< 11 September	13 September >

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Turner (footballer born 1989)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has been included in a Multi AfD in the past.. WP:Articles for deletion/Mark McNulty (footballer)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above. Neutrality^talk 14:54, 20 September 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 Etiquette (technology). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digital citizenship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research with an agenda. Was deleted in 2008 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Digital_citizenship for the same reason. Runarb (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD wasn't properly done, so I'm fixing this for the nominator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding that this term has been mentioned in various places since the late 90s, but I'm not sure that we need a specific separate page for this. I'm leaning towards merging this with Etiquette (technology), as the basic definition of the term as it stands now is more of a rephrasing of netiquette. It's not a perfect synonym, as the term also describes the basic state of being online with other users, so it could be merged elsewhere if there's a better target. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This pages has gone through a very good rewrite by Tokyogirl79, so my original objections to it may not longer be valid as the page stands now. Runarb (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Etiquette (technology). Strangely, I don't think I've ever heard of this term, and I thought that I was hip to internet neologisms. Anyway, I suggest a merge with Netiquette, of which it seems to be a rephrasing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Etiquette (technology)#Netiquette as essentially the same thing. Ansh6 6 6 09:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm seeing significant secondary source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. Neutrality^talk 14:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Kiely[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has been included in a Multi AfD in the past.. WP:Articles for deletion/Mark McNulty (footballer)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage appears to be routine sports reports.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 14:54, 20 September 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. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turco (producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Claims of winning a Grammy are not verified through a search of the Grammy database. No other claims of notability made. Basically a session musician. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that he's won a Grammy, and further Google searches turn up no reliable sources. It's either a hoax article or he's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he exists (he is credited in Gang Bang (song)), and if he is credited in Mi Plan, he won the Latin Grammy Award, not the American Grammy. Anyway, the article needs a complete re-estructure and prove everything is factually correct. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is credited as the Drummer on Mi Plan, not one of the main creative team who would have been awarded the Grammy for the album. He is not listed in the archives of the Latin Grammy site. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. STATic message me! 03:47, 15 September 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 Fairly OddParents episodes. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy's Secret Wish![edit]

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

This episode does not meet its notability with references to IMDb and TV.com which are not reliable. JJ98 (Talk) 22:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I can't find any critical commentary on this episode anywhere. It could also be redirected to List of The Fairly OddParents episodes, but I don't think that's necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Fairly OddParents episodes. Unless independently notable, we do not need articles on every episode... but we can certainly redirect this searchable title to where it can be listed in context to the show itself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:51, 13 September 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. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Pendragon Adventure terminology[edit]

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

This list of terms has nothing to establish any sort of overall notability, and it has little worth as a companion article. Were it to be within the main article, it would likely be cut during regular cleanup, so its existence is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks to me like a hearty helping of fancruft, and nom's right about it being cut if merged. Not to mention, it's a pretty unlikely search term, so little is gained from redirection. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and nom. I'd like to believe that this could be merged somewhere, but I think TTN is right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 September 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M'Kraan Crystal[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. Deletion is also acceptable, but it looks like Features is going to be kept, so we might as well use it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe, not enough sources for a separate article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break-Out The Bible[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable video game, no significant third party coverage. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:58, 12 September 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) 00:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this game is particularly noteworthy. There's nowhere that we can redirect this to either, so it's a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Christian video game. It's already listed on CVG, so there's no need for a merge. A redirect might be helpful to fans, if they exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. DaveApter (talk) 18:06, 14 September 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 List of Forgotten Realms deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Knight (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've done this whole song and dance with this article before. Chain-spamming deletion attempts is just obnoxious. Rogue 9 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that keep founded in anything or just WP:ILIKEIT? The nature of my nominations doesn't matter so long as they remain valid. If I were nominating Drizzt or something, there would be grounds for having an issue with it. TTN (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the target suggested by User:BOZ, above. This article was WP:PROD'd in January 2008, deprodded within hours by an IP editor, redirected to the target above by BOZ, reverted within 5 minutes by another IP editor, and then redirected and reverted 4 more times by April 2008. It was redirected to the same merge target by the present AFD nominator in September 2009 and reverted 2 months later by another IP editor. I have some slight concerns with nomination by an editor who previously boldly redirected the article, but applyingWP:AGF this is just an extremely long WP:BRD cycle.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: Per nom, though if we have a list we may as well redirect it there and see if anything's worth moving. Forgotten Realms and Dungeons & Dragons may be notable, but the Red Knight specifically? If she is, the article's certainly not proving it. On a side note, we seem to have lots of D&D articles in a similar state. It might be worthing going on the WikiProject and sorting them out (whether by merging, fixing up, redirecting, etc.) – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a large core of vocal members of the Wikiproject who seem to be opposed to any mass clean up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Deletion is also acceptable, but it seems unnecessary. I can't find any reliable sources discussing this character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this kind of trivia. fails WP:GNG and so the results for this article are delete or merge if there is any appropriate content that would properly enhance some other article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 19 September 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 Ultra Monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Joe (Ultra monster)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultra Seven through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ultra Monsters. Does not seem notable, and I can not find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 14 September 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. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Skinner[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Plays for a team that is not fully professional, so fails WP:NFOOTY and hasn't received significant media coverage so fails WP:GNG too. JMHamo (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as has played semi-competitive sport. Wikiproject Cricket have established this and you are not allowed to question it. And I see no reason why that shouldn't apply to football too. For the same reason, that trumps WP:GNG and also WP:BLP. I do not necessarily hold these views myself, but am voting in line with my understanding of policy, as has been explained to me. Thanks for your understanding. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, played in a semi-competitive sport. That is without a doubt a clear failure of WP:NFOOTBALL. And we're talking about football, not cricket. – Michael (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like another case of someone making up their own criteria. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many times are we gonna have arguments like this? The article fails notability guidelines and rather than looking at the guidelines, people claim that "he's on the first team squad", "he's gonna make his debut soon", "he's a professional footballer", etc. Those arguments are never going to cut it. Also since I mentioned that this article fails the notability guidelines, I vote delete. – Michael (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 15 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Chandrasekaran[edit]

