, and of other editors' time & attention (i.e. disruption). Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quale. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 10 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Grimshaw[edit]

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

The problem here is that this person is only known for inventing the chess problem of the Grimshaw (chess), which already has an article. The instant article contains nothing more than a re-hash of the Grimshaw chess problem, with no information about the subject as a person that would make him notable outside of the Grimshaw chess problems. The article is basically unsourced, as the "chessgames" source only contains a link back to the wikipedia article here. Since the subject of the article is not notable independent of the "Grimshaw" chess problems, and independent sources about this gentleman are lacking, this article sadly must be deleted. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of the problems in this article are in Grimshaw (chess) and the second one doesn't involve a "Grimshaw". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grimshaw (chess). Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the merge is appropriate because not all of his compositions involve a GRimshaw. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep. Also merging is not a good idea, as I stated above. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a 3-page obit/biography in British Chess Magazine (1891). Sasata (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might have some additional details that can go in the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable problemist. If it were to be merged, the merge should actually go in the other direction: Grimshaw (chess) to Walter Grimshaw, but a merge is not a good idea as Bubba73 explained. He would be a notable problemist even without his namesake compositional theme. Quale (talk) 07:49, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster High webisodes[edit]

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

Another list of "webisodes" for a series of commercial products. I see no possible reason to consider this content of encyclopedic value: it looks like listcruft to me, written by and for fans. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 22 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 1 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a great article by a long shot, but episode lists for notable fictional properties are accepted per precedent. Might be better renamed from webisodes to episodes though, as this list encorporates web content, TV specials, movies, and DVD content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Looks like a fan page.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:12, 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 speedy delete as an attack page. The only content was unsourced and unverifiable negative speculation concerning living individuals. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Minaj[edit]

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

article might not be notable NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 05:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article, prior to being blanked, was on the cusp of being an attack page/negative unsourced BLP. Safiel (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, then. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 06:18, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federer–Murray rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've also had deletions for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, Federer–Hewitt rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. One can always find a few news sources for two tennis players describing a rivalry... it's easy, but it's not encyclopedic.

One would assume that once or twice a decade a special rivalry will come about that lifts a sport to amazing media coverage...Laver–Rosewall, Borg–McEnroe, Sampras–Agassi, Navratilova-Evert, Federer–Nadal, and several others. But just because they are the hot item right now doesn't give Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and disproportional piece of the rivalry article pie. We have Federer–Murray here, but we also have Federer–Djokovic Rivalry, Djokovic–Murray rivalry, Nadal–Djokovic rivalry, a proposed Nadal–Murray rivalry. Where does it end? This is the nature of tennis throughout it's history. Do we create rivalry pages for any players that play 10x? Anyone that wins a major and plays another that has won a Major gets a rivalry page? I would say no. We have an article here on wikipdedia that lists rivalries where sheer number of times met at important tournaments is the criteria. It's at List of tennis rivalries. Very few require stand alone articles but it gives readers a chance to see a list of tennis personalities who played each other a lot. That's all we really need here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion epidemic is getting a little ridiculous I created the Federer-Hewitt and Federer-Murray pages. Now I can understand why you deleted Federer-Hewitt, but this Federer-Murray is a legitimate rivalry. They have played multiple Grandslam finals against each other and if you delete this one you might as well delete Djokovic-Nadal and all the rest of them except Federer-Nadal for obvious historical reasons. Deletion of wikipedia articles for the soul sake of deletion is an atrocious policy in my opinion. Praline97 (talk)

