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 clearly established, the keep argumet was convincingly refuted, in addition, this is an unsourced BLP article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lassiter Holmes[edit]

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

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

claims to fame are , actor, lawyer, athlete. No indication of any achievement beyond HS --fails WP:ATHLETE. Only claim to fame as to law career is disbarment, and nothing spectacular there --Fails WP:GNG has not won any awards or played any significant roles--fails WP:ACTOR. as the lead is a near dupe of the IMdB ref, I'd say this is completely promotional Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gtwfan52 Please see following, there are about 8 reported cases in Westlaw that can not be linked but here are some that are on the web. 1. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19951486909SW2d577_11418.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006 2. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1383446.html 3. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1384008.html 4. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13897537175839247237&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

WP:ACTOR The Cloth is listed so it must be a significant role Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.65.183 (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that he was a lawyer does not make him notable. If all you had to do to be in Wikipedia is be a lawyer, there wouldn't be any room left for Pokemon characters! And as far as being in The Cloth goes, you really need to read WP:ACTOR. According to ImDb, it has not been released. It has not won any awards, and there is no indication that the part he plays has any significance in the film, even if the film was important, which it isn't. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The problem with listing The Cloth is that while the film exists and seems to barely pass notability guidelines, this isn't the type of role that would give notability of this type. By "this type" I mean that this isn't the type of film role that would give notability based upon the one role. The types of roles that do that sort of thing are the ones that are of mammoth proportions, such as Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. The type of role that is so overwhelmingly notable that you get people writing news stories on the role, it gets mentioned often in books, and so on. Just because a film is notable does not mean that every role in it is so notable that it merits an article for the actor or actress playing them. Also, just working as a lawyer on cases is not enough. If the cases received extensive coverage in reliable sources (by this I mean newspapers, tv shows, and scholarly journals rather than primary sources such as court documents or links to non-reliable sources such as blogs and podcast shows) and those sources discussed Lassiter, then that would count. I'm not as familiar with high school and college football, but I know that you'd have to show that he's received coverage. Just being something doesn't give notability. I'll see what I can find, but so far this isn't enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you would listen to this link beginning at 9:40 your deletion was not proper http://vasthead.com/RA/KODA/KODA_1964_10_11.mp3

Furter the NTSB report is more than sufficient http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=80888&key=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.65.183 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete and then redirect to The Cloth. Holmes just isn't that notable of a person. I found one local source that commented upon him being in the movie and a brief mention of him getting taken to court and disbarred for mail fraud, but none of this is enough to show notability for him. None of the sources on the article show notability either. The high school paper is considered primary and the local newspaper review of him performing in a play isn't really enough to show that the performance gives notability. Now if Holmes had received coverage in say, New York, that would count towards notability. Local reviews are pretty routine. His high school records seem to have only been notable to the school and his association with other people doesn't give any notability either. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by Holmes having known someone notable. Training a person for a pageant is not enough to give notability unless his actions received coverage in reliable sources- which it didn't. Nor are routine listings of him having been a lawyer enough to show notability either. Nobody is questioning whether or not he's been a lawyer, just his notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. I've actually tagged this for a speedy delete as sheer promotion. Even without the promotion, Holmes is not notable enough for his own page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The individual who is attacking this page deleted the following references without even checking them and now has posted for deletion and now imediate deletion http://vasthead.com/RA/KODA/KODA_1964_10_11.mp3 @9:41 No You dont have to listen to the entire thing go to 9:40 http://vasthead.com/Radio/news.html page about half way down it says quote A MONTH IN THE LIFE OF KODA KODA, Houston, October & November, 1964 Remastered May 20, 2008. This stop and go recording covers about a month in the history of KODA and KODA-FM, running from early October to early November, 1964. I recorded each of these items myself. You will find the crash of the KODAbird of particular interest. Carried by KODA-AM, the October 12 recordings feature Ted Carr broadcasting from the helicopter. Carr and Don Leblanc joke about buses. Carr jokes about flying. Carr jokes about Columbus Day. You hear the Dreamliner bus jingle. Later, you hear KXYZ cover the October 14 KODAbird crash and somber announcements on KODA and KODA-FM. At the time, Joe Coffer was news director, and Gene Arnold did both news and sports. In a 2008 email to this web site, Gene Arnold wrote: I was on the air that fateful morning the KODABIRD went down. One of our listeners called to tell us what had happened. We kept trying to contact Ted Carr for his next report and couldn't reach him. We didn't think too much about it at the time. We thought we would hear from him as soon as he was ready to give the next traffic update. When we found out they had gone down, Joe and I immediately drove to the location where the chopper went down. It was a horrifying scene and I almost threw up. Ted and the pilot were still strapped inside the remains of the KODABIRD, but their bodies were burned beyond recognition. That is a sight that remains with me to this day.

These references were never checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.65.183 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Walter Winchell could have been standing there and written a Pulitzer Prize winning article on the crash, and it would still have no bearing on the outcome of this debate. I generally don't waste my time listening to 45 min long audio sources from unreliable websites that are on the article to prove something that has absolutely no bearing on the notability of the article. So sorry if that somehow makes you feel slighted, IP 70... Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of notability at this time. --bonadea contributions talk 10:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable subject (please keep WP:NOTINHERITED in mind). 1292simon (talk) 10:46, 23 May 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double name[edit]

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

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

Pure Original Research Solomon7968 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: since the nomination the article was 100% rewritten, based on WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to have some notability as a stub. Uberaccount (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's obvious rather than original. Warden (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:EXISTS, but references do not establish notability of the subject. Also, a lot of overlap with middle name. 1292simon (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after rewrite. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 23 May 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoConnect[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject per WP:GNG. Was kept at last AfD 6 years ago with the provision that it was supposed to be cleaned up, it's still largely unsourced. AussieLegend (✉) 12:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Having searched for them, I don't believe such sources exist. Reasons offered at the previous AfD, e.g., that it's a listed stock, are no longer considered sufficient to establish notability under current guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The result from the last AfD was "keep and clean up", not "keep on the proviso that it be cleaned up". StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a search at http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?/index.html finds a number of articles in the Fairfax press directly referencing them. Paul foord (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I found searching via your link and it certainly doesn't look to me like it qualifies as the substantial coverage required by WP:GNG. What did you find? Links to the actual articles would be a lot more helpful than a link to a search box. Msnicki (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following are a sample when time period 'entire archive' is selected.

• http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?docID=AGE1109093O4B628FD1N
• http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?docID=AGE0109247QA2N7JOPBQ
• http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?docID=SMH010606A47285N4PIA

unfortunately the linksare verbose but can be edited down -- Paul foord (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are basically just routine coverage of their press releases. Junk like this doesn't establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 07:55, 11 May 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, Mkdw^talk 19:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Try as I might, I can't find any 3rd party mentions of the company. As noted above there's an article that mentions it, but it's not about the article. Given the topic, I'm actually a bit surprised by this, media companies generally have more media. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:51, 22 May 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. LFaraone 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sruli Recht[edit]