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

Lacks notability, lacks references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - it may lack references but you're supposed to check for them before starting an AfD. A glance at Imperial Life in the Emerald City will show that this topic easily passes WP:AUTHOR on two counts: multiple reviews in reliable sources (plus many more a quick check of Google shows); and winner of the Samuel Johnson Prize one of the most prestigious non-fiction book awards in the world. See also WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did check references, not every author ever published has their own article. Making insinuations such as not looking for references is not assuming good faith. A statement like "...one of the most prestigious non-fiction book awards in the world" can be interpreted as weasel words. Also when an article is created is supposed to be sourced, refering to the subjects own works is one sourcing.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internationally-noted prize-winning author. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Snow Keep) - Passes WP:AUTHOR on at least criterion #1 and #2: Imperial Life in the Emerald City itself was cited by at least 247 sources. The book also has received multiple reviews, including in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Chandrasekaran has written plenty of other internationally known pieces in addition to that book. - tucoxn\^talk 05:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the three !votes above mine.--Korruski^Talk 14:20, 16 September 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. There is consensus that the "indiscriminate" bit in STATS applies here, that there is no rationale (or rational principle) behind this collecting of information. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Football club attendances (2006)[edit]

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

PROD contested by ‎Arxiloxos (talk · contribs), who said "needs discussion, deletion not uncontroversial, these articles have been here for years and we have many other articles about sports attendance" - to ciounter that I say longevity does not mean notability, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My original conern, namely that these articles are a huge violation of WP:NOTSTATS and have no encyclopedic worth, remains valid.

I am also nominating the following articles, for the exact same reason:

Football club attendances (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football club attendances (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football club attendances (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football club attendances (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football club attendances (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football club attendances (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football club attendances (2013) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Giant Snowman 15:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is exactly the kind of reference information that people expect to find in a sports encyclopedia. We have many other similar articles, see Category:Sports attendance. WP:NOTSTATS warns against "long and sprawling lists of statistics" but also endorses the use of "tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". If there is something specifically wrong with these "football club attendances" articles, that should be identified. Otherwise I can't see any reason to remove this kind of encyclopedic information. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is "specifically wrong" with the articles is that they take six or seven completely different sports and lump them together, ignoring all other sports, on the seemingly spurious grounds that each is known to some people as "football"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently a number of editors agree with you that comparison of different football codes is inappropriate, but I don't think that's obvious: after all, our article about football discusses these sports together and we have an overarching Category:football covering them all as well. Examples of comparisons of attendance across football codes include [1][2][3][4][5][6]. If sources like these see the value in comparing attendance in the various kinds of "football", I don't see the objection to similar comparisons here. In any event, I do think it should be noted that there is no consensus supporting the broader claim that was the basis for this AfD, and for the preceding prod, that attendance lists are barred by WP:NOTSTATS. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've only read numbers 4 and 5, but I notice that they also include in their comparisons netball, motor racing, tennis, cricket, etc etc, so are comparisons across all sports, not just the various types of "football"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:LISTCRUFT. Intention of the list appears to be to combine attendances from different sports that are known as "football", whether that means Rugby football, American football, soccer or Aussie Rules. Lists of attendances for all sports or one sport would be encyclopedic, picking out some sports is listcruft. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1) This is not a sports encyclopaedia or a stats book. 2) there is no real reason to use the remit of the current page, either include all sports or limit it to association football but the current amalgamation of association football, NFL, Rugby Union (and others) is plain daft. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really don't see the encyclopedic value in comparing attendances across a small number of different sports, as Jmorrison says above, either compare across all sports or don't compare at all. Beyond the fact that these sports technically had a common ancestor over 150 years ago, there really isn't anything comparable about them. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft, but worse, using Wikipedia as a reliable source for referencing English clubs' attendances is pure madness. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTSTATS is a style guideline which suggests we avoid adding huge tables of stats to articles, making them unreadable. It is not applicable here because the tables on these pages are quite tight, legible and comprehensible - a commendable example of summary style. The other hostile shortcuts such as WP:LISTCRUFT are not policies and are instead just personal opinions equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. The general topic of attendances is notable being covered in detail by sources such as The Economics of Association Football; The Economics of Professional Team Sports; The Economics of Football. These seem to be sources of good quality, being published by the Cambridge University Press, for example, and contain graphs and statistics, as one would expect for works of economics. Covering such sports across different codes makes sense to provide a wide perspective per WP:GLOBALIZE. Warden (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, pick any random one of these, and there's no reliable sourcing at all. Similarly there's no definition here of what makes this notable. Can you show me where this kind of article is genuinely notable outside of lists of attendances? The actual answer is that this is trivia and belongs in a sports almanack, not a global encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FIVEPILLARS states that Wikipedia has the features of an almanac. I have provided multiple sources which discuss attendance figures in both a general and statistical way, as part of an economic analysis of these sports. This demonstrates notability per WP:LISTN. This information seems less trivial than much of the sports coverage in Wikipedia, such as the numerous stubby BLPs. These statistics represent the gates of the major clubs in the world and so summarise the activity of millions of supporters and the performance of these top clubs in the marketplace. As such, these pages are comparable with record of mass attendance such as List of the busiest airports in Europe or Category:Lists of highest-grossing films. Warden (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"These statistics represent the gates of the major clubs in the world" - yes, but what is the basis for combining the major clubs in just this small sub-set of sports? I can understand an article comparing attendances across all sports or within just one, but having an article that compares attendances just across half a dozen seems bizarre and nonsensical....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff Warden. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, such comparisons and precedents are valid, "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." So, for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films where an attempt was made to delete what is now a featured list. Why is attendance at sports fixtures less important than attendance at cinemas? It makes no sense. Warden (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that list includes the revenues from all types of films, not just (say) westerns, sci-fi and rom-coms. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those works refer to attendances within association football (soccer) only, or to attendances across all sports. These lists subjectively pick out a group of sports that only have in common that they are known as "football". This violates WP:LSC (which is a guideline). "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective [my emphasis] or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Wikipedia is not a sports almanac or even a sports encyclopaedia. It is a general encyclopaedia that brings together noteworthy information for a lay audience. Lists of attendances at sporting events are not germane to that remit. – Pee Jay 20:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to spend much of your time editing articles like English cricket team in Australia in 1882–83; 2009–10 NFL playoffs; 2005 Men's World Team Squash Championships. These seem to be just interminable scorelines and lists of players which better fit the description of WP:NOTSTATS. If we're talking of a bonfire of sports almanac material then be careful what you wish for; you might get it. Warden (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists Warden, other stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vague wave, Rambling Man. The claims that some sports stats are fine while others are trivia seems to be entirely arbitrary. Comparisons and precendents are therefore quite appropriate in establishing a logical argument. Warden (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to see what the consensus brings, won't we?! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep documented, sourced lists that belong together. Needs edited for style and possibly content. Sources could be better, but those are all surmountable problems that don't affect Notability. Even if the sources given would be considered not reliable, there is no doubt that sources that meet WP:RS can be found and added.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what is exactly the similarity between soccer, american football, rugby, australian football and canadian football except that they share the word "football"? And what reliable sources discuss this as a group (it is a list, so WP:LISTN would be the correct guideline)? I would agree that lists like these would be notable if they grouped all sports, or limited to individual sports, but I can't see how the sports that share the name "football" is worth to compare. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, why not list "Stadium attendances" which would include performances by Cliff Richard etc, or list "Sports with balls attendances" which would include Wimbledon. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I start browsing for sources and immediately find a stack of articles here:

List of stadiums by capacity
List of association football stadiums by capacity
Average attendances of European football clubs
Record home attendances of English football clubs

Are these listcruft too? Or are lists only crufty when they involve sports other than soccer? And what about the massive category:English football club statistics? Do these all violate WP:NOTSTATS too? Is there any consistency here? Warden (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows, other stuff exists yet again. Feel free to AFD them all. You know you can do that. What do you want from this? Where is your golden line on stats? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a general position here - that's why I am looking around and asking questions. But if this list is deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTSTATS then it seems that a large number of sports stats and lists ought to go too. I might well start some AFDs for them myself but there's no rush. Warden (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do have a position here, otherwise why have you !voted 'keep'? Giant Snowman 18:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the list in question to many of those other ones because it has a wider scope. I am not a devotee of any particular sport and so am more interested in the economic and sociological aspects, in which the variation of the sports' rules is unimportant. Manchester United and Tampa Bay Buccaneers are owned by the same businessman and so, from a business point of view, this makes them comparable. Warden (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good, looking forward to all the AFDs you nominate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has picked up the gauntlet and so we now have:

Warden (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Manchester United and Tampa Bay Buccaneers are owned by the same businessman and so, from a business point of view, this makes them comparable. Liverpool FC have had two different American ownership groups in the last several years. The present one also owns the Boston Red Sox, while the previous ownership group also had stakes in the Texas Rangers (baseball) and the Montreal Canadiens. So why are the attendances of NFL and EPL teams comparable, but the attendances of NHL or MLB and EPL teams are not? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good one: List of sports attendance figures. This seems to have the widest perspective as it compares "field and arena ball sports". Warden (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest there are a number of articles within the category Category:Sports attendance which would struggle to pass AfD. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh, other lists exist. They may or not fit this AFD category. If you (Warden) believe they do, I'm sure you know how to nominate them for AFD. If not, noting them is fascinating, but ... meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT per Jmorrison. I agree with TRM too. The use of WP as a reference for these articles is madness....William 18:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per Jmorrison, Spudgfsh. There are a number of other problems with all of these lists. What is the value of comparing attendances of these particular sports? Why are we looking at one year when many sports have seasons that cross two years (American football, association football in Europe etc). How do we know these lists are comprehensive without a RS? Having attendances for within a competition, or even a sport may have some value, but this doesn't. The lead doesn't explain why this list has value – that says a lot really. - Shudde ^talk 06:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Shudde, you've hit a few nails squarely on their heads. Football seasons span years, the lead is ridiculously weak, there's no value here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references section is a joke. --MicroX (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most delete rationales are variants of "I don't like it": "I don't see value", "Cruft", yadda yadda. That me, you or other people can't "see value" doesn't mean it has none -you are trying to prove a negative. That said, entries of the tables are almost surely sourceable, and that they currently have little sourcing is not a reason to delete: if they were unsourceable at all, then it would be different. Warden correctly noted this is a germane almanac-like entry. --cyclopia ^speak! 00:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I cannot see where this has been listed elsewhere before, compiling such a comparison has hints of WP:OR about it. How can July–June seasons be compared with January–December seasons? Why is the list using Wikipedia as a reference for European crowd figures? Why is there no "Total Attendance" field? Surely whatever purpose these lists serve can be fulfilled by List of sports attendance figures, although whether that itself should be on Wikipedia is also for discussion, elsewhere. C 679 11:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Solomon[edit]

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

Biography with insufficient evidence that this person meets the criteria for inclusion. As a wine seller, there is only local coverage. As a neuropsychologist, he has published a single paper. As a philosopher (which constitutes the bulk of the article) he is non-notable, having written a single self-published treatise that extends the Simulation Hypothesis. This article appears to be something of a coat rack by which to publish this otherwise non-notable simulation theory extension. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As a wine seller...", reference to national coverage was added. understanding from author is that professional book review is coming soon (also national). Jpendergraph