For the most part I would say this rivalry creation epidemic is a little ridiculous. Most can be handled in a paragraph on the individual players pages. Plus most Grand Slam tournament winners have a career statistics page that includes wins or losses over all players, not just players they have played a whole bunch. But hey, I have nominated articles that the wiki community has decided to keep. I'm totally fine with what consensus decides on these many rivalry pages as we look at them one by one. I feel it does not belong here, but if most others love this page then I move on with no hard feelings. Most of the individual player pages should be cut in half in summarizing (which I try to do), and most rivalry pages could be folded in and removed from being a stand-alone article imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NRVE It has 99,600 results on google. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lendl–McEnroe rivalry has about 20,500 results on google and was a keep. Theworm777 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Theworm777 (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pretty much non-existent "federer sampras rivalry" gets 40,000 hits on google so that is not a good indicator of whether it should be an encyclopedic entry. I agree that we have to be careful that over time sources disappear and we can't hold that against an existing article. All I'm saying is that by consensus of wikipedia editors "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." The reason is because sports like tennis are filled with hundreds and hundreds of players that play each other a lot. It's the nature of tennis. It's also the nature of the media to try and blow these things out of proportion. You say that it's not fair to judge an earlier rivalry because those old sources may not exist anymore and that's a fair point. However we also have to remember that wiki articles are forever... once they pass muster they stay, even 20 years from now. So we have to look at the big picture of tennis rivalries and whether they merit inclusion. Do we start creating all sorts of rivalry articles from the 50s, 60s and 70s just because the players played a lot and some news sources talked about it for a few months? I'm sure we could create a hundred without sweating much at all. The floodgates would be open. Or we follow WP:NSPORTS guidelines and try to capture the most famous couple of rivalries over every decade or so. To this day people still talk of Laver-Rosewall, Borg-McEnroe, Sampras-Agassi, Navratilova-Evert. 20 years from now will they still be talking of Murray–Nadal or Federer–Murray or Azarenka–Williams? There's nothing special about those that I can see. I'm not sure where we draw the line and maybe most editors will agree with you on keeping this article. Heck when we had to decide on how many yearly articles players should have I wanted a low number and lots of summation. I was outvoted so that the consensus is now if a player has ever won a Major they are entitled to a yearly article on their stats, and those yearly articles also include yearly articles from before they won their first Major. They are also entitled to "Jane Doe the early years" and "Jane Doe the Jr years." You'll see there are plenty of those types of articles now. I was outvoted but I follow the policy that was set that day since it's what editors at wikipedia wanted. Same here. I'm for following the minimal rivalry pages but if most editors want lots of them then we can do that too and I won't have to nominate so many for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Consensus has been that these sorts of articles are generally not notable enough. If 90% of finals were contested between these two in a set period, a la Nadal-Federer, then maybe it would be. This? No more notable than any of the deleted ones. There's a reason that football, rugby, horse racing, etc. rivalries, which generally are widely known, don't have articles. I don't understand why tennis fans insist on writing these, to be honest - I can't see anyone writing a Plato-Neal rivalry, despite that being an actual rivalry with proper bad blood between the two. In fact, there's no mention of their rivalry in their own articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is more notable than any of the deleted ones because it has significant media coverage about the rivalry. Murray is one of the very few players that has played Roger Federer (a all-time great in tennis) at-least 10 times and has a winning record 11-9 vs him or has beat him over 10 times. Theworm777 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playing someone a lot shouldn't be REMOTELY a grounds for notability. More and more tennis tournaments are cropping up, so the likelihood of them meeting increases. And again, I raise the point that there's a reason these lists aren't regarded as notable, and it's the fact that we would be littered with inappropriate comparisons. From that list, only 4 of the 20 matches are majors, so it's not a massive rivalry, unlike Nadal-Federer, whom have met in 10 majors and 18 other matches - the majority of which were finals anyway. All these comparison articles violate a long-standing consensus that basically every other sport's editors follow. Federer-Nadal is a proper rivalry, especially as they've played each other frequently whilst ranked at 1st and 2nd. Federer-Djokovic is a proper rivalry as they've played each other in 11 majors and in a huge amount of finals. Murray-Federer is not even close to the scale of these two, and isn't really a proper rivalry. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries WP:NRIVALRY"Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline."
General notability guideline WP:GNG"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
This has received significant coverage in reliable sources and satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Its plan and simple it has met the needs for a article and content is a good thing this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Theworm777 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's received nowhere near the level of coverage that Yankees-Red Sox rivalry has, for example. I return to my previous point, that NO other sport's wiki editors spam a thousand different "rivalries" into articles. A rivalry actually has to be just that - a rivalry. Murray and Federer are just two competitors. You cannot have an article on every single tennis player matchup there's ever been, which is what you're trying to do as a WikiProject - tennis players will meet each other, and will do so more and more as the number of competitions increases. That doesn't make a "rivalry" any more notable. The only reason people are using the term rivalry for these players is to sell papers, because there's no rivalry there in reality, and all they're doing is discussing the history of two competitors, which is NEVER going to pass the long-standing consensus. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost nothing has received the level of coverage that Yankees-Red Sox rivalry has. It dont need to. The coverage in reliable sources decides if something is notable. Not what you think or what I think should and shouldn't be notable. I have looked at the afds for the other rivalry pages that was deleted and most of them are just 3 people putting delete not giving a wikipedia reason so there is really not any real consensus yet. Here is a list of 100s of rivalries College rivalry and there is many other kinds. Just cause you dont like calling them rivalrys don't mean everyone else don't. Theworm777 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, this consensus goes back a hell of a long way (literally, several years). As mentioned in the nomination, there is no issue whatsoever including this in a Tennis rivalry or whatever article, but it doesn't justify its own article. As I've said countless times, you can make a million billion different articles based on rivalries with plenty of them passing GNG, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. And again, only the tennis subproject insists on spamming all these "rivalries" that are nothing of the sort. Federer-Djokovic and Federer-Nadal, now those do pretty much justify one. Federer-Murray? No. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And remember, just because there is a lot written about something doesn't justify a stand-alone article rather than an entry in a player's bio. Serena Williams shoe size gets 86,000 google hits but we don't write an article on it. If it's important we include it in her own wiki article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote before, I created the page and obviously I'm going to defend it. You conceded that Federer-Nadal and Federer-Djokovic justify rivalry pages, but Federer-Murray have played in 3 Grandslam finals and Federer-Djokovic only one. Another reason you gave to delete was that Federer-Djokovic was a "proper" rivalry because they have played in "a ton of finals", in reality Federer-Djokovic have played in the exact same number (8 finals) as Federer-Murray. So how is it that you can claim which rivalry pages are relevant and which are not. Also Federer and Murray are currently #2 and #3 in the world and conceivably will play many more "important" matches in the future. Also how can you delete Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray rivalry pages which are about some of the greatest rivalries in tennis history while not deleting stupid rivalry pages like Serena Williams-Hingis (which has barely any content on it compared to the work I did creating this page) or Serena Williams-Henin? This is a golden age of tennis and rivalry pages concerning Federer (who is near universally acclaimed as the greatest tennis player of all-time), Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are not part of the meaningless rivalry epidemic of mediocre players that will be forgotten about in several years. These are historically relevant rivalries of these four specific players and should be protected. This is not a leather bound encyclopedia and has room for these rivalry pages of these four players who are single-handedly making tennis more relevant than it has been in 40 years. Please do not delete this page, smaller and insignificant rivalries are OK but not Federer's rivalries with Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray. Praline97 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2013 (PST)

