Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 December	14 December >

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 redirect to Indie game. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of amateur adventure games

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

Cannot find any WP:verifiable sources supporting that the term "amateur adventure games" is notable. Any notable games could be included in Adventure games 1292simon (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is dependent upon the former article Amateur adventure game to explain what its topic is, and that article has been deleted. If we don't even have an article about the general subject of amateur adventure games, I don't think we need a list of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a sea of redlinks and even the blue links are often invalid: Indiana Jones and the Spear of Destiny goes to an article on a comic book; I'm not sure if Spooks (video game) is the correct game, as the article makes no reference of it being amateur; Apprentice (video game) is described as amateur, but it was produced as freeware by a professional studio; King's Quest (video game) again seems to be a professional production; several are redirects to Chzo Mythos and therefore shouldn't be separate entries. Some of the games are notable, but few have sources saying they're amateur, and even the definition of adventure game is vague. Those games that use Adventure Game Studio could be mentioned there instead. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial association, no main article, no clear inclusion criteria. While in principle, a list that cannot be completed is potentially viable, a list with more-or-less arbitrary inclusion criteria that is also impossible to complete is not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without an article defining what makes a game qualify as an "amateur adventure game", this list is hopeless. There's no criteria for what should be included, and the fact that most of the items on the list are redlinks paired with external links should make it clear this is just a honeypot for self-promoters to add themselves. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a list of links to home pages. If I want to find a home page for a game, I would Google that directly, not use this article. Also, a random check showed that 5 out of 10 home page links were dead. It seems highly likely that links in this page will get dated quickly. Gierszep (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With all of the hyperlinks without Wikipedia articles in this list, this certainly looks like a Link farm to me. There are a few well cited Google Scholar .edu publications though on the amateur adventure games topic. Pmresource (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indie game. A Google test shows some 340k results for "amateur adventure game" and as Pmresource points out there is some coverage of the concept on Google Scholar. Essentially it looks to me like the term is a synonym for "indie game". Alternately, delete this article and simply make "Amateur adventure game" a redirect to "indie game". -Thibbs (talk) 23:38, 20 December 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) —Theo polisme 21:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calcedeaver Elementary School

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

Fails WP:Notability. Altairisfar (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — Altairisfar (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Altairisfar (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Blue Ribbon Schools are generally notable, an exception to the usual bias against elementary and middle schools. - Dravecky (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district as is standard. Just because it's a Blue Ribbon school doesn't make it notable iirc. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That it is an award winning school means it is notable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Blue Ribbon schools are ten-a-penny but we generally keep them. Although redirecting would be the normal solution for nn primary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Blue Ribbon School, still the highest award a US school can receive. TerriersFan (talk) 03:57, 16 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mito Canova

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

Puff piece: reads like a Vanity Fair profile or something, and the only substantial claim to fame - that he's "one of the richest living italian [sic] artists" - appears to be entirely false. (Or, if it's true, the bar's pretty damn low.) Delete as cruft failing WP:CREATIVE. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. See below. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability per WP:ARTIST. Also, most of the sources listed for the article do not seem to actually reference the subject. - Mr X 23:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with MrX that the subject would appear to fail WP:ARTIST. Beyond that, wealth ≠ notability in my opinion. Stalwart111 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO with no sustained editorial coverage.--Nixie9 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor update. Shortly after I nominated this page, the apparent single-purpose account Aniretakk (talk · contribs) removed the false claim to which I'd made reference. To be honest, if it hadn't included that claim, I might've tried for speedy deletion under the A7 (no notability) criterion. I'm not going to move to do that now, since it looks like this AfD will be concluded within the next few days, but I'd like to note that as currently stands, I don't believe this article can rightly be said to even include an asertion of notability, much less any evidence therefor. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:46, 20 December 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 speedily deleted as A1. NAC. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zehraab - The Poisoned Rivers (Film)

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

Unreferenced article about an unreleased film, fails WP:NFF notability guideline. No references found in Google News and Books. - Mr X 23:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There might be sources in another language, but I was ultimately unable to find RS that show that this film passes WP:NFF.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT YET (films). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the empty framework and the Infobox, only content is two pathetic credits. I'd love to speedy delete it, but I'm not sure what it would fall under. I have tried to A1 it, lets see what happens. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the creator of the page, User:Robby Singh is most likely the director of the film, Robby Singh. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:20, 16 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Keyloch

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

Apparently non-notable musician, fails WP:NMUSIC. Does not appear to have released any albums on well known labels or meet any other point in the notability guidelines. Pol430 talk to me 22:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Leaning towards delete - Despite searching with "Amazorblades" and "KeylochMitchell", I haven't found much to sustain this article. I found minor mentions here through Ben Mendelson. Google Books found this which doesn't provide much aside from mentioning his future engineering career and this minor mention. While searching at Google News archives, I found several non-English results here, here, here and here which all seem to say the same thing, "Rob Keyloch and Ben Mendelson producing an album". Considering it seems Amazorblades was a 1970s band, it's possible some sources may not be available on the Internet though the article claims "Their debut single Common Truth followed in October but by the end of the year the band had broken up". I'm not seeing much significance to keep the article and it's worth noting that mixing and recording engineers rarely receive much attention and it seems Rob is more of an engineer now than a full-time musician. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's current sources are either self-published or trivial. If other reliable sources with in depth coverage can be presented, then this could be a keeper, but as far as I can tell, the subject is not notable. - Mr X 00:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keeper All above ignore notable contribution as; Producer, Rob Keyloch here (Unless we choose to ignore album credits as published works!) FreeLance 12:15, 14 December 2012

Actually, no, I did not ignore his contributions and I suggest that you assume good faith when commenting. I acknowledge that he is a producer but there must be reliable third-party sources about his work to establish notability. There are several producers but not all of them are notable and websites like discogs list hundreds and hundreds of people. SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not currently notable. --No unique names 02:06, 19 December 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 per WP:WITHDRAWN. The not notable delete !vote did not seem reasonable to with hold a speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Martin

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

Seems to be a poorly sourced CV for a United Nations official. I can see online he is mentioned briefly in several news articles about UN activity, but nothing substantial to pass WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember creating this article, but it's had some editing activity over the years, the positions in question seem interesting enough. A google search indicates that there is stuff around. I don't see a pressing need to delete the article, but if there aren't enough sources around to make it any better then I don't have any problem with it. — Andrew Garrett • talk 22:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the article is desperately in need of proper sourcing, however, a GoogleNews search for "Ian Martin", "Libya" indicates plenty of sources demonstrating that he passes WP:DIPLOMAT (i.e. his role as Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya means he has "participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance"). Martin received a blurb on Naharnet less than 12 hours ago [1] and a passing mention just a few weeks ago in connection with the Susan Rice nomination. The article's history also notes a couple of other high profile items that have gone in and out of prose (i.e. involvement in United Nations Mission in Nepal and United Nations Mission in East Timor, Secretary-General of Amnesty International from 1986 to 1992, etc.) Location (talk) 03:40, 13 December 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, Go Phightins! 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Location's substantial improvements to the article demonstrate notability over many years. PWilkinson (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - Definitely a significant improvement by Location. There's ample verifiable evidence now that he's been of international importance. Thanks! Sionk (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'll try to work on the bare references over time. Cheers! Location (talk) 19:07, 16 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elsweet Rufino

