Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 2 August	4 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. If userification is desired for improvement or merging, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Awe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but give time to Merge data as needed into The Lodge at Chaa Creek. Set a deadline so this will not be lost, but give a fair enough time. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I feel funny saying so little, but when there's so little to say, it's best to say it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2012 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSPWiki[edit]

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

No indications of notability neither in the article, nor eslewhere on the web. The only reliable source I found on topic is a mere installation guide from DeveloperWorks' blog. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an Apache Incubating Project it can merged to Apache Incubator if consensus would be on deletion. –ebraminio^talk 08:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but allow time for Merge. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes JSPWiki less "notable" than (say) MoinMoin, XWiki or any of the other dozens of WP-listed wikisystems? Why is JSPWiki singled out for lack of notability, since, IMHO, that the only wiki system that truly qualifies as notable would be WardsWiki being the first of the genre. IIRC JSPWiki was at one stage the wiki installed by default on MacOS. Notable if verifiable?

mikro2nd (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable if notable. You talk about significance, which is not the same thing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nominator): I would not oppose merge, but the content isn't verifiable, so I can't see the way this action can be performed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be notable and popular. Here are some sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) not independent, Oracle's HOWTO on installing JSPWiki on their Java platform; (2) not independent, IBM's HOWTO on installing JSPWiki on their WebSphere, (3) not independent, MediaWiki's HOWTO on migrating from JSPWiki to MediaWiki; (4) blog about unrelated company, one sentence mentions JSPWiki in trivial manner; (5) 92-word user-submitted HOWTO; (6) routine trivial coverage, vulnerability report, such exist for every software ever packaged to Debian. None of these help with notability, even if we forget that HOWTOs are discarded for this purpose in WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - HOWTOs specifically about JSPWiki from prominent vendors independent of the authors of JSPWiki are, for me, strong evidence of notability. I don't believe WP:NSOFT means to exclude these when it says, "Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage". JSPWiki is not "covered in passing" in these HOWTOs. --Kvng (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The vendors are non-independent, as they cover their product usage with many other products. Oracle and IBM have such article for almost any server-side application. MediaWiki hosts such article for many wikis, and their article is wiki contribution itself (self-published/unreliable). The idea behind the notability guideline is that the topic was found worth notice by reliable sources that consider accepting or rejecting topics, while in these cases the sources strive to build indiscriminate collection of HOWTOs. FWIW for nearly any software there are HOWTOs around, so deriving notability from them equals to making every piece of software inherently notable. Regarding NSOFT: it requires either coverage in depth or implication of notability. Neither of these HOWTOs, as much as every other HOWTO, provide any of these. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's all well and good but doesn't convince me to change my opinion on this AfD. --Kvng (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Your edit summary "still Delete" looks like interesting freudism to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The provided sources (and I could not find any others) do not appear to be independent, or to provide the significant coverage required. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion by Mike 7. (non-admin closure) MikeWazowski (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As The Last Blossom Falls[edit]

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

Contested prod, possible WP:COI. No indications of notability for the play or the author. Google search for "As The Last Blossom Falls" "Laurence Sullivan" shows only 9 unique results (18 total), none from reliable sources. Zero results from a Google News search. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike, You are an incredibly hurtful person, might I say? I believe Wikipedia to be an open source, a cornucopia of knowledge. I recently added 'Mdrama' a legitimate qualification and you deleted it, twice. I have now linked it to prove otherwise. Secondly am I to believe that my play is not a play because google does not link it to enough pages? My five hundred strong audience I believe would disagree with you. Despite your polite greeting you are, actually making me feel horrible, when I have just edited wikipedia in a way I though appropriate, clearly not. Because of your attitude I will be deleting my account. Not because of your actions, I understand the necessity for strict rules of course. So, I shall continue to make theatre until it is deemed famous enough in your eyes, while you continue to spend hours deleting other people's work, in the case my edits, wordlessly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheatreMaker (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of which addresses the points I brought up - there are no links from newspapers reviewing the play, no links from reliable sources mentioning the play - only two are not from Facebook, and one of those is the Wikipedia article itself. I never said it didn't exist, I stated (and provided some proof) that there's little indications of notability - if you believe otherwise, please provide proof. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need proof it does of course exist, again I re-iterate that it's not the fact you need to delete it, it is your hideous attitude. I give you full permission to delete the article. The play has already pleased an audience of five hundred and raised money for those made orphan by the tsunami disaster in Northern Honshu last year, so my play has affected the world physically. I look forward to a possible day when it is considered famous enough for wikipedia. As I've said it's not the fact you need to delete it, no, not at all, I understand now that lack of outside sources means a deletion, it is simply a matter of how you've put it, there's factual, neutral and then there's unpleasant you are the latter that is all. Please, delete the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheatreMaker (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again why have you deleted the Mdrama degree, was a link to university not enough for you? For goodness sake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheatreMaker (talk • contribs) 22:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rascal van Russ[edit]

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

Notability not established by sources. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No matches in GNews or Google Books. Regular Google search brings up social networking sites and personal profiles/sites, but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 15:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to be an autobiography. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Beast Of the Dragon[edit]

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

Subject of article is a book that does not meet WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG, or any other notability criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and ultimately this self-published book lacks any sources to show that it's notable. It's possible that there are sources in an other language, but considering that this book was so recently published and the author seems to do most of his work predominantly in English, I doubt it. The only sources that come up are all press releases, junk results, and other things that cannot show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable, independent third party sources. Secret of success (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage needed to estalish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2012 (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. Redirected following deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henpecked Hoboes[edit]

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

Plot-heavy unreferenced stub about non-notable short cartoon episode. Google has only youttube and forum coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best, this article name could be on a list of short cartoon espisodes. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable subject; perhaps it could be merge into a "List of short cartoon episodes" at best. This article doesn't meet WP:GNG. TBran dl ey 16:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George and Junior#Cartoons. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2012 (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. Redirected following deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy-Go-Nutty[edit]

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

Plot-heavy unreferenced stub about non-notable short cartoon episode. Google has only youttube and forum coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best, this article name could be on a list of short cartoon espisodes. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as the above, its a non-notable subject only on YouTube or forums, which are not WP:RS sources; the article could just maybe be merged into a "List of short cartoon episodes". This article doesn't meet WP:GNG for sure. TBran dl ey 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Screwy Squirrel#Classic-era Screwy Squirrel cartoons. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2012 (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 and REDIRECT, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military weapons[edit]

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

Contested prod. This arbitrary list does nothing that can't be found in Lists of weapons and related, existing lists. Instead it looks like a random, user-defined collection of small firearms as can be found in List of firearms. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Lists of weapons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a copy and paste from Global Security. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each item is listed elsewhere and more appropiately in Wikipedia. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect As User:The Bushranger above, WP already has far more comprehensive and organised lists under Lists of weapons. Arjayay (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2012 (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. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Gaza[edit]

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

Unreferenced list consisting almost entirely of redlinks. Redlinks are not likely to ever turn blue and therefore aren't reasonable to contribute to the notability of this list. Does not qualify under a stand alone list and therefore should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe list itself is rather indispensable since it is not easy to find this kind of information, and we now have it. As to the predominance of red links, that means (a) there's quite a bit of work to be done, and red links tip off the interested editor what requires some work (b) as part of our struggle against systemic bias, we must keep in mind that things which do not interest Western scholars, or that are unavailable in Western sources, are probably amply or sufficiently documented in local chronicles, or book resources in area languages. That few wikipedians are Arabists, and Arabists with a command of regional histories in that language, is no grounds for destroying what little guide we have on a topic. Gaza, finally, has come back on the radar, and we need, redlinked or not, as much information as possible on it.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMy main concern with the page is that it's scope is narrow and doesn't match the title. Perhaps the title should be changed to "List of Arab rulers of Gaza until 1948" (or something like that), since the article leaves out the rulers before the Arab empires and after the Ottoman Empire. I'm not so concerned with sources, as long as they are added, and I believe that they can be added. The article History of Gaza may be useful in sources for this, although then some may ask why we need this article as well. And I assume also that Al Ameer had sources or got this info from somewhere, as I highly doubt an editor like him made this up or pulled out of his head, so I don't see sources as much of an issue, as long as it's added sometime in the future. --Activism1234 19:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But under the Ottomans where's the proof that we are not dealing with Turks, as opposed to Arabs, in many cases?Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well that's true, my main point was that the title should reflect that it deals with starting from 1200's until the fall of the Ottoman Empire somehow. --Activism1234 19:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "List of rulers of Gaza from Ayubids through Ottoman Empire." I'm not that good with this type of wording, but I'm sure it can be fixed. --Activism1234 19:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- (edit conflict)*2

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, WP:ARBPIA is in full effect here. Be very careful with your words.Hasteur (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. This article should not have been moved to the article space if "there's quite a bit of work to be done". Wikipedia is not your web host. There's no backer article (Like History of Gaza) that shows how this could be spun out. How does a ruler of a city/small region demonstrate notability? I'm for giving people time to improve articles, but this has absoluteley zero sources and doesn't meet any of the other exceptions (i.e. WP:NLIST) for having said list. Almost all of these rulers are not listed in the "backer article" of the History of Gaza so there is no reason to break them out into a seperate article. Furthermre "Gaza, finally, has come back on the radar, and we need, redlinked or not, as much information as possible on it." is WP:CRYSTAL speculation. Information like this should live in the History of Gaza page and then be split out appropriately. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That completely distorts my argument, and what on earth has the WP:ARBPIA reminder to do with the price of fish ('Be very careful of your words' sounds like a threat fashioned out of thin air, for goodness's sake, since there is not the slightest hint here of personal attacks or anything else. When two of us wrote the List of Shakespeare authorship candidatesit only had one source. It is now the default page worldwise on that subject). Wikipedia is certainly not here to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is here to provide useful information of an encyclopedic nature to a global readership. As for the second argument, it is a non-starter. I hadn't even thought of these people before the deletion notice went up, and this morning found several lines of information on the first character in two sources, which means probably that, alerted, I can help in forming a series of stubs (of which a huge number exist, unchallenged, in wikipedia. The fourth point, despite the meaningless ref to WP:CRYSTAL, is perhaps pertinent, but not in itself sufficient to erase the page.Nishidani (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this 'could' be a useful list if relevant, well-sourced biographies for the rulers are made before this list. Until then it's a series of meaningless names. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be a section within History of Gaza, with a sourced blurb on each item. That's the right place and presentation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article creator. There are a number of reasons this article should not be deleted. I just added citations referenced to the two main sources used, so sourcing is not an issue. I will complete the referencing shortly, although I certainly should've done that before moving the list to mainspace. Regarding notability, Gaza was a major administrative center throughout history and particularly during Mamluk and early Ottoman rule, it was without a doubt the most important city in Palestine as confirmed by several sources including the ones presently used, although Safad and Nablus were also prominent district centers. About the article's name, I think it should stay the same since this list is still not finished and rulers/governors from the earlier periods and the modern era could still be added. Concerning the red links, I didn't know that would be such an issue since similar articles like List of rulers of Damascus, List of emirs of Mosul and List of rulers of Aleppo have plenty of red or empty links and all are unsourced, yet they remain noteworthy or at least useful articles. They will not remain red links forever since there's a sufficient amount of info on many of the Mamluk and Ottoman governors in the two sources used in the article. I will start more articles on the more important emirs and governors in the coming weeks. However, should there be more "delete" or "move" votes, I have no problem with merging the list into the History of Gaza article temporarily until a more thorough list could be provided. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:HEY. Two sources and several inline citations have been added to the article since the time of it's nomination for deletion. Per these sources, this article appears to meet WP:NLIST. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heyman not a argument for keeping. Sourcing to single source is not appropriate. still not up to keep level Hasteur (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added several more book sources and a few more governors from the Ottoman period. Because this is a list, we shouldn't expect much prose content, but I will expand the lead tomorrow and maybe add a brief passage underneath each section for more context on the status of Gaza during those periods of time. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am delighted that Al Ameer son has started this long-awaited article, which is already better sourced than most such lists. (Of course there is still work to do, like what official title the "ruler" had at what time, etc. ) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the names. In the Mamluk era the title for Gaza's governor was na'ib while for much of the Ottoman era, the leader was called sanjak-bey. This is backed by the Sharon source. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced and I do think that it is a notable article topic. Sure it has a lot of red links and a few missing, but it's nothing a good deal of editing can't handle. Uhlan ^talk 02:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that refs were very recently added. I still feel that the title should be changed, or the article should be expanded to include previous rulers as well, otherwise it seems to violate WP:NPOV to make a WP:POINT, even if unintentional. --Activism1234 02:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, if the article was expanded to include previous rulers there would be a lot more 'blue links' and, therefore, more substance to the article. Just the title change - change to what exactly? Uhlan ^talk 03:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Something that specifies it's a list from Abuyyids - Ottomans, and doesn't include the rulers before or after. --Activism1234 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is particularly important, because while it's certain Al Ameer didn't intend to make it seem as though previous rulers and rulers afterwards aren't in fact rulers (what reason would he have for doing so?? And Al Ameer is a good editor), some people may imply that, in either direction, be it, "Jews never ruled or controlled Gaza and thus have no claim to the land" or "Palestinians do not rule or control Gaza and thus have no claim to the land." --Activism1234 21:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - By 'imply' you intend to say infer. This article has nothing to do with politics.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, infer. And yes, I specifically said that I highly highly doubt (in fact, I'm certain) that Al Ameer didn't intend to connect it to politics. All I'm saying is that people who don't know that can infer something wrong from here, and it goes in either direction. --Activism1234 21:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Btw, I wouldn't mind if it was specified in the lead and the title was kept. --Activism1234 21:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        We can't write articles in accordance with people who are so politicized they see conspiracies between every other line. We just write according to sources and the devil take the hindmost. Mind you, we could have an article Military governors of occupied Gaza. I'm a great admirer of Zvi Elpeleg.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith. The title doesn't match the article, that was all I'm saying. I think I was extremely clear and lucid when I said I know Al Ameer had no intention of implying anything this way, and I didn't blame him for anything. I'm suggesting how the article should be improved. --Activism1234 22:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please desist from strewing wikipedia pages with accusations that editors like myself engage in personal attacks. There is no personal attack. You misread my comment on your earlier suggestion that 'some people may ~~imply~~(infer)'. You there referred not to yourself, but to others, and I merely said we can't write according to what these hypothetical others might infer. To repeat these baseless accusations is itself a violation of WP:AGF, but, more seriously, evidence of a failure to construe simple English, Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, because it was so clear and obvious that in a reply to me in which you wrote "people who are so politicized they see conspiracies between every other line" you obviously weren't referring to me. Really? If that wasn't your intention, just say that and move on. --Activism1234 13:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, it's pretty well known I'm a grammatical freak, and I generally don't write in a way that doesn't represent what I think, and I didn't think what you attribute to me. So please, if you wish to challenge me, or make an inference from my words, parse it as kids use to do in school, correctly, and base your charges on what I write, not on your impression of what I might be implying. I didn't imply, but you inferred. But this is all a swirl of Darjeeling in a Yixing teapot.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        How well known is it? I didn't know... But that's a side point. If you didn't mean to call me a "so politicized person" who "see conspiracies between every other line" then that's fine. It didn't seem that way to me, but I take your word for it and better to just move on from that. --Activism1234 16:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't have to admit you were wrong in your inference. But don't say if. What you asserted simply isn't there. Closed. Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I said that I took your word for it... "If" wasn't meant as a doubt on the entire paragraph. --Activism1234 16:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Don't think we should rename it. The list isn't written in stone and could be expanded on. I tried to look up Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad and Abbasid governors, but didn't have much luck, although I'm sure there were governors from these periods. If anyone has information with regard to Gaza's pre-Ayyubid governors (including Canaanite, Egyptian, Philistine and Israelite) they should feel free to add it. As for the post-Ottoman rulers, we have a list of mayors from the Mandate period to the modern era which we could easily add. We also have the governors of the post-Oslo Gaza Governorate. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This could be historically informative. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to something like List of rulers of Gaza Governorate or List of rulers of Gaza Province and emphasise in lede that it refers to the administrative unit in Mamluk and Ottoman times rather than the modern entity. Alternatively, expand to give a wider historical picture. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nish, I think it's clear now I'm not the only one who feels it should be renamed or lead specified... --Activism1234 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried to specify a bit in the lead that Gaza was the center of a major district during Mamluk and early Ottoman rule. During the Mamluk era it was a mamlaka ("kingdom") while for much of Ottoman rule it was a major sanjak ("district"). At any rate, as I've stated above, the list could and should be expanded to include rulers from other periods. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. If I may, I'd suggest something more along the lines of:
    - The following is a list of rulers of Gaza during the Mamluk and Ottoman eras. During the Mamluk and early Ottoman rule, Gaza served as the capital of a province which at times included most of central and southern Palestine or the coastal plain up to Jaffa.
    - Hopefully you'll find this acceptable. I haven't done any major changes to it, just some wording changes, at least until more rulers, if any, are added. --Activism1234 20:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Not averse to move/rename). The redlinks are not important; since any person on this list is de facto notable as the leader of a notable subdivision (akin to a U.S. state, see WP:POLITICIAN), articles about them will survive if one day created, and lists of rulers are perfectly in accordance with WP practice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Roscelese that all people on the list are notable per WP:POLITICIAN and articles on each can be created. That the nom thinks that the links wont turn blue isnt a reason to delete. There are a host of articles like this, we even have Category:Lists of rulers. nableezy - 21:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give it time to grow - this is very nice already and if anyone feels like adding earlier and later rulers he or she will have a place to so, in this list. List notability for me is about whether the list can provide help to a relevent research effort. This one clearly does. Thank you Al Ameer son for setting it up. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 09:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an excellent idea for an article, and has lots of room to grow. Seems that plenty of editors would be willing to help turn those redlinks blue, judging by this AFD alone. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines Flight 1476[edit]

