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. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obama-Rouhani phone call[edit]

Obama-Rouhani phone call (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A telephone call is not sufficiently notable to justify an entire standalone article. The conversation can be described adequately in one or two sentences in articles about the participants or in articles concerning the countries in question. — O'Dea (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to agree for the time being on the basis of notability and WP:recentism. Also telling that there isn't a single other article on a diplomatic phone call. Interested to hear other views though... Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is obviously a significant event, but it's not that important by itself, and should be able to be covered in a paragraph in the Iran–United States relations article. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would think the article deals with an eventful phone call. Many news media have alluded to it in large-scale. The call phone was the first title in many papers and some polls got done after that. Alborzagros (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been many telephone calls in the past that were much more historic that do not have their own articles: the very first call by Alexander Graham Bell; calls between Kennedy and Khrushchev that prevented a nuclear world war in 1962; the only telephone call ever made to the surface of the moon by Nixon; the call by Frank Wills that exposed the Watergate scandal. The amount of coverage of Obama's call does not make it deserve a whole article in Wikipedia. It can be described in one or two sentences in other articles. Newspapers and encyclopaedias are not the same. — O'Dea (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this event is already adequately described in Iran–United States relations. — O'Dea (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if it was important, say so at Iran–United States relations, but there doesn't seem to be a need to document individual diplomatic phone conversations. As was pointed out above, we haven't documented other (arguably far more important) phone calls. Being included in the appropriate diplomacy article with some context probably does it more justice anyway. Oh, and WP:NOTNEWS. Stalwart111 10:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per RECENTISM. It is however notable and the space can go on either the Rouhani or Obama pages.Lihaas (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if it needs to be mentioned at the Obama or Rouhani articles; time will tell. The fact that the event is described at Iran–United States relations is a proper response for an encyclopaedia until a broader perspective emerges in time. — O'Dea (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:CHEAP to Iran–United States relations. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC) I'd be willing to change my mind with a good argument, so get back to us here. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHEAP should be nominated for deletion. Anything that begins, "There should be an essay here, and it should say something similar to what is currently on WP:RFD" does not elicit respect. It is half-arsed and lazy nonsense. — O'Dea (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applause (Bonnie Franklin song)[edit]

Applause (Bonnie Franklin song) (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)