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

BLP article about a non-notable person. No Google news stories, and the only a few trivial mentions in Google books. The only references provided in the article are press releases or equivalent. - Mr X 21:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News and Books searches provided nothing relevant and it seems most of the links are affiliated with the subject and magazine. The article claims she has worked with Kim Kardashian and yet there aren't any third-party sources to support this and the sentence is vague as to how she worked with them. I'm not familiar with this magazine but the website looks a blog rather than a professional magazine. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, even if her employer is. --Phazakerley (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable in her own right. Even if she did work with Kim Kardashian &c, notability is not inherited. Agree that the magazine doesn't seem notable either. --Noiratsi (talk) 12:51, 15 December 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 speedily deleted pursuant to CSD A7. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6mouv

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

WP:SPAM article created by a suspected WP:COI editor to promote a company, fails WP:CORP. Article was nominated for WP:CSD as spam, but an IP editor removed the CSD tag in his or her first and only edit to an article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like plain old free advertising to me. There is a tag saying it is only referenced to primary sources but there are no references or citations (the company link is in 'External links'). Even if refs could be found the notability would be borderline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; spammy, fails the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam, I have restored the CSD tag removed by the sock puppet of the article creator. Safiel (talk) 00:50, 14 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Martin (composer)

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

Recreated article previously deleted via proposed deletion; slightly-amended original rationale follows. The tone of the article is highly promotional and contains peacock terms. No indication of notability, and only cites subject's own website and official bios. Creator's account seems to exist for the single purpose of discussing the subject of this article (see contribs, deletion log of identical article created by same user). Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE notability criteria. Kinu ^t/_c 20:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder. I recall that at one point I caught some copyvios, but I could be mistaken. Do you see anything in the deleted histories, Kinu? Regardless, clearly a puff piece. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article creator claims "am doing this for an english project. It will be down by the end of the day. Please do not delete this page."[2]--Phazakerley (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which speedy criterion that meets. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'No temporary English projects'--Phazakerley (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only thing within spitting distance of notability is the Dove award, but as a nomination only, it doesn't meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately I can't see deleted revision history for this, but I am 100% that I either tagged or PRODed or endorsed a PROD on it at some point during the last 30 days. It still fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Not that it matters, but I'm pretty sure you endorsed my PROD.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go. I knew it was something :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't meet notability guidelines. —Theo polisme 21:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Zananiri (talk) 13:10, 20 December 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 RT (TV network)#Programming. The nominator's position that there the subject does not meet WP:GNG has not been rebutted, nor have sufficient independent RS been added to call the claim into question. I'll leave a redirect behind to the TV network, however, as that way people can at least find the show's name Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Martin

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

The A7 speedy deletion tag was removed with the claim that the rt.com source is a reliable source and therefore A7 does not apply. In actuality the rt.com site is the network's own site, meaning that the material on that webpage was placed there by her employer. This does not make her notable. Citation #8 and 9 are YouTube videos; the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name, and citation #10 is not about her at all. The stuff in the "Trivia" section is for the most part self-sourced to her own organisation's website MediaRoots.org. I think the article as it presently stands does not establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and have opened this AFD to get some opinions from people who are more experienced in this area. Thanks. Dianna (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My research so far is putting this as a very borderline case. She's been discussed by middle east historian Juan Cole on his blog here. She was also involved in a kerfuffle with Senator Rand Paul in which she either "asked him tough questions" or "harassed him" depending on whom you believe, which led to his attempting to get her fired from Russia Today. This event was widely reported in the blogosphere back in July, but I've had a very difficult time sorting out if there are any reliable sources reporting on it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article should be deleted as not noteworthy enough per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Kierzek (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name,'

The title is: 'WeAreChange confronts Rand Paul about how he tried to get Abby Martin of RT America and Mediaroots.org fired and stripped of her press credentials for asking him tough questions in the Capitol building.'

It features her confronting Paul and being interviewed about it.

I could offer a full-length version of the interview if it'd help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKXpzdFQ_I

'citation #10 is not about her at all.' It's (obviously) there to support the claim of Mitt Romney being an interventionist; which helps to explain the story.

Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

Comment: Our notability guideline for people calls for a person to have been the subject of multiple published reliable independent secondary sources. The sources must also be independent of the subject. Here's a link to the guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (people). If the most we can say about Martin is that Rand Paul tried to get her fired, she may only be only notable for that one event. There's more material on this at WP:1E. I am posting these links for Beingsshepherd's benefit since they are a new editor, but also to highlight that the subject of the article is not the source of commentary in multiple independent reliable sources, merely passing mentions, no in-depth coverage of her or her career. Thus she fails the notability criterion. -- Dianna (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beingsshepherd's reply

Ok, I think I can satisfy that: Infowars Nightly News: Thursday (6-7-12) – Abby Martin – planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/infowars-nightly-news-thursday-6-7-12-abby-martin ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} @ 1:02:54 & RT’s Abby Martin : Israel’s War on Truth By Debbie Menon on 11/23/2012 [3] ~ 'Sabbah Report is a certified ‘Google News’ source for news and Op-Ed' http://sabbah.biz/mt/about/ It continues to mystify me, as to why this RT presenter's page IS acceptable: Marina_Dzhashi

Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

Comment I've tidied the comments above, hope that's OK. I think Beingsshepherd has a point. Alyona Minkovski and the one-line Marina_Dzhashi both exist, so either being a presenter on Russia Today makes one notable, or all three should be deleted. COI: I helped the page creator clean up this article after its first creation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument to use in deletion discussions. If the other articles are no better, they can also be AFD'd. I personally don't think having a job on TV is enough to make one notable; it's not listed at the notability criterion, which calls for repeated in-depth coverage in reliable sources. -- Dianna (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beingsshepherd's reply

Dianna, this may sound impudent; but I disagree.

Before spending the time writing a Wiki article; I gauged what was seemingly acceptable, by looking at other pages. Perhaps my first 2 attempts failed to honour the letter of Wiki law; but I genuinely believed, both: that there would be no problem with a page dedicated to someone who hosts a half-hour television programme, internationally, several times a day, 5 days a week; and that my transgressions could be deemed beginner's mistakes - easily amended.

Presumably, the other RT presenter's articles passed through the same screening process, and were deemed legitimate?

If that's so; then I feel mislead and have had my time wasted.