No comment on anything except the crazy statement that "these four players who are single-handedly making tennis more relevant than it has been in 40 years." So that's since 1973 right? That's a joke of epic proportions. Equipment has made serve and volley tennis extinct so we have no huge variation in style anymore. It's mostly the same game. But that aside...I guess Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Williams, Lendl, were just crap that weren't exciting? I love watching these new four but Ive seen them come and go since the 60's, this is nothing new in tennis history. And casual players filling the parks playing tennis is nothing compared to the 70's and 80's when I couldn't find a court to play on. So these guys are exciting in their own way but to say they are single-handedly rescuing the sport... that takes a lot of gall or ignorance of what's gone on in tennis history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But your point falls apart by highlighting these other rivalries that might compare because they all do have rivalry pages. Are you going to delete Agassi–Sampras rivalry? No, because there is a heavy American bias here. Also with other rivalries that include Americans such as Evert–Navratilova rivalry, Connors–McEnroe rivalry, Borg–Connors rivalry, Borg–McEnroe rivalry, Williams sisters rivalry, Hingis–S. Williams rivalry, Henin–S. Williams rivalry, Lendl–McEnroe rivalry, Connors–Lendl rivalry. With you it is the opposite of "recentism", it is a bias for the old rivalries of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and I reiterate a heavy American bias. Any rivalry that is of equal status but includes an American gets a pass, but with some of the best European v. European rivalries we must rush to delete. Tennis is much more popular throughout the world (the second most popular sport worldwide behind soccer) than it is in the United States. Just because tennis does not appeal to you and you would never read about it unless it involved an American does not mean that this article has no inherent encyclopedic value to millions of others who use wikipedia. Praline97 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2013 (PST)

I have no idea where this comes from since my last paragraph mentions no rivalries, and the fact I love tennis and my favorite players are rarely American. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very heavy slice of WP:RECENTISM running through this entire concept. I tracked back and had a look at the base article of all these rivalry article - List of tennis rivalries. There is NO, none at all, substantiation of the criteria for a Tennis rivalry.

1) Both players must have a career high ranking of world No. 3 or better, and one of them must have reached No. 1.

Why? Such a narrowly defined criteria should have the backing of outside sourcing.

2) The players must have met multiple times in semi-finals or finals of a Grand Slam (in pre Open era also Pro Slam counts).

Again, why? The majors have come to assume an incresingly higher standard over other tournaments, but the ranking mentioned above is not drawn exclusively from majors results.

3) They must have at least a total of 12 career meetings in main tour matches.

Again, why? The basis of a rivalry should be its notability, not its statistics. From Wikitionary The relationship between two or more rivals who regularly compete with each other.[32] It makes no mention of a rivalry being bound by any form of statistics except the number of participants. In summary - if we can't even successfully define a tennis rivalry, then these definitions should not be used as a basis for creating further rivalry articles. I would like to see the List of Tennis rivalries deleted, as it fails GNG by its own definitions. --Falcadore (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a difficult one, but if Federer–Roddick rivalry stays, this one stays easily. Whereas Roddick was just another guy Federer owned throughout his rein of dominance, Murray is one of few guys who has a winning record against him. He prevented Federer winning the Career Golden Slam, which would have undisputedly made him the greatest player of all time, now, because of Murray, he has something missing from an otherwise faultless career. The creation of the Big Four (tennis) article has perhaps prevented the need for this article, and I'd be inherently against a Murray-Nadal rivarly page being created for this very reason, but the rivalry does contain something a little special. Does it match up to the likes of Borg-McEnroe & Federer-Nadal, no, of course not, but it has certainly more pedigree than a lot of the others that have popped up recently, and shouldn't be discarded quite as easily as them either. Let's not forget that over the next couple of years they're bound to meet in a few more matches of importance, perhaps we'd be in better stead to decide then? There has to be some consistency here, if Federer-Roddick stays and this one doesn't, there's something not quite right there. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:CRYSTAL. That article belongs at an AfD, and was deleted previously in 2010 at an AfD, when things were a bit less stringent than they are now. Borg-McEnroe is notable, and is notable now, as is Federer-Nadal. Federer-Murray? No chance. And I'm a Brit whose passing interest in tennis centers solely around Murray! Lukeno94 (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see any justification for this. I'm sure they both have more significant rivals in their tennis careers. Deb (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! That's a very crass comment IMO. Nadal-Murray is intresting and only goes one way. Murray-Djoker will probably end up as something special. Murray-Federer although not maybe that special was and is a decent rivalery. They are both significant rivals. Federer has beaten Murray in 3 slam finals. Murray beat him at the Olympics and they're other significant matches. Murray/Djoker/Federer/Nadal are all significant rivals. However as I concede Murray/Nadal ain't that special. From Murray POV the other two are. GAtechnical (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Athletes frequently competing against each other does not rise to our inclusion criteria. The number of hit that show up on Google search does not confer notability, and certainly the presence of other similar articles does not mean that a page in question should be maintained. True sports rivalries, that warrant inclusion, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry and Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry have books and countless articles written about them, and by them I mean the 'rivalry' not the games or matches. I'm not seeing any coverage that approximates this. J04n(talk page) 12:13, 1 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, Sandstein 16:06, 1 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High ranking tennis players will inevitably play matches against each other; over a period of years, they will play a considerable number. This isn't special notability for the pairing unless it becomes a=n exceptionally well commented on specific rivalry. None of the references indicate this. They merely discuss both in a match they compete with each other. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flavor (song)[edit]