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

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

I speedied this as promotional-, but am sending it here on a user request. The present version is less promotional than earlier, but has less indication of possible notability. The references strike me as either press releases or mere mentions. see below for my !vote on the revised article ( DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Avi (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG. The only book sources I found are essentially copies of this article and other promotional type articles. The one Huffington Post article is reasonable, but by itself is insufficient to demonstrate the individual meets the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject of this article meets neither GNG nor Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated Page has been updated with all information cited by third party sources. Please suggest further corrections if needed. Sawwater (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, most of that is unreliable, the rest is minor mentions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every single point comes directly from a reputable source. There are 93,300 google hits on the subject, as well as published books, including the Gestalten publishing book on Icelandic fashion design, which has a Sruli Recht photograph as the cover. This designer has been noted in some of these articles as the best known designer from Iceland.
      For comparison, I suggest to look at the page of Gudmundur Jorundsson which references the subjects own webpage bio, and is written by and signed by the subject, and also uses quotes referring to other people.
      Other very well known fashion designers pages are similarly "unreliable" by your standards, even though Sruli Recht is very well known in the fashion business world. It is possible that the general wiki editor's field of interest are various and rarely fashion oriented, which makes the subjects less covered/ edited by those knowledgeable, and more scrutinized by editors such as yourself.
      Please see the following pages for reference - all very well known international fashion designers: Rick Owens, Antipodium, Yigal_AzrouëlAkira_Isogawa It would be good to have an editor who's field of interest is fashion and design weigh in come to think of it.
      Recht is mentioned in Time magazine, Fashion Business times, Huffington post, has a dedicated segment on TYT, the worlds biggest online news... the list goes on. We could find and add a heavy amount of references from printed fashion journals if necessary, but there would be more references than text in the article.
      I would appreciate help in knowing how to improve this article based on your criteria, as the article is clearly relevant to any reader researching fashion design. Wikipedia is here to educate those not knowledgable on a subject, by those who are.
      The only doubt about the notability of the subject is the suggestion of deletion at the top of the page. Otherwise, if the lack of notability of Sruli Recht can't be proved then I propose immediate removal of the deletion suggestion. Sawwater (talk) 13:17, 8 May 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) 16:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I listed Antipodium and Saberi for speedy deletion as entirely promotional, tho at least for Antipodium an article could probably be written. If the speedys are declined, I'll do some drastic stubbification or nominate them here. As for the others mentioned, Owens has a major award, though better referencing is needed; Azrouël has major refs tho there are problems with the article, and I'm considering how to handle them; Iogawa was honoured with a postage stamp tho the article is promotional & need either editing or deletion . DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep The possibly significant refs are Fiancial Times and the Age. The Age might be PR influenced, but is substantial coverage. The FT is not a full article on him , but does give his importance in context. The refs for the brassknuckles-umbrella do not show significance; I don't see one for Time. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Time Magazine link is number 12. The brassknuckle umbrella was significant news, covered in every news paper in Iceland and on all news networks. The age article I see is dated from 2005, which shows many years active. I understand your points on the other designers (Did you take a look at the Jorundsson page?). What I was attempting to illustrate is that instead of deleting the fashion designer sections, they should be higlighted for more contributions, as this seems to be an area largely overlooked by wiki editors. How can we get more focus onto these pages? All of these designers are influential members of the global design community, and are very well known, even if standard news publications don't feature them. They are all featured frequently in printed and digital fashion journals, and even have their own books published. I mentioned before that Recht was on the cover of the the Gestalten Icelandic design book, and is considered the best internationally known Icelandic designer. Sawwater (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to be in contact with other editors who are versed in design and fashion design. I think it is important to bring them into the debate. Please can you tell me who we could have help on this?Sawwater (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the links near the top of this discussion added by CZAR, the fashion wikiproject has been notified already. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that last week, but nothing has been heard from the fashion wikiproject in 8 days. Are there regular contributors there, or a prominent editor? Saberi has been deleted, which is unfortunate due to his relevance and influence in the fashion world compared to pages like this which are promotional, and written by the subject themselves. Sawwater (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is huge. There are millions of users on millions of topics. There is not a good way to keep track of who the prominent or active ones are on any particular subject, except by looking at who is editing random articles on that subject. Check the wikiproject etc. However, if you are going to ask them to comment, be careful that you do not violate WP:CANVASSING Gaijin42 (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification: The discussion was included in its corresponding WP:DELSORT list, but that's separate from Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion. The project gets automated alerts for articles that are tagged with their banner, but this one isn't so they weren't alerted. I've left a note on their talk page — Frankie (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion has been notified of this discussion — Frankie (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Oh my! I am late to the party, I see. Looking at Sruli Recht, the article needs major work as it has a lot of formatting/sourcing issues (including bare URLS, heavy use of external links, etc.). However, looking at the actual content, I think I can see enough to lean towards a keep vote if it is majorly rewritten and reformatted. There is quite a bit of coverage on Google News, including articles specifically about Recht, in various languages. I don't immediately see anything on Google Books (some Wikipedia rehashes) to suggest notability there, but the list of books in the article, if he does have coverage in these books, it does imply a level of recognition that would more than support notability. I would recommend that this article be incubated so it can be wikified, and then run past the Requested Articles workshop to make sure that it passes muster before being reinstated. Mabalu (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining Malibu. Is it possible for someone to temporarily reinstate Saberi's page for Malibu to look at? I'm pretty sure that article needs the same attention, and he has similar notability, if not more.Sawwater (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make a post at deletion review, and someone will restore it and there will be a consensus on if the deletion was appropriate or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the right deletion review page please.Sawwater (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review Gaijin42 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already checked out the Saberi page via Google Cache, and I can see why it was deleted. It was incredibly promotional and didn't really show any evidence for notability on a quick look through. The best thing would be to start over again, doing the page properly this time. Mabalu (talk) 14:40, 14 May 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, Mkdw^talk 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'd say there seems to be a reasonable amount of third-party coverage of this Ice Bear thing of his, as well as the Armory story. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 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 Knoppix. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VMKnoppix[edit]

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

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

Zero indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 22:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:40, 5 May 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, Courcelles 00:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Knoppix. This Linux distribution is mentioned at DistroWatch and there is a routine update announcement at [1] , but I have been unable to find in-depth secondary reliable sources needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Since the software is verifiable, VMKnoppix is a reasonable search term and it is already mentioned in the Knoppix article, a redirect may be the best option. --Mark viking (talk) 04:23, 13 May 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,  HueSatLum 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, redirect to Knoppix. Not much to merge except maybe one sentence in past tense with citation and correct formal English. W Nowicki (talk) 17:17, 20 May 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 University of Detroit Mercy. With only one recommendation to merge and one recommendation to delete, a redirect seems like the most appropriate compromise. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Pep Band[edit]

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

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

Cannot see why this university's pep band is notable. Everything in the article appears to be routine coverage that a university pep band would typically have. Fails WP:GNG. X96lee15 (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the main University of Detroit Mercy page. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 14:48, 15 May 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,  HueSatLum 19:19, 19 May 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 all except 2012–13 Rot-Weiß Oberhausen season which wil be deleted. If any of them can be improved to be more than a list of results then they can be re-instated. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 SC Paderborn 07 season[edit]

2012–13 SC Paderborn 07 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2012–13 Rot-Weiß Oberhausen season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012–13 SV Darmstadt 98 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012–13 FSV Frankfurt season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012–13 Rot-Weiß Erfurt season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012–13 FC Erzgebirge Aue season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012–13 FC Energie Cottbus season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No hope of that these pages will ever be complete Kingjeff (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can make updates at least for the 2. Bundesliga sides, will need time though MbahGondrong (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make changes. It's very early and if you think you can save some of the articles for deletion, try too. Kingjeff (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 2012–13 Rot-Weiß Oberhausen season is about a fourth division club's season, the only one we have for a club at this level in Germany for 2012–13. Given the state of the article I would say delete for this one while the others, second and third division clubs should probably be kept and expanded. However, if no volunteers can be found to expand them I would vote for delete as well. The tiny bit that's there can always be recreated again if necessary. Calistemon (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 2012–13 Rot-Weiß Oberhausen season should be deleted since the Regionalliga in Germany is not in the WP:FPL list. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I'd say in their current state. -Koppapa (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all from 1., 2. & 3. Liga - an article being in a sorry state is no reason to delete - these need improving, not deleting. League seasons of professional clubs are long-considered notable. GiantSnowman 17:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I tend to agree with you on this issue. But the issue is not just the state of the articles. The main issue here is how much hope is there to improve these articles? I really don't think there is any for these paticular articles. Kingjeff (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff, please do not re-factor other editor's comments. GiantSnowman 18:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case of 2012–13 Rot-Weiß Oberhausen season the notability could be questioned, too. The fourth level in Germany, the Regionalliga, is not considered fully professional. Only the first three are. Calistemon (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regionalliga is not fully professional. Kingjeff (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the 1., 2. & 3. Liga are. I have clarified my !vote. GiantSnowman 11:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But who is going to improve them? Kingjeff (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hundereds/thousands of editors who edit Wikipedia every single day. GiantSnowman 18:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why hasn't it been done? 2012–13 SC Paderborn 07 season hasn't been edited between 5 September 2012 and when I put the AfD template in the article. Same with 2012–13 SV Darmstadt 98 season. All the other articles listed haven't been edited between last year and when I put the AfD template in those articles. I have doubts that these will ever get done. Kingjeff (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of articles don't get edited/updated/improved for long periods of time, that is no reason at all to delete. GiantSnowman 18:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we're talking about articles that require a tideous work to be done, unlike most articles on Wikipedia. I'm willing to withdraw an article if someone volunteers to take on an article and actually do it. Kingjeff (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't withdraw while there are active 'delete' !votes about. GiantSnowman 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think the voters of the active deletes would change if editors volunteered to look after the articles in question and actually improve the articles. Kingjeff (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove notice for SC Paderborn and FSV Frankfurt - I will try to finish the other 2 teams from 2. Bundesliga during the weekend. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the club pages per WP:NSEASONS. Mentoz86 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Redirect as per Mentoz. Agree in theory with GS, just because an article is incomplete does not mean it should be deleted, hence why we have thousands of stubs. However, in practice agree with Mentoz as per NSEASONS, as none of the articles has any significant sourced prose and are basically a list of results which seems to go against NOTDIR. Would have no issue with them being recreated (for those in the "top leagues" as per NSEASONS, though that is vague) if sufficient sourced prose could be found. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 7 May 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) 02:32, 9 May 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, Mkdw^talk 19:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 2012–13 Rot-Weiß Oberhausen season, not about a professional football season. Redirect the others to their parent clubs per Mentoz86. C679 05:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony.

A very close call (mainly due to FoolMeOnce2Times' argument) but ultimately due to other WP:JUSTAPOLICY !votes the consensus was not strong enough against the redirect camp's concern. I will state here and now that it seems very likely that this group will eventually make headlines and that this outcome 'today' should not be the basis for deletion 'tomorrow' if a credible assertion to notability is made through GNG (excluding X Factor and press releases as sources). This arguably could have also been a procedural close on 29 April 2013 as the nominator (SPA) immediately !voted keep which would have been seen as a formal withdrawal. Mkdw^talk 20:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Harmony[edit]

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

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

This article was redirected after a 2nd AfD nomination. I created the article again last week as there have been multiple WP:RS that have surfaced since that redirect. However, the article I created was redirected based on the 2nd nomination. While I understand this rationale, there are references that have appeared since the 2nd closure that would warrant a new article. I also see that there is some controversy with this article being created so I took it here so that a consensus could hopefully be reached. I will leave my vote below.