Comment By "reference to national coverage", I suspect Jpendergraph is referring to the addition of the reference to the article "Coping with an Antiques Paradigm Shift" in the June 14, 2013 issue of Maine Antiques Digest, in which Solomon is briefly featured as a participant in a larger "modern/antiques" auction, which is the real topic of the article. In any case, if Solomon is a notable wine dealer, then that is the article that should be written (although I don't really think there is notability in that realm either). The article that we have is about Solomon the philosopher, a realm in which he appears completely non-notable. Promises of an upcoming "professional book review" may change this situation (but probably won't), but until that occurs, we really have little or nothing to go with here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTHOR #3 requires multiple book reviews, how many depending on quality (ie. two enough if they are national like NYT and WashPost). The two WP:GNG sources, WUNC and NewsObserver, are local to NC and focus on the wine auction aspect which isn't what the article is about as the nom points out. Not sure it's enough to write a Wikipedia article with or say why he is notable (for starting a wine auction business?) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Green Cardamom and the nom that there is at this point no indication that this meets neither WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 14:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trishla Chandola[edit]

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

Participant in beauty pageants. Won the city round, but did not win at the national level. No other claim to fame. Does not meet notability. Does not meet WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Dwaipayan (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it meets guidelines in WP:PORNBIO which includes models - It does only seem like she only played a fairly minor role in the contest. Article subject had small coverage and a lot of the article, especially under "Personal Life" is unsourced. Adrianw9 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Times of India counts as a single source per the rules since its on the same subject same paper. That leaves one other sources and I don't think two sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. Further it's basically a 1 Event situation, her career just started, WP:TOOSOON. Disagree with previous it would be under PORNBIO, she is not porn, it would be WP:NMODEL. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I AM She 2011. Full article like Universe is her calling! Deccan Chronical would mean her name could be searchable term for some. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NMODEL. I was tempted to recommend Redirect as above, but there are multiple possible targets such as I AM She 2011, Indian Diva 2013, and future pageants she participates in. Web/wikipedia searches would find those hits even w/o a redirect. Abecedare (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exceedingly minor model. Neutrality^talk 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aintoura SC[edit]

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

Another non-notable Lebanese sports club failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There are no sources in the article, and a Google search turns up non-reliable things, including articles based on this. Unless someone can find Arabic sources to prove notability, I don't see how it has any. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little content on the page, no sources, little online coverage. Agree with nomination reasons, unless anyone else can find any more sources and expand the article. Adrianw9 (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonnotable. Neutrality^talk 14:50, 20 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Recut Trailers[edit]

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

We have an article on Re-cut trailer, which is a notable internet phenomena. However, this is a list that is unsourced and only serves to list all known trailers. Given that most of these trailers are user-made and borderline on copyright issues, this is effectively an indiscriminate list, not appropriate for WP. There are probably some recuts that are more notable than just being link-dropped by reliable sources, but these limited examples can be documented on the main topic without a problem. MASEM (t) 14:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the user who marked this article for deletion. In response to the article is unsourced, the article is a list of a type of video, which seems to me to either be a reference list in itself or not requiring a reference list. These video's do not infringe on copyright issues per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Thank you.
EzPz (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The videos as hosted at youtube (in general) may be copyvios, though may also be fair use there, and per WP:ELNO, we would not link to copyvios on other sites. But this list is indiscriminate because you are just linking to videos that are created by users with no other filter, which is extremely indiscriminate. Like we do at List of Internet phenomena, we need the filter of being recognized as a recut trailer by a reliable source to avoid the indiscriminate nature. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of external links. - MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to other lists Wikipedia has, such as List of fictional humanoid species in comics, and List of fictional dhampirs. . . I personally feel as though this list is fine.
EzPz (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the fictional humanoid species, they limit it to those that are notable - that have their own article, which means that on those pages, they are sourced, so that's a filter. On the fictional dhampirs, these are from notable works of fiction. Here, we are talking user-generated content that has shown no degree of notability, and thus is a problem. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What about List of photo-sharing websites, List of blogs, List of chat websites. I guess the point I'm making is, Wikipedia has alot of stuff on it that isn't exactly famous. . . . and with an article already on the topic of recut trailers, I think it's appropriate to provide a list for such items.
EzPz (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of external links. Doubling down on this one, this is probably the simplest and strongest case for deletion.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To further build if you actually read WP:NOTLINK this is exactly what this article is, a repositiory of external links. It also hinges on self promotion/soapboxing depending on the intentions of some editors.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as self-promotion/soapboxing, that does not apply to me . . . I've been going over the WP:NOT and WP:NOTLINK and I can't help but come to agree with what y'all are saying. . . as far as the technicalities of Wikipedia, I do see now how it is not in agreement with guidelines. I don't like it, but I see it. I am removing my opposition to deletion. That is all, thank you.
EzPz (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I expect a snowball situation will develop here as users look at this article, which is nothing but an indiscriminate list of external links. As mentioned above this is basically a directory of a certain type of copyright violations. And of course, the idea that we should ever try and list every single example of an popular type of webvideo is just ludicrous. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the sole author of List of Recut Trailers, I blanked the page in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7. Author requests deletion to speed up the process of getting it deleted.
EzPz (talk) 22:21, 12 September 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. --BDD (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony (web series)[edit]

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

Yuck, what a mess. It is pretty entirely cited to local sources, and I can't find anything outside of those sources. It's a YouTube sitcom, and no actor appears to be notable. The article has been orphaned since April 2013. I believe this fails WP:GNG very comfortably, due to the lack of coverage in non-local, reliable sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any sources or coverage online, article is also a complete mess. Adrianw9 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I can't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Detete per same rationale. Don't see much room for potential improvement here, as only sources I'm able to find are local-based reports of questionable reliability. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I love "bad" webseries, but this only has 568 views of the first episode[7], which confirms the sourcing is as questionable as it looks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, I didn't expect it to be quite that low - three of my own videos have more views than that! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:01, 19 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AES – School for Girls[edit]