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

Not my field, but is " Hot Dance Club Play chart " among the accepted charts for notability of songs? DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep single release from a notable artist, Tori Amos. Hot Dance Club Play isn't as big of a deal as the Hot 100 in the US, but topping that chart is a pretty significant sign of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the single being released by a notable act does not make it notable, the song topped a notable chart. There are also reviews from Wikipedia reliable sources that could be used to expand the article beyond stub status. Doing a Google search, I see reviews by Billboard, VH1, and Drowned in Sound. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I considered this notable per criteria 2 of WP:NSONG by its verifiable claim of hitting number 1 in a significant enough chart when I passed it through WP:AfC, and my opinion hasn't changed. Thevampireashlee, can you link to the sources you found, because I'm having trouble searching for the song without being drowned out by a bunch of unreliable fan stuff. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:13, 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 keep. Sandstein 10:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dog-gone Sauce[edit]

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

repeatedly recreated promotional article for non notable product. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the sources it looks like multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable media sources. Therefore passes WP:GNG. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the articles creater and had this discussion before it was republished. As described on the page Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) under the section Primary Criteria there are 2 sections to meet and the company meets them both as I have reviewed below.

Depth of coverage The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.

All of the articles that have been referenced have a depth of coverage of the company and are not merely trivial coverage as described.

Audience The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

There is an article from Canada so it meets the criteria with at least one international article and shows a strong indication of notability.
There are articles from the hot sauce media as well as animal related media so it shows this is not of limited interest.

The Hal Apeno (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the article is somewhat promotional and needs editing accordingly. But AfD is not for cleanup, and this squeaks past the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This is probably just about notable. Some of the sources are not independent; others have a limited audience - the argument that there is coverage from hot sauce related sources and animal related sources doesn't really work when the article is about a hot sauce company that helps animals (all it shows is that it might be notable to people with a specific interest, not to people generally). Nevertheless, there is enough coverage from broad sources that are at least regional ([33], [34], [35]) to suggest some kind of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:03, 10 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 'Proceedural keep. (Non-admin closure) Wrong venue, this needs to be brought to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of writers by television series[edit]

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

This category has caused conflict. StewieBaby05 (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is actually the wrong place for this. To nominate categories you need to go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I'm going to close this as a "proceedural keep". This doesn't mean that I think the category should be kept, just that this is the wrong place for category nominations.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:29, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Eagles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted multiple times as not notable. Speedy declined on differing content grounds. Nothing has happened since the last discussion to change this. Sources do not establish notability and two of the four are not independent of the subject. Salted for six months after four seperate attempts to re-create article. This should be deleted again and salted permanently and attempts to re-create need to be applied for and reviewed for the proper improvements required to establish notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. 121.220.107.74 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am completing this nomination on behalf of the above IP user, using the rationale posted on the article's talk page. I have no opinion. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:ENTERTAINER. Delete and permanently salt. WWGB (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concern - An anonymous editor suddenly looks to delete a template about Professional wrestling in Australia, and then goes after the Madison Eagles article. This is too close to the editing pattern of banned user User:Justa Punk for comfort. I am requesting that an administrator look into this, if the WP:DUCK test isn't enough. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WWGB. BerleT (talk) 03:23, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 11:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of directors of The Simpsons[edit]

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

List seems unnecessary. StewieBaby05 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep I am not interested in this list personally, but the nominator ought to try to advance a policy based argument for deletion. Some people think that Wikipedia is "unnecessary ", after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep, no valid deletion rationale. Cavarrone (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close No policy based rationale for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:25, 9 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 Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen. Keeper | 76 14:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dean E. Hallmark[edit]

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

Redirect, to Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen like another Doolittle Raider: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas C. Griffin. WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL are applicable in this case. EricSerge (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen. After a search for sources, I couldn't find anything good. –TC N7 JM 02:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dollittle Raid#List of the participating crewman, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. TB randley ^(review) 16:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; however, it would be nice if WP had notability criteria pertaining to people of local interest, whose articles could then be included even if they don't meet the broader notability guidelines. dci | TALK 02:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen. Subject fails [WP:GNG]] for a standalone article but I'm fine with a redirect....William 13:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, we cant redirect every non-notable person involved in every military action to the relevant article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some precedent here, and the fates of the individual crewmen involved in the Raid has received widespread coverage. dci | TALK 01:28, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Sketchers[edit]