Per WP:NSONGS: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." (bold mine) The song is discussed in five four independent references, but it still lacking notability. It never charted, never was covered or used as a sample, or won an award. If its notability, if any, depends in five four references, and it won't go further than an stub-articlem as required at NSONGS, it can be merged elsewhere, but notability is not inherited. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Redundant stub. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this is deleted, then it should redirect to Applause (musical), as that article still covers this song, so is a viable search term and redirect. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a mention of the single to Applause (musical). Not enough for a standalone article and the title is wrong - it isn't a Bonnie Franklin song, it's a Charles Strouse and Lee Adams song. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michig, it has been promised on Talk:Applause (song) that this article "will be slaughtered" at AfD :) and thus prevent a move of the Lady Gaga song per WP:SONGDAB to Talk:Applause (Lady Gaga song), so this question is probably academic in this case, but for future reference, can you point out where in WP:NCM writers should be used not singer. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense suggests that a song should be disambiguated to the originator and for a song from a musical, the writers of the musical seem the obvious way to go as the song is part of their work - this has been discussed here. WP:NCM appears to reflect common usage but guidelines based on consensus reached from discussion should have more weight. The consensus from discussions in this area is not clear, but other songs written by non-performing songwriters are disambiguated to the songwriters (e.g. Walk On By (Burt Bacharach and Hal David song)). --Michig (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michig, thank you for that full answer. I have no strong feelings; I would not object to a move to a Walk On By (Burt Bacharach and Hal David song) solution if the article is not merged. The only reservation might be that about 7 or 8 of the sources specifically link the song to the singer not the writers and that I cannot see any trace of the song ever having been covered, Franklin seems, proverbially to have nailed it and used it as the springboard to her later career. If this makes any difference. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Applause (musical)—this subject on its own lacks notability but can be mentioned in the parent article. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge every single to albums? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can propose it to WP:SONGS. I have seen editors that say similar proposals like yours "The song charted in 10 countries, but it is not likely to go futher than the current version", if I remember the AFD(s) I saw this I'll post it. Anyway, if you with "every single" really mean "all" songs", which is the benefit of merging All these songs into A Rush of Blood to the Head, it violates Wikipedia:Article length by far. The difference between this article an a normal single is that fails WP:NSONGS. It didn't chart, whichever the reasons why it didn't manage it, it wasn't covered, because it didn't impact like other musical songs, and didn't win an award, if this were a Tony-winner, this AFD wouldn't exist. Per Allah is an akbar's finding, the article neither is covered further. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allah is an akbar has been struck as a sock. As regards 24th Tony Awards how exactly can a song win a Tony Award? Applause swept the board, this was the best song from it, and it was performed at the awards by Bonnie Franklin, but there is no song award at the Tonys so how can it win one? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Allah, whoever he is sock from, was blocked the comment stayed: the references weren't about the song itself. For the Tony, it is not Wikipedia's problem they don't have the category for best song, just Best Score. This is not for the Tony alone, there are other awards in which this song could be nominated, like the Grammy Award for Song of the Year among many other categories. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. I admit that the article could have been better with the 14 sources it has now rather than the 5 when you nominated, but let's be clear this AfD is not about Bonnie Franklin, it is a result of User:George Ho in complete good faith and according to WP:NCM having at 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC) nominated Talk:Applause (song) to be, God forbid given the words (Lady Gaga song) in what is a Lady Gaga song. Your interest in nominating this article at 23:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC) is entirely to do with Lady Gaga, and nothing to do with the Tony Awards. If you click the 24th Tony Awards you will see that in the 1970s they didn't have the score award either so it couldn't have won that either. What it could have won was Best Musical, and it did. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator but per Google Book print notability - I don't see anything above to say that a single from a musical (and musical soundtrack album) cannot have an article the same as any other single. Has this AfD been notified to WikiProject Musical theatre? Because I actually had a musical theatre editor thank me? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A song from a musical COULD have an article, but the article would need to have some interesting content beside the fact that the song was released as a single. There needs to be some interesting history, some musical analysis, some discussion of why other people chose to record the song, some information about the critical reception of the song outside of the musical, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The first reference simply gives the composers' names. The third and fourth say only that Franklin sang the song in the musical. The only reference that addresses the issue of whether the song has notability independent of the musical is the second one. This claims the song was a commercial success. But if it didn't chart, then the song is not notable for this reason either. Allah is an akbar (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]
• Merge with Applause (musical), adding a mention of the single there, per User:MIchig above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough content has been added so that I no longer object to its retention. However, it is a terrible mess, and none of the citations comply with WP:CITE. Instead of including quotes in the cites, the text should be written clearly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is hopefully something of a temporary issue since an AfD is ongoing and some transparency is required about what the citations really say... In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Reception section indicates due weight and notability. Of course, references must be cleaned up another time. --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is established. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – WIth the recent additions, I think there's now sufficient content for a separate article, and citations demonstrating enough notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As above: notability is clear; article meets relevant policy criteria; minor issues re:citation formatting, are not grounds for deletion. The article was only nominated for deletion by "fandom" editors, who were unhappy with the prospect of the article about the Lady Gaga song being labeled a "Lady Gaga song" rather than just a "song"... The angry fandom in that discussion revealed the vengeful intention to "slaughter" this article. I have to say, the whole thing seems completely averse to the core principles of wikipedia and certainly there was no intention to improve the encyclopedia. I'm glad that out of that darkness there has come some good, and that someone has taken the time to expand this article. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rushton2010: "The article was only nominated for deletion by "fandom" editors", FYI I hate Lady Gaga's songs. "The angry fandom in that discussion revealed the vengeful intention to "slaughter" this article.", so, now that I'm a supposed "fandalist", can you explain why you are not violating the BLP policy with these defamatory content by calling me angry fanatic and vengeful? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:25, 11 October 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 Transformers: Cybertron characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undermine (Transformers)[edit]

Undermine (Transformers) (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 character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge into a page with similar characters called List of Transformers: Cybertron characters per WP:Before C4. Mathewignash (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mathewignash (talk · contribs) reasoning, I know we don't delete a lot of Transformers articles. JJ98 (Talk) 19:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters.--Korruski^Talk 09:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters — I'm in complete agreement with TTN here, and that this article doesn't have any real-world notability. Appears to be mostly fancruft, but I can see it being a possible search term, so redirecting to the list is appropriate. The list itself looks like it's in sore need of work, but that can be addressed later. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milk bottle top[edit]