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

No deaths. No damages to the aircraft. No changes in procedures following the event. Actually, not notable. Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well written and good sourcing. seem to pass wp:gng.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm the nominator.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS ...William 21:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Close call, but a hijacking brings up different criteria than a crash. There's a lot of coverage, hijackings are somewhat rare. I could be persuaded it's news and delete, but I'm on the fence. Shadowjams (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a hijacking this seems to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. Checking WP:CRIME and such may be inorder, as WP:AIRCRASH does not apply. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I found the article well done but catagories wrong as noted above. If this was part of a series of hijacking style articles, with its own (Hijacking events?) category, then I would support it more strongly. It reads better than a news article, but rather long for an encyclopedic entry on the subject. I would encourage a writer who does this well writing and try to look for a way to save in some form. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Complies with WP:CRIME. Qantasplanes (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, As it was not a crash, AIRCRASH is inapplicable here. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid rationale for deletion has been presented, per WP:DEL-REASON. The nomination doesn't even mention sources, or a potential lack thereof, about the topic. Topic notability is based upon WP:N and WP:GNG, not personal opinions about topic notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He was using the criterion that have been adopted through editing for aircraft accidents and codified in WP:AIRCRASH. Which as it turns out doesn't apply here as it's a WP:CRIME, of course, but that was the basis of the nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omniverse theory[edit]

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

I stubified the article [7] after seeing how bloated and repetitious it was. After removing content that failed verification, had dubious connection to the topic etc, the article is left as a stub, one which I can't find any sources for. Note, this article is not to be confused with the notable article Omniverse. Note that RIA university press is not an actual university press, but a place for self-publishing: [8]. Article was created by the creator of the fringe theory, or a co-worker: [9].

Fails WP:GNG, also fails the extra requirements of WP:FRINGE: A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. ... Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: Clearly non-notable with only a single Google Books hit and a single Google Scholar hit, the latter of which appears to be fringe blither of the worst sort. This is obviously a case of (self?)promotion, and the originators "theory" has simply generated no interest in the real-world scholarly community. This is apparently the second time the article was created. Suggest salting to prevent future reincarnation of patent promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't look like much. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single thing that I can find published on this subject that isn't written and published, with apparently zero peer review, by Charles Tandy. And that clearly includes this article itself. (In addition to the on-wiki evidence, Tandy has pointed to the article outwith Wikipedia.) This is a single-person's idea that has not escaped its creator, being written directly into Wikipedia, and is exactly the sort of subject and material that our Wikipedia:No original research policy prohibits. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-published. Not to be confused with the omniverse theory which was the one described in the earlier speedy deleted version of this article but no more notable. See this old version of my talk page[10]. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research with overtones of things I made up one day. The author of the article (and by extension, the author of the theory) (see here) is also politely reminded that the article is not yours once published here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2012 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wieferich@Home[edit]

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

Non-notable project. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found virtually nothing to argue for notability of this project. I found potential source (though I have no access to the text and thus don't know whether the project is indeed mentioned there):

Mossinghoff, Michael J. (2009), "Wieferich pairs and Barker sequences" (PDF), Designs, Codes and Cryptography, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 149–163, doi:10.1007/s10623-009-9301-3

Though I'm not opposed to deletion, ~~I would propose selective merge to either Wieferich prime (main subject of software itself) or Folding@Home (already lists several projects it influenced, and this one is obviously one of them)~~. Such merge would help to collect independent reliable sources on this project in case those appear (or in case I missed some) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article you mention is available online here. The project is indeed mentioned in the paper in one sentence which says "Knauer and Richstein [16] recently completed a search for p < 1.25 x 10¹⁵ for this case, and a distributed computing project [32] now seeks to extend this bound." The only other credible source mentioning this project I am aware of is the paper published by the project authors (available online here). I don't think this is enough for a standalone article, nor is there anything worth merging into Wieferich prime. The most important stuff from the paper by the project authors is already in the article and any details about the project itself mentioned in the paper are not relevant to the Wieferich prime article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something as brief as "Wieferich@Home distributed computing project was settled with a goal of searching for Wieferich primes; As of August 2012 it found one previously unknown number." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This information is already included at Wieferich prime#History and search status. The published achievements from the paper of the project authors are mentioned at Wieferich prime#Binary periodicity of p−1. Apart from that, the project has found nothing that is worth mentioning so far. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice that. Then just delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. However, I think that this recent ref addition should be included at Wieferich prime. -- Trevj (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both references are already included in Wieferich prime, see refs no. 9 and 12. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry I missed those. -- Trevj (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sufficient independent significant coverage to demonstrate notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XLnotes[edit]

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

Notability of the software is not demonstrated in the article. I failed to find any sources to validate the inclusion of this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have WP:AGF with this editor for now. Despite you not having found sources for his software, I would suggest we allow User:Qery2 to submit some of his references before deletion takes place. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Qery2 has at least 7 days. The problem is not with good/bad faith, but with the lack of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the owner of the software, but I've tried to write the article without vague and promotional sentences. The article makes sence in context of lists of notetaking software and ouliners, since it presents a rather notable and rare example of a free form outliner (compared to tree-structured outliners) Should I state it explicitly in the article?. Qery2 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Kvng (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article has not been edited for too long. Userfy if it has not already been done so. When the creator gets his software reviewed and it becomes notable enough, it can be recreated. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:25, 9 August 2012 (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 Tilly and the Wall. Page history is preserved in case anyone wants to merge some of it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick White[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not individually notable. I've found only references about his bands, none actually about him in particular. Hairhorn (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tilly and the Wall. I undid the same redirect a few days ago, because I thought this warranted a more in-depth discussion and I wasn't sure it was the right redirect target, but at this point I agree with the nominator that there's too little independent sourcing on White. There's an outside chance of passing WP:MUSICBIO #6, "musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles", because of his work with Bright Eyes and The Young Veins, but with Bright Eyes he is not one of the three core members, he was part of a rotating group of around 64 associated musicians, which I don't think is good enough, and in the case of The Young Veins (barely above the threshold of notability themselves) he toured with them but did not help create their studio album. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with a bit of Merge to Tilly and the Wall - a mention of his contributions to other bands there would be adequate.--Michig (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG also looks out of reach.--BMWcomputer (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1 - Nomination withdrawn by nominator without any non-keep !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Skakel[edit]

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

PROD contested on the grounds that is could well be controversial - fair point. I don't see any evidence of independent notability about this person, other then the fact that a company they founded later became a different, more notable company, and that he was related to some famous people. Notability is not inherited. Giant Snowman 17:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the AP, Great Lakes Carbon "was once one of the largest private companies in the country."[11] There is quite a bit of coverage about him in a biography of Ethel Kennedy.[12](Note that some hits within that book refer to George Jr.) I will have to delve into this a bit more before giving my !vote. Location (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss George Skakel, such as this and this and this and this and this. George Skakel was a notable industrialist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC upon review of the sources presented above by User:Cullen328. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I de-prodded the particle, because its deletion without discussion would likely be controversial. No opinion as yet. Bearian (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - happy to withdraw the nomination now that more sources have been found and stronger claim to notability verified. Giant Snowman 11:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Puja 2012[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the festival is notable, each instance of the festival every year does not have encyclopedic value. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a bulletin board used to announce future events. Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a festival recurring every year does not validate an article on it unless mandated by special circumstances, absent in this case. Secret of success (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Puja 2008[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each instance of the festival every year does not have encyclopedic value. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a festival recurring every year does not validate an article on it unless mandated by special circumstances, absent in this case. Secret of success (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Up in America[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This radio program unfortunately does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Google searching for "Growing Up in America" kpft turns up only false positives on Google Books and nothing on Google News or News archives. If the program becomes notable down the road, then the article can be recreated then. CtP (t • c) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for a radio program and so would not show up under Google Books. The fact that it does not appear in a Google News search is not indicative of its notability. It is one of the larger shows that its parent station KPFT offers, and regularly hosts many notable speakers from Houston and Texas. It has been on the air for over 2 years. It is surely notable. Zpanos (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no prejudice to an extreme prune-and-merge to Children at Risk. I see no evidence that this subject meets WP:GNG. Stating it is "surely notable" without any third-party sources to back up this assertion is not based on any policy or guideline and indeed indicates the opposite. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RPRGM, does not establish notability claim nor any sources for it. I'd maybe mention it on the KPFT radio article as a carried program or something if we can find sources to back up its notability claim. Though it doesn't seem to meet GNG nor notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens of Humanity[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completing nomination for User:Frap. On the merits, I have no opinion. In posting the AFD tag on the article, Frap used the edit summary "Advertisement". I've asked them to come around here and expand on that concern. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is currently written like an advert for this organisation and I don't see any WP:RS coverage for it thus far. It could only be kept if it was drastically slimmed down in size. --Artene50 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources cited in the article to assert the brand's notability. Most of the article appears to be sourced to the brand's own website in violation of WP:ABOUTSELF. --Tdl1060 (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated telecom power unit[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Originally meant to promote an individual company — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a definition stub, no references. RJFJR (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no indication of notability. From a technical technical terminology review standpoint, it's just one company's particular name for a particular combination of common functions.North8000 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Cloud[edit]

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

Not yet notable, fails music bio, appears to be too soon based on comments on article talk page. While individual members may be notable, notability is not inherited. GregJackP Boomer! 11:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've declined the speedy because this band features two members of notable bands, but I can't find any reliable sources about this particular project. GNews returns nothing but a Facebook page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources exist, their new album attracted the attention of multiple reliable and independent media, see for example [13] (Corpus Christi Caller-Times), [14] (Noisecreep), [15] (Under the Gun Review). The article has potential. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - of the refs, myspace violates WP:ELNO (removed), youtube was a WP:SPS "interview" (removed), neversaynever is a trivial mention (on list of artists appearing), five refs from altpress do not appear to be from a reliable source and appear to be press releases, screamlikeyoumeanit is not a reliable source and is a listing of shows, and noisecreep and underthegun do not appear to be reliable sources (but might be, I'm not able to find anything on their editorial staff & process). Only the Caller-Times is definitely a reliable source, and in any event, the band still fails WP:MUSICBIO. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More references have been added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylegmorris (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - of the additional refs, formspring violates WP:ELNO (removed), last.fm is not reliable (see WP:RSN), the 2 equalvision and the basickrecords refs are WP:SPS and not reliable, the aptour ref is a press release, absolutepunk is not a reliable source, killyourscene and hailsandhorns do not appear to be reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 20:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.123.28 (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the band's last album has been reviewed by Sputnikmusic ([16]), it has received some further reliable source coverage (WNCT-TV, Caller Times, The New Review, Noisecreep, Hails and Horns Magazine) and some from possibly-reliable sources ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21]). Also passes WP:BAND#6. Cavarrone (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sputnikmusic in this case is not a reliable source, the review was by a "User" rather than one that is acknowledged as a professional class ("Staff", "Reviewer", "Emeritus") - the "User" category has no editorial or professional oversight and is comparable to IMDb or a wiki-type review system. The only two I see that are reliable are the WNCT-TV and Caller Times - the others are not clear on their editorial control and I can find nothing on WP:RSN that indicates that they are reliable. I also do not believe that they pass WP:BAND#6 - the mere fact that they toured does not make the tour notable. GregJackP Boomer! 05:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't noticed the Spuntik review was by an user, you are true. About the rest, according the relevant WP article Noisecreep, despite its blog format, is a legitimate music news website. The New Review appears a legitimate music review site. Hails and Horns Magazine is a printed music magazine. You yourself agree about the reliability of the WNCT-TV and Caller Times. I'm uncertain about the rest, even if probably a couple of the other websites are not selfpublished/blog sites. In my opinion it is not so few coverage, considering metalcore genre is a niche music genre. About WP:BAND#6, which tour do you refer? the criterium says "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." and Glass Cloud meeets it (Jerry Roush was a former member of Sky Eats Airplane and Of Mice & Men + Joshua Travis (former member of The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza). Cavarrone (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1notability point, album charted on billboard charts http://www.billboard.com/charts/heatseekers-albums?chartDate=2012-07-28#/charts/heatseekers-albums?chartDate=2012-07-28 The Royal Thousand - Glass Cloud - #5 Heatseekers Albums #42 Independent Albums #21 Hard Rock Albums 35forMVP (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...that means the group also meets WP:BAND#2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Cavarrone (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (leaning). Not many of the Alternative Press refs in the article contain in-depth coverage, but this album review looks good to me. Then there's the Corpus Christi Caller-Times interview mentioned above, and regarding Noisecreep, it appears to be an acceptable source according to WikiProject Albums. It's close, but I think there's just enough material for the group to pass WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:55, 3 August 2012 (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. J. X. Williams (pseudonym) will be moved to this name. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. X. Williams[edit]