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

Not notable, promotional. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Referenced with primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. change to Keep. New sources establish notability, but primary sources need to go. dci | TALK 02:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am one of the collaborative authors of this article. Having gotten an explanation what is missing (Thanks, RadioFan!), I have added 9 independent external sources covering the subject. Azonis (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not clear what those are and how they are used in the article. Please convert them into inline citations. That will help others determine if they help establish notability here or merely mention the subject in passing. Some appear to be focused on individual artists rather than the subject of this article..--RadioFan (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Azonis: you can use citation templates in your editing window (click "Cite", and then the relevant template name). Just make sure you insert the template in the appropriate part of the article. dci | TALK 20:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be plenty of coverage out there such as this and that. Warden (talk) 16:10, 10 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward A. Lyon[edit]

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

Spam for an obscure businessman who has allegedly appeared on some TV shows. The involvement of several s.p.a. or COI editors, of course, should not influence whether the article is to be deleted: but I do want to warn readers of the history that the number of editors is clearly smaller than the number of account names used. Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is a published author with multiple books. They are on amazon and at other retailers currently. This makes it seem legitimate. I would like an opportunity to edit it, before it gets deleted. Admittedly some of the wording is "spammy", but when you get to the bare bones of the page, there is legitimate information there. Wikipedia is known for being a progressive source of information, so I think we should be more open minded about this source before deleting it. I actually used this page a few months ago for a graduate school paper (I used to actual source/links, not wikipedia itself) and found it very useful. Isn't a published author considered notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.197.146 (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - no, just being a published writer does not make you notable, or hundreds of thousands more of us would have articles here; besides, some of these are not published books, but self-published/vanity press books. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All but one of the books are self-published, and even that one is in only 75 Worldcat libraries. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 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) 17:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Sebastiani[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also seems to come into play. It should be noted that the article creator in a matter of days has created over a dozen articles, half have been CSD, and the editor themselves has been indefinitely blocked. Mkdw ^talk 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 3 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:50, 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's a rugby player, so NFOOTY is totally irrelevant. Not only this, but he's played two top-flight games in Italian rugby, if the Italian wiki page is to be believed (the reference that may or may not prove this, both at the Italian wiki and here, is a dead link). [36] is coverage of his death. He's mentioned here: [37] Coverage of his memorial tournaments: [38][39]. Other stuff: [40][41][42][43]. NOTMEMORIAL is a valid concern, but this guy received a huge amount of coverage at the time, and still does, whenever his memorial tournament is played. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 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 keep. and rename List of superhero productions created by Toei Keeper | 76 15:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toei Superheroes[edit]

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

There are no sources saying that "Toei Superheroes" is some form of classification used by either Toei or the general fandom. In addition, the later years are bogged down in listing individual film productions for series already listed. If kept, suggest moving to "List of superhero productions created by Toei" or something similar. Johnboy3434 (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bensci54 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of superhero productions created by Toei, this seems like a valid topic but the current title should be changed per nom. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of superhero productions created by Toei, as suggested by the same nominator. Cavarrone (talk) 08:18, 2 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, Sandstein 09:27, 2 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep really, really not my sort of thing, but this looks like a reasonable way to organise this information. Renaming to clarify as a list might help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 9 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) 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hewitt-Roddick Rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've also had deletions for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, trickle-over-the-net keep. I hadn't heard of it, but surprisingly, sportswriters have talked about it from 2001[44] to 2012[45][46]. Who knew? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite Clarityfiend's good input I believe this 'rivalry' is not notable enough and falls in the same category as previously deleted rivalry articles (Federer–Hewitt, Becker–Sampras, Agassi–Rafter). Agree with the OP that we should avoid proliferation of rivalry articles that are merely based on high ranking players competing against each other regularly.--Wolbo (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rivalries WP:NRIVALRY"Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries should satisfy the general notability guideline."
General notability guideline WP:GNG"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
This has received significant coverage in reliable sources and satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Content is a good thing this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Theworm777 (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But just because it gets press doesn't mean it needs an encyclopedic stand-alone entry. This can and should be mentioned on the individual's articles. Serena Williams shoe size gets 86,000 google hits but we don't write an article on it. If it's important we include it in her own wiki article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 2 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sure, they met 14 times, but nothing in the article let me think this "rivalry" is more significant or somewhat different from other tennis players who met themselves 5, 10, 20 or 30 times. Furthermore, as noted by the nominator, there is a long-established consensus about the lack of encyclopedic value of this kind of tennis rivalries.Cavarrone (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ESPN and Sports Illustrated articles references in the article, both call it a rivalry, and cover it. Whenever something passes the WP:GNG, its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Nominator mentions other rivalry articles that were deleted, I assume because of lack of coverage, but I recall several such articles in the past ending as keep because we had coverage of them. What happened to articles in the past has nothing to do with what happens to this one though. Dream Focus 15:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, the Sports Illustrated article does not cover the rivalry we are discussing here, it trivially mentions the word "rivalry" just as a reference to the specific 2001 US Open match it reports. And basically at the time of the article this assumed rivalry was non-existent at all, it was just the second match between the two athletes, and the article does not even mention their first match at French Open. The ESPN article is definitely better, but not so different by similar routine articles we have every time that two well-known tennis players met several times. Cavarrone (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While a rivalry certainly exists, it doesn't warrant a separate article, the guys have never even met in a final and it certainly does not rank anywhere near the likes of Federer-Nadal, Djokovic-Nadal. I see no reason how it warrants a separate article? It consists of very little apart from a list of all their meetings, its not an "article" by any stretch of the imagination, if need be, just improve upon the small section it has in each player's respective articles. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only real source for rivalry is ESPN, and reading the article doesn't show it--it seems to be just a headline. News articles are good source, headlines aren't because they emphasize anything that eye-catching. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 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. Spinning Spark 17:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Weller[edit]