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

An organization that fails WP:CORP, with sentential verified evidence of coverage coverage even in a single reliable secondary source. VI-007 (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified school with a secondary section. We generally keep all secondary schools per long-standing consensus. Appears to actually be called AES School for Girls without the dash. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Necrothesp: How did you verify? as this page relies on primary references there is not even a single secondary source for verification.--VI-007 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSCHOOL. There are multiple secondary sources ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) verifying that this school exists. --SMS ^Talk 20:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott John Wilson[edit]

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

Continuous vandalism, the article has not been verified by the person it is about and the resulting vandalism is causing deformation to this persons character Sbrien45 (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no rule that says entire articles can be deleted for those reasons. At best you could say he is not notable per WP:NOTE, but people will try to prove otherwise by showing links to sources per WP:GNG. If you need help with constant vandalism try WP:ANI. If material is unsourced you can delete it per WP:V. Defaming material can be deleted under WP:BLP. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have grave doubts as to his notability. I am doubtful if a Community Radio Station is notable; similarly an Internet Station. Q Radio says it closed just before the subject allegedly joined Q Radio Network; or are these two differnet things? Not being in Northern Ireland, I have no idea of the profile of the network, but the article is so uninformative that I wonder how notable it is. Presenters on national radio stations are usually notable, but I doubt that Q is sufficiently notable. I am in England and am willing to be contradicted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Neutrality^talk 14:51, 20 September 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.

IPhone 5c[edit]

The result was Speedy keep. (Non-admin closure) Nominator did not elaborate on why two clearly irrelevant guidelines were used to support deletion. Par for the course was that the nominator implicitly suggested merging despite this not being the appropriate venue (see: WP:Merger for the correct procedure). No one other than the nominator put forth an argument for deletion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

New model of a phone with barely any differences. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. W. A. Bulatovic (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably a good faith nomination but a bad nomination. We already discussed this on the talk page. No support to remove or delete this article. JOJ ^Hutton 12:44, 12 September 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 September 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Reasons for nominations not enough. Article topic received a lot of press coverage, whether there are a lot of differences between old and new models or not it is counted as a major new release and will probably achieve a high number of sales to warrant an article. Adrianw9 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I removed the delete notice since it is notable as-is.Frmorrison (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, only admins can close deletion discussions. You are not an admin. Also merge with iPhone 5 as there are not enough differences to justify a new article as it is almost 95% identical. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD notice doesn't get deleted until a full judgement is reached. As it says on the notice. Adrianw9 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe this model to be "95%" the same. This article has had over 35,000 views in 2 days. I 2nd Adrianw9's reasons as well. The article could be merged at a later date when the current demand subsides some.Varixai (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand that the 5C isn't much different from the 5, but it should be mentioned Apple have replaced the 5 with the 5C - the 5 has been discountinued so I'd consider them separate models, and I still think the amount of coverage and popularity warrants a separate article at least for the time being. Adrianw9 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong super-speedy keep. Read the opener "New model of a phone with barely any differences. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS" – WTF does that mean? This is just a nomination from a anti-Apple WP spammer, using nom reasons that are invalid from the very outset. These kind of things are getting highly annoying to deal with by regular editors! The product clearly exists, the reasons for nomination are flawed, and regardless of having similar internals, there are a great deal of subtle diffs between them to justify entirely separate pages. Completely ill-conceived nom this, jeez, just close already. Jimthing (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources show that this is a highly notable product. Nomination has a distinct flavor of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its notable and is not the same as the iPhone 5 --Jacob Steven Smith (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that's everyone then, except the proposer. Time to close? Jimthing (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a new product with high notability. cipherswarm (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This has lots of notability, and does not need to be deleted. StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 02:55, 13 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handmade Lace Wigs[edit]

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

Article has no references or external links to suggest any type of significance. EzPz (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly just an opportunity to link to an e-commerce site, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. Stalwart111 13:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have an (unfortunately unsourced, but non-spammy) article for Lace wig which makes this one redundant. Mabalu (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - linking to an online store and is written too much like an advertisement with no sources. Delete as per WP:PROMOTION Adrianw9 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article links to an online store and also looks a bit promotional. StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 02:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Malabu points out, there is already an article on Lace wigs, and there is no suggestion that there is anything different about handmade ones that could justify the split. Presumably all are handmade to a degree and if not any significant differences could be covered in the main article. --AJHingston (talk) 10:24, 13 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animals MMA[edit]

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

Recent creation, notability not been established. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point I'm not seeing much reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor sourcing and no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sources. DaveApter (talk) 18:08, 14 September 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 deleted by User:RHaworth for not being in English. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 09:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perkembangan Kanak-kanak peringkat umur 6- 12 tahun dari aspek Fizikal dan Kognitif[edit]

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

Apart from being in Malay (according to Google Translate) this is an essay and WP:OR. It may have references, but these do not turn it into an enclyclopaedic article. It does not need translation, it needs deletion. Fiddle Faddle 10:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not in English. ~~Actually this would meet WP:CSD criteria so could have been speedied.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply I can't see which CSD criteria. PROD seemed inappropriate since I took a view that the creating editor probably did not have sufficient fluency with English to handle that, so I chose AfD. Fiddle Faddle 16:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right, I must be remembering something there once was. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 12 September 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 Ari Peltonen. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Valtio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Valtio (2nd nomination)