Milk bottle top (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/merge to Milk bottle. This nomination follows a contested PROD. Subject has not received significant coverage. The bulk of the article's content is original research that presents data without sufficient context. Two sources added by the contesting editor would be useful additions to Milk bottle, but don't constitute sufficient information to warrant a standalone article on this topic. Ibadibam (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any middle-aged Brit such as myself knows that the foil milk bottle tops that were famously collected by The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association in the 1960s, including via regular appeals by Blue Peter, are notable. I'm not offering this as proof of notability, but as a demonstration of how sources are difficult to find online for things that were ultra-notable back in the dark ages before the Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely a good example of WP:Wikipedia is wrong and WP:BIAS. For what it's worth, Guide Dogs for the Blind Association does mention the program (without citation, as you predicted). Ibadibam (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While somewhat interesting WP is not a guide to milk bottle top colors. The handful of facts about milk bottle tops outside of that should be added to milk bottle itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Totally keep a billion articles for every transformer ever imagined to exist, and we can't keep this? The color sources will be found. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • The fact that other questionable articles exist should not be taken as a rationale for keeping this bad article. Each article should be taken on its own merits. As for the sources, when will they be found, and by whom? The article has been around for at least 6 years and nobody has added any yet.GodaiNoBaka (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or Merge to milk bottle if anything is worth retaining) per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I like the idea of the article, but I just can't see there being enough reliable sources to establish that the bottle top is notable independently of the bottle.--Korruski^Talk 09:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not a middle-aged Brit, but I agree with Phil. However, the article we have make no mention of the collecting, and given the lack of sources, the collecting aspect is best developed at The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. As for merging, I see nothing of value to merge. The article is a trivia list of top colours. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I'm inclined to agree with you about merging, and have amended my !vote to that effect.--Korruski^Talk 12:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -The list of top colors is invaluable as a reference but I agree that there isn't enough to warrant a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.10.50 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -As stated in my original rationale for the Proposal For Deletion, the article as it currently stands is almost entirely original research. There are two references provided, one of which has no direct relevance to the topic and the other of which does not support the point that it purports to. Requests for relevant references have been made and ignored. Incidentally, allegations have been made of inaccurate or incomplete information being a part of the article. GodaiNoBaka (talk) 02:39, 10 October 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 World of Eberron. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalashtar[edit]

Kalashtar (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 does not establish notability independent of Eberron through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to World of Eberron per WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect into World of Eberron. The info is verifiable in authoritative sources and the topic is a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable topics is preferable to deletion and WP:ATD-M seems to apply here, Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. --Mark viking (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• transwiki to some fansite that would love this kind of trivia. As for Wikipedia, there are only primary non independent sources and so it fails WP:GNG with no independent coverage, which leaves the options of merge redirect or delete. Since the suggested merge target is already also overflowing with only primary sourced in universe coverage, merging would appear to be simply an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another to let it stink there. There has been no evidence presented that the word is a likely search term for which people who enter that particular string of characters would be looking for this particular obscure reference from D&D and not say a mistyping of some village in Asia or a yummy ethnic food. Delete seems to be a perfectly legit option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per BOZ. Hihidufgh (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • since BOZ identified no policies or guidelines for the basis of his !vote, your "per BOZ" carries the exact same weight when analyzing to determine policy consensus, ie none. care to elaborate?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold - I ask that this page be held off from being merged by the closer so that I may do the necessary tasks rather than having to work twice of three times as hard to fix a mergeless redirect that would otherwise be performed. A widescale and large clean up operation is underway as noted by this discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:53, 10 October 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 Jewish Bolshevism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Bolshevism[edit]