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

Close paraphrase of his web page, and promotional, and dubious notability. (I thought it close enough to be a speedy G12, but no other admin seems to have agreed in 24 hours.)

The key claim is no.17 out of 25 on the Forbes Midas list . I do not think this amounts to notability -- looking at our article, the people in the top 4 or 5 on the list seem to be generally recognized as notable enough to have articles, but not the others. The criteria for people in this profession must be either real non-PR based press coverage or major national awards. , and I think not a single one of the references amounts to independent coverage, except for #6, .privateequityonline.com, which I think routine coverage in a more general article, and the Forbes interview at #3, connected with his placement on the list. I think we need an opinion whether this is enough; if it is, then it's a matter of rewriting the article so it follows the sources less closely. I could argue either direction. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the time being. While not a policy, WP:Too soon explains my thoughts on this topic. Right now, the subject's only claims to verified notability are a Chicago Tribune article and a very brief Forbes Midas List bio. This is far from significant coverage. It's likely that Mr. Weller will be eminently notable in a few years, but he really isn't right now. dci | TALK 02:24, 9 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 145th Airlift Wing. according to the consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

156th Weather Flight[edit]

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

The article does not have enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable. Generally units of this size (21 personnel) are not considered notable by WP:MILUNIT. — -dainomite 01:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — -dainomite 01:54, 2 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 145th Airlift Wing, redirect to higher level command which unit is associated with.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 145th Airlift Wing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Not enough for a stand alone....William 01:29, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perryman's Buses[edit]

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

Not notable, has not been updated since 2010 Davey2010 Talk 00:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see lots of mentions in newspapers and books, but I will leave it to others to decide if they are sufficient to meet the general notability guideline. The one thing that I will say about the nomination is that stating that an article hasn't been edited since 2010 is not a valid argument for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- We do have articles on various bus companies, though I am dubious of their value, even when (as here) they are more like Bus routes from Berwick. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 4 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only reasonable way to decide this is to follow the precedent. Consistency is of some importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 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. I am swayed by DGG's argument, at the top of the WP:NFOOTY page is:- The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Since it is at the top of the guideline in bold, we must conclude that this is the most important point on the entire page. It calls for either GNG or NSPORT to be met. GNG has a similar clause:- A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. The argument that GNG supercedes the requirements of NSPORT, while this may be a valid and popular viewpoint, has no basis in current policy. Spinning Spark 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinie Fitri[edit]

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

Contested prod. Subject just about passes WP:NFOOTY as he has played one match in a fully professional league but is essentially non notable as a lack of substantial third party sources means he fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL, and is young enough that I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt re:WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I understand why you would give the benefit of the doubt. Surely there are the level and quality of sources required by GNG or not? If this was someone who had played 5 or 6 games per season over the last few years, I could understand, sort of. But this is a guy who has played part of one game. I have no idea how you can assert notability on the basis of that. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 appearance does not confer notability. Even though that is the wording of WP:NFOOTY, there are plenty of cases in the last year where articles about footballers has been deleted despite passing NFOOTY, because of the failure of WP:GNG. This footballer fails GNG, and that is the most important notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The usual interpretation of the guidelines seems to be that footballers playing in the mostly professional English and Scottish leagues get a free pass but that these uppity foreigners need to have conclusive proof that they get through the general notability guideline. Guidelines are supposed to be descriptive of general practice rather than prescriptive, so isn't it time that we enshrined that principle in WP:NFOOTY? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 28 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:28, 2 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet GNG. However, agree that NFOOTY needs changing. Eldumpo (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNG is not the appropriate guideline. NFOOTY is. The proper role of the gng is a supplementary way of showing notability for those who did not play in a professional game, but are notable because of press coverage. If anyone really want to base everything on the gng, the assumption would be that another article could be found if we could look exhaustively in print sources. {personally, I understand those saying that 1 appearance isn't enough, and perhaps it isn't in any real sense, but it does provide a convenient and reproducible criterion that ought to avoid argument. Having such a criterion and following it is more important than debating over a few borderline articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 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 04:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Scott (stuntman)[edit]

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

This stuntman is no Yakima Canutt. This is about all I can find about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 23 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:23, 2 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO; no significant third-party coverage. A slight correction to the nom, though - he is more of a wrangler/coordinator than a stuntman. dci | TALK 02:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims him to have been a stuntman on three movies. IMdB confirms only one, so I assume his role in the others must have been extremely minor, & there's nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 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. consensus, with which I agree. WP:PROF is not met. The journal is minor DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Sharma[edit]