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

Delete this old micronation joke. The fact that this got some press coverage from a single Finnish newspaper and radiostation employing the "ruler" of this fantasy country six years ago does not make this topic encyclopedic. That few well-known people have been associated with this prank for its humour value does not make it notable either. We don't collect random trivia and in-jokes made up by otherwise notable people and any small media coverage this had has run out years ago. Past deletion discussion here jni (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History Note: In 2007 this article was speedy deleted; that deletion was then overturned at DRV [13] and the article was sent to AfD, which closed as keep on 24 October 2007. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valtio. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article cites more than one source and the 2007 DRV and AfD cite multiple sources for this micronation. Since notability is not temporary, I am inclined to keep the article. Alternatively, the content might be merged and redirected to Ari Peltonen, where this is mentioned; his article needs sources anyway. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is not a micronation but a joke made by one radio presenter who is borderline notable in Finland. We don't write separate articles about pranks made by Jay Leno or Oprah (unless they receive significant independent media coverage) so we should not do so for jokes by some random radio host that maybe 0.1% of Finnish population knowns or cares about. Second, the sources are claimed to be unknown number of news articles in Helsingin Sanomat; it is hard to know what they say as the citation is missing things like exact dates and page numbers. Maybe they don't exist at all or are really columns by Peltonen himself or other blog-like entries. Finnish Wikipedia (fi:Valtio (mikrovaltio)) uses the same vague sources and also cites this newspaper link: [14] It mentions Peltonen and his joke in passing in few sentences but as its title is "Crowd populated city center for the Night of the Arts Festival. Police said the evening was peaceful" and most of the content is routine local news reporting, it does not really amount to anything. Ruotuväki (red link, but article exists in Finnish Wp fi:Ruotuväki)) is a Finnish amateur conscript-journalist edited newspaper for military, equal in notability and journalistic prestige to typical university student newspaper. The external link to Ruotuväki web site in article does not work and the source section again omits details like exact back-issue number and page number. Reliable source is not some vague reference to some obscure news source very few people know about. Also the previous AfD and DRV (which was for the speedy deletion) don't contain any additional references.

I challenge anyone to find even a single non-WP derived source for this in Internet. (But note that valtio is a normal Finnish language noun). I only managed to find a few blog posts. Therefore I challenge the notion that notability is not temporal: If Internet forgets about your made-up stuff in few years - because nobody really cares about it - it was never notable to begin with and never received any significant news coverage. jni (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, most micro-nations are jokes, but at least some of them are notable jokes. Sources need not be on the internet. Reliability has nothing to do with the prominence or obscurity of the source, although if he source is too obscure it may lend less weight to notability. Whether the coverage this received was enough to establish notability can be argued, and as to the previous AfD, consensus can change. But the absence of current online sources is not determinative. I have no opinion on the merits of this article, but I could not let the above comment sit unanswered. DES ^(talk) 19:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current online sources is not determinate, but it is one of the criteria from WP:EVENT were this article fails. It seems to fail all other applicable criteria from that guideline as well, like WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE. Reliabily should be evaluated in some context relating to the source, but lets not start a meta-discussion about our policies. Reliability of sources is a side issue for this article, as it currently has no sources at all! Broken external links are not valid citations. Please do add off-line sources to the article, if you can, but as it has only ever had online sources, their unavailability has become an issue. As this joke is clearly stuff that goes to the "odd events around the world" sections in newspapers (which WP does not usually cover), I don't expect to find anything encyclopedic from the insignificant (and local to Finland capital city area) news coverage this might have received six years ago. jni (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the creator, Ari Peltonen, if he is notable, or otherwise delete. As explained above this is just a transient joke, not anything that is part of the historical record. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ari Peltonen. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:09, 18 September 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. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mono (video game)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable game Sven Manguard Wha? 07:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find sources. Ansh6 6 6 08:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it is not notable.Frmorrison (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Only has one link, fails WP:NOTABILITY, and is poorly written to boot. Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't fit the criteria for a speedy delete, unless you really mean "snow close as delete". DES ^(talk) 19:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, no sources of significance found. (If additional significant sources are posted here or to the article after this comment, the closer should discount this comment.) It appears this was originally a test, and it never seems to have taken of enough to gain notability. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 14 September 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, even with the GA arguments discounted (GA isn't related to notability or deletion, as noted below). For the rest of the discussion, there is disagreement on whether this is appropriate as a standalone article or should be merged. That's an editorial decision, and discussion of that matter should continue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Break[edit]

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

This is a rumor page that uses all "assumptions" not for wiki. Tyros1972 Talk 06:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chrono (series)#Chrono Break. Ansh6 6 6 08:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah I thought of that after I nominated, but I agree with a redirect. Tyros1972 Talk 11:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Are you kidding me? It's a Good Article! Terrible nomination, completely misrepresenting the article. It's not a collection of rumors or assumptions. It's a ton of commentary on a prospective game provided through over 20 reliable sources and commentary from the company and developers. Please read up on the WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE. A game does not need to be released in order to meet the GNG, its just needs coverage in reliable sources. This has plenty. Sergecross73 msg me 12:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see why CB needs an entire page dedicated to it, a redirect and added into a smaller section would be fine for this. The game not only was not released but does NOT even exist! Tyros1972 Talk 06:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're misrepresenting it again. There's many confirmed facts in there. (For example, Hironobu Sakaguchi literally said they were working on story ideas. Not rumor. Reliable sources confirm an exact quote. Additionally, rumor is acceptable as long as its presented by reliable sources and not misrepresented as fact or anything. Every sentence is sourced, and a vast majority of the sources are deemed reliable by consensus at WikiProject Video Games. Lastly, you'll notice that "existence" is not, in fact, one of the criteria at WP:GNG. Just coverage by reliable, third party sources, is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some other thoughts:

Prior 2010 discussion showing clear consensus to Keep Chrono Break article
Precedent of past consensus's for keeping unreleased/cancelled video games with proper third party coverage:

Just some other thoughts for consideration. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? - Are you seriously nominating a Good Article for deletion? Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing preventing anyone from nominating a GA (or a FA, for that matter) from being AfD'd. They've been deleted before. Ansh6 6 6 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it usually requires a little better of a nomination than "It's rumors"... Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you're going to attempt to delete a GA, you need to bring an exceedingly persuasive argument with you, something I find to be dramatically lacking in this nomination. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rational for the nomination is not an accurate assessment of the article. This is not a collection of rumors but coverage of an actual game that did not get released. It may be possible to make a case for for removal but at worst that would be a merge not deletion. That being said I do not see a case here nor is the rumor argument even remotely strong enough here.--70.49.73.6 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article is backed by reliable sources, so a deletion is very bad idea. Perhaps you could consider a merge instead if you feel the length is insufficient, but you dont want to bulk up the series article too much. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There's very little of value here. This topic fails WP:N, it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, not a single source discusses the subject directly in detail. It's a synthesis of single sentence quotes, primary sources, and original research. For example, the entire first half of the Signs of life section is pretty much original research, unsupported by the citations. The entire trademark history only points to primary sources.

Cancelled games are notable if they meet the criteria at WP:N. Fortress (Grin) does, Sonic X-Treme does. But this isn't even a cancelled game, it's a project that may or may not have ever existed, it's WP:CRYSTALLY speculation. Redirect to Chrono (series). - hahnch e n 22:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of "Signs of Life" that is really synthesis is the subsection title itself. Rename it to something less suggestive, or work it into other sections, and any OR problems are eliminated, as the info itself isn't jumping to any conclusions. As for the rest of your argument, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that major publications like Game Informer or Famitsu discussing it doesn't establish notability. I certainly think it does, let alone the other 20+ sources... Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the first sentence - "Hopes for a sequel were raised when Masato Kato returned to Square Enix to work on games of the World of Mana project." "Hopes for a sequel were raised" is original research. Despite the 20 sources, these do not "address the subject directly in detail" as required at WP:N. - hahnch e n 23:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're still talking clean up issues - AFD is not clean up. This is easily fixed. Reword it to something like "Despite the hurdle of many key staff leaving the company, they still continued to work with one another in some capacity. Kato reunited with Square to work on the World of Mana project, Mitsuda worked with Kato on Kirite etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What "hurdles", how is any of this relevant to Chrono Break (which would more accurately be titled Hypothetical Chrono series sequel)? Where's your source linking the two? You're suggesting that we replace one piece of original research with another. When sources have not discussed the subject directly in detail, it fails WP:N. I elaborated on the original research to show that little would be lost in a redirect. - hahnch e n 23:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you really ready the entire article? Elsewhere in the article, RS's directly quote the creators in saying that reuniting the original dev team was a hurdle to overcome in making this game. Yeah, it's easy to tag just about anything as OR if you don't even try to attribute info to sources... Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you really read WP:SYN? "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." Tanaka gives a one sentence reply in an article where the subject is not covered directly in detail. Editors have used that as a pretext to OR speculate on the working relationship between Kato and Mitsuda - attributing info to the source "Deep Labyrinth (DS) Screenshots". I'm trying, and it's coming up blank. - hahnch e n 00:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanaka's quote, in response to the question about the future of Chrono, is that it its difficult to reunite the old team members, and that reuniting the old team members would be necessary to recapture the same feel. He says this because many staff members left to another company. (verifiable) Then there's sources verifying that, despite this, staff are in fact working together on other projects, like Kirite and Deep Labyrinth. (verifiable.) I don't understand what part is falling through the cracks for you, its all clearly stated. You don't see the relevance of past creators collaborating with one another on other projects, when its been specifically stated by one of the creators that being able to work together would affect the future of the project? (You are probably right about the "Screenshots" source not being good, but it was a deadlink for me, so I couldn't check. Regardless, it was replaced with a reliable source within 30 seconds worth of a Google search, which again leads me to my thought that most of the concerns are just clean up issues...) Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chrono (series)#Chrono Break. There isn't really any need for a separate article here; as there's so little verifiable information on the subject (indeed, it's not clear whether this alleged project ever even existed), the article consists mostly of speculation. That said, some of this content could be usefully merged to the series article; the 'Official response' section of this article could be turned into a section about the future of the series. Robofish (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a Good Article! This doesn't need to be deleted, and it also has plenty of sources. StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 03:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It doesn't matter if its been a good article, it can still be deleted. It is mostly a rumor page and WP:OR speculation and has no reason not to be merged IMO. Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 04:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA's can be deleted, sure, but to say it "doesn't matter" is quite right to say either. To pass a GA, that means at least one editor put a ton of work into it, and then at least one editor gives it an in-depth peer review. It takes a lot of experience and knowledge with Wikipedia to do these things. I just find it hard to believe that 2+ experienced editors were so far off base with their conclusion, that not only was there GA review wrong, but the article didn't even deserve to exist... Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen GA's that are well written but sometimes fail WP:NOTABILITY. More commonly, I've seen very notable articles that aren't GA. GA nomination doesn't mean the article is perfect. It may have been better and more factual at one point, but given it is already considered for deletion, it has fallen far. Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a GA that fails WP:N? Also, no one has asserted that "GA=perfect", and just because an article is nominated for deletion does not necessarily say anything about the article either. It could just be a bad nomination. (The fact that the article hasn't received a single "Delete" !vote after about 10 commenters is an indication that AFD wasn't really the right avenue for this, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one fails WP:N as pure speculation. I should start a merge discussion with Chrono (series)#Chrono Break because it is more appropriate for this article rather than deletion altogether.Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant another article, I already know your stance here. You made it sound like finding GA's that fail WP:N was a common occurrence while you browse Wikipedia or something. That sentiment seems strange to me, that certainly hasn't been my experience in the last 5 years... Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have reorganized/rewritten some of the article, replacing some of the questionable sources with reliable sources, and rewording it so there's less OR-based jumping to conclusions; it sticks closer to just presenting the facts by the sources provided. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rumored Keep - I speculate that this well-sourced GA about a notable topic will not be deleted. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "WP:CRYSTAL - "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Then read the lead, "Although no official announcement was made, the trademark sparked speculation..." - hahnchen 19:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per CRYSTAL, the same thing you just quoted: Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided The article is well written, well sourced, and focused. But the problem is that it's more about a sequel in general rather than Chrono Break...it could be organized even more in a way that shows how Chrono Break had caused a want for a Chrono sequel. But...if it can't make that connection, I may have to vote for merge to the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, if an article is well written, sourced, and focused, then its something that is worth keeping. I'm not opposed to holding a rename discussion or RFC post-AFD, if that helps. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that it is focused. There are still significant WP:SYN concerns even after recent edits, removing focus, and just serves to pad it out. "Kato and Mitsuda again teamed up to do a game called Deep Labyrinth for the Nintendo DS" - the source has nothing to do with Chrono Break or a hypothetical sequel. - hahnch e n 19:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - More cleanup issues. It's common to add a sentence or two about related projects in game/film/music articles. It's fine if its just a sentence or 2 at the end. Worst case scenario, remove sentence if there's consensus... Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obvious. If the source matter is notable (last time I checked, canceled projects, lost works, and items in development hell all still are notable), and if it's well-sourced, then the only remaining complaint is its size, which is specious—not only because that's a bit of a bogus complaint on an encyclopedia documenting all notable minutiae (there are thousands of articles smaller than this that would never be deleted), but also because the article's not that small. You can't shoehorn this into the the Chrono series page without dwarfing the other game sections, or at least requiring them to be expanded to three or four times their current size. It's just bad business. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 04:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment problem is its more of a canceled trademark rather than a game being developed. The article is more about a hypothetical sequel than it is about chrono break specifically. If more info is found connecting the current info with chrono break, it may be saved.Lucia Black (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the game had actually been developed and a beta form built like Sonic X-treme, then I would have voted to keep the article. But since the only real form of evidence that Chrono Break was to be made was a copyright, the article is just speculation on what could have been. Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 20:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence and evidence isn't a requirement for notability. Only third party coverage is... Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news service. Yes there are third party sources. But they mostly are along the lines of "New Chrono game in development". The article itself is less of what the sources say and more wistful thinking. Even if we were to remove the speculation, it would still fail {WP:NOTNEWS. Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 17:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is just what keeps people from writing an article over every little story that shows up in the news, (like petty crimes that get coverage in local news outlets, but largely don't stand out as notable for anything) or people offering "breaking news" type updates to an article all the time. NOTNEWS isn't something you'd want to quote right now, its pretty irrelevant to this article. (Also, "WP:NEWS" isn't even a policy at all...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:NOTNEWS. For what it's worth, the game might have been relevant then, but it is hardly relevant now. Articles like this have a short shelf life because they are speculative and reference mostly news sources. Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 21:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither link is relevant. Also, please read WP:NTEMP. Subjects don't fall out of notability, its not a temporary thing. Sergecross73 msg me 22:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for what its worth, since some are complaining about it, reliable sources such as 1UP.com called it " natural assumption" that the trademark was in regards to a game in the Chrono series. The company itself only registered the trademark, but many reliable sources make the conclusion that the trademark was the name of the third game. That's why there's no original research problems. That's why its titled as such (though again, there can always be rename discussions down the line anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! For crying out loud, it's a GA! --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the hundredth time, that's not a valid "keep" argument. Ansh6 6 6 23:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not the centerpiece of my argument, but it is a valid point to make. Passing a GAN means the article received extensive attention from 2+ experienced editors, and not only survived a peer review, but was deemed to meet a standard far higher the notability requirements. Seems pretty relevant to me. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet WP:GACR makes no reference whatsoever to notability - an article can fail and still become a GA (see this essay, too). Ansh6 6 6 00:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I know there are no guarantees, but realistically, do you think 2+ experienced editors spent significant time in this article, making sure it hits those key points at WP:GACR like "Verifiable with no original research" and not look at the notability requirements? It may not explicitly be a bullet point in the checklist, but its virtually impossible to do everything required of a GA and not look at the key aspects of notability. That's the reason why different people keep bringing it up; its just so unlikely to be overlooked the GA process. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the significant sourcing, keep' per WP:GNG. While GA status does not protect an article from being deleted or merged, it usually means that its sourcing is good enough to meet general notability guidelines, as in this case. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 21 September 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WebGreeter[edit]