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

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

Non notable obscure pamphlet. USchick (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Jewish Bolshevism, which covers the larger topic of the mixture of anti-communism and anti-semitism. Without that a person could not understand this article. I disagree with the nom in that the pamphlet is notable enough. However a merged article would be better for the reader, since it's all one topic and a lot of material is duplicated already. BayShrimp (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a merger and the editors there are against it. They are also not willing to discuss sources. If there are reliable sources that establish the notability of this pamphlet, I wish someone would present them. USchick (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To save some legwork, could you clarify why the sources listed in the article, which appear reliable, are not? (The ones that are non-primary.) Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a copy of a bibliography from a book, which is probably a definitive source, but needs a citation. 08:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The pamphlet is notable - 2,900 hits on Google books and is considered one of the main texts for believers in the international Jewish conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeKeep, the pamphlet is notable in its own right. However the article contents should remain limited to material directly pertaining to the pamphlet (i.e. not discussing the relationship between Jews and communism in general). --Soman (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with caveat by Soman. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Assuming Oppose (deletion) is the same as the usual !vote of Keep Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a historical item, covered is scholarly sources. - Altenmann >t 05:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion -- The description of surviving copies of the pamphlet, evidently a very rare work do not belong in an encyclopaedia. It might be worth listing the libraries that have it. The Gbooks hits data cited (I got 3100) is not satisfactory, because it includes the subject (as opposed to the pamphlet). The question is whether this should remain a separate article or be merged into Jewish Bolshevism (where it is currently not even mentioned. It could provide a means of expanding its "Great Britain, 1920s" section, which is currently rather thin. However, I do not think I know enough of the subject to be sure what to do. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though it could do with more explication of its historical significance - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Merge - IZAK's merge is just fine - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Jewish Bolshevism#The Jewish Bolshevism. I have extracted and transferred all the key information into that sub-section (part of Jewish Bolshevism#Works that propagate Jewish Bolshevism) which is more befitting WP's reader-friendly style with sufficient space for this minor topic. The so-called "Bibliography" here is just padding that violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. In fact, this article could very easily fit somewhere into the more important topic of Nazi propaganda#Media as one concise paragraph. As the article stands now, it seems that quite possibly it is trying to sneak in and propagate its contents in unnecessary detail in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX in a more subtle fashion as well. IZAK (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this is a great piece of history but too short of an article belonging to a huge subject to have its own.--Shmaltz (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. -- Olve Utne (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but there's a more specific merge to the very general Jewish Bolshevism--the article on the author Ernst Boepple, who is responsible for other obnoxious things also. (and the article E. Boeplle needs to be redirected to that one also. ) To make an article on the pamphlet itself, we'd need some historical evidence that this particular pamphlet was influential in England beyond the general run of antisemitic publications . I think this may actually be the case, & if it is , the section can and should be re-expanded. I do point out a flaw in the arguments above : that it is now rare. Rareness at the present time in libraries is due to the obvious change in popularity (or at least social acceptability) of the relevant political views since 1913. I suspect copies in UK and US libraries were generally removed by 1939/1941, and certainly the Allies destroyed all copies in German libraries and even private homes in 1945/6. (And I wonder how frequent is was found in US/UK libraries in the 20 or 30 years after publication--this is relatively difficult to see, and would be a research project) If the physical copies are very rare, all the more reason for us to cover it substantially. We're an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 13:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per DGG's suggestion; but lose the bibliography, which (especially in its current format) serves almost completely as padding. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but don't merge. There is more content about this than would fit reasonably in a different article. Wincent77 (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich Film Festival[edit]

Norwich Film Festival (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 previously deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwich Film Festival, and later re-created by the same author, who has a conflict of interest, having referred to the festival in the first person. The re-created version does no more than the one discussed in the previous AfD discussion. 7 of the 8 cited sources are: 3 pages on the festival's own site; 2 pages (one of them a blog) on the site of the publishers of a film that tells us it won an award at the festival, and says nothing else about the festival; another page that does no more than mention that the same film won an award; a dead link. That leaves just one genuine third party source with significant coverage, at this BBC page. However, even that one is just for the local Norfolk branch of the BBC, not the national BBC, and that one source alone is not nearly enough to establish notability under Wikipedia guidelines. My own searches have also failed to produce significant coverage in any independent reliable source. Although it is not by itself a reason for deletion, it is also worth noting that the article was written for promotional purposes. The author of the article actually stated that he/she intended the article to help the festival in "gaining publicity". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - without prejudice to recreation in the future if it becomes notable. There's some local coverage, but that's it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough third party references 193.109.199.71 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nock (programming language)[edit]

Nock (programming language) (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 notability SpinningSpark 14:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article itself doesn't need to indicate notability, it's our job to determine if the subject is or isn't notable. After a brief search, I cannot find any sources to support its notability. In short, the article can't indicate the subject's notability in this case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @User:Walter Görlitz, The article itself doesn't need to indicate notability. Well yes it does. An article stating only that "George Washington was a good man" would be deletable whereas "George Washington was the first presisdent of the United States" would not. Walter, I expect you were implying that I did not follow WP:BEFORE to check if the subject is notable. Well yes I did and no it's not. SpinningSpark 17:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it doesn't. I'm sorry you don't understand that basic premise. The article can be about a subject that is notable but not explain it. We could delete it or we could improve it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly that poor articles on notable subjects should be kept. I also understand that people who nominate articles without doing even a cursory check for sources are, quite rightly, given a hard time here (but let me say it again, I did do such a check). However nobody has to do any checking. Nobody can be made to rewrite articles. The George Washington example is not a real case. If it existed it would take 10 seconds to find sourcces and 30 seconds to write something notable in the article. It would be perverse to AfD an article that could be fixed in under a minute by anybody. But what about an editor that has written reams of promotional junk about a new variety of yoga? It may conceivably be notable (but probably not), but if no one takes on a cleanup it is better to delete and give a new editor a clean sheet than to keep an article that is essentially just an advert. SpinningSpark 18:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL-REASON items 7 & 8 are the criteria to use here. The fact that the article does not itself list these sources is not a reason. And your nomination stated that there is "No indication of notability". Maybe I'm assuming that you mean that there is no indication in the article, so I'm sorry if I'm reading into that statement. Perhaps "No evidence of notability" would be more clear, or even, "I could not find anything to support that this subject is notable by performing searches. The article certainly doesn't provide any support for notability." I think we are discussing the same issue now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete millions of personal software projects out there. The age where a complex public CS-focused machine language was important by merits of its existence or a couple dedicated fans ended about 25 years ago. --Monk of the highest order^(t) 19:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find sources to establish notability. Probably WP:TOOSOON. ~KvnG 18:27, 10 October 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. The consensus of this discussion is that Tony Anthony meets the requirements to be covered as a subject of an article, and that there are no reasons based on Wikipedia's rules to delete the article. If Tony Anthony has any concerns that the article is inaccurate (in that it does not reflect material published by reliable sources) or otherwise problematic, he should raise these concerns on the article talk page or by e-mail.  Sandstein  11:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Anthony (evangelist)[edit]