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

Fixing botched nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:J. X. Williams). Original rationale is as follows:

This is a pseudonym used by porn writers in the 1960s. The current article has repeatedly be re-written to conform to a art project one Noel Lawrence created, whereby he recut old films and gave lectures claiming they were the work of this fictional character. See refs on talk page. The content of this seems to be part of this "art project", persistently recreated. Actual subject of dubious notability. T L Miles (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with T L Miles. This is a pseudonym used by porn writers. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thought we dealt with this messy article last June, specially as many sources indicate that the content of the article has become about later work of Noel Lawrence when Lawrence decided to adopt this pseudonym for his own,[22] and now less about the pseudonym itself. No matter who uses it as a pseudonym (similar to Allen Smithee), it does not lack for significant coverage[23][24]... and a quick look finds such as a rather inciteful article in The New York Times: "Wrapped in an Enigma, Hidden in a Film Archive" This article might be be about the pseudonym and all who used it, or it might be about Noel Lawrence and HIS projects both when using the pseudonym and when not. As Lawrence does not own the more widely used pseudonym, the current article gives far too much weight to he alone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article text should be razed to the ground, but I think a note saying, well, "This is a pseudonym used by porn writers in the 1960s", along with a list of eventual notable writers who used it and of those films who credited them should be kept. I agree that the article in its present form is a hoax--of all sources, one is a (real) book published by a fringe French publisher, quoted over ten times, the other two were fake, and I have removed them. complainer (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the result of this review is keep, I am going to raze the text to the ground and replace it with a note saying, "This is a pseudonym used by porn writers in the 1960s"; I hope none of you will think of this as vandalism, or as gaming the AfD system (I did, after all, vote to keep it). complainer (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The page J. X. Williams (pseudonym) exists for all non-hoax purposes. Subcelestial (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move J. X. Williams (pseudonym) to J. X. Williams. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move J. X. Williams (pseudonym) to J. X. Williams. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randall A. Robinson[edit]

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

Not notable person per WP:DIPLOMAT ...William 15:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a run-of-the-mill State Dep't employee. Stateside, even, not a diplomat to or posted in a foreign nation. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Tarc. Doesn't meet WP:DIPLOMAT criteria from what I can tell in the article. Shadowjams (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2012 (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 Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Opening Ceremony. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Kerlin[edit]

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

Brooklyn Kerlin was the Flag Bearer last week at the opening of the 2012 Olympics for the Individual Olympic Participants. Often, a flag bearer has "earned" his wikipedia-page long before the opening ceremony by virtue of his sports career in the past. For this specific person however ~~it is fully unclear why she had the flag~~, she represented the people involved in the organization of the Games, and I could not find any notable results from her. I don't think that only bearing the flag at the Games is an a priori reason for notability... L.tak (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's a student volunteering at the Olympics who was picked to carry the flag. Since the nominated article doesn't explain much, this gives some more info on who she is and why she was chosen (it's from an official Olympics site, so it's not a source for proving notability). Seems no lasting notability, just a small role in one event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if some sourcing is dug up, complete WP:BLP1E case. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Flag bearers aren't notable for being flag bearers, they should be notable for their other achievements. Mattlore (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Independent Olympic Athletes (or the 2012 article), as a plausable search-term. Lugnuts (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her presence and activity in being chosen for the honour of carrying the flag has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to qualify for notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.118.104 (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Opening Ceremony where this person and her claim to fame is mentioned. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics where her name appears. We don't have enough for an article. Pichpich (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2012 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thesaurus Software Ltd[edit]

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

Unnotable CORP, maybe even G11, without any reliable source, rather new AfC reviewer who accepted the submission; copyvio images uploaded to Commons. mabdul 14:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submitter of the draft has a clear COI problem, see [25] mabdul 14:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no mention of the company in Google search results apart from their own websites and brief mentions in passing. I would expect a software company of significance to have many web mentions, so fails WP:GNG.—A bit iffy (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and NPOV. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or should I say kill it with fire? Unambiguously non-notable B2B company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if RS can't be provided. Company may be notable, and contents claim notable achievements, but no RS to prove it here. Celtechm (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2012 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Trimble[edit]

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

It was WP:BLP1E in 2009, and it's BLP1E now. Rd232 ^talk 14:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let's Redirect it to University Challenge or something like that. The event is notable enough for a mention in the context of the subject of the quiz show, but Trimble never became the next Joan Bakewell, so she is not notable herself. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to University Challenge 2008–09 (deleting the more trivial stuff). It's permissible to have an article on a season of a TV show and discuss important participants if that season and participant receives significant coverage. And Trimble received a lot of coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the relevant article. Trimble's case, if you look at more recent mentions of her name in the media, has become a byword for inappropriate and sexist treatment of female contestants, and since none of this is mentioned in the redirect targets, a simple redirect is not appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's some detailed coverage from 2011 which provides the accolade that "Gail Trimble, the Oxford Latin scholar, was hailed as the greatest contestant in University Challenge history." It also explains that she was the subject of an internet hate campaign. We should not support such hatred by deleting her article as this would be contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge. Classic BLP1E case. The reference given by Warden is only an in-passing mention in an article about the program and does not show enduring coverage. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an example and there are plenty more to be found. Here's another from just a few months ago which highlights her current work as a classical scholar and contributor to the Oxford Classical Dictionary. That item makes some amusing points about Wikipedia too. Warden (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that we have different ideas about what constitutes "in depth coverage" and "in-passing mention" (or even "highlight")... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Compare Dorret Boomsma - an article of your creation which contains numerous personal details unsupported by citations. Warden (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to respond to that as I completely fail to see the relevance of that here. I suggest you take this to the talk page of that article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A ridiculous comparison as Dorret Boomsma has almost 50 publications with over 100 cites each which give a very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The subject also passes notability guidelines such as WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. These are both accomplished women but the subject is better known as a person and so her personal details are better supported by citations. We therefore have a better case for a personal biography. Warden (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Coverage is adequate to meet WP:N. BLP1E is a concern, and 1k page views / month isn't a high readership demonstrating much interest. However the article is in a pretty good state and whilst the 1E might not seem that important on a world scale, it was a pretty big story in the UK at the time, which has since become a touchstone of more recent stories and comment on academic misogyny. In the absence of any strong reason (privacy, Ms Trimble's own expressed view) I'm inclined to keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as BLP1E and to protect subject's privacy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, possibly merge if there's no significant coverage after 2009, or nothing on her academic career. bridies (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her notability I think is clearly established as the result of the very wide coverage in the UK media in 2009 and this still seems to me sufficient. This reference seems supportive of my view

University Challenge final scores 5.3m 24 February, 2009 | By Jon Rogers where he argues BBC2's University Challenge benefitted from the fame of Gail Trimble as the final of the quiz show gained 5.3m viewers (20.8%), the show's highest audience since at least 2001. [26](Msrasnw (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep The breath and enduring nature of coverage in reliable sources easily exempts the article from BLP1E. As some had concerns that the subject might prefer deletion due to privacy concerns, especially in the previous AfD, I emailed them and they said they had no preference. Nothing gained from destroying this interesting and culturally important article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Culturally important"??? You sure you're writing about the correct article here? (Nuts wanted her email address and some bloggers thought she was smug and snobbish...) And "enduring": as far as I can see, all coverage is about one single event and was published in 2009. If that isn't BLP1E, then we should abolish that policy altogether. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz shows are a popular television genre here in Britain, and many of the formats we create are exported globally. Also, if you read the telegraph article provided by the good Colonel, you'd see not only one of several examples of post 2009 coverage, but that the subject is also productive in high culture. As with most first class types like Homer and Shakespeare, the subject is appreciated both by the common people and the most cultured. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the quiz isn't notable, but just that one winning one doesn't make one notable. You're adding the in-passing mention that Warden came up with to the ONEEVENT and the subjects published works to construe a notability that simply is a house of cards. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is claiming that merely winning is why she is notable, but rather the manner of the contest. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:N AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2012 (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. Soft deletion owing to lack of discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Huge[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, independent secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this voice actor in order to evidence notability under WP:GNG. I'm not convinced the two roles listed, even if verified, rise to WP:ACTOR. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 11 August 2012 (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. Though the references may not meet our usual standard for notability, there is consensus that the subject is notable per criterion no.1 of WP:AUTHOR. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Spolsky[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Almost all the sources cited are WP:PRIMARY, either material written by the subject or interviews with him, and not helpful in establishing notability. The one exception is the completely trivial Imdb search result, also not helpful in establishing notability. The subject has indeed written 5 books, but this falls far short of the achievement and wide recognition contemplated by WP:AUTHOR. Msnicki (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Author of several commercially published books (eg: [27] [28]) and writing for magazines (eg: [29]). Also an Editorial Review (and hence reliable) on Amazon here states "Joel Spolsky is a globally recognized expert on the software development process." --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon's "editorial review" is what they say about the author of a book they're trying to sell. It's all been cribbed, including that "globally-recognized expert" stuff, from what the subject says about himself on his bio page. Even if was completely reliable (and frankly, I've got doubts about some of that "globally-recognized" hyperbole) it would still definitely not be independent. Msnicki (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known software designer, author and blogger in the software community, founder of Fog Creek Software, and co-founder of Stack Overflow. He has been featured in a number of industry related independent sources as well as outside of the industry such as [30]. --LoudHoward (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he's that well-known, where are the reliable independent secondary sources talking about him? It's not very helpful to assert that you think he's well-known, etc., etc., without sources because here on Wikipedia, our personal opinions don't count. Most of us are anonymous. More to the point, neither WP:FAME nor WP:POPULARITY automatically confer notability. If he's as notable as you think for the reasons you give, there should be a usable source out there that confirms that. I don't think there is one. Msnicki (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Spolsky is very well known in the software world, he's been a columnist in Inc. (magazine), and a Google search omitting his own sites still manages to turn up many thousands of hits, including several hundred visually-verifiable images. RossPatterson (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, per WP:FACTORS, neither WP:FAME nor WP:POPULARITY establish notability. As a rule of thumb all it does take to establish notability is 2 good sources. Out of those "thousands" of WP:GOOGLEHITS, can you pick out even just 2 reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject? I doubt it. Msnicki (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Exactly what's unreliable and un-independent about the published books? I don't think Apress let any old book be published by any old person without some sort of editorial control over it. He's had a couple of under his belt now, that makes him notable in my view. Feel free to disagree all you like. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information in his books and his capsule bios may be reliable but it's not independent because it was written by the subject. The whole point of notability is that others not connected to the subject must actually take note and they must do it in reliable sources. This is why his books, blogs, interviews and everything else he had a hand in creating is unhelpful in establishing notability as we use the term here on Wikipedia. From WP:Notability, " Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." From WP:Third-party sources, "A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials."' Also from WP:Third-party sources, "Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important." Hope that helps. Msnicki (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNUM aside, images??? You propose to verify statements in biography of living person by citing images? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BIO: though definitely significant, the subject was not a topic of multiple publications in reliable sources. As Msnicki argues, the 'author profile' writings in the sources by subject indeed are not independent of him. What is worse, similar descriptions exist for nearly every contributor to such sources, so concluding notability on such sources equals to recognizing all journalists (and people with at least two books written by them) inherently notable, which goes against common Wikipedia practices. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question Would an example of sources such as these not be enough to help establish notability? Keynote speaker profile from RailsConf 2008, GigaOm reference in an article about Facebook, Ars Technica reference in an article about Apple. --LoudHoward (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "speaker profile" is yet another of those "globally-recognized expert" things obviously supplied by the subject. The other two sources are trivial mentions, simply quoting the subject; they're certainly not about the subject. So, no, they are not very helpful. Msnicki (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In first case my rationale above applies. In second and third cases I would second the 'trivial mention' position, as statements by subject are used to cover completely unrelated topics. Quoting someone doesn't mean considering him worth mention or significant; the quoted material is implied significant though. Still it is quite below the WP:AUTHOR criteria #2–4, which you might wanted to address with these links. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:AUTHOR. Is cited so often that even his blog posts get indexed by Google Scholar [31].—Ruud 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly notable just for his own business interests, but certainly notable as a writer and commentator on the software industry. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering WP:AUTHOR: Spolsky passes 1. easily by being widely cited. See references to "Joel Spolsky" in printed books: searching for "Joel Spolsky" on Google Books - after removing self-references and hagiographies we are left with quite few dozen bona fide references to him and (articles on) his blog. That completely leaves out the large number of meaningful references to him and his work on well-known blogs and websites - though I have to agree that the top of the list of Google hits isn't very 'independent' and 'secondary'. So, try [32] (yes, I know, he once worked for Microsoft) or see how the ACM directly feeds his blog into their 'blog roll' which consists of 37 blogs by ACM Queue authors, [33]. 2. is covered by his Joel Test even if nothing else should show up. Number 3 and 4 are a bit difficult to apply to non-fiction authors in general, except for independent reviews and critiques. I agree that having a few of those would help, and I'm sure they exist - though my assertion is worth nothing here, of course. I would outright reject the assertion that interviews can never establish notability: while what the interviewee says is not independent at all, an interview in a respected and established periodical (as in: the New York Times, or ACM Queue, or the Wall Street Journal[34]) is a clear indication that the interviewed person is notable. 89.98.48.31 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2012 (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 Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. The redirect arguments are the strongest of the bunch: saying that someone introduced another person is not in-depth coverage, and much of the coverage is nothing but passing mentions. Information on Fluke's 2012 activies could be merged to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by Zaldax, but that can be done from the history of this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Deletion Review for this Article

Deletion Review/Sandra Fluke

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

After having considered various questions for some length of time, I have come to believe that this article should be once more nominated for deletion. Many of the arguments that initially resulted in its deletion still hold true: at it's core, this article is a classic representation of WP:BLP1E. While some might argue that the subject surpasses notability requirements for this one event, the comparisons given at the BLP1E listing are individuals such as an attempted presidential assassin, not the centerpiece of a relatively short-lived media scandal. Furthermore, the relevant portions of this article are near identical to that of Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy; making this article dangerously close to a WP:POVFORK.