Maybe you're all a bit jumpy over Wiki's recent 'Brett Straub' Leveson_Inquiry embarrassment. Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about; I don't actually follow the news and don't live in the United States. -- Dianna (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some clean-up on the article and gone over the citations individually to see what we've got.

citation #1, 15 - her own website
Citations #2, 3, 11, 13 - her employer's website
citations #4, 6, 7, 8, 9 - MediaRoots - Martin's own website
citation #5, 10 - Website of organisation on which she serves as board of directors

That leaves is with Citation #12 (Sabbah Report); #14 WeAreChange.org (Luke Rudowski's website); #16 - website of a book for which she did artwork. I commented out one citation, which is an interview of Martin on a show called Infowars Nightly News, which confirms she is in the media but does not back up any of the other content in the article. WP:SPIP calls for in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources; in other words, someone (other than the subject of the article and her employer) needs to find her notable enough to have written up detailed coverage of her life and career. There's no such coverage in this case. This means that it's almost impossible to get a neutrally-worded article; there simply isn't any neutral independent coverage on which to draw. Therefore it's still my opinion that the article should be deleted as the subject is not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for an article at this time. -- Dianna (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dianna's analysis of the given sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RT (TV network). It doesn't look like there's enough for an article, but it's a possible search term, and there is the chance that it could be recreated somewhere down the line if more sources become available. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:15, 21 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Litnarovich Ruslan Nicolaevich

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

Not notable as scientist Divega (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. Yworo (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only assertion of notability in the article is the number of publications, which could possibly pass WP:PROF#C1. However, I was unable to find any evidence of such notability on Google Scholar. All of the references, as well as the "Selected works" of the author seem to be published in rather iffy limited circulation kinds of things: "interdepartmental collections" (whatever that is), "Electronic archives" (which seems to be something like a preprint archive), etc. I note that the article is apparently an autobiography, having been edited by User:Ruslan Nicolaevich and User:Руслан Миколайович. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's probably worth pointing out that Litnarovich is the subject's surname, and I'm not certain that the transcription from Cyrillic quite follows current conventions. A search on his name in Cyrillic (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) certainly gives some GScholar results, though probably not enough to meet WP:PROF#C1 unless allowance should be made because he seems to have published solely in Russian and/or Ukrainian. PWilkinson (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That explains his apparent invisibility to Google scholar. I can't really assess the pedigree of those sources (and if the sources listed in the article are any judge, they are likely very iffy), but the citation numbers are certainly not impressive enough for WP:PROF#C1. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From Google Scholar, Books, News archive and web searches for just the surname in English, Ukrainian and Russian I can see nothing that indicates a pass of any of the criteria of WP:PROF, and nothing that indicates that the subject has a full professorship, meaning that it would be unlikely that there would be any offline sources demonstrating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phil. While he's published a lot of papers, they don't seem to be especially important. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of his articles, presented in References as

1.Ukrainіan surveyor Lіtnarovich Ruslan Mikolayovich. Book 1

2.Astronomy. Lіtnarovich Ruslan Mikolayovich. Book 2

in fact have titles Vikipediya. Ukrainian geodesists. Litnarovich Ruslan Mykolaiiovych. Book 1. IEHU, Rivne, 2011, - 42 p. and Vikipediya. Astronomers. Litnarovich Ruslan Mykolaiiovych. Book 2. IEHU, Rivne, 2011, - 55p. where Vikipedia is not typical (but possible in some way) transliteration of word Wikipedia. This articles are copies of Wikipedia's articles.--Divega (talk) 07:32, 20 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Solo

(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. Zacaparum (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person is not notable. This is a promotional public relations piece, written by a publicist. The article discusses a series of decidedly minor achievements by Solo, none of which are notable, and the article is poorly sourced. For example, giving "weekend workshops" in the music industry is not notable. Being an "alumni of the Shaker Heights Hall of Fame" is not notable. There is even a reference to "uncredited" co-writing contributions to a minor hit song by a music group called Shiny Toy Guns, which is, by definition, totally unsourced. These activities do not meet the notability criteria stated in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. If anything, Solo has allegedly associated himself with a few moderately famous people, like Macy Gray, but, other than working with them occasionally, he has not achieved much success for things that he himself has done. WP:INHERITED. Much of the article is impossible to verify ("Solo has done work for many artists...."), and some of the article is incorrect and misleading. For example, the Macy Gray single "Sweet Baby" did not "top the Billboard charts;" rather, it reached Number 24 on the "Hot Adult Top 40 Chart" which is not anything close to the "Hot 100" chart that is normally referred to as the main U.S. Billboard singles chart. Indeed, the reference to the chart on the page for Sweet Baby (song) is not verified either. As another example, the long quote under "Developing Macy Gray" is simply a quote -- not sourced -- from Solo himself. It is clear that this is simply Solo inserting "quotes" that he wrote himself, into his own article. There is no evidence at all that he "developed" Macy Gray. Zacaparum (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, doesn't assert sufficient credibility/notability to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Some links are dead, others are nothing more than a list of paid members, contributors, or self-created articles. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:07, 6 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO - the editorial references just aren't there. All hat no cattle.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 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 Merge. (already done) (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo (yoga)

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

Not a real or notable subject. Creator stated that this was created to fix a red link. Possible remedy: merge with Waybuloo. BO | Talk 18:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Waybuloo - if reliable sources can be found. The article as is has no sources at all. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Backed by creator No need for an AFD, be bold, put a mergeto on the article, and a mergefrom at Waybuloo and go ahead! As I said, it was only made to fill a red link - I never got time to source it, and it's part of Waybuloo anyhow. Fish ^Barking? 22:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source it at all? That would be very helpful. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I barely get time to edit on Wikipedia that much these days owing to my work, if anyone else wishes to source it from the web, I have no objections, and as I say, I wouldn't think an AFD is necessary. This is not where merges are proposed. Fish ^Barking? 23:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee - I was more inclined to delete but prefer towork under consensus -- if you (pl) want to keep the content merge away. BO | Talk 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hasirpad. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 15 December 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) Mediran (t • c) 04:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Haenle

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

Seems to be paraphrased from [4] but I'm not quite confident enough to go for WP:G12 wintonian ^talk 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query - did you raise the copyright issue at WP:CP? I agree - looks paraphrased. Are you also concerned about WP:GNG? Stalwart111 00:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think there are serious copyright issues. The paraphrasing is very short (and of purely factual information, on which copyright claims are weak), and footnoting adds significant new context and meaning not present in the source. As for notability, there is ample coverage in the article, including the NYT profile of him on his wedding. This is not surprising, as NSC staff directors for regions are fairly significant in the foreign policy world (arguably more influential, if lower profile, than ambassadors). Ray^Talk 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as Ray said, the paraphrasing is not sufficient to hit copyvio problems and there seems to be enough there to meet GNG (and no argument against GNG has been presented). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:40, 19 December 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 was article subject lacked notability j⚛e decker ^talk 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ikea Monkey

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

Dont really think this is notable enough for an article. Surely it could be merged into the 'Internet Meme' article? Mikeo34 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge to List_of_Internet_phenomena. Not notable by itself so far... not sure if this will be quickly forgotten, though, hence a weak merge. Roodog2k (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. There's almost no chance of any WP:PERSISTENCE here. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and don't merge per BDD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think the article should be merged, either. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLM1E - Biography of living monkey notable for 1 event. And even if its notablity endures long enough to warrant inclusion in List of Internet phenomena or a similar piece, I'm not sure that there's anything in here worth saving. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: depending on the social discussion it spawns, a snippet may perhaps be merged to exotic pet or a similar article. The Canadian media have interviewed some biologists and animal welfare workers regarding keeping captive monkeys as pets. Mind matrix 20:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, there's nothing of value in the article at this time. Mind matrix 20:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. It isn't even an internet meme, really. Just one of those "this dumb thing happened, laugh at it" stories that is in every newspaper every day. Reso lute 14:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just an 'and finally' news story. It has no wider relevance. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:00, 18 December 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. I am taking the unusual step of deleting this myself despite the fact that I commented here. The reasons are that there is obviously a WP:SNOW level of support for deletion, and I have just blocked the creator of this article, who is apparently also the writer, director, star, only person who even onows it exists in the first place, etc... so it is highly unlikely there are any improvements forthcoming that would change the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Adventures (Film)