Tony Anthony (evangelist) (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)

OTRS ticket 2013100310011439; subject requests deletion claiming the article is prejudicial. — Coren ^(talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Anthony is a public figure who has been widely accused of lying in his autobiography Taming The Tiger. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to determine the truth of the allegations, but to see if he is notable, and if so to produce a neutral article. Here are some sources indicating notability.[1][2][3][4][5][6] He is also subject of a children's book, Cry of the Tiger, although it probably counts as an official biography.[7] Wikipedia rules allow people of borderline notability to request deletion of an article about themselves to protect privacy. They don't exist to cover up allegations against someone who remains a public figure, co-author of an autobiographical book and a frequent public speaker. If there are factual inaccuracies that can be dealt with by editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since the previous AfD found him non-notable, the only thing that has changed is the new controversy over the authenticity of autobiography. That would be a WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E. Most of the sources in the article are unreliable. A reliable 6 sources are listed by Colapeninsula above, all but one dealing with the controversy (the last primary source interview). So it seems the only thing he is notable for is the controversy ie. One Event. If he had been considered notable before the controversy it would be different (I actually don't know if he was notable before the controversy just going by the results of the last AfD which was 5 Delete to 0 Keep). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have reviewed the previous AfD and the delete decision was based of a lack of reliable sources for his claims, not on notability grounds. This has now changed. SmilingFace (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's how notability is defined on Wikipedia, lack of sources. My contention is that the new sources are all for a single event controversy about the book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is in the nature of conversion biographies that the level of wickedness before conversion tends to be exaggerated. I would suggest that the Taming The Tiger (book) controversy is a bit more than WP:BLP1E. (Taming The Tiger is an article about an unrelated album). For one thing, the article lists two further books with the same ghost writer. A book that gets multiple awards and then is knocked off its pedestal is again noteworthy. I would accept that Tony Anthony's notability is limited, but I do not think we should delete the article out of hand. It might be better to restructure the article as concerned with the book and the related controversy. The previous AFD related to this article, which said nothing of the controversy. That article was deleted last March; my vote was "(with regret) delete". We are now talking about a new article created in August, following the authenticity controversy. It is that controversy that makes the difference. We can add the subject to a number of American TV evangelists, who have been knocked off their perches. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I came to the same conclusion: the controversy made the difference. 1E. On reflection what is really notable is the book. Although the book is about/by Tony, the controversy is in regards to the book. If the article was redone as a book article it would easily pass WP:NBOOK since all the available reliable sources are about the book, there is no such thing as 1E for book coverage. We should follow the sources. We should also be careful about taking a position in the debate eg. "TV evangelists who have been knocked off their perches" because there are two sides to the story, we have no idea what kinds of biases are involved here. If this article is kept, the entire controversy section probably needs to be deleted due to unreliable sourcing and re-written using the 5 or so reliable sources, per WP:BLP. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (declaration of interest - I recreated the article). WP:BLP1E says it only applied to low-profile subjects. Anthony is a published author whose book won an award, and he worked internationally as an evangelist - WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest he is not low-profile. Also, a couple of months ago, Christianity Magazine (a national UK magazine) had a front cover and multi-page feature on the controversy which no-one has yet added as a ref. There are probably other new sources as well. It's worth pointing out that this AfD request came from the subject who obviously has a vested interested in keeping the reports of his alleged wrongdoing out of the public eye. If there are issues with WP:RS, WP:BLP, or WP:NPOV then these can be corrected. SmilingFace (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO1E can also apply here which has no low-profile rule. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we regard the authenticity controversy as notable, which I believe it is (multiple reliable sources), WP:BIO1E can only be used to support a move, for example to Tony Anthony biography controversy. It does not support deletion. SmilingFace (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the logic there, but as I said above I think the thing that is really notable here is the book, based on the sources. We have three article-type possibilities: biography, book or controversy. Biography seems the most contentious since we found him non-notable prior to the book controversy, the book controversy is arguably a single event situation, and the sources are all about the book controversy. There is no debate about the book itself being notable per WP:NBOOK. If the book controversy should be a standalone article I think takes it too far since it can be included in the book article, along with other things (book summary, book reviews, etc.) A book article would cover all aspects and be unambiguously notable, per the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the sources are not all about the book controversy. But all types of article would be equally contentious as they would have essentially the same content. SmilingFace (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I nominated a previous version of the article (partly written by Anthony's supporters) for deletion, on the grounds that it was not verifiable, consisting mainly of Anthony's own claims. I supported the decision to re-create the article after The Observer and other sources published an exposé of his fantasies. I believe the Canadian and Dutch sources confirm notability as an evangelist, and this plus the notability for the exposé make the subject notable. As for WP:V, the main facts of the article are also now verifiable using the sources stated. Reporting verified adverse facts about an individual is not a ground for deletion. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have just expanded the article with additional citations including those given by Colapeninsula that were not already present. I'd suggest it is now very well-referenced with reliable sources proving notability. I accept there may be some grounds for moving it to Taming the Tiger (book) but that would not address the subject's complaint, which I regard as unfounded. He's targeting Wikipedia as other websites are far less likely to take down their articles. SmilingFace (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: According to the Oxford dictionary, prejudice is “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”. The current article is nothing of the sort. It is based on verifiable reports from reliable sources, as required. It also quotes the subject’s response and is written in a balanced and responsible style compliant with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The article is not preconceived opinion, but a summary of credible reports that do contain reason and actual experience. It cannot be described as prejudicial. Roundhse —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject is a published author and international speaker so WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies. As required by this policy, article documents what multiple reliable sources say, and subject should not be allowed to prevent inclusion EutychusFr (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but clean up. I do think the article places a bit too much undue weight on his autobiography scandal and it fails to even mention that he's written two other books. The scandal should probably be split off to Taming the Tiger (book) and the balance of the article fleshed out, but all-in-all, I think he passes the GNG threshold. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To start with, I don't believe that the article in its present form is prejudicial. Embarrassing to the subject perhaps, but given that everything there is backed by reliable sources, not prejudicial or unfair. With that said, even though there are rather a lot of sources, I think this is still a case of WP:BIO1E, and the coverage as far as I can see is exclusively limited to the subject being caught out telling porkies in their autobiography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason chen (Yitong Chen)[edit]