• Keep – I am the nominator, but took the article to AfD as my work was redirected based on the 2nd AfD nomination. While the other discussions stated that they are not notable outside of the X Factor, and as such do not meet the guidelines for WP:BAND. The rationale seems valid, but regardless if they are notable for their work on the X Factor (regardless of what place they ended up at), they are still notable as they received significant coverage in reliable sources. There is also rationale that they do not have a single released yet so they must not be notable. What needs to be looked at is the basic guidelines for notability WP:GNG. They are the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Having a single on the radio releasing an album DO go towards notability, but they are not in themselves proof of notability (as notability is not inherent). What it comes down to is they are a group that has received significant coverage from WP:RS for their work on the X Factor, their record deal with Epic Records, and the cover songs of other notable artists. The fact is, redirecting the article because they have not released a single is counterproductive. There are numerous articles that exist for cover bands, A cappella groups, etc. This is not a case for WP:OTHERSTUFF, but a case of trying to get everyone back to the basics and ask if they meet basic notability guidelines. --DaisyKitteyMEO (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)— DaisyKitteyMEO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment – I would also like to note that this article seems to get quite a bit of work from other editors. Shortly after I created the page, an editor came along and spammed the article by adding pages of content with information that is NOT supported by references. I would ask that the article not be judged by these spammers as the article written in its current form is about as long as it can get with the available references. What additional can be said about them, their shoe size? Also, I notice a lot of IP editors and potential duplicate accounts voting on the last discussions. I want to let you know that by doing so you only make it look worse and will ultimately make your case to delete the article. If you want to vote, leave a vote, but do not spam the article or leave multiple votes from multiple accounts. Simply leave your vote then leave it alone. Let it be judged fairly. --DaisyKitteyMEO (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You kind of work against your own intentions here. You seem to want to keep the article but still you created the AfD. The AfD itself works mostly as a Delete !vote so I dont know if your Keep !vote will be accepted. For next time ask someone else to do the AfD for you.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DaisyKitteyMEO (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. czar · · 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A couple of things: (1) AfD is for deletion arguments only. Are you arguing for deletion or against it? (2) If you're here to do a deletion review per the talk page recommendation, you want Wikipedia:Deletion review instead. Delrev is for reviewing the previous AfD's decision without creating a new one. (3) Consensus doesn't count votes, so they're summaries of opinions but "not votes" (!votes). (4) Let me know how I can help. czar · · 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I did recommend deletion review, but since we're here yet again (sigh), redirect (per AFDs 1 and 2). The article as it stands now actually has less information than when the 2nd AFD closed, so the notability of the band has clearly not changed. I agree they are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, hence they have an entry in a list, but they are still not notable outside of The X Factor. And then maybe protect the redirect until such time as notability (outside of The X Factor, i.e. a music chart) can properly be demonstrated. –anemoneprojectors– 08:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Information has since been added but it still has fewer sources than during AFD 2, and there's no information about the band here that isn't already available at List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2) or The X Factor (U.S. season 2). –anemoneprojectors– 11:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony. This group still hasn't established notability independent of X Factor. An standalone article can be recreated if and when the group charts. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - OK, I'm intrigued, I guess I'll play. First, it is strange that the nominator chose to keep the article they recommended. Never seen that, but oh well. Despite, it looks like they receive enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. What they need to show is that they meet WP:BAND. The past AfD discussions (all 3 million of them it looks like) state to redirect as they do not meet WP:BAND; however, looks like they meet #1 as they have significant coverage even outside of the X Factor. Record deal with Epic Records and in the studio working on an album, not sure if having a song released is an issue here. Maybe I am not reading WP:BAND correctly, but looks like they fall into #1. Let the comments begin......--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG, Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG, It could be argued they also meet #9 as well as #1. That said, I would still have voted for a redirect as most of their notability covered in this article is covered under List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2). The problem I have with deletion or redirecting the article yet again is Fifth Harmony are celebrities both in social media and the pop world as a whole. The industry, their peers(US and international), and their numerous fans know who they are and are just waiting for their single to drop. The group have appeared in numerous US and international teen magazines, presented the "Song of the Year" award to Taylor Swift at the 2013 Radio Disney Music Awards, and even co-hosted the 2013 Radio Disney Music Awards after party. The stage is set, the single is now finished and the serious promoting of themselves and their music begins May 13. Deleting or redirecting the article at this time seems rather pointless given their post X-Factor notoriety and the process stage they're in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — 98.247.12.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony, per Gene93k. I'll also note, what this article lacks in substance, it makes up for in WP:BLP violations — This section is full of unsourced personal details as well as inappropriate sources, including Wikia, Tumblr; a big 'no, no' in the eyes of WP:BLPSOURCES. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So you believe they should only have an article if they meet criteria #2 under WP:BAND? What do we do with the other 11 criteria? Also, I see the comment about WP:BLP violations and agree 100%. This article appears to have hundreds of edits since it was nominated for deletion. Looks like it is now semi-protected, but who knows what is and what isn't reliable without keeping up with them all? I went through it before my !vote, but the article looks completely different at this point and don't have the energy to re-read the article and go through all of the sources again. Would recommend possibly fully protecting the article until a consensus is reached. Not sure if anywhere on this page has the ability to do so or if it is even worth it at this point. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't think the "trash" that is included in the article is reason to redirect although that thought had crossed my mind as a way of temporarily putting a halt to the vandalism. In addition to what has been mentioned, I also don't think gossip blogs or fan pages should be considered as reliable sources either. I'm relieved to see that most of the more offensive and libelous content has been removed and the article semi-protected with a note added, but disappointed to see that "trash" still remains. I HAVE taken the time to re-read the article and check the sources. Almost everything in the members section is either false, misleading, a rumor, or "filler" and should be edited by someone able, and then the article fully protected if possible. Normani didn't meet age eligibility requirements to compete for Miss Texas so at best that entry is misleading and "Other reports indicate.." is a fancy way of saying "rumors are" which checking the sources will back that up. The story regarding Cabello's audition I would argue is just "filler", regardless it is both incorrect, incomplete and will never be properly sourced unless someone present at the time the event occurred makes it public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - True about the Miss Texas and the Cabello's audition. It is a case of notability masking if you ask me. I took another quick look at Google to see what is there for sourcing. Aside from the way the article sits at the moment, I still feel that meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND (under criteria #1) based on the numerous hits that show up on Google. Unfortunately, it looks like most of the WP:RS were removed from the article since I left my !vote and crap like blogs and other unreliable sources were added. Judging from the current state of the article, I was thinking about changing my !vote to delete due to the misleading content; however, it wouldnt be fair based on the fact that I am able to find many reliable sources on Google. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's clear from the current content and grammatical errors, many contributors, some well intended some not so, are children. Fifth Harmony's social media popularity grows daily, so the "problem" isn't likely to go away once they do meet #2 of WP:BAND, if that proves to be reason for redirection or deletion of this article. There are likely to be even more contributors, not less. I would rather see the article remain, but stay locked with all content filtered through a person or persons so that only meaningful content be included. I agree there is very little substance in the article as written but that does not mean it doesn't exist as has been pointed out. All the group members have interesting backgrounds prior to their appearance on the X-Factor worth mention in the member's section, X-Factor being just a footnote. Most members have had either previous recording or performance experience, not to mention their charitable works. Unfortunately, instead of adding meaningful content to this article about that, contributors have chosen to focus on who's dating who. Lastly on the matter of notability, social media and YouTube should be a big factor when placing a weight on #1 of WP:BAND. I'm new to this wiki thing so still haven't figured out how to add sources, but what is clear for anyone that checks, is these post X-Factor covers Fifth Harmony has recorded have received wide coverage from numerous well known music blogs and online magazines, not only in the US, but France, Italy, UK, South America, and on and on. The aggregate for why a group meets criteria #1 of WP:BAND should be considered when deciding if that criteria alone is enough to warrant having an article. Given YouTube views and online media coverage post X-Factor, I would suggest this group does on #1 alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Kind of...maybe...I guess? Unfortunately, YouTube cannot be used as a standalone reference as the site is not considered a reliable source. However, It can be used as a reference if it is distributing the reference (e.g., a video of a news cast - the newscast is the actual reference). See WP:YOUTUBE for more information on it. Also, I don't care how much they have on YouTube as they would not really meet notability based on viral videos or being YouTube personalities. Anything that you state above is great, but it seems like I am hitting my head against a wall here as there needs to be WP:RS. The careers of the members prior to Fifth Harmony should be included in the article, BUT WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE SOURCES? That is the issue with the article as written as there are guesses, predictions, and speculations, all supported by unreliable sources. It contains a bunch of crap that is poorly referenced. The article needs a rewrite to contain only the information in WP:RS. I would gladly take the time to do it, but I know based on the editing history that it would be pointless and someone will come back along and reintroduce the crap in its current form. Article should probably be taken down to a stub and then built back up based on (and I will say this again - and for the last time) RELIABLE SOURCES. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was referring to social media coverage of works appearing on YouTube as pertains to WP:BAND criteria #1, not the YouTube videos standalone. I've read WP:BAND and there are only guidelines related to the criterion needed for an article to exist. If, and I emphasize "IF", meeting just criteria #1 under WP:BAND is ever sufficient reason to keep an article, a weight of some sort needs to be put on each of the criterion due to the subjectivity inherent in WP:BAND guidelines, otherwise there would be no question the article should remain as criteria #1 has been met. I would be asking myself, "how much?", "which forms?", "what kind?" and "is it temporary or sustained?". If just satisfying criteria #1 is never considered reason enough to keep an article, then there's less of a question this article should be deleted until other WP:BAND criteria is met. I say "less of a question" because depending on interpretation, the group may also satisfy #12 of WP:BAND since they were recently interviewed and answered fan questions over a two hour segment on Radio Disney. That also depends on whether or not Radio Disney qualifies as a national radio broadcast and whether two hours is considered substantial. I'm pretty sure all here are in agreement that the article in its current state does not meet WP:RS but I don't see anywhere within the article where guesses, predictions, or speculations have been made? I've read through WP:RS as well as the notability guidelines and media coverage of the covers, if sourced better or more completely, seems to meet requirements? That said, with the exception of the existing tables and the "2013-present" section, including the covers that could easily be put in table format, I agree with the article needing to be stripped down and the sooner the better as there still remains questionable content in the Members section. If you have the ability to do so, please do! As for the "pointless" argument, I've already suggested keeping the article protected or semi-protected, at least until it can be fully built. After that I would hope a clone would exist so if rampant vandalism did occur the clone could be recovered. You probably know better than I if that is even possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony. Simply WP:TOOSOON, the folks promoting this band is doing a wonderful job getting their name and faces out there but Wikipedia should not be a part of that publicity machine. If someone wants this userfied or put into the incubator until they have actually released something that's fine. J04n(talk page) 18:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks for bringing up WP:TOOSOON. First, I do not think that Wikipedia is a promotional tool for the band as it appears they are doing a pretty good job outside of Wikipedia (MTV, People (magazine), OK Magazine, and on and on). Now, for WP:TOOSOON, entertainers (WP:ENTERTAINER) states that "even if failing the GNG, might still be reasonably presumed as notable if having...(2) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." That means that even if they do not pass WP:GNG, which it is pretty clear that they do because of the WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, that WP:TOOSOON would not apply as they have a significant fan base, referred to as "Harmonizers" here and here. So I guess I still do not see why redirecting something that meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND applies here. Again, maybe I am not looking at WP:BAND incorrectly, but they appear to meet at least 1 of the criteria (#1) if not more. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:52, 8 May 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, Deadbeef 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony Again, there has been no progress on an album, much less a single, and the "award" they won is from an Internet poll where ballot stuffing was encouraged. Sourcing is poor and group has hardly broken out as of yet, and the Radio Disney Music Awards had no television presence at all, seeming to be a glorified concert solely to promote the radio network rather than awarding talent on artistic merit. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So we are back with another redirect vote without a policy based reason. You state that there has been no progress on an album. I think that is debatable, but has nothing to do with a policy for redirecting the page. They do not have an album released, that is a fact. As such they would fail #5 of WP:BAND. In fact, even if they released an album they would still fail #5 as they need 2 or more from a major label. With that aside, failing #5 does not mean that they fail WP:BAND altogether. Can you take a look at the references (in Google, not in the article) and tell me how the band would fail #1 under WP:BAND. I have asked others above but no one has yet to respond. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - You can also see a common outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emocapella. Although I voted to delete the article due to not having WP:SIGCOV, the article was kept as it met WP:BAND. The difference here is that there IS WP:SIGCOV of this group. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do I need to cite policy? I'm going by the poor sourcing of the article, which is mainly gossip sites, a bunch of cheerleader pop news sites that never deal in neutrality, and an outright press release from an email newsletter, which is not neutral in any sense of the word. Emocapella is completely different from this article as this one would at least be able to redirected until they get more notability and an album or single out. At this point, they're about as notable as any of the 21,192 garage bands that post articles here every year, but they were at least in the public eye on a national contest. In my eyes as far as WP:BAND, it doesn't qualify under 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10, and 11. We're under no deadline. They'll get a full article here someday, but for now a section on the season article works just fine. Nate • (chatter) 03:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for the clarification and sorry if my request for additional information seemed contentious. Of course you do not need to cite policy, but it helps others (like me) understand why you vote the way you do. As we are trying to reach a consensus, not just counting votes, it is good to cite policy. If you were able to point out where I am flawed in my reasoning for my !vote, which I have been before ([Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booked Out|example]]), I would gladly change my !vote based on that policy reason. Anyways...thank you for confirming my understanding of WP:BAND. It seems that they would qualify under criteria #1.