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

Contested PROD, not-yet-existent, no indication of notability, and no indication that it's anything other than an amateur video production, presumably for YouTube. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As PROD endorser. Fails WP:NFILMS so badly that I feel dizzy. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
snowball delete because this article does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept. A no-name director, who is also the producer, writer, and star. A no-name production company That probably does not exist in any real way. Looks very much like kids planning to make a movie that will premiere on YouTube and probably not be seen by anyone who doesn't know the cast personally. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps we finally need a speedy deletion criterion for this sort of thing? I've been seeing a lot of these recently, and I can't imagine that it would be any more or less prone to problems than the present db-band process. Acroterion (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck getting consensus on that, unfortunately. I must say though, I really chuckled when I saw the References section and "None Yet." below. That's a new one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New CSD categories are always a fight, but apart from getting a few buddies together and starting a band (and the accompanying Wikipedia article on the Next Big Thing), the next most popular activity is shooting a video project using the auteur's dad's video camera (and writing the accompanying Wikipedia article on the project). Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As much as y'all have a point - this conversation is irrelavent to this deletion discussion... CinephileMatt (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Based on the speedy deleted director and actors, it is a high school production. The director and lead actor was 17, and the other two actors linked were 18. Also, blurbs on all 3 pages indicate they go to the same high school. Not a professorial production, and definitely not notable. Jeancey (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I remember looking at this when it was being PRODed and not finding any sources at that point. Nothing about that has changed in the last few days. Fails WP:NFILM.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can determine, this film has not been written about in any reliable sources. Because it's a teenager, writing about a video she's making with her friends, and while I don't like to hurt the teen's feelings, not everything one does belongs in an international encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, found anything in my searches- Cavarrone (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Incubate Per Too Soon/Lack of Significant coverage.CinephileMatt (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NFILM. It can have an article after it is made and becomes notable by acquiring reviews in mainstream sources, but not before. Antandrus (talk) 18:39, 18 December 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) Go Phightins! 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John U. Teh

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

Only sources are LDS-related, and since he is an official of that church, they can't be classified as reliable, independent sources; sorry p b p 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a member of the 1st-Quorum of the 70 and president of the Philippines Area of the Church. In the later position he presides over 600,000 Church members, in over 1000 congregations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's that got to do with the price of eggs? Around here, articles are kept because they have notable, reliable sources. If he is as important as you make him out to be, you shouldn't have any trouble find sources (WP:BURDEN) p b p 17:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is a stretch of the "independence" criterion. If a high-level member of a church of over 14 million people can be sourced by official church sources, that should be more that enough. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stretch, sorry. Please read WP:V and WP:RELIABLESOURCE. It's no different than having the notability of a company's executive staked on info from that company's website. The size of the LDS church has no bearing on the independence p b p 01:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that point is debatable, but in any case I've found an independent source that confirms the information from LDS sources - though not necessarily satisfying notability requirements: this article from Inquirer.net. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the person is clearly notable and the nom's insistence on non-LDS sources is bizarre. These LDS-related noms seem inspired by personal animus rather than logic. Oculi (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom has made the same argument in several places and it never quite seems to stick. I just read WP:RS and WP:V (as the nom suggested) and they don't say anything to the effect that major newspapers or news outlents should be ignored as sources if they are somehow affiliated with the subject of the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the appropriate subsection is WP:SELFSOURCE. –H T D 05:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there are no sources outside of the LDS church. If he is truly notable, he'd have some coverage in the Philippines, notwithstanding the trivial coverage in the link presented above. Finding contemporary sources in the Philippines is not hard, it just gets hard if the subject is borderline notable, and all of the links had died. –H T D 05:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To those who insist on non-LDS sources, here is an article from the Manila Bulletin which implies Teh's prominence. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The Manila Bulletin article is probably just barely enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno if half an article satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. –H T D 07:59, 16 December 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) —Theo polisme 21:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos A. Aidukaitis

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

Doesn't appear to have any reliable, independent (i.e. not tied in with the LDS church of which he is an official) sources. Therefore, delete. PROD declined by article creator p b p 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have accepted that members of the 1st Quorum of the 70 are notable by virtue of their office. The general trend of various discussion has been that they hold a high enough office that it gives them notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We" must not be referring to the entire community, because no such policy or guideline delineates that 1st Quorum members are notable. What DOES make someone notable are sources. Go find some. p b p 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See my rationale at the related Articles for deletion/Michael John U. Teh. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the person is clearly notable and the nom's insistence on non-LDS sources is bizarre. 'Independent' means 'independent of MAA', not 'independent of MAA and all his interests'. Oculi (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia T. Holland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John U. Teh. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:03, 15 December 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 Nom withdrawn. Thanks to some excellent source finding, I've w/drawn the nom and will redirect the film's page to the main article for Dunlap.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dunlap

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

I came across this while looking at currently PRODed articles. A quick look at the article shows a lack of sources and a search brought up nothing that would show that this actor/director/writer is ultimately notable. I couldn't find anything but one sole source [5] that is both independent and reliable, although Tulsa People might not necessarily be considered a RS. I'm also listing his film Greyscale for deletion. While it does exist and has some notable persons involved with it, neither of those things give notability in and of themselves. Neither the film nor its creator seem to meet any of the notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the reasons listed above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ryan Dunlap's AKA: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two articles require two opinions... sometimes different. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Delete article on Greyscale (film) for now as being a tad [[premature. Apparently it has completed filming, but not yet been released. Lacking coverage, it fails the caveats of WP:NFF. Redirect for now to Ryan Dunlap. Okay with a return to its author while we wait. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete article on Ryan Dunlop. His short career fails WP:FILMMAKER and lack of coverage under either name fails WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, Michael, that is just additional criteria. While it might fail WP:FILMMAKER, it most likely passes WP:BASIC, still allowing it to be kept. It serves the project and the readers well and this should be kept. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup... the SNGs do NOT supplant the GNG. They support it. Good rescue, by the way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha many thanks in return. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP sufficient coverage to establish notability. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article on Ryan Dunlap per improvements and sourcing showing GNG is met even while weak on ENT. This one we can keep and further improve over time and with regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job guys! Now this is why I like taking things to AfD rather than just PRODing them- I know that there's a chance that someone could find sources that I might have missed!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the nomination. We can keep the main article and redirect the other to the main one for him.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing it myself. I don't know if I can or can't do this, but I'll give it a whirl.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:07, 14 December 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 pageor in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted (G12) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nima petgar

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

Contested prod, no explanation. Painter with questionable notability. Nothing on GNews. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Already deleted as copy-vio. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:36, 13 December 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 adeletion 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hong kong regulatory bureau