Jason chen (Yitong Chen) (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)

dePRODED by creator. Concern was: No plausible claim(s) to notability. Not produced by a genuine record label (self produced). Fails WP:Musicbio. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment AllMusic has a listing, as does Amazon. It certainly looks like he is reasonably notable in Japan. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC) SOCK[reply]

• Delete. Comprehensively fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Zero coverage of him in independent reliable sources, at least as far as I can find. No awards. No evidence of his music charting anywhere. Has not been signed to a notable label. AllMusic attempts to keep a record of every recording that has ever been published, including self-published ones. Being for sale at Amazon is likewise no evidence of notability. They sell thousands of non-notable self-published books and recordings, including copies of Wikipedia articles. Note that if this article is kept, the entire bio section is simply pasted in from http://jasondchen.com/about-2/ with some of the words replaced by synonyms and needs to be re-written. He's probably talented, but not yet notable. Having said that, if reviews or articles can be found in the Asian press, I'm willing to change my mind. He seems to have done some concerts there. e.g. [8]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, as well explained by Voceditenore. On the redeeming side, parts of the article are unintentionally funny ("He has a musical backdrop in violin"). On the negative side, parts of the article are self-contradictory (is he from Hong Kong or Taiwan?). --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs in popular culture[edit]

Pigs in popular culture (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)