A Google search for the subject, limited to results on in the last month, reveals mostly "where are they now"-type stories, with a few exceptions. The vast majority of those exceptions are either "Sandra Fluke tweets in defense of Palin," or "Sandra Fluke endorses President Obama." Neither of those are really "news"; would anyone have cared about her endorsement if there had been no scandal? Certainly not! It's an election year, and that means that her importance is momentarily magnified; however, until the opposing side of the campaign comments on her role, she won't be a Joe the Plumber. Whenever she's mentioned, it's still always preceded with a reference to the scandal; until that can be dropped, she doesn't need her own, separate article. Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper; actions like publishing an opinion piece or endorsing the president does not add anything significant to her biography, and makes it no more worthy of being included in Wikipedia on its own.

There is one exception that I'm sure proponents of keeping this article will bring up, and that is that she has written a handful of opinion articles for various news organizations recently. That, however, does not meet notability requirements on its own. There are many news contributors who have articles published far more often than her without WP articles of their own. The bottom line is, aside from the earlier scandal Fluke has done nothing notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and she hasn't done anything notable enough since; as everything relevant to the scandal is already covered in a separate article, I hereby propose that the Wikipedia biography on Sandra Fluke be deleted - not only as redundant, but as non-notable, too. Zaldax (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, transfering to that article only that material on Fluke which informs the reader's understanding of that controversy. The bulk of the article under discussion rehashes the controversy anyway. Fluke herself is BP1E. EEng (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As noted the person is classic BLP1E, and any pertinent information can be put in the main article. Collect (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- WP:BLP1E should not apply. To quote "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". While she has not stayed in the full spotlight, Ms. Fluke has done enough that she has not faded into obscurity. Her notability mgiht have STARTED thanks to Rush Limbaugh, but has expanded to the point where it is no longer JUST what Limbaugh started. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have repeatedly and patiently asked anyone who holds that view to elucidate with significant article additions that do NOT relate to the Limbaugh/Democrat walk out. None have been.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the controversy, all that the article mentions is her endorsement of President Obama. Her momentary reappearance in the news is virtually entirely due to that event, which in-and-of-itself does not confer notability. As she can only endorse a candidate once, this still seems a classic BLP1E to me. Zaldax (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a public figure, as THIS ANN COULTER RANT gives evidence. 715K Google hits for the distinctive name. Whether Fluke became famous for one event is neither here nor there; Fluke remains a public figure beyond that initial public emergence and is therefore a fully valid subject for encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, I'm not sure that Ann Coulter is a reliable source. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Double UUmmmm. The Coulter rant was within weeks of the Limbaugh controversy, and the column (is an opinion, so not WP:RS for inclusion of factual content) specifically refers to the fact that she believes the column is probably too LATE, since the controversy was over and fading. Plus, does not breach WP:ONEVENT, since the column WAS about the one event--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making the point that this is a public figure beyond a single news event, not citing sources towards GNG — which I consider already well met. Carrite (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't understand your point; you SAY she has become notable post-RL, and independent of RL-SF but can only cite a column that was written close to the RL-SF Controversy, and concerns the RL-SF Controversy. arguing EVENT not PERSON. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There continues to be both converage of her and she continues to be contribute to the public discorse. She has published on CNN as a "special contributor” and this adds to the argument that she is still in the media and notable. A Google news search will reveal many national outlets that still have coverage of her.^[1] ^[2]^[3]^[4]

^ Davis, Laura E. "Sandra Fluke endorses Obama". ABC News. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
^ Bergstrom, William. "Sandra Fluke returns favor, endorses Obama". Politico. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
^ "Honest Or Sexist? Russell Brand Slammed For Sarah Palin Comments". Global Grind. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
^ Fluke, Sandra. "Sandra Fluke: The fight for Obamacare isn't over yet". MSNBC. Retrieved 30 June 2012.

The time and amount of national coverages is enough for an article on her. Moreover, there is coverage on more then simply one event. Her endorcement of the President and various comments have been picked up by national media. Moreover, she has now written articles for national media. All of this adds up and the article should stay.Casprings (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there had been "More" significant events or activities, then over the course of the month that editors gave for you (Casprings is a veritable WP:SPA on all things Fluke) were asking for "what?", you should have added them. Several editors, myself included, argued that while there did not seem to be anything that would argue that the Deletion was not correct, it would be fair to let pro-Fluke editors make the case on the Article page by making NEW additions. Instead, there has been edit-warring to RE-DO old issues that have strong prior consensus that a minority just didn't like, re-arguing of settled factual issues, and general unproductive editing. An opportunity to make the case through adding new post-Limbaugh material has been given with the Deletion review, and nothing of significance has been added. Case made.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Collect and others. As with countless other BLP1E cases, she may get name-dropped in the news on occasion, but the only reason is because of the original event, i.e. she has done nothing event-worthy since then. Being quoted about who one is endorsing is not an event. A "where are they now?" story is not an event. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - For some history, the article was the source of a long-running AfD that ended in delete. Then after deletion review recreation was allowed, although the deletion decision wasn't overturned (whatever doublespeak that means) and the page was [by Hoary], who had argued in the DRV for recreation.
Her notability stems entirely from the Rush Limbaugh issue. Remove that piece of the puzzle and this wouldn't pass BLP1E. Testifying before congress doesn't make one notable, nor does writing a few pieces for CNN. Similarly the work she's doesn't appear to satisfy WP:N itself. I think the earlier AfD was correct. Shadowjams (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction; She didn't even testify before Congress; she delivered a speech at a Congressional Democrat's event.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to public speaking and writing for CNN she is also writing for Huffington Post . Just curious. For those who want to delete the page, what level of news coverage and for how long would change your mind? Casprings (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for coverage from a mainstream source that's based on something independent of the Rush Limbaugh thing, that covers it in a notable way, which is to say more than just a mention that she works at X or something like that. Shadowjams (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my problem is that WP:N is the rational behind any article. I understand WP:N#TEMP and that is a good reason for BLP1E. But crap, how much more coverage and for how long do you have to see it before you say that she is WP:N. WP:N shouldn't be subjective. It should be based on reliable sources covering here. I think we bring opinion into it when we say, "They only covered here for this reason" The fact is, she is getting coverage and continues to get coverage (and coverage from mainstream sources). How much more do you need to see before she is WP:N.Casprings (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, WP:N is the basis for every AfD ever considered in the history of WP. Simply adding the WP word, without an argument does not help the case.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect, subject appears to fall under WP:BLP1E. Although there are multiple mentions of the subject, the subject appears to be primarily notable regarding events that are the primary subject of the sub-article Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and events surrounding that subject. Although the subject writes for the Huffington Post, she does not yet appear to warrant notability per WP:AUTHOR. Now if the subject is found to be independently notable regarding events not associated with the sub-article Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy, the article can be recreated; additionally if the sub-article that was previously mentioned meets the requirements set forth in WP:TOOLONG it can be spun out as a sub-article of that sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E applies without doubt. Not actually notable even for DOING something of any value in the ONE event. Used as a prop by Congressional Democrats, did NOT testify. They could have picked a random person off the street just as well, she happened to be there and of the correct gender. Gave a very bad and uninformative speech at an event Congressional Democrats set up, which was widely panned, only kept in the news because Limbaugh "worked blue" and was justifiably condemned by all for doing so. If Wikipedia is going to start giving articles to every person who was ever called a name by someone, we will have to make room for whole CLASSES of elementary school kids. Notable in a Controversy or Limbaugh article because of WHO called her a name. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy per WP:ONEEVENT. She can have her own article if Barack Obama gives her a Cabinet position or something else notable happens in her life that is not related to the single and now virtually undiscussed tangle with Rush Limbaugh. However, if this article is redirected, the Limbaugh-Fluke article should be reworked to be a bit more neutral and provide more context rather than seem like just a catalog of opposition to Limbaugh. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a reminder, this article was allowed by Deletion review on June 21st. Link is here , Casprings (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted for cause, very clear, for non-notability, at height of the Limbaugh controversy, and with 20pages of comments. 3 months later, without notifying interested parties, and while the only talk of Fluke on WP was the necessity of trimming entries, since the whole flap seemed less and less relevant, Deletion review snuck through, total of 7 votes. Review explicitly stated the original Deletion was justified due to WP:ONEEVENT . 2nd AfD was mistakenly filed by Casprings, closed on procedural grounds without commentary. Seemingly entire justification for NOT deleting is Google hits, which is EXPLICITLY covered in WP guidelines.
Invalid criteria...Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online. The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings, and for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches. See also limitations of Alexa. When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the world do you get this google hits argument as the "sole" reason for not deleting? I think the rational for bring it back was that she continues to be reported on by reliable and noteworthy sources, thus meeting WP:N. Casprings (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP sums it up nicely. And even if we put aside the issues with that DRV and the whole second bite at the apple, that recreation was allowed is not the same as endorsing the article. It's not a valid reason to keep at an afd. Shadowjams (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. No one is arguing that. That said, month of news coverage on her would be the major reason to have the article. It meets WP:N, in my opinion. Casprings (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tally 8-3 consensus to Delete/redirect Delete/Redirect

Zaldax

EEng

Collect

Tarc

Shadowjams

RightCowLeftCoast

209.6.69.227

Sgt. R.K. Blue

Keep

Umbralcorax

Carrite [?]

~~Casprings~~

--209.6.69.227 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out the "Tally" above as a reminder that counting heads (or whatever it is we have here in cyberspace) is not an appropriate way to evaluate a discussion's outcome. EEng (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely fair, but would add that based on ARGUMENT, the "tally" is more lop-sided. The repetitive "It meets WP:N, in my opinion." or "I base this on WP:N" of the Keep editor is not an argument. (ALL AfDs are based on WP:N, and a blank "Keep" vote already says the editor is asserting WP:N. An argument is saying HOW and WHY WP:N applies, which has not been done on this page nor the article, yet)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. !Votes that claim that coverage has ceased are simply and obviously incorrect. Fluke's case was the subject of a panel at the American Bar Association's annual conference just the other day, as covered in the ABA Journal. The argument that it is Fluke's activities that need to persist, rather than coverage, is extremely silly and completely in contradiction to WP:PERSISTENCE. Next you'll be saying that George Harrison hasn't done anything recently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Condescendingly calling editors' reasoned arguments !Votes can be considered WP:PA. Just sayin'--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a very silly comment. The fact that AfD discussions are meant to be arguments rather than votes is precisely why we use the not operator. While I can't say that no comments here are votes - eg. a certain user's comment which was primarily about his or her personal dislike for the subject rather than any WP policies - to call standard WP language a personal attack because you think it means exactly the opposite of what it means is foolish. Next time you want to be snippy because you disagree with someone, do it right. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, George Harrison is dead.... Zaldax (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the point. The PERSISTENCE guideline doesn't require that people keep doing things in order to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true, but the guideline doesn't exist in a vacuum. 1) Sandra Fluke is still alive, so she could still be doing notable things, and 2) George Harrison by no means fails WP:ONEEVENT. Although when he first started out he probably did fail WP:BAND. Zaldax (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERSISTENCE is a notability guide for EVENTS, not people. As with the George Harrison analogy, he is a person of great accomplishment and influence in his day, therefore WP:N. He has not "persisted", as he is dead, but it would not matter if no Newspaper had an article on George Harrison for a month, he would remain notable. The ABA panel was on the Limbaugh incivility, the EVENT, which you are arguing by WP:PERSISTENCE, is still notable. That Fluke was invited was because of the EVENT, and the panel was on the EVENT. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding Fluke's coverage vs. her activities, I would like to point out that we live in the era of the 24-hour news cycle; media organizations routinely publish whatever they can, as soon as they can, in order to fill the gaps between real stories and events. Sandra Fluke's ongoing coverage is a classic case of this, as I mentioned in my opening argument.

Those who are arguing that Fluke's coverage is ongoing are correct; no one is arguing that media organizations have not printed stories about her after the Limbaugh flap died down. However, what editors are arguing is that upon closer examination each-and-every one of the news stories provided fails the "24-hour news cycle test." Simply put, they're all filler. "Sandra Fluke endorses the President" is not an event worthy of a Wikipedia article; nearly everyone endorses a candidate these days. "Sandra Fluke tweets in defense of Palin" is not an event worthy of a Wikipedia article; Twitter may be the media's social-media-of-the-week, but a single tweet does not notability make. "Where are they now: Sandra Fluke" is clearly not an event, but is indisputably filler. Sandra Fluke writes a couple of opinion columns is not an event; not only is it a primary source, but it's a novelty aimed to attract interest at best (and also fails WP:Author. A panel about Fluke at the ABA's annual conference is also not an event: how many other panels did they have, and how many of those have Wikipedia articles?

Furthermore, almost each-and-every-one of those stories includes a reference to the Limbaugh scandal in explaining who she is. If the news media still identifies her based on one event, then she clearly fails WP:ONEEVENT

One last thing: if you examine the dates of every single story cited as evidence that Fluke has constant coverage since the scandal, you'll notice that, after the scandal died down, further stories come in spikes; each spike surrounds one of the examples related above. This is, by definition, not persistent. (Taken from that link: a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Also, I object to Roscelese's statement that it is her coverage, rather than activities, that decide whether she is worthy of an article. Even if the media were to publish a narrative of each day of her life every day for the next twenty years, if all she did was publish the occasional op-ed and make a few public appearances I would still argue against notability. "Deeds, not words" -- until she does something notable, she is by definition not notable.