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

Seem phishing website, hong kong official bureau is called Securities and Futures Commission. Asiaworldcity (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Organization exists, but is a private, non governmental entity, with various types of membership. http://gov.hkrb.org/ It appears to be based in Beverly Hills, California. The article does not appear to accurately describe the organization at that web address. Either somebody is confused or somebody is deliberately being deceptive. Either way, delete. Safiel (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, possibly a scam. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Safiel's reasoning. Seems to possibly be a scam. —Theo polisme 17:54, 20 December 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 Japanese supercentenarians. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatsue Ono

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

Aside from being a WP:BLP1E case (the "one event" is being old, not a specific birthday), this article fails WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. Searching, all I see is trivial mentions on lists and forums, nothing of any substance. This report on the oldest people has a paragraph on her, but even most of that is about the place she lives, not about the person. Take out all the trivia and there's nothing here. Canadian Paul 16:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. In cases like these where the supercentenarian in question is notable solely for their age (no slight against Ms Ono), the best course of action is to simply redirect to the main article that lists the supercentenarians.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. As with many previous articles of this nature, it is clear that there is nothing to justify a separate article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 04:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Being old does not automatically grant notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:37, 15 December 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. Notability j⚛e decker ^talk 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChessManiac.com

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

Article tagged for lack of notability since April 2011. Doesn't indicate the significance of the subject and is written like advertisement. Delete per WP:WEB. Forgot to put name (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Practically all of the article comes from one editor who hasn't edited anything else. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's sources are from Chessmaniac.com itself, Facebook/Linkedin (??) and Alexa (???). In other words, no legitimate sources. --SubSeven (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After source searching, it appears that only passing mentions are available. Appears to fail WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article does little more than describe the features on the website without showing a broader sense of notability. As per Wikipedia:Notability (web), this isn't enough. Against the current (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:13, 15 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Enkin

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

Non-notable rabbi and author and blogger. [Removed comment felt as attacking by at least one editor below. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo]] הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 15:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For integrity's sake, I should point out that Enkin is not utterly obscure; he is, however, a moderately well-known Jewish blogger; but looking at the second AfD of his more notable associate Gil Student (that resulted in "keep") I see that references to great prominence as a blogger were required. Also, Student's notability is partially due to his being a prominent polemicist, which Enkin is not. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Student is many notches above Enkin. It is not just that he is a better "polemicist" -- it is that he is genuinely more learned and has published more extensively, and has a wide following among serious readers, and has been recognized by his peers for his work. IZAK (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I only chose one point (the main subject of Student's AfD) among many. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 17:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While what little I can find shows that he'd probably be usable as a reliable source for Jewish articles and topics, that status does not in and of itself mean that he passes notability guidelines. I can find some trivial mentions, but nothing that would suggest that he passes notability guidelines for WP:AUTHOR or general biography guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. NN- does not pass notability guidelines. No significant mentions.--Jayrav (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:COI. Not a notable person in the Jewish world, there are tens of thousands of more notable people in his age range and none desire or do what he does seeking the limelight. IZAK (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an interesting piece. Hasirpad - Your accusation would have more credibility if you cited your source or at least divulged your true name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.117.240.101 (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC) — 192.117.240.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't need to justify my accusation, because whether or not the article is deleted does not depend on that. The original 'accuser' is not active on Wikipedia any more (I was told, casually, of the self-promotional request at least four years ago!), and in any case probably does not want Rabbi Enkin to know his screen-name.

As for me, I find your demand to know my sources or my "true name" (am I a dwarf?) suspicious. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon rereading your statement, 192.117.240.101, I perceive, from your defensive tone, that you completely misunderstood my intention in divulging the origin of the article: I did not intend to defame either the subject (many are innocently unaware that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or the like) or the article's creator (many editors in good standing on Wikipedia think that multiple authorship implies notability—watch the daily AfD log for countless examples). I give my sincerest apologies to all those offended.

My intent, as those who frequent the Articles for deletion log have surely realized, was rather to

(a) justify the nomination for deletion of a well-written article that does indicate its subject importance, and

(b) to give an additional argument for deletion (but as mentioned above, I do not rest my case on this). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I wrote the original article) Rabbi Enkin is not only a noted blogger, but he also wrote and published several books, which, in my opinion, put him over the threshold for notability. Happy138 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, having written and published books usually does not satisfy notability criteria - I think the relevant policy is WP:AUTHOR - which is why I addressed the issue from the blogger angle primarily. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rabbi Enkin's bio is unique and inspirational. There is hardly a ba'al teshuva anywhere today that has accomplished as much as Enkin has in such a relatively short period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.190.25 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Self published works that are not cited or reviewed by greater Rabbinic scholars do not count. Inspiration of a conversion tale is not the criteria for Wikipedia. He is not even a noted blogger. Student, the author of Torahmusings gets his opinion quoted in newspapers, Enkin does not.--Jayrav (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out double !vote. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Inspirational does not equal notable.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyanasundaram

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

Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Claims of notable achievements and awards could not be verified, and the things that can be verified do not amount to notability. This person was recently AfD'd and the result was keep; I myself !voted keep, based on what appeared to be coverage in a reliable source, The Hindu, primarily this article. But since that discussion was closed, there has been extensive discussion at the article's talk page, which revealed the coverage to be credulous repetition of outlandish and unlikely claims. This person appears to be hero-worshipped and mythologized in India, primarily on social media sites. But the huge claims about him (a $5 million "Man of the Millennium" award from an unspecified American organization, a nonexistent award from the UN, President Clinton seeking him out when he visited India, etc.) could not be confirmed by any independent source. The unverified claims have been deleted from the article, and the verified information that remains - he exists, he founded a non-notable charity, he received an award from his local Rotary organization - does not meet the criterion of notability. MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel this is some kind of fan-promoted hoax; for all the reasons given by editors in the article's talk page, especially in the What to do with this article section. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Checking the sources then, I also had the impression that this is a hoax - but is it perhaps a notable hoax? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a notable hoax unless there are Reliable Sources exposing it as a hoax. We can't expose it ourselves; that would be Original Research, and would probably also violate Wikipedia policy about biographies of living persons; we would in effect be calling him a liar, which we can't do without strong backing from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion the subject of the article is not notable. Many of the claims that have been made concerning awards and independent recognition of the subject are verifiably untrue. The research for each claim has been carefully enumerated in the talk page. The page has been updated quite a few times in the past with copy/pasted details from social networking campaign material, the origin and purpose of which is unclear - the page is being referenced as evidence of the truth of the unverified claims that have been made. I was the nominator in respect of the previous deletion discussion, and would like to thank the other contributors, in particular MelanieN, for further research that they have carried out to clarify the situation here 4letheia (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping a close eye on the further research appearing so far on the page, as yet although some of the claims seem on the face of it quite impressive such as appointed by the 'international refugees organisation', when you look at the details, this isn't a large UN organisation and is in fact a small for-profit immigration advice service which is now appears to be obsolete and was not notable itself - the awards that are listed such as from a local school and the local rotary district and the local booksellers association don't in my view add up to notability in an encyclopedic sense. There is a short film which is viewable on youtube (seems to have around 100 or so views at the moment, and this had a showing at a Tamil film festival in Norway), in my view this is not notable coverage. Separating the myth from fact has proven to be pretty difficult in this case, I think significant independent journalistic coverage in the future may change my mind, but as yet, too soon and not yet notable in my view. --4letheia (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Considering the incredible research displayed on the article's talk page, I don't see how this can't be hoax - or a fraudulent exaggeration of something completely non-notable. This leads me, however, to ponder - what is the policy on a piece of information that can be traced to a generally reliable source (in this case, the article in The Hindu), but which can be shown to be false? Does WP:Fringe cover this? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to look for any written policy when common sense takes care of the decision. Any source, however reliable the publisher may usually be, can be mistaken. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several referenced awards have been added to the article; the notability or significance of those awards is under discussion on the talk page. Meanwhile the author of the article posted this comment which relates directly to this discussion, so I am copying it here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no doubt that this person is notable and the article should remain. I dont have enough time right now to work on it. But I will try to find time shortly. I am aware that I will have to accept the decision of deletion if it happens in between. But I guess that the person is so important that someone will start creating it again. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Not sure if I should laugh or cry here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator please note: during this discussion someone moved the page from Kalyanasundaram to Palam Kalyanasundaram leaving a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 20 December 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 speedily closed, protected against vandalism, and vandals blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Min-Hu