It took me a minute to find it, but this is what the article looked like when I fist came into the discussion. You can see that it has changed quite a bit from that time and if you look at all of the history, you will see that it changes quite a bit on a daily basis. Kind of points out that they do have quite a bit of a following as their "harmonizers" are willing to come here and vandalize the page on a daily basis by spamming links to non-reliable sources just to update what is in their eyes (not mine) the group's fan page. You ARE CORRECT that the article looks WP:UGLY with bad sourcing; however, we do not need to redirect or delete articles based on that reasoning. At least in my opinion anyway. You will find sources that meet WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS by going to Google. In fact, the group can be found in MTV, MTV again, OK! Magazine, Seventeen Magazine, and People Magazine. These are all AFTER the X Factor and are just a few of the most notable sources. There are plenty of others from sources that are considered reliable, but I feel using the best sources is good policy as opposed to trying cover up an article with as many sources as can be found.

I realize that this is a contentious discussion based on it being nominated for deletion so many times, but do not feel we should the article just because their fans don't understand Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing, formatting, etc. I like to stay with the policy and guidelines and based on them meeting WP:BAND (criteria #1), I still do not see a reason to redirect the page. I also agree that we are under no deadline, but not sure why we would delete or redirect a page that meets notability guidelines. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Again, there has been no progress on an album, much less a single..." Not even debatable. The fact is the single is set and the album nearly finished, all public knowledge if one takes the time to do their research. Regardless what one believes the work status is, nowhere have I read in the policy/guidelines that the status of one's work matters???

"Sourcing is poor and group has hardly broken out as of yet..." An article poorly sourced is not reason enough to delete or redirect if better sources exist, nor have I read anywhere that a band must "break out"(ambiguous term) in order to be considered for article inclusion???

"Radio Disney Music Awards had no television presence at all..." If "television presence" is a requirement for being considered a reliable or recognizable source, please share with me the wiki document link so that I might better understand???

"At this point, they're about as notable as any of the 21,192 garage bands that post articles here every year..." I've done my research and much much fewer than 21,192 "garage bands" have appeared and are still appearing in International online and print magazines, or have had their recent works so highly praised by so many cheerleader pop news sites worldwide. I can count on one hand how many "garage bands" Ryan Seacrest, 17 Magazine, Billboard, MTVnews, Radio Disney and on... have written about, featured, or interviewed. And how many have been featured or had many of their works featured in meaningless polls by those cheerleader pop news sites, or how many have had pull-out posters featured in print teen magazines, and it goes on. Everyone needs to keep in mind when casting a vote that this is an underage Pop R&B band and who their audience is. For one, it is a younger social media savvy demographic that watches very little conventional television and listens to very little conventional radio. The band's online fan base has more than doubled post X-Factor and spread even broader internationally. The aggregate of all coverage and their social media standing speaks volumes to their notability. What troubles me most about this talk is anyone doing a bit of research would know the facts yet its clear from many of the 'redirect' comments that few have bothered looking into them, rather instead making gross assumptions and in some instances casting aspersions on this group or on an entire industry. How can anyone cast a vote without first knowing the facts? Something else also clear and troubling is that Wikipedia or some of its members are falling way behind the rapidly changing times when interpreting the policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They were on a major TV show and are now signed to major label company. You're gonna end up having to make the page in the future anyway. House1090 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 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, Mkdw^talk 19:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. When their debut single is announced, then the article can be recreated. Unreal7 (talk) 20:12, 24 May 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Allan[edit]

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

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

PROD contested by creator, who appears to be writing an autobiography. Non-notable person that doesn't assert notability, and that I cannot find any reliable sources for. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - From a wine perspective, his wine shop is not notable and owning it doesn't confer any notability to him so frankly that part of the bio should just be removed. However, he does seem to have a significant amount of screen credits which would make him notable if more reliable sources than IMDB could be found. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9✉ 22:33, 16 May 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, Mkdw^talk 19:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. Uberaccount (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant WP:AUTOBIO. should have been a speedy delete. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 20 May 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. Very marginal, but the few sources confirm its notability (non-admin closure) Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 09:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodyear chimney[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTABILITY. That the demolition was reported in the local paper does not prove notability of the chimney. This is a contested PROD. For info: I think the only in-links are from the Goodyear template. DexDor (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised by how few sources I've been able to find for what is correctly described as an iconic landmark, as anyone who spent a lot of time driving up and down the M6 motorway (one of England's main north-south routes) will know. This should be refactored as an article about the Wolverhampton Goodyear factory, about which plenty of sources are available: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to new article on the Goodyear factory in Wolverhampton. I agree with Czar. BigJim707 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 May 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, Mkdw^talk 19:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, pending merging into an article about the entire factory, which was a major landmark, and for which there appear to be multiple sources. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reporting by a newspaper indicates notability rather than the contrary. Warden (talk) 22:17, 19 May 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WebDrive[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable software, with no assertion of notability. Major contributor to article has clear COI and therefore promotional intent. Bob Re-born (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9✉ 22:32, 16 May 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, Mkdw^talk 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Criticism of postmodernism. Sufficient time has passed to allow interested editors to comment. Most of those who have either argued for or expressed consent for a merger. (non-admin close) Cnilep (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art Bollocks[edit]