So, to those who argue that Fluke is notable, I challenge you thusly: Instead of simply stating that she has continued coverage (the notability of which remains highly contested), tell us why she is notable. Disregard the Limbaugh flap for the time being -- a merger and redirect would adequately cover that -- and instead argue why she is notable on her own. I, for one, do not know of any subsequent events that pass WP:ONEEVENT on their own merit that would justify a unique article. Zaldax (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deeds are always subjective. Is "endorsing Obama a "deed". Is a story for CNN a "deed". I would suggest that the number of news stories not related to Rush is enough to meet the WP:N standard. That is the fundamental policy that this must be held up to and I don't see any objective measure where she doesn't meet the WP:N standard. She has had enough persistent news coverage on various activities that she has done. 66.136.146.32 (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[NOTE: this is the only WP contribution of this IP editor][reply]

To answer your rhetorical questions, "No", and "No", respectively. As has been said many times before by numerous editors on this discussion page, neither of those are notable events in their own right. Anyone off the street can endorse a presidential candidate; Fluke only garnered a relatively small amount of 24-hour news cycle attention for her endorsement because of her connection to the Limbaugh Scandal. In an election year, CNN publishes an Op-Ed from her because of her connection to the Limbaugh Scandal. Until Fluke does something unrelated to that one event, she will continue to fail WP:ONEEVENT. Again, there are plenty of contributors without WP articles, because they fail WP:AUTHOR, as does Fluke. Objectivity and Subjectivity have nothing to do with it; the fact is, everything she has done since the Limbaugh scandal merits a sentence or two at most, and that does not a separate biography make. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy per WP:ONEEVENT.However, if this article is redirected, the Limbaugh-Fluke article should be reworked to be a bit more neutral and provide more context rather than seem like just a catalog of opposition to Limbaugh.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm happy that you liked my argument, but it's a bit strange for me to see most of it being used word for word. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another national news story on the Front page of Politico. Sandra Fluke to campaign with Obama in Denver . How much coverage is needed? I just want some type of objective standard. Casprings (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of an event is what we want; at best, this is now 3 sentences more worth of information than the Limbaugh scandal article. It is no surprise that she is campaigning for Obama; she's already endorsed him, as have other figures both notable and non-notable. That alone still does not justify an additional article, especially when most people who search her name are likely looking for the article about the controversy. In summary, it isn't the quantity of coverage (which is, again, quite small, and comes in spikes), but the quality of the coverage that matters. Fluke has neither. Zaldax (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the standard of quality? It seems highly subjective when one continues to have reliable sources that have a nationwide audience. Casprings (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is not notable, events that involve her are notable. Thus this page is not a valid contribution and should me merged with the pages that chronicle the pertinent events.Theseus1776 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Below are national news sources that covered her campaigning with the President. All sources reported on her in the last 24 hours:

The Hill: Sandra Fluke will campaign with Obama in Colo. on Wednesday

Politico: Sandra Fluke to campaign with Obama in Denver

New York Daily News: Sandra Fluke, Called A 'Slut' By Rush Limbaugh, To Introduce Obama At Denver Rally

Fox News: Sandra Fluke to Campaign with President Obama

Sandra Fluke To Introduce Obama In Denver

Denver Post:Sandra Fluke to introduce Obama in Denver

Thanks to Rush, Sandra Fluke Is Now an Actual Obama Campaign Operative

On what objective world does news coverage of her enforcement, her writing articles for CNN and Huff Post, and coverage of her on the Campaign trail fall under one event? Hell, I would even argue that it is hard to see the hearing before the controversy with Issa as part of the same event. Casprings (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fluke's recent campaigning with President Obama, a result of her previous endorsement of the President earlier last month, does not constitute a notable event in its own right, but rather a continuation of a different, indisputably notable event: the U.S. 2012 Presidential Campaign. Sandra Fluke is a participant in the event, and her participation centers around her sole point of notability; that she was insulted by Rush Limbaugh after speaking at a Congressional event.

Objectively, one can view all of Fluke's actions since her appearance at the aforementioned Congressional event as a continuation of the Limbaugh scandal, for her role in present events has entirely stemmed from, and directly referenced, the earlier controversy. The Obama campaign may or may not decide to involve Ms. Fluke to a greater degree in their campaign, and possibly in any future Obama administration. In the event of the former, Ms. Fluke may meet notability guidelines if the Romney campaign decides to comment, à la Joe the Plumber. That's fine; I would in that instance support re-creation once more, and would personally monitor the article to ensure objectivity and neutrality on both sides. In the event of the latter, Ms. Fluke would undeniably meet notability guidelines as a public figure involved on a day-to-day basis in government. That's fine; I would in that instance support re-creation once more, and would personally monitor the article to ensure objectivity and neutrality on both sides.

What, then, do both of my above scenarios have in common that would cause me, the nominator, to switch my future support from "delete" to "keep"? Simple, really; Fluke would undeniably and indisputably meet the notability requirement for an individual biography currently not satisfied under WP:BLP1E. At present, her sole role in ongoing events, i.e. publishing the occasional opinion piece, a "surprising" tweet, and endorsing/campaigning with the President, can be entirely traced back to the Limbaugh scandal, as observed by the constant stream of references to it in nearly every story about her subsequent actions. When the majority of news organizations feel that they can mention her without any mention of the Limbaugh scandal, she will obviously no longer be noteworthy by virtue of one event. Furthermore, if one is to examine the issue objectively than it is necessary to take into account the fact that 2012 is an election year; each and every otherwise minor political event will be greatly magnified in importance as a result of today's 24-hour news cycle. We cannot allow ourselves to fall prey to recentism in articles; keep in mind the Ten Year Test. Fluke's campaign appearances may seem notable now, but in all likelihood they will merely be a footnote by next January. Of course, I could be wrong; I'm not a crystal ball, after all. Then again, neither is Wikipedia. Zaldax (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe the Plumber analogy doesn't really work. Yes, he asked a question that the news pros were unable to, but then was made notable as a shorthand by both parties for how policies would affect working class and entrepreneur Americans. He was pervasive throughout the campaign, and the "event" you would have to substitute would be something along the lines of "2008 Presidential Election theme - Joe the Plumber", much easier and more direct to go for an Person Article. There is no question Joe was acting on his own, he took initiative, and had substantive influence on a major campaign out of proportion to the originality of the initial event; therefore a Person Article. Fluke was a prop in the political theater around the Issa hearing, a prop in a Democrat event, delivering a scrubbed and insubstantial speech. She got media notice by claiming "victimhood" when commentators and pols condemned the political theater. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's what I'm saying. Fluke's campaign appearances would be notable if Romney started using her as shorthand for an issue, but he isn't. Furthermore, as you pointed out, "Joe the Plumber" has done quite a bit since his initial appearance in the public eye; he's even running for Congress now. Fluke, on the other hand? Not so much... Zaldax (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, the campaign appearances basically try to remind people that Limbaugh crossed a line.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Casprings above. ¶ Well well, this AfD for Sandra Fluke already has some choice nuggets. I particularly enjoy the delete !vote of 209.6.69.227, who seems to heartily disapprove of Fluke yet doesn't quite manage to say that she should show gratitude to Limbaugh for deigning to comment on her. Apropos of what passes in the US for political commentary, Pamela Geller and Robert Stacy McCain too have had conniption fits over Fluke: a "pig", and "an embarrasment [sic] to decent young women" and a "lying liberal bitch". Does anyone else of comparable age attract such contumely? Surely Fluke would be notable as a kind of voodoo doll for the barbs (well, blunderbusses) of the extreme right if for nothing else. ¶ To the charge that she hasn't actually done much, the same could be leveled at Barbara Pierce Bush, Juanita Broaddrick, Mandy Rice-Davies, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Kim Kardashian, Anna Sophia Berglund, the Kano sisters, most if not all of the 193-and-counting members of Category:Japanese gravure idols, and more. Not that young (at the time) females account for all the articles on people who haven't done much: there are also plenty of old male geezers (Terry Jones (pastor), etc) and more. ¶ But this is by the way. Like it or not, deservedly or undeservedly, Fluke has got much more media attention than most of the people I've just listed. And though this seems to hugely annoy the US hard right -- e.g. "Sandra Fluke, Why Won’t You Go Away?", redalertpolitics.com, August 7 -- she hasn't yet disappeared. Wikipedia should tackle (encyclopedically, of course) what is of more than fleeting interest and is amply sourced, not only a subset of this that certain editors happen to approve. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Condescendingly calling a reasoned comment a !vote can be considered WP:PA . Please cease; it adds nothing to the debate. Calling critics names also does not advance your cause.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, please don't make me go through that list and refute those examples one at a time. Don't you think you're comparing apples to oranges just a little bit there? Let's concentrate on Ms. Fluke, please, and not bring in any outside, clearly notable public figures and/or entertainers. (Although admittedly, you may be onto something with that category there; perhaps someone should take a look at that? And by the way, I agree that some of those people probably shouldn't be notable, but alas the public and media has judged that they are. I'm looking at you, Kardashian.) Oh, and I don't think allegations of sexism are appropriate here - Ms. Fluke has not caused massive protests in the Muslim world, whereas Mr. Jones has. So, everyone, let's keep this focused on Ms. Fluke, and avoid political bias on our own, shall we? Zaldax (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's [...] not bring in any outside, clearly notable public figures and/or entertainers. No, let's instead start by agreeing on one or both of two other, related matters. One is of what "notability" means. The guidelines do indeed mention what might be called noteworthiness or intrinsic notability, but they heavily favor notedness (however bizarre you or I may find media obsession). The other is the nature of these pages on notability (whatever "notability" may mean): they're guidelines, not policies, thereby allowing for sensible exceptions. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that other "crap" exists is specifically excluded as an argument under WP:OTHERCRAP. Policy is that if you don't think those OTHER Articles should be on WP, nominate them.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are half right. For any dubious article at AfD, people are likely to be able to fish two or three similar, underexamined articles from WP's stagnant waters. And therefore the fact that (such) other crap exists is indeed no reason for retention, and rightly so. But my examples aren't just one or two, and they're not articles that have somehow gone unnoticed. They are, for the most part, well known articles on people whose notedness depends on their family trees, looks, etc, and not on what Zaldax and you seem to think is important: meaningful accomplishments resulting from personal effort rather than serendipity (e.g. the pratfalls of others). These articles aren't occasional; they're legion. My list above has a US and of course female slant; but there are also dozens, perhaps hundreds, on people such as Simon Bowes-Lyon, Lord Glamis who appear to have zero notability (as defined other than very perversely), and redlinks (see for example the foot of that last article) inviting the addition of ten times this number. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate those for deletion too, then. This AFD is about this article. Not any other, especially none previously mentioned, because none of those were direct analogues. (Hence what I said about "apples to oranges".) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:OTHERCRAP does not change just because of the quantity of WP:OTHERCRAP. WP:OTHERCRAP is still WP:OTHERCRAP.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ::SNIFF:: Fails my liberal bullshit detector. The Man Who Would B.B. King (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you arguing that this article should be deleted as a WP:POVFORK? AFD is not just a vote; you need to support your position with an argument based on WP policy and guidelines if you want your voice to be heard. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If that will work. The Man Who Would B.B. King (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(changing my mind; see below for my new opinion) Merge/Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. IMO, the incident remains sufficiently notable that it definitely needs to be covered somewhere. But essentially everything in the Sandra Fluke article is already included in Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy — so it seems to me that the best approach is to merge any remaining details and then replace the first article with a redirect to the second. — Rich wales 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's now a public figure. She's written articles for CNN and just introduced Obama at a campaign event. The Rush Limbaugh event may have brought her into the spotlight, but she's there now, and there's no shortage of new articles in which she's a part of. This seems about on the same par as Joe The Plumber. I tend to lean conservative, but it's pretty clear to me she deserves her own article. Given that she's now bigger than the event that put her in the spotlight, I would argue that the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy should instead redirect to her page to the specific section covering this incident. Naapple (Talk) 02:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that Joe the Plumber is running for Congress, right? That he was literally mentioned almost daily by both sides of the campaign during the last election, right? I think it's ludicrous to say that Fluke is bigger than the original event; if you ask the average person, they will almost certainly tell you she's the Limbaugh scandal girl, nothing else (if they even remember her at all.) Sorry if it seems like I'm being harsh, but I'm getting frustrated hearing "She's notable because she introduced Obama" and "Look at all my links!" without any actual defense of why that matters being invoked. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't have a dog in this fight either way. I just saw the tag when I googled her name and figured I'd throw in my $0.02.

Joe the Plumber only ran for congress recently, and I'm sure he had a page long before then. John Hinckley, Jr. I'm sure is only casually mentioned as the guy who shot Reagan.