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

Totally negative article. Users have removed the speedy delete template. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Notability j⚛e decker ^talk 18:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rutvik Oza

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

Nomination is without rationale, and nominator account a sock. I was about to procedurally close, but it appears the article does in fact not meet our inclusion criteria. Apparently in parts autobiographic, references do not establish notability. Delete. Amalthea 17:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because 16th position in the world in 2012 in the 14-18 age group.; this person doesn't begin to meet WP:GNG, plus there's a serious COI issue there. The rest of the claims do not seem to be backed by the sources given. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I advise other editors to have a close look at the contributions of the article's Tweedledum and Tweedledee creator and creator-via-AfC: Deep P. Patel (talk · contribs) and Harsh N. Patel (talk · contribs), respectively, both of whom have a strong interest in members of the Oza family. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is strange, and it follows a pattern I see on the other article. They create a bio essentially promoting the person, and then claim at the end that they suffer schizophrenia or autism? Weird. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing weird at all. I'm not ashamed of having a mental illness, and why do you assume that anyone else would be? Would you find it weird if an otherwise promotional article said that its subject had cancer? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The strangeness comes from the fact that it's repeated in the same manner, with the same wording and with the same structure in both articles. And both claims are unsourced. May I ask how exactly my offhand comment implies or insinuates that they (or anyone else) should be 'ashamed' of an illness? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took your "weird" to mean that there is some kind of inconsistency between an article being promotional and it mentioning mental illness. If that wasn't your intention then that's great, although I don't see what could be thought weird about two user ids with the same surname writing about two members of the same family coming up with similar wording and article structure. They are obviously either the same person or two people working together. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the basis that the subject gives all of the notability guidelines a wide berth. Pol430 talk to me 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources presented in the article are reliable; does not pass WP:GNG. Salih (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --No unique names 02:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the author of the work and I request to delete the article as it seems to be non-notable. Deep P. Patel 21:55, 19 December 2012 (IST)

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 under WP:CSD#G7 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Lappa

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

Unremarkable individual. The only reliable source non peer reviewed (Yoga Journal) references a product release. If we accept this bio, we can basically accept any yoga instructor who has a bio on the web. BO | Talk 14:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to agree, and I created the article - I remember at the time thinking it was a very borderline case for notability, and looking again, I think it's on the wrong side of that border. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BIO/other notability guidelines. —Theo polisme 14:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, since it seems I'm the only editor who's made any major text contributions, I think this could be speedied under G7, to save time here. I'll tag it as such for the next passing admin who isn't me to take care of. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:55, 13 December 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. (Criterion G4) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Romania military plane crash

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Military flights meet different criteria. Nobody famous on board, no WP:PERSISTENCE

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC) ...William 14:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Twelve fatalities is still notable in peacetime, even for a military aircrash. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Second highest number of fatalities in Romania behind this crash. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many news stories (in Romanian language) several months or even years after the event, regarding the causes and the consequences of this plane crash: [6], [7], [8], etc. The fact that the Romanian Air Force stopped using this type of planes after this incident seems important. Razvan Socol (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from inventory was probably NOT as a direct result of the crash. Ageing aircraft, lack of expensive spares or replacement are all far more likely reasons for removal.--Petebutt (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete military training aircraft crash far more often then civil aircraft so tend not to be so notable, I cant see anything particularly in this one for a stand-alone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilborneOne (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Military, small aircraft, at most deserves a paragraph in Antonov An-2 article or Romanian Air Force (Forţele Aeriene Române) article. If Romanian en.wikipedians are offended by this then write the article in Română and post it on [9]--Petebutt (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have ro:Accidentul aviatic de la Tuzla, Constanța with more information and more sources than the en.wiki article. Razvan Socol (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually think all of us who are voting keep are Romanian? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not Romanian but the topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per category G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Romanian Air Force Antonov An-2 crash. YSSYguy (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just tagged the article for speedy deletion and asked a non-involved administrator to take care of it....William 12:30, 17 December 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) —Theo polisme 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Street (London)

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

WP:Dicdef. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say this is an article, not a dictionary definition. Clearly a term with widespread historical use. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:VAGUEWAVE. Warden (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article already has more than mere dictionary content, and it doesn't yet have any discussion of what may be this notable expression's most prominent literary occurrence, in Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, a use which has provoked extensive commentary, samples of which can be seen at GBooks[10] and GScholar[11]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:37, 15 December 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. WP:CSD#A7. You cannot avoid speedy deletion by continually removing the tags. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kamdar

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

Non notable...fails wp:gng should have been speedy deleted but coi editor/sock? has repeatedly removed the tag. Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - blatantly non-notable - preferably by reinstating the original speedy deletion. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rkjtc which was instigated after the sockpuppetry that took place on this article. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your involvement towards improving Wikipedia, but my life has vastly been affected by his Anti-smoking campaign. There are many articles completely non-notable, you can put them for deletion. This one is notable as many local people are affected by his workings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saridon (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 December 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. Notability j⚛e decker ^talk 18:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonniballi

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

Highly promotional; 92,000 GHits, and I couldn't find any significant mainstream coverage. It's vaguely possible that a complete re-write could save this article, but otherwise I don't see how it could meet WP:V or WP:CREATIVE. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I'm seeing in Google this person does not meet WP:GNG, at least yet. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, but time will tell. Right now, no. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no editorial coverage or chart hits--Nixie9 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 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 no consensus. I hate to do this given that there definitely seems to be consensus to do something...but there is no clear consensus on what big step should be taken. It's clear that there are likely too many articles here, but it's unclear which ones should be kept. The key question that needs to be answered is whether or not there is a legitimate topic collecting the various cases together, and, if there is, whether these specific cases "stand alone" or are better covered in an even the even wider BBC controversies article. I don't think this kind of question can be answered in an AfD. I recommend starting an RfC on one of the article's talk pages and adding a notifcation to all of the related pages, and seeing if you can get consensus that way. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC sexual abuse cases