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

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

Although the term abounds on the internet, I agree with the tag placed on the article that the actual essay itself does not meet the GNG (not the subject of multiple etc.), and the article is just a short summary of the essay's contents and is not encyclopaedic by definition. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 07:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non notable neologism/DicDef Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Criticism of postmodernism or one of the other "See also"s. A decently referenced para on a fairly common theme trhat we can surely find a use for somewhere. But not as a stand-alone article. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect I could find a few secondary sources discussing this article, such as [2] and [3] but none of the sources were both in depth discussions and considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Thus the article seems to fail general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG, at least at the present time. However, the topic is verifiable, and per WP:PRESERVE, it is reasonable to merge a summary into the more general criticism article Criticism of postmodernism. Criticism of postmodernism has its own problems with non-neutrality, but that seems the best target. I recommended redirect, because it seems a reasonable search term. --Mark viking (talk) 22:18, 8 May 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, Mkdw^talk 19:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note From WP:RELIST "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the ((relist)) template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." This rationale for the third relisting is a necessary item please. At present there appears to be a definite, but small, consensus to merge and redirect,which woudl be an acceptable outcome. Fiddle Faddle 19:33, 19 May 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) 01:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Star[edit]

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

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

fails PORNBIO and the GNG, with only one nom that's not scene-related. Deleted uncontroversially less than a year ago, and the only thing preventing this from being speedied as a repost is that she got her first (and only) nonscene nomination, which may be enough to survive A7 but not enough to meet PORNBIO requirements. Still no reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Celeste Star passes WP:PORNBIO now (in 100%). She starred in over 200 films according to the Internet Movie Database [4] (about 250 total), and was nominated 9 times for the AVN Award ("Oscars of porn") and two nominations of XBIZ Award. This is meets the requirements of Wikipedia:PORNBIO, quote: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times". Also, she was the cover girl for Hustler in March 2005 and was Penthouse Pet of the Month for July 2005, she is important in the porn industry. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - She also has an unlisted AVN best supporting actress nomination [5] in addition to the XBIZ nomination which may satisfy PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it were the single best actress nomination alone, I could see a delete, but being a Penthouse Pet as well should suffice; in addition, when I brought up that aspect before, no one objected. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 21:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot that she also had a nom for Best Tease Performance in 2007. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PORNBIO & above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - FYI, I made some edits to the article in question. The actress in question has two nominations for 2013 Best Supporting Actress & one nomination for 2007 Best Tease Performance. Also, at the very least, the July 2005 Penthouse Pet of the Month is "notable mainstream media" IMHO. Just to be clear, I haven't done a more extensive search for more notable items for this actress, since it appears to me that the above info is enough to meet PORNBIO. I also think that the "notability" tag should be removed from this article. Just as an aside, I've never been very keen on the current PORNBIO exclusion of not counting "Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories" as many adult film actors (that aren't under contract) get paid for scene-related work only. Guy1890 (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good ongoing quality improvements to page during AFD itself, per WP:HEY. — Cirt (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Cavarrone (talk) 19:14, 21 May 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 Stevan Harnad. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter[edit]

Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self-promoting article and fails Wikipedia:Notability. This group has a Facebook page with 125 likers (as of May 11, 2013). I think we should merge this article into Stevan Harnad (who anyway created this article). --Norden1990 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See now for citations for notability, as requested. I have added eight. Note also that Norden1990 has been quite active deleting passages in Wikipedia that are critical of the current Hungarian government. Unlike Norden1990, I always edit non-anonymously, but I have to point out that the suggestion that I post on Hungary for self-promotion is a little absurd. I am a university professor of cognitive science. If I post about Hungary, it has nothing to do with my line of work or my career. I do it in order to draw Wikipedia readers' attention to the state of democracy in Hungary today. If there is self-promotion going on, it is by the many partisans of the current Hungarian government who keep patrolling Wikipedia to delete anything critical of the current government. (I am not accusing Norden1990 of being one of these Hungarian government partisans: I have no idea who Norden1990 is.) My postings should be left to stand, in the interests of providing balance. I am, by the way, on the Board of Directors of the Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Forum, but that too is not by way of self-promotion, but an attempt to help restore democracy in Hungary. Stevan Harnad 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Dear Mr. Harnad, could you give me an example, when I edit anonymously? What you are saying is not correct, formerly I also wrote about the Hungarian media law, constitution, debate in the EP, György Matolcsy's unorthodox economic policy, all of which are critical points of the Orbán cabinet. "draw Wikipedia readers' attention to the state of democracy", "attempt to help restore democracy in Hungary", these are all political POVs (Believe me, I am free to criticize the government and I usually done that). For the delete: The Fidesz article is about the party itself, and Politics of Hungary is about Hungarian political system. Recent political events and statements do not belong there. We have article of Constitution of Hungary for the constitution and Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán for recent events and activities of the government. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Mr. Norden1990: (1) If your name is indeed Norden1990, then I apologize. I thought it was a pseudonym. (2) The phrases you quote from me above are not from wikipedia articles but from talk pages, where I assume one can explain one's POV. My own POV on the current Hungarian government is definitely not neutral, but I agree that the wording in the articles themselves should be from a neutral POV, so I appreciate PamD's change from "The Charter's goal is to help support democracy in Hungary against the increasingly undemocratic developments currently taking place..." to "The Charter's goal is to help support democracy in Hungary against the increasingly undemocratic developments currently seen to be taking place..." (3) I also agree now that just posting a pointer to the article in which the Fidesz/Orban/constitution/democracy developments are described is better than describing them verbatim in each article to which they are relevant. Stevan Harnad 11:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

99% of Wikipedia users edit under pseudonym name, but I can reassure you, I am not member of the government or its paraselene. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Norden1990: That may well be, but you asked "could you give me an example, when I edit anonymously" and I replied. I am quite happy to accept your reassurance that "Norden1990" is "not member of the government or its paraselene." I also accept your (welcome) POV neutralization of the language of the Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter article. But not its deletion. For my own part, I choose to edit non-anonymously because I think [except in exceptional cases] people should be publicly answerable for public comments, especially comments about named individuals. (But that's just my POV...) Stevan Harnad 14:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. 3 of the supplied sources are blogs. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to LibStar: 3/8 sources are blogs means 5/8 sources are not blogs. Stevan Harnad 11:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC) (Removed sentence added by someone other than me.) Stevan Harnad 03:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yep a mere 2 hits [6]. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 16 May 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, Mkdw^talk 18:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stevan Harnad, per nomination. It looks to me like seven of the eight provided citations are to non-notable blogs and/or non-notable online-only publications. The one notable citation seems to be a short article in The Jewish Tribune - not enough to establish notability, in my opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Korny O'Near:

1. It would not be appropriate to merge the WP entry for Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter to the WP entry for me (Stevan Harnad), since I am not one of its Founding Directors but merely its French-Language Spokesperson ^[1]
2. Besides, there is already a pointer to the WP entry for Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter in the WP entry for me.
3. It is incorrect that 7/8 references are blogs. The Canadian Hungarian Journal ^[2] -- whose Editor, Professor Christpher Adam^[3] of Carleton University, is also one of the Founding Directors of the Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter -- is a journal registered in Canada and published since 2004.
4. Another one of the Founding Directors of Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter, Professor Eva Balogh ^[4]of Yale University (ret.) is Editor of the Hungarian Spectrum ^[5] which -- although admittedly "just" a blog -- can hardly be described as non-notable ^[6]

Stevan Harnad 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sticking to my opinion. I didn't say that 7 of the references were blogs, I said 7 of them were either blogs or online-only publications - of which the Canadian Hungarian Journal seems to be the latter. Either blogs or online publications can be notable, of course, but in this case I don't see the evidence. Google searches on their names (those references don't work on this talk page, by the way, but I did the searches myself) don't seem to make the case for their notability. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:31, 20 May 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. per comments pointing out that GNG is not met, and per consensus Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Reeves (mathematician)[edit]