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

Self Promotion, notability is not observed Jussychoulex (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.Jussychoulex (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.Jussychoulex (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.Jussychoulex (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I took a look at the earliest version that pre-dates most of the spammy content in order to find central claims to notability. This subject is or has been the editor-in-chief of the Indian Journal of Clinical Biology, but I don't know if it's a major publication. This publication, which has existed since at least 1997, seems to be a well-established, non-fringe, peer-reviewed journal and may help the subject meet WP:PROFESSOR #8. This subject's social impact can be measured in the 2002 state-level Rajasthan Merit Award for creating a laboratory, a very modest but additive quality in PROFESSOR #7 (non-academic recognition). For citations, Google Scholar was particularly unhelpful because of false positives due to other similarly named researchers; I looked for key words appearing in his publications (here) and found many papers cited, though usually less than 20 times (see PROFESSOR #1). Given the time span of this subject's career, plus the rather specialized nature, citations to that extent may be sufficient in the aggregate with #7 & #8. I'll watch here for others' thoughts. JFHJr (㊟) 15:29, 18 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- probable Weak Delete -- a tough choice. Seems exactly borderline for notability -- I think JFHjr's comments are exactly right in saying it's on the edge, with some real claims to notability, but perhaps not enough. In a case like this, I look at external factors that do not generally come into AfD except on the absolute border: is the page well-written, is it likely to improve, and does it help the overall project of WP to document human knowledge objectively. I think that the article fails on all three of these (#2 since it seems to be getting worse with each edit). I know that some editors don't like to consider anything but notability/verifiability in AfDs, in which case regard this !vote as a neutral. But I'm a pragmatist who feels that well-written, useful articles that fall just below WP:N can sometimes be kept while messes of articles that barely pass WP:N should sometimes be deleted (obviously clear passes or clear fails should be kept/deleted regardless of the state of the article). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:15, 23 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 2 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per my comments above. I certainly understand the opposite conclusion on the same facts. But this is my estimation. At minimum, this nomination deserves a soft one. JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am left with the distinct impression that the subject of this article is doing what is expected of him, as a matter of course, in such posts. If anything, I would have expected to see evidence of more notable academic publications. Attending seminars is par for the course in such jobs to keep abreast of developments in their chosen field. The regional 'merit' award being touted as a significant achievement does not equate to a national or central government award, which would make him stand out in a crowd. The article also lacks chronological information about his career.--Zananiri (talk) 17:42, 15 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. Consensus has been established DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roosh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO for notability. All his books are self published, no press in mainstream media outside of a few blog posts. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Prominent Arab-American "sex tourist," it would seem SEE BLOG POST but a GNG failure, serving as the subject of a few hobbyist blog posts and the author of a few obscure pickup guides notwithstanding. Carrite (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Huffington Post, National Review, and Southern Poverty Law Center aren't exactly "a few hobbyist blog posts". That looks more like significant coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to take this comment seriously when Roosh is not an "Arab-American" and your source rebuttal post is indeed a "hobbyist" post. In the past week there have been vandalism attempts on the page with complete misinformation and misattribution. Lapastillaroja (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Amatulić. Star767 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has more primary sources than most other author pages on Wikipedia, with media references from eight countries. Notability guidelines should not be based on whether you agree with the person's views or not. Lapastillaroja (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons for listing under notability are not because I disagree with the person's views, but because I don't feel the mentions in the op-ed blog posts provide adequate notability as listed in WP:BIO for authors. This particular user potentially has Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with this subject.PearlSt82 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has more secondary sources than quite a few existing articles. These can be considered reliable sources, especially when there is a byline and when more than one reliable source is used: Reason (magazine) reason.com is the website of this magazine, Huffington Post, National Review, Business Insider, Southern Poverty Law Center, Washington City Paper. Many "respectable" reporters post online blogs. Star767 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The blog and media coverage is regional, not national, not to mention highly inconsequential. Previous version of the page was a vanity page, making its recent comeback also suspect. The Washington City Paper - clearly regional interest (and one mention only). The Huff Po coverage is not Huff Po - it is "Huffington Post DC", and remember that Huff Po is not editor solicited content, it is simply user-supplied. The National Review article notably is mocking the Southern Poverty Law Center for taking interest in someone so inconsequential as Roosh. SPLC itself is not a third party source but a primary source. 68.5.176.101 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason to delete. Neither Wikipedia:Notability nor Wikipedia:Notability (people) say anything about requiring national coverage. The only guideline that does, to my knowledge, is WP:CORP, which relates to companies not people, and that guideline requires "at least regional" coverage. That's what we have here, not counting the coverage in multiple countries, which may or may not be reliable (I haven't checked). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does this wanne-be-famous Roosh deserve to be notable? Clearly, no. However, that's not the question. Wikipedia, within reasonable limits, does not take a judgemental position on content. The issue is, does Roosh meet GNG? Equally clearly, yes. Ekstrabladet in Denmark has nationwide circulation, and he managed to annoy the Danes enough to get coverage that makes him notable. "National" (or regional) coverage doesn't just apply to the U.S., it's equally so for any country. Getting to be famous by being outstandingly offensive is not a deserving tactic, but it does work. David_FLXD (Talk) 18:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good deal of secondary sources listed already, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced article showing significant coverage from numerous reliable sources. Don't discount them just because they're from parts of the world you don't care about. – Smyth\^talk 21:56, 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. Sandstein 10:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rikki Reeves[edit]