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

The article duplicates material already contained in other articles, notably Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, Criticism of the BBC#Sexual abuse of children, BBC controversies#October 2012: Jimmy Savile abuse scandal, and to a lesser extent North Wales child abuse scandal. The article was originally created in good faith by a new user, User:Jstevewiki, and was promoted through the WP:AfC process, being moved into mainspace here by User:Ritchie333. No attempt was made to contact the editors of overlapping articles through article talk pages. As well as highlighting a flaw in the AfC system, the existence of this article is unnecessary because it duplicates existing information. I've edited it - removing unreliable or poor sources, correcting grammar and factual accuracy, etc. - but I still fail to see the reason for this article existing given that several other articles cover the same topics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - without wishing to argue for or against this particular article, the nomination reason does appear weak. It is entirely legitimate for an article to give an overview of a large and complex topic (say, the Second World War) even though all the sub-topics are covered by other articles. Indeed, when a topic is important enough to be covered by several sub-articles, it is absolutely necessary to have an umbrella article to cover the whole topic and tie all the parts together. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but is there actually anything that holds together the different threads in this article, other than they are sexual abuse cases that, in some way, involve the BBC? Is it actually a single topic worthy of an article? The threads are brought together, in any case, at the Criticism of the BBC and BBC controversies articles - which themselves overlap each other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One argument for treating them in a single article would be that there was something in the culture or administration of the BBC that permitted sexual abuse (the referenced Andrew O'Hagan article hints at this). An alternative argument would be simply the number of well-documented cases of abuse. I'm not certain this topic needs a separate article, but it could be viewed as a breakout from BBC controversies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - I would be inclined to think that both Criticism of the BBC#Sexual abuse of children and BBC controversies#October 2012: Jimmy Savile abuse scandal could be merged into the the subject article (that which is not duplicate information) with {{main| tags in both articles. Agree it shouldn't exist in three different places but I think a standalone article (given the size it might eventually get to after inquiries, etc) is probably worthwhile. The other cases, I think, are different. Cross-references are fine but they should probably also have their own articles. Thoughts? Stalwart111 00:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal (or vice versa - but with that title). Prune the sections in Criticism of the BBC#Sexual abuse of children and BBC controversies#October 2012: Jimmy Savile abuse scandal. Savile appears to have been a preditory paedophile. There are also allegations that he may have procured vulnerable girls for others, and that certain managers are guilty of compounding his offence, but that would only apply if they knew and did nothing (or perhaps were wilfully blind). We are getting far too much in the way of duplication. It is appropriate to have a short summary in one article with a {{main|}} template to link to one more detailed article. I am not sure that this belongs in the "criticism" article at all, as this is more about allegations of bias. Furhtermore "criticism" sections are liable to be ATTACK or COATHANGER sections that give a minor subject attention completely out of proportion to their importance. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 1 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing prevents from having a review article and sub-articles on individual events. Some degree of content overlap is inevitable in such cases. Fix it if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, there are multiple cases, but the BBC controversies article is perfectly suited to list them. The cases include:

the well-known Jimmy Savile case
BBC sports reporter Stuart Hall charged with three counts of indecent assault against young girls
Michael Souter, ex-BBC Radio Norfolk man, accused of child sex crimes.

That is at least 3 cases. So WP needs a list. But WP doesn't need three articles to list these cases:

The existing article BBC controversies is the best place to list the sex abuse allegations. --Noleander (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this sounds like merging to me, but the content will be lost if deleted (unless this is completely a content fork). The better way is to mark articles for suggested merging and discuss at article talk pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't yet know whether there is any linkage between these (and other) cases. It may be entirely coincidental that these people happened to work for the BBC - a very large organisation - in which case there is even less justification for this article. If they are shown to have acted in concert, or as part of a culture of sexual harassment and abuse within the BBC, that would be a different matter - but linking the cases under the umbrella heading of "BBC... cases" gives the appearance of being just more BBC-bashing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 6 December 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, Wily D 11:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: Suggestions are kind of all over the place; I kind of get the impression the best coarse of action is probably a redirect or a disambiguation (indeed, both delete votes read kinda like that to me), but I don't want to supervote. Wily D 11:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best course. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that too. Wily D 09:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's rough! Stalwart111 10:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - yes, that sounds wise. I've read the whole discussion and find all the arguments sensible. It does feel excessive to have 3 articles covering the ground, and "...cases" does imply a linkage where no evidence for such exists. Therefore BBC controversies seems the right merge target, leaving a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dont see an issue of just keeping this article. This is a major and complicated sequence of events that justifies several articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still say merge -- I do not think any one seriously suggest that the BBC was promoting sexual abuse. However, allegations have been made against a few very high profile employees (or contractors). What we have at present is a mess. I would support the idea of having, with appropriate links via "main templates":

A general article on the subject,
An article on each alleged perpetrator - for Saville in a separate article; for the otehrs perhpas in their BIO article.
A brief section in the "Criticism of BBC" article (which will need to be defended against those who want to expand it to an inappropriate extent.

We cannot expect the closing ADMIN to undertake all this editing. Can we accept this (or somethign similar)? If so, Can we have a volunteer to undertake the editing to the new organisation, once this proposal is accepted. The AFD will probably need to stay open until this is implemented. When it is, it may be that one or more article will be redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 17 December 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 as hoax vandalism. There were even more clear markers in the edit history than caught below. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lachansky-Yang Theory

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

Unbelievable mess of an article, quite possibly a hoax since it doesn't appear to be covered anywhere except on this page. Sources in article (they both link to the same page) mention neither the theory nor its creators. There are also bits and bobs from all over the place thrown in - the infobox is for military equipment, there's a random cast list at the bottom of the page, naming someone who isnt mentioned anywhere else, and the References section is - well, go and see for yourself. Totally unsuited for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a blunt axe. It's either a deliberate joke, or an extremely stoned stream-of-consciousness rant that doesn't belong here. Note the helpful Onion "reference" at the end of the article [12]. I've heard that Chinese readers don't always quite get the Onion's satirical humour, but this simply looks like a student prank. Note also this attempt at humour at the talk page by one of the contributors. No mention of the subject online: yes, I actually bothered to look, heaven knows why. Altered Walter (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Infobox is a bit of a giveaway, as are references.TheLongTone (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy delete per above Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:35, 13 December 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. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

National Action (Australia)

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

The article has only one reference (a dead link) and makes many claims about the subject that are unsupported - one statement even claims that an individual involved with the political party was accused of murder. The person may still be living and this is totally in contradiction to Wikipedia's policy on living persons. This page lacks any reputable source (in fact, it lacks any reference at all) and should be deleted. If anyone disputes this, feel free to post your argument on this page. Minigoody101 (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 13. Snotbot t • c » 09:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's be accurate. The article most categorically does not say someone was "accused of murder"; it says the party or some in it had "plans" to do so. An important difference, and removes any BLP issue. It is also false to say "it lacks any reference at all": there is one reference on the page, two in-line links, a cited book and indications within the text of other sources. The dead link ref complained of is not a dead link; it never was a clickable link, it is a normal citation that could be followed up in a good reference library. The article needs work, unquestionably, but that is not and never has been a criterion for deletion (or most of Wikipedia would have been deleted years ago!!!) Emeraude (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An extra ref: "Groups such as National Acton, formed in 1982, and the breakaway Australian National Movement, provide less contested examples of fascist organizations. Members of both groups have been convicted of racist violence." (Cyprian P. Blamires ed.:World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 2, p 66, ABC-CLIO 2006) Emeraude (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - okay, to begin with, unsubstantiated accusations against living people should not be included and even those formally charged with a crime should be written about neutrally and with no WP:OR or POV commentary on the accusations, charges, etc. But the fact that there might be BLP violations or WP:NPOV issues is not a justification for deletion. The party/group must be notable to be included and notability requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources. So, with that in mind, I would highlight the following for consideration:

1. Holocaust Denial As an International Movement by Stephen E. Atkins (ABC-CLIO, 2009) - mentions the group, though in one instance it incorrectly refers to it as National Alliance.