You should take a chill-pill, dude. You've jumped on everyone with an opposing opinion. Just remember, they're just that: opinions, and yours isn't necessarily the right one. Don't be a dick. Naapple (Talk) 02:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that characterizing me as a dick is just a little bit unfair, given the circumstances, dude. Throughout this discussion I've continually reminded everyone to take a step back and to take politics out of it. Thus fair I've patiently explained and laid out the points to my argument, each time an opinion I disagree with has been posted, in accordance with [Hierarchy of Disagreement.] So far, it's been an attempt to build consensus, but the source of my frustration stems from frequent repetition of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naapple, the dude isn't a dick; this is just an AfD, that's all: some participants get terribly excited. Plus ... well, be easy on him: over a month ago he wrote that The 15 minutes of controversy that made [Fluke] slightly recognizable has long since faded. It's truly mind boggling. If his mind has been boggling since, he must be quite exhausted. -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I didn't write that; Xcal68 did over a month before I even registered. I'm assuming that's an honest mistake on your part. Zaldax (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well well, you're right; you are two different people. I was confused. Both of you have al and x in your names. Your editing history is indeed very short. You're a fast learner: my congratulations. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As said above, she's now a public figure. If she had a single public event in her life -- 15 minutes of fame -- and gone back into the shadows, I'd feel ok about reporting on her only in the context of that event, but she has continuing coverage in the news. That's called being a celebrity. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted previously, her "continuing coverage" not only comes in spikes (i.e. it's not really constant), but is in relation to events much, much larger than herself; in today's 24-hour news cycle anything is grounds for a story during election season. I point to the Ten Year Test as further grounds for deletion (or merge/redirect, which would be quite similar seeing as how the present article contains only 3 sentences more of information beyond a basic biography...) Zaldax (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One reason why the article contains little is, as its history will show, the vigor with which additions are opposed and removed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason it is as puffed up as it is the debate switched to AfD. The notable difference between SF and RL-SF are the poor self-sourced references.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still-numbers, isn't your comment, no matter how well intended, a little unkind to SF? I'd always thought that a celeb was somebody whose fame, such as it was, primarily derived from being famous (examples). -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:BLP1E argument seems weak to me. I don't think anyone would seriously propose deleting Chesley Sullenberger, who would presumably have remained obscure but for one event. The reason I proposed a merge earlier is not because of any questions of notability, but simply because the two articles in question cover practically the same ground. — Rich wales 05:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sully is actually a good example. You could make a case that it was the event, but a weak one. It was the coolness under pressure/heroism/skill and experience that made what was a minor event something that grabbed attention, therefore article on person, not event. WP:N is somewhat borderline, but since the person is non-contentious and of accomplishment, OK. Fluke was a passive prop put forward in an artificially manufactured set of media events. News notices mostly are election year attempts to remind people of the set of media events. Arguments being put forward are mostly arguments that the EVENT page should remain.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, on the basis of clear lack of independent notability. It'd be an exercise in futility to try and scare up instances of Ms Fluke's notability independently of the Rush Limbaugh episode. I tried - and it was futile. Please, let us set aside the politics of this and proceed according to Wiki rules on both notability and BLPs. -The Gnome (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, because Fluke has zero notability without Limbaugh's manufactured controversy. No independent article is justified. Belchfire-TALK 06:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy because she is notable for only 1 event. Remove that single event and there is nothing left.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 09:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is someone making public statements on record, so BLP1E wouldn't seem to apply. Just yesterday, seen here, BOULDER, Colo. - It's certainly no fluke that President Obama is being introduced by Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke when he makes a campaign stop in Denver on Wednesday. This was reported nationally including USA Today. Which also makes it well beyond a single event. So at one time there may have been a point that this was just a recent thing or too focussed on one event, that incident has been parlayed into a burgeoning political career bolstered by Rush Limbaugh's poor choices. Has Limbaugh never gone down that road she may have never been built the platform, but he did and now she's being used be the most powerful man on the planet. here is a story from the American Bar Association explaining her rise to being her own entity - "...the aspiring lawyer has embraced the platform. Fresh from the California bar exam, the Georgetown University Law Center alum said the experience gave her the chance to think more deeply about political conversation and a lawyer’s role in that arena." So she may have never intended all the free publicity after the personal attacks but she is taking advantage of the opportunities to address a national audience and getting her opinions repeated because of her newfound fame. Insomesia (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you need to add "notable for speaking" to the notability guidelines. IIRC, just because a person speaks a lot does not make them "notable" per WP guidelines - so I suggest you propose that addition. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you intended to be sarcastic but no, I'm not suggesting a change to notability policy. I am stating that her opinions and speaking are reported by the media as notable enough to report. They think her opinions are notable. Insomesia (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI; an univited op-ed is OPINION, and not considered WP:RS, even if in the WaPo.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your talking about, please don't invent things that I never even suggested. Insomesia (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your references. Check them out; assertions about Fluke are uninvited op-eds. One level above letters to the editor. Not WP:RS, which is what we should be talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for self-confessed dittoheads (there must be some of you here!): What Would Limbaugh Do? Politico tells us that he's told his fans: “Obama’s out there today, he’s at a fundraiser, and guess who is introducing him? Well-known contraception expert Sandra Fluke [...] When you mention her name, my name is what most people think of,” he continued, according to audio posted by The Daily Rushbo. “I should be getting a finder’s fee.” So Limbaugh takes SF as a "well-known contraception expert", and thus presumably article-worthy. But, contraceptive expertise notwithstanding, he suggests that she's primarily an amusement provided by himself, and thus I suppose redirectable. I'm puzzled; pray enlighten me. (Try not to splutter too much.) Beers. Hoary (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, Hoary. This issue is contentious enough, it'll only be harder to sort out if we stoop to the level Rush did when he started this whole thing. Firstly, I think the air quotes there, were probably pretty clear - Limbaugh was almost certainly being sarcastic; given his record of involvement with Fluke, I'd hardly call him a reliable source. Secondly, no one is proposing that we redirect Sandra Fluke to Rush Limbaugh; you're absolutely right in that such a redirect would be ridiculous. No, what myself and many other editors are proposing is to merge/redirect the article Sandra Fluke to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy (arguably still the thing most people are searching for), and then to delete the Fluke biography as redundant. Zaldax (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, being mentioned on Limbaugh's show satisfies our notability requirement all by itself? Good to know, I'll remember that. Belchfire-TALK 17:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Possible Compromise: Since it appears that the majority of editors thus far are in favor of a redirect/merge (I'm including delete's here, because it's practically the same thing), but a significant minority argue "keep" on the basis of ongoing events, I may have come up with a compromise that's suitable to all. As we all know, this article has been thus far subject to two previous AFDs and one DRV. In the event of a pure "delete" outcome, the article is likely to be subject to a future DRV (not withstanding Fluke's future actions; this and future scenarios assume she does nothing after the result of this AFD, as none of us have a working crystal ball). Likewise, in the event of a pure "keep" outcome, I can practically guarantee that this article will be nominated again sometime in the future - it's an election year, so either someone will try and delete again during the election (which might or might not succeed), or shortly after the election (which, as it stands, probably would succeed.) In other words, I don't think anyone wants a result of "no consensus" (which, although I think the outcome is leaning towards redirect/merge, is also a plausible outcome), because it would just mean we'd all fight this battle again a few weeks or months down the road.

So, with that in mind, here is my proposed compromise:

Merge/Redirect Sandra Fluke to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy - thus sidestepping concerns many editors have over notability, the 10YT, and BLP1E.
Create the section(s) "2012 Presidential Election" and/or "Aftermath" in the article Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy - thus allowing for continued coverage of her activities several editors have asserted as notable. Since, as Hoary pointed out, Limbaugh has commented on the issue once more, and since most articles covering Fluke's activities still draw direct connections back to the original controversy, I think it is safe to simply expand the original article.

Thoughts everyone? Hopefully this addresses both parties concerns. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be in favor of either. A decision simply should be reached by the closing admin. Casprings (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you raise good points, and several issues have been raised that now need to be addressed on the RL-SF page, as you state, but I wouldn't exactly call that an AfD compromise. While some arguments have been made that the RL-SF page should remain, none have for the SF page; it should be deleted, and I don't think expansion of the RL-SF is going to have any effect on the Fluke fan partisans. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, if anything, do you mean by "Fluke fan partisan"? (Somebody who doesn't share your enthusiasm for deleting this article?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a compromise at all. Why should Fluke's bio be removed at all reducing her to only the initial dust-up that wasn't her fault? No, she should be seen in her own bio with a whole life that had this incident as her first big brush with national attention which she took advantage of. She has just now graduated so as she takes more opportunities to use her fame we'll have a more balanced reporting of her life. Insomesia (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because that argument assumes that she'll go on to do notable things in the future. If she does, maybe file another DRv and see what happens. Saying that we should keep her whole bio because "She has just now graduated so as she takes more opportunities to use her fame we'll have a more balanced reporting of her life." indisputably fails WP:CRYSTAL Zaldax (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not a compromise, but a consideration that the misplaced arguments HERE actually may be arguments that the RL-SF controversy page should NOT be merged into RL yet. It remains to be seen whether the current political re-animation of the RL-SF controversy is just another manufactured election season "spike", but Zaldax is correct in saying that while invalid here, the half-points being made SHOULD influence another page. As to "that wasn't her fault"; getting a dust-up was the clear intent of the whole charade. Republicans didn't bite, Limbaugh did. No dust-up, no TV for Fluke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your comments focussed just on this article not hypothetical implications and personal soapboxing. Suggesting other people's comments here are misplaced is pretty rude. Insomesia (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2012(UTC)

Not meant to be rude at all. Misplaced meaning put in a page where arguments are invalid (about WP:N of an PERSON) by Wikipedia rules, which might be valid according to WP:N(Events), aka on the RL-SF Controversy page. Comments are absolutely focused on what an argument on an AfD should focus on.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fluke's ongoing involvement in recent events still doesn't merit an article of its own, even if it was unrelated to the Limbaugh scandal (which it isn't.) Please see WP:NOTWHOSWHO - as she in no way merits a mention in the article about the 2012 election, the best place to mention any of her subsequent actions are in the main controversy article. Not on a separate page, which will only serve to further confuse readers and attract POV edits. (As it indisputably has in the past.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On further reflection, I'm changing my mind on this one. I still note the strong overlap between the current bio and the Rush Limbaugh controversy. But recent events have cast Fluke, not simply as a target of Limbaugh's ridicule, but as a more general advocate of women's health care rights. For example, Obama had Fluke introduce him in his recent Denver campaign stop because of her support for women's issues, and not specifically as a foil to Rush Limbaugh. I would now favour keeping the Sandra Fluke article, and replacing the overlapping material in Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy with an abridged summary and a "Main article" or "See also" pointing to Fluke's bio. — Rich wales 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually listened to the short "intro" she gave, and over which all the press announcements were blogged; she basically reminded people of the Rush insult, then of the Obama phone call. While I think (as has been expressed above), the coverage may cause some editors to reconsider if the RL-SF page needs to be merged with RL, nothing said indicates the Democrats want Fluke other than to remind voters of an old spin war. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nothing said indicates the Democrats want Fluke other than to remind voters of an old spin war; or rather, O indefatigable 209.6.69.227, nothing said indicates this to you. I've just now gurgled "sandra fluke obama introduce" (or similar), and the topmost hit happened to be this from USA Today. Its first two paragraphs: The Georgetown law student thrust into the center of a debate about President Obama's policy on contraceptives will be introducing him tomorrow in Denver. / The Denver Post reports the campaign appearance by Sandra Fluke shows "the importance of the women's vote" in Colorado, a key swing state in the presidential election. A debate about contraceptives, not a debate about Issa, Limbaugh, et al. Though yes, Limbaugh does come up in the article after that. The link therein is to this at the Denver Post. Its first paragraph: In case you needed further proof of the importance of the women’s vote in Colorado this election – and that the Obama campaign is following the 2010 roadmap of U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet – word comes that Sandra Fluke will introduce President Obama at his Denver campaign stop. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should then every person who introduces a President in a speech be considered notable, if announcements prior to the speech that the person is going to make the introduction be considered notable?

Wouldn't the brief event (the introduction of the president) not fall under WP:NOTNEWS, and the inconsequential introduction not pass WP:EFFECT?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, but something similar rates a section within the article on Joe "the plumber". -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by Umbralcorax and Casprings, she does not appear to be a low-profile individual and she is still receiving significant reliable coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2012 (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. Keep arguments have failed to indicate how the album passes WP:NALBUMs, especially the part on unreleased material. There have yet to be any in-depth sources on this unreleased album, and those in the article are about the single. Should this be released it may be notable, but at this moment it isn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matangi (album)[edit]

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

Too soon for creation of article on this forthcoming album. It has no confirmed release date (sources only use vague terms like "in the summer", "in the fall", or "later this year"), no confirmed tracks (there has been no confirmation that any of the individual tracks mentioned in the article will definitely be on this album) and no significant coverage (there has been a raft of brief mentions of "M.I.A. will be releasing a new album later this year" but that's about it......). Re-create when more is actually known for certain about the album -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because although information on this album is scarce, there is reliable and properly sourced information on some of the tracks here, and it forms a reasonable resource for information on a notable album that will be expanded upon as information is released. HorseloverFat (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the tracks mentioned in this article are confirmed to actually be on the album AFAICS. So what we have is an article that basically says "there is an album coming out at an unknown point in the future, and it might contain these songs"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Today, M.I.A. stated on her Twitter account that the tracklist for the album is coming out tomorrow. [35] So at least that information will be released. QuasyBoy (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the image that M.I.A. posted: [36] via TwitPic, of the tracklist. However, a few of the words are hidden. QuasyBoy (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because though the full tracklisting hasn't been confirmed, 12 titles are known. It is well known that she is hoping for a 12/12/12 release date, even if this hasn't been confirmed.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, only just escaping the hammer but still not suitable for an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She tweeted that she would release the album in "DEC"(ember), there's an album title, and a track-list (somewhat). M.I.A. has always been subtle about pre-release information, so it'd be unnecessary to delete the article. SuperDopeBass (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Incubate album might come out later this year. So far the album has yielded a notable single and another one is on its way. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2012 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gabrielo[edit]

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

Self-promoted celebrity, fails WP:GNG. All references are social media sources, no citations in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Not mentioned in the secondary sources provided. De728631 (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, self-promotion. GregJackP Boomer! 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 4 August 2012 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Intent Buyer[edit]

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

Non notable company, initially tagged as Prod per "Non blatant advertising" - tags removed by page creator. Uses primary sources as referencing, others referenced from Wikipedia directly, and various blogs. Not notable in this state, non-encyclopedic. BarkingFish 12:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete db-spam with doses of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL thrown in. EEng (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a bit of a mess, with various wikilinks as "references", making it awkward to see the wood for the trees. (To be fair, it is the contributor's first article.) I'm not seeing anything in the article as such that demonstrates WP:CORPDEPTH notability; it appears to be a company with possibly an interesting raison d'etre, but basically just a firm doing what firms do. I'd suggest it should be pushed into the Articles for Creation process, but I fear that it may ultimately become a disappointment for the new editor if it can never emerge from there with demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Papal Chase[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. Neelix (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kenny Hotz (director/producer/star). Neither Rotten Tomatoes nor IMDb nor TCM.com list any reviews. There's a brief mention that it won the Brooklyn Film Fest Audience Award for best Documentary in IndieWire[37], a paragraph in Maclean's[38], a bit in a student paper story[39], and some non-independent sources.[40][41][42] But not enough in-depth coverage in reliable independent publications. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for what I can see, GNG considerations aside, "if" these awards are verifiable this film would pass WP:NFILMS. Cavarrone (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, in accordance with my comment above. Schmidt's excellent work [43] have already improved the article enough to proof it passes WP:NFILMS#3 (the film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking), as this film was awarded as best documentary/best film in three notable film festivals, and this is verifible through reliable sources. Yes, the page still needs additional work, but the notability of the subject appears now proven. Cavarrone (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFILMS#3, a SNG set to deal with situations where GNG might be weak. The two guidleines are not at odds, as they are set to aid in determining whether or not a topic is worthy enough of note to be written of herein. Simple enough way to deal with such: Not enough SIGCOV? Then check the applicable SNG. Verifiable as meeting an applicbale SNG? Then we have enough notability for inclusion even in the lack of SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 9 August 2012 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnastics Results at the 2009-2012[edit]

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

Orphaned article that is just an overall list of results. A majority of the items have their own event articles and as a result this is merely an unnecessary directory. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 10:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not familiar with international gymnastics, but 2009-2012 seems like an arbitrary grouping, and as you've noted, much of the content is duplicate. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary (2009-2012? why?) collection of gymnastics results with no indication as to why they should be grouped together in such a way. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What does this mean? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP, no deletion rationale offered, WP:JUSTAVOTE. This is inexplicable as a good faith nomination, and inexcusable from an experienced editor. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedias[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

'Delete or create a soft redir to List of Wikipedias at Meta. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". Warden (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – No valid reason for deletion has been presented, per WP:DEL-REASON. Furthermore, this list satisfies WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigation aid for finding and browsing articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the individual language Wikipedias are sufficiently notable to have articles in the English Wikipedia. It is entirely appropriate per WP:L to have a list of these articles in the main article space. (I'm at a loss as to why this was proposed, other than certain hypotheses which WP:AGF would exclude.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No valid reason given and the topic is notable. Seasider91 (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion given. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close Duh. Lugnuts (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2012 (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. Nominator's concerns seems to be addressed. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese dog[edit]

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

No sources, no citations and shouldn't be given its own page Gorgak25 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to hot dog variations. 101.172.127.242 (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite its title that article claims to be a list of regional variations. Is the cheese dog a regional variation? I'm not convinced it's notable, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Because Carolina dog and Cincinnati coney are notable. This is somewhat of a list article, so GNG doesn't apply per se, although I am relatively confident it could pass GNG anyway p b p 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Hot dog: Insufficienct notability for a stand-alone article. Any material here worth saving can be summarized in a sentence or two at most in the main Hot dog article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Is this above !vote based upon a search for sources regarding the topic's notability, or is it your personal opinion about the topic, or based upon the article's state at the time of the nomination? Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Also, this nomination does not have a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - to hot dog. Non notable version of a hot dog. The only reference is passing mention. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Please read WP:NRVE. Are you stating that the only reference available on the entire internet is a passing mention? Probably not. This is why WP:NRVE exists, to distinguish between topic notability based upon the availability of sources versus the faulty notion of topic notability being based upon sources that may or may not exist in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if you're saying that "Cheese dog" is non-notable, you're also saying that all types of cheese dog (including ones that don't include "cheese" in the title) are non-notable. Can you be sure of that? p b p 00:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that sources must provide in depth coverage, which the source used when I looked at the article did not do. Also, the number of source do not establish notability, it is the quality of the sources. The sources provided at the time only established verifiability. Whether or not you or I think it is notable, you must provide the required quality sources that establish notability and my merge comment reflects the state of the article at the time I viewed it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The provided sources still do not do it. These are all reviews, passing mentions or recipes taht only show that the thing exists. There is nothing in the new "References" that provide the required depth of coverage required to keep this as a stand alone article.