Nominating for deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chickens in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cattle in popular culture. There is no possible way that Wikipedia can have a comprehensive article about pigs in popular culture. There are countless references to pigs through the history of human culture. Even if it was limited to the last 100 years, it would be impossible to catalog all the references to pigs in books, movies, television, etc. So instead we are left with a completely random list of whatever references to pigs people happen to think of while editing Wikipedia (mostly without citations). We might as well have Cats in popular culture or Wood in popular culture. Kaldari (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the lede makes clear, pigs are commonly used at symbols in Western art and art of other cultures, many examples of which is mentioned here. It's unfortunate that this is called "pigs in popular culture" not "pigs in the arts", as the latter would be far less likely to excite calls for deletion, but it's Wikipedia tradition to call it the former. There's plenty to be written about pigs as symbols, and while it could certainly do with converting from list to text, that's not reason to delete it, since there is important and useful information amid the cruft. Some sources on pig symbolism[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]: from its role as a Christian symbol of cupiditas, to ancient Greek fertility symbol, to Freud and Jung, to say nothing of non-Western meanings. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no doubt as to notability. There are problems of scope and title, but these are essentially editing matters, not for AFD. My inclination would be to split possibly by culture, possibly by topic area - we have an article on Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for example - but no solution will be perfect. I cannot agree, however, that the subject is simply too difficult for WP which is what deletion would imply. --AJHingston (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As far as I know there is no policy that says a topic is too important for an "...in popular culture" article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said it was too important. The scope is too broad and covers too many disjointed topics to be a coherent encyclopedia article, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I quite agree with Kaldari that "no possible way that Wikipedia can have a comprehensive article," and that the "scope is too broad," but this reason is not on the list of Reasons for deletion. And although there is not (yet) an article Cats in popular culture, there is in fact a Category:Cats in popular culture. The category Category:Animals in popular culture has categories and articles for more other animals than you could (or should!) shake a stick at, including articles for Apes, Bats, Birds, Dogs, Insects... and the list goes on.

The more fundamental argument is that Pigs in Popular Culture has been useful: there have been dozens of editors, it's been viewed more than 3,000 times in the last month (no idea what this means, though), and there are dozens of links from other articles.ch (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@CWH: Would you also support an article Animals in popular culture or People in popular culture? Should we make xkcd a reality and create Wood in popular culture? How about Clothing in popular culture or Americans in popular culture? These would all just be random lists of Simpsons episodes. Is that really useful and encyclopedic? Surely there must be a line somewhere between encyclopedic content and cruft. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree with your basic concern, which you put very well when you say there "must be a line somewhere between encyclopedic content and cruft." All I'm saying is that PIPC is indeed a mess, but on this side of the line, though not very far. It's hard to answer your questions in the abstract. If you want to write Animals in popular culture or one of the others for us to see, then I could could put in my two cents as to whether it is encyclopedic or cruft. But this would have no bearing on the question at hand. In the meantime, "there is no way Wikipedia can have a comprehensive article" is not one of the Reasons for deletion. ch (talk) 22:48, 9 October 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 Fallout (series). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout 4[edit]

Fallout 4 (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)

Bethesda has yet to confirm Fallout 4's existence, so this article definitely falls under WP:TOOSOON, when this information should be placed at Fallout (series)#Future, pending an official announcement. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 08:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I just read the article, and that's certainly a lot of words to essentially say, "This presumably exists, but we don't know anything about it." Most of it doesn't even look like it would be worth merging into a section on the franchise about its future. WAYTOOSOON. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge + Redirect to Fallout (series), and protect this article until such a time that we have better affirmation on F4. TOOSOON applies, but it is a reasonable search term since they've hinted the series will continue, hence to keep what's here (which does have some value) in the main series article and redirect it. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per Masem and GSK. Ansh666 20:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge + Redirect to Fallout (series). This is a nice synthesis of fragmentary sources, but I was not able to find multiple in-depth reliable sources needed for notability and synthesis is not allowed. I agree that this is a reasonable search term and merging a short verifiable summary into Fallout (series) is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - This topic fails WP:N, it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, not a single source discusses the subject directly in detail. Same arguments I made in the Chrono Break AFD. - hahnchen 16:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect What's at Fallout (series)#Future is sufficient. There doesn't seem to be anything to merge. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 7 October 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 United States House of Representatives elections, 2002#Wisconsin. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Greer (Wisconsin politician)[edit]

Ron Greer (Wisconsin politician) (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)

Political candidate who hasn't attained notable office, or other indications of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect per Dru of Id suggestion below. Sources don't support notability. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The two sources presented on this page do not meet WP:Notability standards. Specifically, "Political Graveyard" and "Our Campaigns.com" both lack significant coverage, given that they are just indexes with Greer as a single entry, not given significant weight of coverage. Additionally, Our Campaigns.com appears to be user generated content, thus failing to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet our Notability guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections, 2002#Wisconsin, where he is already appropriately included in the election results, and current high mark; no separate state article for the year, and no election results at Wisconsin's 2nd congressional district. Dru of Id (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is one of a slew of undoubtedly well-intentioned "articles" about obscure losing political candidates who fail WP:POLITICIAN and are only covered because they got on the ballot. We have established a clear precedent that if the only reason somebody appears in the press is because they are on the ballot as the candidate of a major party, the coverage is really about the election and not the candidate, and the general WP:BIO standards of substantial coverage about the subject are to be applied. Greer, like the rest, fails these (odd duck though he is). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 October 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 United States House of Representatives elections, 1998#Wisconsin. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Spottswood[edit]