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

Carefully crafted article that fails to assert basic notability and is sourced entirely to primary sources and press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I did a web search and could find only pages from the company that sells this service, and a few blog and forum posts, many of which seemed to be spam from the same company. In addition, the current article is written like a marketing handout. Probably sufficiently so to warrant speedy deletion as blatant promotion. DES ^(talk) 20:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails basic tests of verifiability required by WP:CORP. Steven Walling • talk 02:14, 15 September 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) 05:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptions of the Tea Party movement[edit]

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

This article repeats much of the information in Tea Party movement, and the little it doesn't repeat seems to be WP:POV related. There isn't enough different information to justify another article. Moreover, it seems to be another means to wage content disputes over the tea party and related pages. This is very similar to the Agenda of the Tea Party movement and the deletion discussion taking place on that article. I would suggest the page needs to be deleted and the section needs to be developed in the article Tea Party Movement. If it eventually makes sense to make a sub-page, do it at that point. Casprings (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An inherent content fork, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Carrite; this seems like an unnecessary content fork to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a coatrack contrary to WP:SOAP. Now that Arbcom has acted to keep activists away, it's time for fresh start with the main article and forks like this should be cleared away to simplify that process. Warden (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another fork of the article that is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The "Agenda" article was already deleted for being a content fork. This one is as well, and should also be deleted. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Dumb content fork. Neutrality^talk 04:35, 17 September 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.