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

Non-notable drag queen. Only acting credit on imdb is The Many Strange Stories of Triangle Woman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnberrytree (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Just "one" film credit on IMDB fails WP:ENT. But that would not fail the general notability standard if the person had coverage for other things and could then meet WP:GNG. In expanding searches, I have not found coverage suitable to meet inclusion guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:56, 15 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. Spinning Spark 20:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Howard-Howard[edit]

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

Non-notable drag queen that is most likely not an actual person; as per "Truth Fiction" sectionBurnberrytree (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The characterization as "non-notable" seems belied by his/her extensive coverage in the print media and television, including The New York Times (repeatedly) and the Village Voice. I agree that the ambiguity surrounding whether this was a real person or a persona of somebody else is odd, and might be better addressed in the article, but deletion clearly seems wrong. Uucp (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The actress, performance artist and singer Susana Ventura, better known as Penny Arcade, has over the years created a group of eccentric and sometimes disturbing characters drawn from life. Two of her latest inventions are Ruthie the Duck Lady, a beer-guzzling bag woman, and Dame Margo Howard Howard, a 50-year-old drag queen" [47] I still think that the drag queen is non-notable; the references are too small/inpassing "Mr. Hendrix ... would rather curl up with 'I Was a White Slave in Harlem,' the autobiography of the drag queen Margo Howard-Howard"

The fact that one citation is minor doesn't mean that all citations are minor. I could just as easily find a glancing reference to Barack Obama in a newspaper article, would that mean that Mr. Obama is non-notable and should have his wikipedia entry removed? How's this for a more substantial article (from the New York Times, November 20 1988)

"After reading I Was a White Slave in Harlem, it is impossible to imagine a conversation that Margo Howard-Howard would not dominate. His life was a breathless walk on the wild side. Stories were for embellishing, rules for breaking and people either fools or toys - or, less often, mythical figures of the sort that Howard-Howard, the grand drag queen, manifestly considered himself to be. For decades, until his death in September, he breezed through a slick New York scene of transvestites and tricksters. Figures of New York legend appear in the book (written with Abbe Michaels, a New York freelance writer) like flickering images on a shifting screen. Now here, suddenly gone, are the likes of James Dean, Truman Capote, Andy Warhol - most of them conveniently dead. What is true, not quite so true or downright false eventually becomes less urgent than what will happen next. Howard-Howard lengthily proclaims his lineage - from British royalty; that the connection was fabricated matters little. Underlying the layers of glitz is a gritty story of an often troubled person. His mother thought her only son belonged in the circus; a customer willing to pay $100 for a kiss nearly bit off Howard-Howard's tongue. The title refers to the years he claimed that he was a willing prisoner of Leroy (Nicky) Barnes, Harlem's heroin king. Finally, there is escape, Methadone treatment and a final ego trip: Howard-Howard began a New York society to honor Mary, Queen of Scots, filling it with society matrons, some of whom whispered that her voice seemed a bit husky. Last year, on the 400th anniversary of Mary's beheading, Margo visited England and met Queen Elizabeth II. The book's last line: She's a rather nice lady, said one queen of the other."

Factiva returns 9 references to Howard-Howard. They are the St Petersburg Times, 29 January 1991 and 17 May 1991, The New York Times, 17 November 1988, 20 November 1988, 4 August 1989, 26 November 1995, and 17 May 2005, The (Canadian) Globe and Mail, 20 March 1987, The Times (of London) 17 June 2005. That's references in the top newspapers of three major nations over a period spanning 18 years. He/She is notable. Uucp (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the St. Petersburg articles (17 May 1991) only confirms that Margo Howard Howard isn't a real person: Penny Arcade - Press: St. Petersburg Times Burnberrytree (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Batman isn't real. Batman gets a wikipedia page. The test is not reality, the test is notability. Uucp (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book of the author neither has reviews nor critical evaluation compared to other works. Batman is a character re-occurent in pop culture and numerous comics; Margo Howard-Howard would be an "orphan" if not linked from the publisher Four Walls Eight Windows or Penny Arcade. The link from List of drag queens is inappropriate because Margo isn't the performing alter-ego of an actual drag queen; Margo is Arcade's pen-name. A redirection to Penny Arcade instead of an article might be appropriate.

Keep: No, the 17 May 1991 St. Petersburg article does not confirm Margo Howard-Howard isn't a real person - because she's mentioned a sentence after another person whom Penny Arcade used as a character who was a real, verifiable person: Andrea "Whips" Feldman. There is also a video of Margo Howard-Howard appearing on the Joe Franklin TV show in 1988, and the person appearing is not Penny Arcade. Howard-Howard has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject over time. As far as critical evaluations compared to other works, the 2005 New York Times article quotes Grady Hendrix favorably comparing Howard-Howard's book to the writing of Jonathan Franzen and David Foster Wallace.--Larrybob (talk) 15:42, 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.