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

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

Non-notable candidate and local politician; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She fails our Notability guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections, 1998#Wisconsin, where she is already appropriately included in the election results. No separate article yet for the state that year, and no election results at Wisconsin's 1st congressional district. Dru of Id (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 October 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 Kit houses in Michigan.  Sandstein  11:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Houses of Ann Arbor, Michigan[edit]

Kit Houses of Ann Arbor, Michigan (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 appreciate the article creator's removal of a list of addresses of private homes (well, house numbers if not streets), but this is not a notable and encyclopedic topic. If it were, we would have better sources than the most local of local newspapers (see WP:LOCALFAME); the cited sources are papers distributed free to residents of Ann Arbor, they're not even the main local newspaper much less a historic source indicating scholarly interest. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right here is my issue with this user's attempt to delete the article. The sourcing is based on articles published by two noted authorities on architecture and kit homes including numerous publications in national publications as well as being published authors themselves. The fact that one of the articles appeared in "the most local of local newspapers" takes nothing away from the quality of their work or the authority which they bring to these pieces. Furthermore, their work has been cited in numerous publications. Of course, the user apparently knows nothing of this and attacks the sourcing solely on where it was published.Kithousefans (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Lustron houses includes both owner names and addresses as do other articles about historic homes. This simply highlights the arbitrary nature of the request to delete this page or force the removal of addresses from this page.Kithousefans (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (see further commentary below) - per ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kit Houses of Ypsilanti, Michigan. We need sourcing that demonstrates this is notable outside a small geographic area (and I'm not even convinced it's notable within that small geographic area). Stalwart111 01:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources by authorities on this subject are included in the article. Clusters of kit homes within a small geographic area is notable and is referenced in the main Sears Catalog Homes article. As I noted in the other article, these same arguments should be applied to the article on Luston homes and similar lists of homes and locations listed on Wikipedia.Kithousefans (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sources are all local and not significant publications. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Authors of the articles include a noted national authority on kit homes (Schweitzer) who's book on kit homes is frequently cited in academic works. The homes of Ann Arbor have also been referenced specifically by national experts on kit homes (Thornton).Kithousefans (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Comment I don't think the coverage in reliable secondary sources rises to the level required of an encyclopedia. I do think that there might be some other local wiki that this might be more appropriate for. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kit houses in Michigan with this draft as a base. There aren't enough sources, I think, to support articles about kit houses in individual towns. But the State of Michigan had a particularly notable role in the development of the kit house industry in the United stated during the 20s and 30s. I'd be keen to know if Deathlibrarian and Nwlaw63 would support that solution and I've started a conversation with the nominator on his talk page. Stalwart111 04:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a completely reasonable solution. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stalwart111's far better solution. I think there's enough there to establish the general notability of the topic as a whole whereas there's not enough Kit houses of ______ articles. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Pathak[edit]

Amitabh Pathak (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:BIO. I notice this article was created the day his death was reported. being head of police of a state is not inherently notable. the only coverage I've found is of his death or him making statements as a senior police officer. nothing indepth about him as a person. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable but article fails WP:BIO, not notable; no controversy either.Wb10versinfo (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without major awards or medals and no media coverage beyond death - hard to make case for notability. There's lots of announcement coverage of death, but he had only been in position as Chief for 6 months so little time to establish notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As a police officer, he was simply doing what all such officers are expected to do. His last position lasted only six months, as it seems he had health issues, so he didn't really have the time to do anything remarkable. Looks like an article created and expanded by well-wishers, especially as it was created on the very day he died abroad when most people would not have known about it. The infobox even gives the names of his wife and children, not mentioned in the three sources cited, which were added later by another contributor. Why is that supposed to be relevant! In fact, although there are three sources, one source is a duplicate press agency report about his death, so all we have is a routine news item about his appointment in February 2013, and the press agency item reporting his death, as he died abroad. Most tourists dying abroad get that sort of coverage, no matter who they are, and the diplomatic mission of their country (mentioned in the press agency report) attends to all related matters. Nothing to do with notability - Zananiri (talk) 16:40, 11 October 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.