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

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

The person is not notable enough Mohit Singh (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hmm, he's cited a good amount of times on Google Scholar, but nothing completely conclusive yet. I'll keep digging. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GS h-index of 22. Very high for a mathematician. Please will nominator expand on why thinks notability is not achieved? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. The titles of his most highly cited papers look like theoretical computer science / economics to me rather than pure math, making their citation numbers much less surprising. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but even for an applied mathematician in a popular area it is should still be sufficient to satisfy WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This looks actually a lot more like a CS/econ researcher than a mathematician, as David Eppstein notes. I think the citation rate is high enough to justify WP:PROF#C1, but will defer to David Eppstein's opinion when he offers one, since CS is his field. I will go edit the article to recharacterize the subject as a computer scientist, but will refrain from moving the article until the AFD is complete, if it should be kept. Ray^Talk 19:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. He does have some high-citation papers (aven normalizing for which field they're in), and ordinarily that would be enough. But to me that's mitigated by a couple of other points: (1) they were apparently all written when he was a student (e.g. although the journal publication date of his highest-cited paper is 2007, it also has a 1999 working paper version, and he was a student until 2005), so it is hard to disentangle his contribution to their impact from his more senior co-authors; (2) there is very little sign of notability for anything he's done since then (this is the only in-depth independent source I know of for Beeminder, although it in turn cites a WSJ article that mentions the system more briefly), and (3) because of the lack of secondary sources it is difficult to write a properly sourced article about the subject, and per WP:BLP articles about living people need good sources. I'm willing to change my mind if we get better secondary sources about what he has been doing since graduating, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per David Eppstein. Ray^Talk 14:43, 16 May 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, Mkdw^talk 18:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not keen on using h-index alone as an indicator of notability. Certainly a failure to have a sufficiently high h-index is a clear indication of a lack of notability. But even with a decent h-index, there must be some tangible sources on the subject that indicate how the subject is notable, since we cannot write an encyclopedia article just from an h-index. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the h-number test is one factor, I think his publication record has "impact", per WP:PROF#1. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the h-number is just an indicator, not proof, of notability. We still need to meet the GNG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 27 May 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ilona Kudász[edit]

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

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

Delete Not verified as having reached 110 years of age, and does not merit a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashegearesockpuppet (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As with most supercentenarians fails WP:1E. Not only only known for 1 event but is not even verified for that 1 event. May become notable if she is ever verified and becomes either the oldest person in Europe or becomes one of the 100 oldest verified people. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:17, 12 May 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, Mkdw^talk 18:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DerbyCountyinNZ. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:24, 20 May 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, default to keep. Discounting unsubstantiated claims and edits made by new editors, all that we have is a divide of opinion over the quality of a long list of external sources.

One interesting point was brought up in this AfD: some claim that this company is being investigated for fraud. If that's true, that'll actually make the company more notable. Deryck C. 11:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Global Trading[edit]

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

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

I see nothing that's notable about this small 140-person company. The refs are based on press releases, and are mainly about award nominations, not awards. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The company may be small and the article may be a stub, but the subject does pass WP:GNG (1, 2, 3, 4) Deadbeef 03:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Deadbeef Transcendence (talk) 18:58, 7 May 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) 02:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I consider all 3 of those references listed above as promotional press releases (I say 3 not 4, because the last two are the same press release posted at two different sites.) DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 9 May 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, Mkdw^talk 18:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What criteria are you using to label these sources as press releases? As far as I can tell, these don't look like the typical press releases that companies use to inform investors of significant happenings. Also, I'm not sure why you're saying the last two are the same. They cover the same event, but they appear to be from different sources and they don't appear to have the same content. Isn't multiple instances of coverage from independent and different sources and organizations one of the requirements of notability? Transcendence (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Who? History2007 (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanishedUserABC (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Per WP:DISCUSSAFD:

• The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.
• When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. Transcendence (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The company is currently under investigation for fraudulent business practice and should not be advertised as a legitimate company - http://www.redd-monitor.org/2013/05/09/advanced-global-trading-another-boiler-room-scam-or-a-ponzi-scheme-or-both/ ^[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsport101 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Mcsport101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We don't evaluate the legitimacy of a company - merely its notability. Lots of companies are indicted for all sorts of shenanigans, and yet are notable enough for articles - one does not impact the other. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you've not provided any evidence that the company is "under investigation" by any regulatory or legal authorities, and I can't find any evidence from WP:Reliable sources online that they are, just lots of wild allegations on money blogs. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've reverted the blanking of this debate, and warned the editor (a primary contributor at the article). No real comment on the merits, except that DGG's read on the sources available is pretty accurate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree regarding the sources per above. Transcendence (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Deadbeef, reliable per WP:CORP with significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per norms, per DGG.--JayJaykar (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — JayJaykar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Which "norms"? Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to reviewing admins: User:JayJaykar has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was not aware of the charges against the company. Were they better sourced, they would justify an article. DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google Search this company and see the 4th option and read to understand why this page should be closed down immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamoveragt (talk • contribs)

As UltraExactzz noted above, we're not here to discuss whether they're a law-abiding company or not, we're here to discuss whether they're notable. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThis page seems under attack, the page has been on wikepedia for quite a while now and had all the information and citiations for credibility. Last week someone logged in and remove all the content filling it with negative comments and linking homepage to the opinion based article. If you google advanced global trading you will find tonnes of press online and affiliations with credible companies like Lotus F1, Grako, Equinox etc. Same thing happened this morning someone logged in comments like company is shutting down etc. I think the reputation of the company is under attack by competitors. A request has also been send to wikipedia team about this activity. Is there a way to revert back to how the article was few months back.--Mahmoodyaqub (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Conundrum, UltraExactzz if you notice even the above comment say Gameoveragt, there have been several complains from a similar yahoo address trying to damage the company reputation. Please suggest a way as it takes quite a lot of time to build up a wiki page only to realize someone got onto it an removed all the content. Is there no way you guys can go back and check all the content that was removed?--Mahmoodyaqub (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of blatant WP:SPAM from you on the article, along with the vandalism and poorly-sourced allegations of wrongdoing from other editors, all of which I and other editors have been removing. Both you and Gamoveragt evidently have a WP:Conflict of interest in the article, and I wish you'd both find another article to edit. Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Captain ConundrumMahmoodyaqub (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop blanking other editors' posts to this discussion. You're going to get blocked from editing by an administrator if you keep this up. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:36, 22 May 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 Reverse merge, from The Amazing Race Philippines 1 to The Amazing Race Philippines .  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race Philippines[edit]

The Amazing Race Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary page. Show has only a single season, and no further seasons have yet been announced. The contents of the page are 50% copied material from The Amazing Race/The Amazing Race (U.S. TV series), while the other half is filled with overly-specific data concerning the destinations visited on The Amazing Race Philippines 1. We don't need to know four times over all the places they've gone, which are already covered on the aforementioned season page. Page should not exist until the show has more than one season, as with but a single season, it is not a series. Shadow2 (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Amazing Race (France) is a similar offender.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge: Merge The Amazing Race Philippines 1 to The Amazing Race Philippines, then redirect The Amazing Race Philippines 1 to The Amazing Race Philippines. It is a TV series, as TV shows of episodic nature are by default, whether or not they 1 or more seasons. –HTD 06:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see your point but there's still no harm with an article about the show and one about the episodes. Many other shows have done this. Also, I DON'T suggest deleting the article in the case a new season should appear to make it easily reversible. Just redirect the page so the information is kept if you must. --Kartoffel ⁰⁷ 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreeing with Kartoffel. I see no harm with this. Though the article has some 50% of the info copied from the Amazing Race main article, it was written there in order to put emphasis on the details of the show. The American and Philippine versions are identical, I know, but they are two different shows too. Geographical infos are highly informative too, it was added there for a reason. For easy access, for the people to see the complete tabulation of the places. I know people will always look for that, fan or not. And I think all of these info are are worth of keeping. So for all those reasons, I am disagreeing with the deletion.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 19:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is kept, much of the geographical data needs to be removed. It's incredibly superfluous. It's almost the exact same data, repeated four times unnecessarily. Shadow2 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, I think the administrative and geographical regions can go. But, I think the other two tables are worth keeping. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, I think all the tables are worth keeping. Geographically, the Philippines is divided into three geographical regions: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanaom, and I think it will be okay to keep this details. The Philippines is also mostly known by political division, which is the provinces, and that is why we included that there. However, the Philippines is also divided into economic regions, which is a pseudo equal to states in some countries like the US. Since this version focuses on racing around the Philippines only, I think all this relevant table data are worth keeping. If ever this race goes global then, I think it will be okay to drop the administrative and geographical regions.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 11:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's too much. Simply too much. Shadow2 (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's pretty much useless (it's a stats dump), redundant (probably merge those in one table), and even wrong in some parts (Puerto Princesa is no longer in Palawan since ~2010). –HTD 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay. I have removed some tables now. I think, everything is okay now.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:50, 7 May 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) 01:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - With only one apparent season and no others forthcoming, plus the content duplication from the main international versions, the two articles can be pared into one. If a second season does appear, then splitting can make sense but that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this AfD should probably be closed or relisted, since it was relisted on the 8th, but it's the 18th now. I don't have much experience closing AfDs, so I'm leaving this to an admin. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:35, 18 May 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, Mkdw^talk 18:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested above. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - So far, there's only been one season, and while there may have been coverage, the article would just be mainly copied from the main The Amazing Race article plus long and possibly fan-crufty summaries. Until more seasons are made, I'd suggest a merge for now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per HTD as for now. The Philippine franchise has only aired one season and has no potential status on Philippine television ratings. See TAR around the world section, many of international TAR versions like Vietnam, Brazil and France, but they aired at least a single season and no plans to have another season. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I know, a second season is being heavily hinted as being planned according to the official twitter and facebook pages. (Don't take my word for it though if it doesn't materialise). If you could somehow incorporate information from the The Amazing Race Philippines into The Amazing Race Philippines 1 (ie. The general information about Roadblocks, etc., and how each of the mechanics specific to this version work) I'd be okay.--Kartoffel ⁰⁷ 05:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am really okay for merging the season 1 article to the main article, however, it will now very difficult to determine if what information will be removed, and what information will stay. Personally, I have wrote certain informations that should only appear in the main article and not to be fused with a season article. However, if we push this through I think there will be a big problem merging the two articles. I know you guys were just giving us with your best opinions with the general practices in writing Wikipedia articles. But I think, as a Wikiproject member of the WP Amazing Race and one of the main contributor of the articles as well, the articles should be kept this way. We can trim down some things or some info, but for me, the best will be to retain the two article titles and not merge or delete any of it. Am I making sense... sirs?--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I decided to withdraw the French version, but it is still in production and signed its second series when the French franchise was aired between 4Q 2012. However, the program had kept to take time and had a long break. The Amazing Race Australia has two completed series and it signed for the third series, production took a break for over a year due to Grant Bowler's work commitment in his TV series Defiance. ApprenticeFan ^work 14:05, 25 May 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. It should be noted that the previous AFDs were considered in this outcome but as many of the opinions are now outlined in WP:ATA along with the consensus (albeit small) today, the article will be deleted with no prejudice for a redirect to Howard_Hughes#Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11. Mkdw^talk 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Durkin[edit]