Comment – The article is in the process of being expanded. More sources have been added. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nomination statement is utterly invalid - it says nothing about whether subject is notable. Under nominator's rationale, we could delete huge swaths of wikipedia, including many articles on innumerable notable subjects. If you want to nominate articles for deletion, put some effort into it by God.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the concern of the nominator was that the article was unsourced now this problem was adressed. I don't see other reasons for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just needs some cleanup and improving. The nominator's reason states unsourced, but now there's sources, and "shouldn't be given its own page"? WP:BELONG (or WP:UNENCYC) may apply. Zappa O Mati 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on all the great work done to the article, which now has about half a dozen good references. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shale Framework (software)[edit]

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

I don't think Apache Shale was a notable framework. –ebraminio^talk 08:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found these two. Both reliable sources, the one from DeveloperWorks is particularly thorough. There might be plenty of other similarly reliable sources, I just didn't try searching further. ~~Note: article should be renamed.~~ — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Apache Shale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic is meeting WP:GNG per [44], [45]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 3 August 2012 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar (PHP Framework)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this PHP framework is notable. –ebraminio^talk 07:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage by any independent secondary sources to meet WP:NSOFT, just a bit of blog noise and self-promotion. The article itself is of poor quality and would need to be heavily edited. That aside, it still lacks notability to be listed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory of all software that can be confirmed to exist. --LoudHoward (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The most significant mention I found is an article claiming Solar to be the only pure PHP5 MVC framework, which doesn't even qualify for claim of significance. Passing mentions, blogs, forum threads... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2012 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Framework[edit]

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

I don't think this PHP framework in notable. –ebraminio^talk 07:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 10:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 10:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage by independent secondary sources to establish WP:NSOFT --LoudHoward (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding coverage in reliable sources for this topic. This includes the standard Google News search from the link at the topic of this discussion and some custom searches (example search). Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akello Light[edit]

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

This is a nicely-written article about a musical producer that contains many references. On investigation, however, it appears that none of these references are reliable, and the many, many releases by this artist all appear to be either self-released or released on independent labels that are not considered "one of the more important indie labels". Many releases are listed with production accredited to very notable people such as 9th Wonder, DJ Premier or Lord Finesse, but these do not appear to be official collaborations, just reworks of other people's music by Akello Light. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but at the moment I cannot see any evidence that WP:MUSIC is met. — sparklism ^hey! 08:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiki. Deleting this should make Wiki wonder if references even matter. There are way to many indie artists with less than six references with a here today and gone tomorrow write up from what somebody would call important. That fact is that this guy has been on the Gilles Peterson worldwide website, gets a godly amount of reviews and press by underground music blogs and actually gets airplay on Dublab and radio stations. Most indie artists don't get airplay period. The references don't lie. Akello Light was already on 9th Wonder's page before this article appeared. 9th Wonder and Akello Light are both from Winston-Salem so I would think they lurk in the same circle. This information was already on the internet. Yes, all of those high traffic blogs like Earmilk and the mid traffic blogs like Word is Bond posted about this guy. This guy has sometype of Kimya Dawson before Juno came out slash Stevie Moore following. I just saw that you had Akello Light already on 9th Wonders page and decided to shine some light on him. The amount of references must equal the amount of people who are interested in this person. They all are different references. On that note, like Akello Light would probulary say, "Hugs for everybody"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirleak (talk • contribs) 10:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sirleak, can you find any reliable sources that show that the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO are met? If you can, then this article will stay, but at the moment I can't see anything but blog coverage or passing mentions. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 10:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.He has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Yes, Dublab(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublab) and the DJ was Kutmah (it is in the article). He has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. Yes,cyclicdefrost magazine (http://www.cyclicdefrost.com/blog/2008/07/various-artists-miscellaneous-releases-on-inner-current-records-inner-current/) and Okayplayer (http://www.okayplayer.com/reviews/transcending-project-200608114703.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirleak (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Sirleak. I have indented your previous post so that other editors can follow the flow of this conversation.

About your references:
this from Okayplayer is, as far as I can see, about the band Transcending Project, not really about Akello Light. It IS what we would classify as 'non-trivial' coverage though, and the source is pretty reliable. I could be persuaded to accept this as a reliable source if we could find some more examples like it.
The Cyclic Defrost source here does not count towards WP:MUSICBIO as Akello is only mentioned in the review - this is classed as 'trivial' coverage.

As for the Dublab radio plays - was his music actually on rotation, or just played once or twice? And do you have a source that could verify this? Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sparklism. Wow! It seems everything you ask we give, then we also get a but from you (We know you are just doing your job). Well, we know for a fact Dublab keeps that mix in rotation, but we just emailed them and are looking forward to getting information to send to you in the next 24 hours. The Okayplayer review is taking about Akello as a producer. It clearly states in the article Akello Light is a music producer also, just not a vocal artist. My team of nerds are trying to shine light on all the aspects of Akello Light, not just his rapping. We re-edited the article to only keep things that seem to be "noteable" also.

We have added smokingsection.uproxx.com as a reference for the music project "To Hanes Mall"(http://smokingsection.uproxx.com/TSS/2010/05/video-emilio-sparks-interviews-big-k-r-i-t).

And we also added real radio stations:

WVUM 90.5 (http://wvum.org/index.php/music/www.luceromusic.com/P2926/)

radioadelaidemusic http://radioadelaidemusic.com/2012/05/14/crossing-tracks-playlist-14-may-2012/

KTUH (http://www.timbretantrums.com/2012/02/vd-for-your-earholes.html)

A discussion about an email from Dublab

Ok, we just got a email from Dublab. Is there a way you can give us your email and we have them email you? Are you can just email him to be on the safe side. His name is Mark "frosty" McNeill. Just email him to confirm it.

How can we email you the his email (it won't allow us to post it here)

This is what he emailed us:

hi Nayla,

Yes! It's a great session. It has definitely been widely enjoyed. Here's the archive.

http://dublab.com/kutmah-sketchbook-032409/ Thanks!

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirleak (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the email to Dublab, you can also just go here http://dublab.com/contact/. This is what we wrote to Dublab using this online form:

Hello Dublab, I am trying to find out if this mix still gets online airplay, KUTMAH – SKETCHBOOK (03.24.09). Bascially played more than three times. The reason I ask is because Akello Light wiki page wants to mention Kutmah and Dublab, but the people at wiki need proof of this not just beginning a one time play thing. Any help would be great.

Hope that makes the process safer and easy for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirleak (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

WVUM 90.5 (These are three different shows from this radio station)

http://wvum.org/index.php/music/playlist/francis_rotation_show_2_3_2010/

http://wvum.org/index.php/music/playlist/the_morning_aftermath_-_final_installment_friday_9_a.m._-_1_p.m._with_pris_/

http://wvum.org/index.php/music/playlist/a.m._wonderland_17_-_6_7_10_8-10am/

That is pretty much all of information I could find on the internet of Akello Light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirleak (talk • contribs) 06:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot a major one! Glacéau Vitaminwater (this seems very reliable and notable) (http://www.vitaminwater.co.uk/2010/03/wednesday-power-chart-oscillations-mix-337am.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirleak (talk • contribs) 06:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to summarise then, so far we have one example of non-trivial coverage in a reliable source for one of Akello Light's musical projects (from Okayplayer), a radio play on Dublab, and some more plays on WVUM. I don't really see how the other links you give are adding to the tenuous claims to notability, but I appreciate your efforts here. I still don't think that adds up to Akello Light meeting WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 10:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time Sparklism. We made one last re-edit to the page. Super Hugs To You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirleak (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No nontrivial coverage in multiple sources = doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. 101.172.127.242 (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2012 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sagu (soccer)[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this league, despite its name, doesn't meet NFOOTY. And he certainly doesn't meet GNG, sourced to a fan page and a dead link that'd be a primary source if it was working. Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails W:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the PASL has a salary cap of $3000, meaning that this is not a fully professional league.[46] The subject fails WP:NFOOTY, and I can't find any meaningful media coverage (only routine stuff), so he fails the general notability criteria. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 09:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Just reading the article it is obviously a hoax, and if any confirmation is needed, the only Google hit for either "Pølsecita" or "Pølsesita" is this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pølsesita[edit]

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

Looks like Original Research. I couldn't find any sources. Anbu121 (talk me) 07:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Translating the Danish part to English gives us "Sausagesita". Sounds like a hoax. No sources to be seen, either. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 08:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even notable in the slightest way, as Google shows, and probably a hoax or WP:ONEDAY thing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Selvam Daniel[edit]

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

Non-notable person. I BLP Proded the article, but the user removed the tag by including blogs and facebook as reference. Anbu121 (talk me) 07:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Most of the article is not about him anyway. No reliable refs.--Dmol (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 08:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Looks like he is doing good work but I couldn't find any references that were not pr releases. --regentspark (comment) 11:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant spam. Since he was "brought up in an organic environment" shouldn't we be applying BLP (Biography of Living Produce)? EEng (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like spam to me. Might look better when finished - I doubt it unless there's a total rewrite. Peridon (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2012 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vu TelePresence[edit]

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

no indication of meeting the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. Given references are press releases or not significant coverage. Google searches not finding anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the official website of Vu telepresence http://www.vutelepresence.com/ Shravanshetty502 (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having a website is not enough to establish notability. Neither are press releases a WP:reliable source to establish notability. noq (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 Now i have given Reference. Please check and please tell me what to do other wise i can lose my Job Shravanshetty502 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't nominate this article for deletion. Another user (User:Noq) did. However, this submission needs sources that are comprised of significant coverage about the topic from third-party reliable sources. Some of the sources currently in the article appear to be from public relations sources that do not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Please feel free to add more reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic. See also WP:N, Wikipedia's guideline page regarding topic notability for more information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article from PC World Magazine (used as a source in the article) is from a reliable source that has slightly more than passing mentions of the topic: "Enterprise Video Moving Beyond the Meeting Room." More news articles such as these, but highly preferably to be comprised of significant coverage, can help to prove the notability of the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done some pruning of brochure stuff, and asked for references elsewhere. I see it as having potential but not yet being appropriate here. ~~Not offering a !vote so far.~~ Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I have stated on the article's talk page, "The quality of references is seriously lacking. While I agree that the publication of a press release by some sort of periodical gives some form of verifiability I have been involved in PR and Marketing long enough to know that these stories have borderline value, if any, especially if the publishers are simply newswire aggregation services who take material uncritically. When third party references, real ones, are so scarce, using the principal's own web site is, at best, doubtful." In addition the major contributors to the article have been blocked for sock puppetry. This leads me to conclude that the article is here as a mechanism for creating its notability rather than for displaying its notability. Wikipedia may not be used to create a reputation, only to report on well verified facts. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've checked all the sources, and they're almost all either industry publications rehashing company press releases, or are published by the company itself. Not a single one of them consists of genuinely independent reliable sources offering any kind of in-depth coverage of the company or its products. The closest is probably the PC World article, but that is really just about product launches - and it's mainly about Cisco with Vu TelePresence really only getting a small mention. Essentially, all the sources really say is that the company exists and it has a product, which is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. It also seems very likely this article has been written by a representative of the company as a marketing exercise. I've removed some blatant marketing-speak - "leveraging its expertise in audiovisual technology", "Vu’s business operandi lies in utilizing the power of internet and helping business afford alternative Telepresence solutions at low cost...", "to provide expertise in audiovisual technology and maintaining focus on the needs of small and midsized companies", "Vu desires to provide affordable but high value services by leveraging the power of the Internet, against existing high cost Telepresence alternatives at $89 per month", etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is stated above, references are not from true third-party independent sources. And notability is not demonstrated within the text of the article. With reference to the suggestion made above that the author may be involved with the company; as he has expressed the concern that he may lose his job if the article is removed I would submit that involvement and hence conflict of interest is admitted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I extend my sympathy to the author, and if he does have problems retaining his job he should refer his boss to this discussion to show that he was being asked to do what is not possible. (If his boss does sack him, the author should find something better where the management are really fit to manage...) Not all companies get articles, and it is not dependent on size, turnover or line of business. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In his unblock request, the author has subsequently claimed he was lying about losing his job, that he is not paid by the company, and that he and User:Cyberhawk 5 (the other contributor to the article) are just friends trying to learn how to edit Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that there are insufficient sources to support an article at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Rights Defense Committee[edit]

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

Eight year old article with ZERO citations. Edit summary from when NPOV tag was placed --two years ago-- says: "Reads like it could be the "about" page at the group's website (not saying its plagarized, just a comment on tone". That editor had the right idea, but failed due diligence. Spot checking with Google reveals that's exactly what we have here. WP:SPS, WP:GNG, etc. Belchfire-TALK 05:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An Articles for Deletion debate should be about the inherent notability of the topic, not about whether or not the highest-quality references now exist in the article. A Google Books search reveals this statement about the group "The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has been supported by more than 114 legislatures in cities, towns and counties, as well as the states of Alaska and Hawaii." Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources includes this and this and this and this and this. HighBeam Research shows coverage of the early months of the group in The Spokesman-Review in 2003 here. The solution to the nominator's perceived notions about the shortcomings of the current version of the article is to expand the article and add better sourcing, not to delete an article about a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple name-drops, no depth of coverage on the group itself. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not convinced that all of the five book sources mentioned by Cullen328 count towards WP:GNG. this fails independence because the content about BORDC is copied from their website; this mentions BORDC in one sentence, hardly significant coverage; ditto for this source and this one; this source has no preview, so I can't tell how significant the coverage is. The Spokesman-Review source, on the other hand, seems good, I'll see if I can find more sources of that quality. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Scant mentions of "the group sponsored this too" in google books searches fail to satisfy WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From WP:GNG, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." No detail is given in the sources cited by Cullen; they're passing, trivial references. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be a legitimately notable organization.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2012 (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 Consensus is without form and void. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The topic of this article is too specific (a single verse in the bible), with no content except for copied translations from different versions of the Bible. This should be covered (if at all) in another article with a broader scope, and so this article is not necessary. I propose it become a redirect to Book of Genesis. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Genesis creation narrative#The beginning where this verse is discussed in context, rather than just being repeatedly translated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a better redirection target than my proposal. I'd support that instead. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Individual verses are not necessarily notable, but this one is. I did a quick search, and here are a few articles I found:

Jacobson, Howard. "Origen's version of Genesis 1:2," Journal of Theological Studies 59.1 (2008)
Perry, T Anthony. "A Poetics of Absence : The Structure and Meaning of Genesis 1:2," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993)
Young, Edward J. "Interpretation of Genesis 1:2," Westminster Theological Journal 23.2 (1961)

St Anselm (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing redirection, not deletion. Warden (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection implies deletion, i.e. "Delete and redirect." There is no reason for a procedural keep here... Carrite (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting and redirecting would be pointless. Keep the edit history. – Fayenatic London 02:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Currently the article has a sentence of introduction and then the text of the verse in several translations. Offering source texts isn't a valid purpose of Wikipedia. It may be possible to write an article on this verse, but until then a redirect will be of more use to people. (I agree that this shouldn't have been brought to AfD and should have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion but we can still deal with it here if there is consensus.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfD is for discussing current redirects. This isn't currently a redirect; it's an article, and we're proposing that the article content be deleted to make way for a redirect. AfD is necessary for discussion of that content. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This comparison of translations of a single line, while interesting in its own way, is the functional equivalent of a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without deletion; there is a modicum of commentary that could be considered useful if sourced. I would support the same for Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have made substantial edits and expanded the article twofold. Each of the three aspects of the verse (formless & void, the deep, the spirit) could have a sizeable paragraph written about them. I have made a start, but a lot more could be added. St Anselm (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Incorporate in Genesis 1. Despite StAnselm's efforts to give content which I appreciate, my concern is a matter of principle in that I can see no good reason for having articles on individual Bible verses. If they are notable, it is an inherited notability from their relevance to some wider subject or debate. The minimum unit for proper textual analysis and criticism is the paragraph, incident, discourse etc.; in this case Genesis 1:1-2:3 or perhaps 2:4^a. Some verses such as this one, and to a greater extent Isaiah 7:14 and John 1:1 attract a lot of attention and might have some sort of claim to notability, but they are always treated in academic circles as part of some larger whole, except when extremely detailed discussion which lies outside the range of an encyclopaedic article is involved and even then the background is assumed. If detailed analysis overloads the article, given that sub-pages are not allowed, the solution would be a second page Genesis 1:1-2:3 (verse details). By the way, Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4 already redirect to Genesis creation narrative. Jpacobb (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genesis creation narrative#The beginning or Delete; Redundant article. — Jasonasosa 07:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per St.Anselm and prior AfD. The subject of at least three scholarly works. I would argue that having a dozen such verse-articles will do no harm. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sourced, too much detail to fit neatly in larger scope article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, where community consensus on these topics was last assessed, as well as per having sufficient independent RS commentary, etc. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revising my view to keep following worthwhile cited additions. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Both A7 (No indication of importance or significance) and G5 (page created by a blocked user in violation of a block, with no substantial edits by others). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paki Panthers[edit]

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

No indication of notability. No reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. -- Luke (Talk) 01:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - repeatedly reintroduced. SPI underway for creator. GregJackP Boomer! 02:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this WP:CSD#A7? I've tagged it as such. The first incarnation (referred to in the SPI) was a copyvio. No importance claimed in either case. -- Trevj (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2012 (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 Regency Media Group. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regency Home Entertainment[edit]

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

This page fails WP: CORP as it has received no significant coverage by 3rd party reliable sources. It also fails WP: GNG as the only source listed is its website. I have done WP: BEFORE and performed a google search of Regency Home Entertainment and have found no reliable coverage in 3rd party sources. Electric Catfish 23:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If notability could be proven for Regency Media Group, this might serve as a redirect for that article. First I think I'd have to prove notability for the other article... (sighs)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing nothing apart from advertising, press releases, and their own web pages, searching for "Regency Home Entertaiment". I found one story on Regency Media[47] but that's not enough to be notable. I'm a little surprised the company has so little coverage, as film distribution normally attracts some interest from film/media news sources, so maybe other search terms will give some more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Regency Media Group and improve THAT article, as at least the redirect target seems to have greater sourcability. Using "Regency Media, Australia" as a search term I found a bit more than did Colapeninsula.[48] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Electric Catfish 12:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Regency Media Group; there does not appear to be a strong enough sourceability for a stand-alone article. Zaldax (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (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) 03:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Noir[edit]

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

Lack of notability and independent sources, short of the official website. Adrian Dakota (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Info. Contested PROD; contester was notified, removed the PROD notice, and subsequently made changes to the article. I still don't think the article is notable enough. There doesn't seem to be a related page to merge this page into. --Adrian Dakota (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I did some searching and couldn't find any references to this theatre other than their own website, their YouTube channel, and a couple of personal blogs. On the other hand, it seems well-written and has had incremental improvements by diverse authors over 2 years. Can't see any policy reasons to keep it, but I can't see the harm in keeping it. If anyone finds a single reliable third-party source to at least verify the establishment's existence I would change my vote to Keep. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 02:16, 10 August 2012 (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 Spin City episodes. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Pretender (Spin City)[edit]

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

A single episode of the series Spin City that shows no indication of independant notability. Aside from the standard cast list, the article is comprised pretty much only of a plot summary and a piece of random, non-important trivia, and I'm not finding anything that would allow the article to expand to anything beyond this. The only source is to a plot summary, and doing a search for more sources was fruitless. I'm not finding anything that talks about this particular episode in any way that is not just a brief synopsis and cast list. I initially tagged this article as a Speedy Delete for copyright infringement, since most of the article was copied verbatum from TV.com, but since then that has been fixed, so I removed the Speedy, and took it to AFD for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect in its present form per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Nothing here that can't be handled in the List of episodes. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only other episode of the series with its own article is the pilot, and even that's not necessarily notable. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2012 (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) 03:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Mason-Dixon Line F-84 crash[edit]

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

Not notable military accident per WP:AIRCRASH ...William 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:AIRCRASH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge all information to 121st Fighter Squadron. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bushranger. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't show any evidence of notability. Mysterytrey 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 - blatant hoax. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aceh International Airlines[edit]

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

The only references don't refer to any "Aceh International Airlines". They do refer to Batik Air, which already has an article. The only references I could find to it are on Facebook, where it is described by people speaking in Indonesian as a fictional airline in the Facebook game "Airline Manager". See [49]. Dcoetzee 00:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. Very severe futurism, an airline not even due to fly for 3 years, still in the planning stage and without any reliable references deserves everything it gets, including the fastest deletion in history. Obvious giblets in any case. BarkingFish 00:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete assuming that it is fictional. An airline that appears on the same page as companies with names like "Skyblow Airlines" probably isnt real. Even if it is, it'd be nice if the article creator explains to us what's going on, as the article can't stay on Wikipedia with no references at all. It looks like the article may have been based on Batik Air. ☮Soap☮ 00:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed the two refs seem to be copied from Batik Air, including the "Retrieved 10 June 2012." Dcoetzee 00:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information is not verifiable and inconsistent to the references. In addition, I cannot find any reliable sources on the proposed airline. Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. -- Luke (Talk) 01:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only gets 4 Google hits, and those four hits fail WP:GOOGLEHITS. As an aside, Batik Air is a promotional future event, too. Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Movement of National Pride (Bosnia and Herzegovina)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This BiH political party appears to be

either so small that it fails WP:CORP; or,
possibly non-existent.

As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a bit confused. This new neo-nazi party is called Bosanski Pokret Nacionalnog Ponosa Bosne i Hercegovine. It is almost certainly a not notable organization. There is, however, another nationalist party in BiH, called Bosanski Pokret Nacionalnog Ponosa. It is older and more notable, at least in my opinion. We should not confuse these two subjects. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by their page, it was an organization (founded in 2009), then turned political party. It was noticed back in 2010 by media, and in early 2012 Bosnian politicians noticed their pamphlet campaign in some cities (a politician says "they have existed for two years"). The name should be Bosnian Movement of National Pride. However, it is evidently a small, close to non-existant organization, with a bad homepage and no official leader. More sources are needed to support notability.--Zoupan 14:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible notability barriers for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. If existence can be confirmed, they should be included in the same way that we automatically include villages, rivers, highways, high schools, and professional athletes — this is just the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. So: Keep under the policy of WP:IGNORE ALL RULES, which should trump the notability guidelines (lower level of organizational law) here — use common sense to build the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - While I agree in principle with Carrite that political parties should be one of the things that are de facto "automatically notable", the fact the party, according to the article, claims a membership of only 28 gives me pause... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phrateres[edit]

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

Non-notable sorority. No affiliation with any recognized national sorority accrediting body (i.e. National Panhellenic Conference). Attempts to cobble together evidence of notability through random citations to yearbooks is insufficient for the purpose of WP:GNG, which requires "Significant sources" that "address the subject directly in detail" that is "more than a trivial mention." The fact that it has only 1 active chapter indicates a lack of lasting presence that would indicate notability. GrapedApe (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—There are sources right in the article which estabish that this organization meets the GNG. There are a lot of yearbook mentions, it's true, but this from the U of W alumni mag and this from the Arizona Daily Wildcat are enough and are checkable online. The Capitol Times article and the history of Whitman College, which aren't checkable online, and the other Daily Wildcat article cited just add to the notability. This book and this journal article, which don't seem to be cited in the article but certainly ought to be, clinch the case as far as I'm concerned. Again, the one active chapter thing is a red herring. Think of Skull and Bones.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you think that this is equivalent to Skull and Bones? Really? See WP:N, which states that subjects must "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large." Do yearbooks and college student newspapers satisfy that requirement? Really?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem sufficiently reliable to me, and there are books and magazines among them, not merely yearbooks and college papers (although there's nothing wrong with college papers per se). The comparison with Skull and Bones was a reductio ad absurdum directed solely at your claim that the number of chapters relates to notability. It does not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being documented in detail in works such as It's Up to You: Women at UBC in the Early Years and California and Californians. Warden (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2012 (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 appears to be a consensus that this article was created too soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinsex[edit]

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

Appears to massively fail WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The two secondary sources listed in the references section do not mention this web site at all, and I am unable to locate any reliable third-party coverage of this porn site online. PROD was contested by the author. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources covering the site. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. Alright. Hold your horses. I wrote this article as the ta first in a series on the whole "pinboard" movement. I emailed my professor about finding more sources for this site specifically. He emailed me back and said he had them and he's sending them soon... but it's like 4:30am... so I'm assuming he meant in the morning. Put the gun down. Sources on the way. As a side note, this is my first Wikipedia article. I sandboxed it for a whole day, read through the entire labyrinth of rules, and have made every change that's been requested of me. The sources I included so far are all recent and cover the impact that these sites in general, which have been in development for at least two years, but whose origin really dates back to Bulletin Board Systems, are having on today's culture right now. So the articles I submitted were for corroborating evidence and my professor is providing me with sources that reference this site (and the others I'll be writing about) directly. So your patience please. It's a new field that's exploding, but I'm on it. — User:Juanaffiliato 04:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is possible an admin will delete this article early, I think it is likely that the deletion discussion will last the typical 7 days. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three refs are given. One is Alexa, one is a primary source and the other two don't mention the subject of the article. 101.172.127.242 (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But give more time to editor for fairness in case anyone can help make this article more notable. A fair time, but not too long.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a list of all things, but of items, events and people who have bcome notable of one of more things. And I am not talking about their fifteen seconds or minutes of minor fame. This article gave me the impression it is very close to being an advertizement for a start up company. If it was clearly an ad, it would have been quickly deleted. As it stands this company may fold within a year or so if averages are followed. There are tens of thousands of companies that rise, struggle and fail. Just being does not make them notable. I hope this helps you understand.

You may be a fan of this company, but give it time. It may become something of a notable business. Or it may not. I would save your information and revisit the subject down the road. If it fails, no big deal. If it rises into notability, then you are ready for an article with more citations and information as to why it is notable. Then it will stand and others will try to make it better. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - I'm the author of this article. My name is Juan Carlos. I'm a doctorate student at the University of Barcelona, and this is my first Wikipedia article. Today I added a primary source that directly references Pinsex. Articles are starting to come out about the site now for the following reasons: 1. I first noticed this site when I was preparing to write a Thesis on Social Media that focused heavily on Pinterest... which seems to be going the way of Instagram. The notability of THAT site is no longer deniable. (Although its page was initially deleted and scheduled for deletion many times.) At that time Pinsex was ranked 5,980,000 in the world. While double-checking my sources for my thesis I noticed it had dropped to 1,600,000th. That's when I decided to write about it. I intentionally chose an adult site because some very few articles (Xvideos, Youporn, Redtube) have managed to meet the bar of notability and become accepted articles and I wanted to work on an article which wasn't as critical as the future article I intend to write on interactive social media. Since I first started the site is now down to 624,000th or so and more information is becoming available on the site. Not all of it is publicly available (since this is an adult site a lot of the sources I've found have been on member sites that require a login), but I'm beginning to find these articles now. So I would also like to ask for more time to post sources as they come as I'm still writing my Thesis at the same time I'm trying to keep my one little article alive. But I will continue adding sources and improving the site and taking all suggestions and I will listen to all the advice you have to give and do everything I can to strengthen this article so that, through this process, my next article will be even better. - Juanaffiliato (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Kappa Gamma[edit]

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

Non-notable regional chapter college club. Only a handful of chapters. No national affiliation. No sources to demonstrate notability, failing WP:N. GrapedApe (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to be found on the fraternity, and also fails general notability guideline. The whole article reads like an advertisement, in addition. -- Luke (Talk) 01:30, 3 August 2012 (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.

[1] Davis, Laura E. "Sandra Fluke endorses Obama". ABC News. Retrieved 3 August 2012.

[2] Bergstrom, William. "Sandra Fluke returns favor, endorses Obama". Politico. Retrieved 3 August 2012.

[3] "Honest Or Sexist? Russell Brand Slammed For Sarah Palin Comments". Global Grind. Retrieved 3 August 2012.

[4] Fluke, Sandra. "Sandra Fluke: The fight for Obamacare isn't over yet". MSNBC. Retrieved 30 June 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]