William L. Durkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It seems he is only notable for having rescued Howard Hughes. In the article, his bio is pretty much just "he was born in 1916, then died in 2006", what happened in between is not mentioned, and everything else is about the Howard Hughes crash or the Aviator film.

I suggest deleting the article and moving the photo to Howard_Hughes#Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11. There's not much else to merge except maybe for the date of birth and death. Laurent (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only notable for the one event that is already covered in the Hughes article, dont think anything needs to be moved. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NCO notable for only one event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 20 May 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) Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 09:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Dodds[edit]

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

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

Individual who does not appear to have played either international football, nor played in a Fully Professional league, therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. Nothing in the article or in google searches to indicate GNG through any other means. Fenix down (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He played for Toronto Lynx when they were still in the USL First Division, a fully pro league, meaning the article passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's no problem here he played for Toronto Lynx during 2004-2006 when they were still in the USL First Division a professional league. Shotgun pete
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:33, 21 May 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 Guerilla marketing. REdirected as - per comments - the content is not an improvement on the target Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrilla marketing warfare strategies[edit]

Guerrilla marketing warfare strategies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An un-notable concept. There has been a fair amount of literature and research on business-as-warfare, but the exact intersection of guerrilla marketing and warfare (or guerrilla warfare) feels like original research. For what it's worth, the current article reads like an unfocused essay, with very few citations, and not much content that directly relates to the subject matter. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Subvertising, per WP:FORK, or to shockvertising, if you prefer. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:FORK relate to this? Korny O'Near (talk) 12:05, 22 May 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) 07:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge but I'd suggest Guerrilla marketing as the target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Content is not worth merging: badly written, badly referenced, inaccurate, original research, never clearly defines what it's actually about, many of the examples given (e.g. Skoda campaign) are not guerrilla marketing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 27 May 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. Merge discussion should be initiated at the article's talk page  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of RAL colors[edit]

List of RAL colors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no indication of WP:notability. A list of colours. Disputed prod. The RAL color standard is sufficient to cover this standard without adding additional articles. noq (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose Procedural - If it is sufficient to have the content in one article (RAL color standard) then use the merge process. HSRtrack (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not addressed WP:notability - you keep picking up on secondary issues and ignoring the primary one. noq (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your WP:N and raise you an WP:ATD. This is obviously part of a notable topic with an obvious parent article. Analyzing it as if it wasn't doesn't help us figure out what to do with it, if anything. Can you discuss it in terms of its informational value for our coverage of the RAL standard, and/or address WP:SPLIT or WP:LISTPURP? postdlf (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge, no case for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is the nominator suggesting a merge discussion instead of a delete discussion? Dream Focus 00:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as potential copyvio. I'm concerned that this list falls under the EU concept of a database right, for what is a commercial list and protected as such.

NB - this is without prejudice to the ongoing sockpuppet investigation of the article's author. I don't hold with deleting valuable articles just because they're the creation of a banned sockmaster, but there is a rights issue here that we still have to observe. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American copyright law does not recognize database rights, therefore neither do we at en-wiki. Systems such as this would not be copyrightable, but instead fall under patent law protection or maybe trademark (if anything). Further, this system was first published in 1927, and was not a "commercial list" but instead the creation of the German government (for public use as a universal standard, no less). So even if otherwise copyrightable under German law, it would be in the public domain under either of those grounds. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the US doesn't recognise this, but as the country of origin does, don't we have to be precautionary anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, and no we don't. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 21 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feats achieved by I.G.P. Baral[edit]

Feats achieved by I.G.P. Baral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD (concern: Article is nothing but unneeded and unsourced legends) removed by author. The article now has references, but I still don't think we need it. Ignatzmice•talk 15:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If any of these stories are in any way actually notable in the man's life, they should be in the I.G.P. Khadgajeet Baral article. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: please also move I.G.P. Khadgajeet Baral to Khadgajeet Baral, since IGP (Inspector-General of Police) is a title, and fails our naming policy. 122.176.146.47 (talk)

• Delete - frankly, I was completely underwhelmed by these so-called feats; they seem barely interesting enough to be included in his main article. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an encyclopedia should concern itself with facts Gbawden (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NOTGOSSIP. None of these claims are supported by reliable sources. Funny ^Pika! 17:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Janet_Jackson#MTV_Video_Music_Awards. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Video Music Award nominations for Janet Jackson[edit]

MTV Video Music Award nominations for Janet Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In lieu of the existence of List of awards and nominations received by Janet Jackson, I think we can delete this unsourced mess as there's nothing more to merge also in the above listed article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Janet_Jackson#MTV_Video_Music_Awards. Does it need a separate article? Maybe not, but this would be a valid search term would make a good redirect to the appropriate article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Janet_Jackson#American_Music_Awards_(USA). (non-admin closure) Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 09:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Music Award nominations for Janet Jackson[edit]

American Music Award nominations for Janet Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In lieu of the existence of List of awards and nominations received by Janet Jackson, I think we can delete this unsourced mess as there's nothing more to merge also in the above listed article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Janet_Jackson#American_Music_Awards_.28USA.29. We don't need a separate article, but it'd be a good search term for a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Janet_Jackson#Grammy_Awards_(USA). JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy nominations for Janet Jackson[edit]

Grammy nominations for Janet Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In lieu of the existence of List of awards and nominations received by Janet Jackson, I think we can delete this unsourced mess as there's nothing more to merge also in the above listed article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I pretty much agree with this. I think keeping it there is a waste of space really. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It does appear to be duplicative, so delete on that basis, but (as an aside) I think it's inapt to ever consider any claim of having been nominated or winning such a widely reported, notable award "unsourced"; the name of the award-giving institution, the name of the specific award, and the year of the nomination or win are all sourcing information that in and of themselves allow for easy verification. Having a URL or page in a book to point to that repeats this information is helpful (though potentially absurd if you cite such a universally known fact as "according to The Podunk Times" or the equivalent) but obviously anyone can confirm without specifying such a secondary source whether or not person X was nominated for Award Y in Year Z. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this (and the other Janet Jackson award list AfDs) even here? If there's nothing to merge, then just be WP:BOLD and redirect it to the better list. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Janet_Jackson#Grammy_Awards_.28USA.29. Valid enough redirect, but no need for a separate article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:38, 20 May 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 redirect to Shahbag. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbag Square[edit]

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

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

Appears to be a non-notable short film, lacking in any references, or any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Distributed by a non-notable company, made by a non-notable freelance film maker. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment THe page was created as a redirect to Shahbagh Square but was changed to an article about a documentary film by a promotional user. I have reported the user to admin notice board. It is useless to debate here the Afd. I will suggest you to replace the status quo of the article as a redirect. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That square itself has been merged/redirected via a prior AfD, so I've fixed your redirect link. Nevertheless, you are correct, and I have closed this AfD. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 19 May 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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC), Inappropriate NAC per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_24 - should have been reopened but has been superseded by AfD2 Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy[edit]

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

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

OK, may as well get this started: it just hasn't got enough coverage yet. Fails WP:GNG, specific guideline WP:WEB. Yes, it was mentioned in a reliable source, exactly once. Is The Daily Dot a reliable source? Hmm... Wikipediocracy is of course a WP:PRIMARY source about itself. And so on. Slashdot it ain't.
In my opinion, this AfD was inevitable, and probably best if an uncontroversial wikignome (and one who is happy to admit when they are wrong) kicks off.
Keep it nice and stick to the relevant criteria for deletion, people. Shirt58 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Now, this is going to turn into an absolute shit-storm of censorship and whatever allegations, but Wikipediocracy does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:WEB or WP:ORG. Sure, it's notable to Wikipedians, and perhaps should be moved somewhere outside mainspace, but it still fails the guidelines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think that [7] shows enough to demonstrate that, pace Jimbo, Kevin Morris is a proper journalist who has trained other proper journalists and that therefore his work for the Daily Dot counts as journalistic writing that counts as a reliable source. The issue is that Wikipediocracy is peripheral to most of the articles except for the Salon one where it is identified as crucial in the exposure of Young. My WP:Crystal Ball says that it will soon pass the notability criteria with flying colours as it continues to collaborate with journalists in the exposure of problems here. Of course, there I is a chance that Wikipediocracy might end up as the subject of coverage in its own right as it continues to provide exposés on WP/WM.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it is notable enough per several currently cited sources. These sources seem to qualify as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously notable now after the Salon expose. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The daily dot has been profiled in high quality most reliable sources, and its repeated coverage of Wikipediocracy establishes notability. It has been mentioned in other high quality, most reliable sources. The Salon article establishes notability, also Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The Salon article is a major source. If there were two articles like that we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion. On the other hand, the plethora of mentions and quotes from the site's moderators, especially Andreas Kolbe, in (yes it is one of the) reliable sources such as the Daily Dot are enough to tip me over on to the Keep side here. The notability guideline we're working with asks us to consider whether "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Now, as with so many things, in order to understand the thesis we must consider the antithesis. The guideline defines the opposite of non-trivial coverage: " trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." That kind of coverage is not what we have here. The Daily Dot articles do more than give "brief summar[ies]," the rest of the clauses in the definition of "trivial coverage" aren't applicable, and so, with the Daily Dot articles and, most importantly, the salon.com article, I think the subject meets WP:WEB. The question with this article is not so much "if" as "when," and it might as well be now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it is being noticed by the mainstream, and is a significant player in "wiki-wars" that have escaped the cozy confines of Wikipedia itself and are being noticed in the outside world. If Wikipedia Review can have an article, certainly this site, which has taken over that site's role as the most prominent "BADSITE", deserves one. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but delete the SPS claims made in the article. It barely hits notability guidelines, though. The claims about members etc. may certainly be seen as "unduly self-serving" per Wikipedia RS standards, and WP:BLP must be strictly adhered to with regard to the Q essay/blogpost/article. Collect (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The self-serving claims were re-added, as well as the needless mention of a living person where the article is about WO and not about that person. Collect (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What needless mention? Wikipediocracy exposed that living person's abuse of Wikipedia and attracted attention from the outside world as a result. It should be in the article, and your attempt to remove it is simply inexplicable. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability in the outside world seems pretty much established now. The tone of the article may still need attention. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It meets the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there's no doubt of the Keep verdict. The Salon article is a disgracefully sloppy piece of journalism, attacking Wikipedia for the conduct of one editor, when the author should have known how resilient the encyclopedia is against such things. About the article, it's not great, needs work, but we're certainly going to get it, if not now then very soon, so we might as well get on with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remove your "WIKIPEDIA FTW" shades. The article attacks Wikipedia because the system failed to kick in and eject an individual who was subverting the site to his own unethical ends until outside pressure was applied. The only 'disgracefully sloppy' thing here is your logic. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And which blocked user are you, Mr IP? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never been blocked. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet you appear with these sorts of edits. Excuse me whilst I don't believe your story. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome to believe it or not, but it's the truth. Your logic is flawed. Not everyone who defends Wikipediocracy must be a blocked user with a vendetta. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lukeno94's comment is rather impolite. I thought IPs were encouraged to edit? Anyway there is no need for me to vote, since it appears this item will be kept, but please be nice to other Wikipedians. Optimom (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They are. However, what do you expect anyone to think, when you see an IP that is clearly anti-Wikipedia (note that anti-Wikipedia and pro-Wikipediocracy are not the same thing) spews bile in their way? Also, if they're anti-Wikipedia, they're not a Wikipedian. But whatever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Out comes the strawman. It takes an extraordinary leap in reasoning to decide my comments are somehow 'anti-Wikipedia'. 'Wikipedia is far from perfect' is not the same as 'WIKIPEDIA SUCKS!11!!!" --81.164.219.235 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Please remove your "WIKIPEDIA FTW" shades". That's essentially a Wikipedia sucks comment. This discussion is unproductive, so we should discontinue it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's a "Wikipedia is not perfect, stop pretending it is" comment. --81.164.219.235 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - To my way of thinking, there are two logical plays here. Either a Keep-and-Expand — and we know with mathematical certainty that this will expand if kept — or a Redirect to Wikipedia Review, which will subsequently grow a third arm from the middle of its forehead as Wikipediocracy-related material migrates there. Ultimately sourcing for the latter would become sufficient to withstand any notability challenge, and the topic page would split off again. Probably the former is a more rational way to build an encyclopedia. I am, of course, an active poster on the Wikipediocracy message board and will leave this opinion in the form of a comment rather than a definitive bolded Keep, but I hope the closing administrator will understand my point. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. for two reasons. Firstly because it appears to meet notability guidelines (and erring on the side of assuming it does is probably better PR than assuming it doesn't), and secondly because it will annoy the hell out of the conspiracy-mongers amongst Wikipediocracy contributors who are so obsessed with their own perceived self-importance that they have to blame the fact that their endless whining usually goes unnoticed on 'censorship', rather than boredom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This shouldn't be a coatrack for the views of certain Wikipediocracy members, obviously, but Wikipediocracy's involvement in recent Wikipedia controversies, and the consequent coverage in Salon, etc. make this website notable. The fact that some content in the present article violates policy is not a reason to delete, but a reason to edit the article. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG at this stage - Alison ^❤ 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (I'm one of the founders and am a moderator there)[reply]
• Keep - I found the article informative. Wikfr (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Obviously notable enough for inclusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would say that it's just on the very edge of notability. Most of the sources slightly mention Wikipediocracy, but don't go into any real depth, so we're left with dealing with snippets. However, the article could certainly use some work. Secondary sources need to be found for two of the sections or they should be removed as not all that relevant. Silverseren^C 10:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator... and the weather forecast for this AfD is six more days of snow. Hope you will all forgive me from not withdrawing this nomination. It was always going happen and I thought it was best to come from someone like me. Was the nomination in bad faith? I don't think so. (Well I would say that, wouldn't I?). Please do feel free to send me nastygrams and so on. I probably deserve it. I won't mind.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's been at least one Delete opinion, so a withdrawal of the nomination wouldn't of itself end things here. This is actually a borderline notability situation under GNG, but I think the big majority of opinions above reflect the sensible way forward, even if one wants to explain the decision under the policy of WP:IAR rather than the guideline of WP:GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 20 May 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 Miley Cyrus#2013: Fourth studio album. JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We Can't Stop[edit]

We Can't Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. I'm not going to deny the song will become notable after it is released as all Cyrus' previous songs, but this song was revealed today 18 May and it will be released on 11 June. Unless this song passes WP:GNG the next three weeks (and I'm not refering to all probable sources that will say '"We Can't Stop" will be Cyrus next single", or Tweets published by her about the song), is clearly a non-notable article. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:44, 19 May 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 May 19. Snotbot  t • c »  09:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now since eventually will become notable. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far too soon for an article.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miley Cyrus#2013: Fourth studio album for now. With one line of text and no references, this is clearly not notable. However, it does exist, so a redirect would be a good idea. –anemoneprojectors– 15:27, 23 May 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. Merge discussion can take place on talk page  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy T. Turner[edit]

Timmy T. Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Character has no sources. No out of universe notability. Had its previous AFD two years ago, asked to merge. JJ98 (Talk) 07:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 08:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Timmy is the main character of Fairly Odd Parents, which the lead didn't make apparent enough. The article is quite fancrufty, and it is unreferenced, and needs various other cleanups, but as this is the main character of a long-running, notable children's show, I believe it justifies a standalone article. That said, it should be moved to "Timmy Turner", with the redirect going the other way. A better merge into the List of The Fairly OddParents characters would also be justified, with this becoming a redirect, but outright deletion is clearly incorrect. Finding references for a stand-alone article may well be a pain, as the main show itself seems quite hard to find references for, so the merger may be better. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any relevant information into List of The Fairly OddParents characters#Timmy Turner. I was able to find several articles about the show that discussed the role of Timmy in some length, which could probably be used to establish minor notability, but none of them provided any information on his development or reception, which according to WP:Fiction, is crucial when creating an article on an individual fictional character. --Jpcase (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dekel E (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn and the Frog Prince[edit]

Auburn and the Frog Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article about a story that was apparently never published, and which was apparently intended for but never used as a short film. I was unable to establish that this has any significant third-party coverage, whether it would be under WP:NBOOKS or WP:NFILM. And as it stands it is essentially an advertisement for the company that created it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There just wasn't any coverage out there to show that anything about the film or story is notable. The only things that come up are primary sources, mentions of this via Wikipedia (linking to the article, in other words), and many junk hits. This is just borderline promotional enough to where it might be speedyable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It all sounds very lovely, but it never really existed. All the "references" are non-RS. If this is kept, can I start articles on all the novels I intended to write, but never got around to? Tigerboy1966  13:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: After going through an extensive clean up, this possibly could have made for an interesting article about an unproduced film, but it just doesn't seem to be notable enough. Like everyone else, I've been unable to find any coverage by independent sources. --Jpcase (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unproduced film that sounds like it is no longer even planned to be a feature film, and thus normally would be ineligible for an article under WP:NFF. No independent sources have been provided that would indicate any notability under general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Soccer Player Rankings[edit]

World Soccer Player Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Essentially a blog; no indication that the subject meets WP:WEB in any way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]