2. National Action is racist, court rules by Jessica Rose (Green Left Weekly, 27 January 1999) - focussed on the subject.

3. American Jewish Year Book, 2002 by David Singer & Lawrence Grossman (VNR AG, 2003) - makes specific mention of the group.

4. Australia’s pathetic judicial defence of free speech (Crikey, 18 November 2011) - substantial coverage of a defamation case involving the group and its leader.

5. Backing Hanson: National Action by Sean Lennon (Green Left Weekly, 14 May 1997) - all about the group, its formation, leaders, etc.

6. Australia Neo-nazis Barrage Meeting with Slurs, Threats by Jeremy Jones (JTA Jewish News Archive, 2 March 1995)

It's worth pointing out, I think, that the Council of Australian Governments has what they call National Action Plans so Googling "National Action" and "Australia" brings up a stack of useless sources that are not related to the subject. I tried "National Action" and some of the associated names instead to come up with the above. Current problems with the article are mostly WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problems, not reason to delete sort of problems, in my opinion. I think the above sources provide more than enough "significant coverage" for the group to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart111 01:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, largely in line with Stalwart111. The article certainly needs a rewrite, but this is one of the more well-known Australian ultra-right groups and this area is actually rather under-represented on Wikipedia at the moment. As an aside, there was an official NA candidate at the 1984 Hughes by-election (Saleam), and running officially endorsed candidates at federal elections has generally been considered justification for an article. There are borderline cases, but this isn't one of them. Frickeg (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have noted, one of the more notable Australian far-right groups of the last few decades. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to note that the dead link I pointed out is a dead link, I have not confused it with the two in-line links or the bibliography, which leaves the page with only the two reference links and not much else supporting it. Also, the article might not 'categorically' accuse someone of murder, but it certainly casts unfounded aspersions, e.g.:

"[Some reasons to account for the party's decline include] ...its plans to fire-bomb a political rival's home and to murder anti-Apartheid activist Eddie Funde." - No citation.

I don't think its fair that such a comment be made without any verification.(Preceding unsigned comments by Minigoody101 (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It's not a dead link, because it does not purport to link to the news article online. But that's not relevant to this discussion anyway, since references do not have to be available online. The reference is clearly given as "Herald Sun, 94-04-02", and that is enough for any competent person to go to a library and dig it out. Emeraude (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one questionable statement (or even more) is not grounds for deletion. If it's not supported in any of the given sources, delete the statement, but there's no reason to delete the article, for which plenty of sources (both on and offline) have been provided. Frickeg (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with those above, though I think it is worth acknowledging that you've put forward a very solid case for a re-write. They just aren't really reasons for deletion. Stalwart111 22:04, 18 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalimantan Borneo

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

No evidence of such name or independence+unification movement. ELEKHH^T 09:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 09:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 09:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The organization exits, exclusively on Facebook as Kalimantan Borneo Union. No other mentions at all. I've tried (with machine translation) to search in Indonesian as well. In short, while the idea of unifying Borneo has been brought up before, this particular movement is not notable (yet). Also, the references back the complaints and claims of this organization, not its existence. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Perhaps this is related to Jeffrey Kitingan's apparent goal of unifying the Dayak nation, and thereby Borneo, described in the North Borneo Herald blog?

Note again: I am taking the liberty of undoing the article's creator's edits to Template:Irredentism promoting this organization, though proposed unification of Borneo per se might make a notable topic to be linked from the irredentism navbox. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that user Ranking Update beat me to it. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 17:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the reliable coverage needed for establishing notability is just not there. It doesn't help that it only exists on Facebook, so it could have easily been speedily deleted as A7. Note that this is not the only time I've encountered Borneo projects in my research. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 15 December 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. KEEP as a combination of WP:IAR and WP:SNOW: the nominated article no longer exists, the copyvio properly Kerrrzappped. The new article may be renominated, of course, but I doubt that it will. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faithful amplification

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

The article is directly copied from wiki.answers.com Wakowako (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is not an obvious copyright violation from answers.com, but paraphrases it and adds other sources. I have expanded the article with an alternative source. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been re-phrased and expanded with references/sources and footnotes. It is quite significant in electronics technology. --Wakowako (talk) 05:59, 16 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology of Borneo

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

This seems to have been some good faith educational experiment, but the text is completely lacking focus, not being about the topic, but general aspects of ecology or some particular aspects of Malaysian Borneo only. I see nothing useful in there worth keeping, so is better to delete to enable a fresh start. ELEKHH^T 08:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 09:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 09:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid I agree with nom. There were no fewer than 3 lists of "References" - I've cut one of them - and a lot of totally irrelevant material. What's left after a quick look is 2 school essays (there were 3 but the human culture essay was even less relevant) on aspects of diversity with reference to Malaysia. Unfortunately neither of them really focus on Borneo, nor on ecology, and it would be an Augean Stable-cleaning task to make an article out of it. A sad but clear case requiring (WP:TNT) a clean restart. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Chiswick Chap. An article on the topic is needed but it would be better to start from scratch. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:TNT. Now, it is not much more than word salad. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--WP:TNT. —Theo polisme 21:28, 19 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most polluted rivers in the United States

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

This article was created in April 2012 without any sources. There has been no substantive work done on it since. The language is unclear ("pollution" and "trash" are interchanged and undefined, "gets" and "gains" are interchanged and undefined). The science appears to be poor, e.g. no allowance is made for total volume of flow. The article is an orphan, and the article remains completely unsourced. Frappyjohn (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the idea of the article seems valid and could be sourced. Clearly the article has problems, like the majority of wikipedia articles, but is deletion the best approach to dealing with the problem? JoshuSasori (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO. Delete as a mess. It is derived from [http://www.ewg.org/node/20399 this confused list], with the Pacific Ocean and Grays Harbor removed (as non-rivers), replacing Everett Harbor with the Everett River, keeping the Straits of Juan de Fuca, while shifting some of the numbers to the wrong entries. So tagged. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: I've declined the speedy deletion; basic factual information cannot be copyrighted. There is nothing in the layout or phrasing that explicitly seems to "copy" the target work, so I don't see that as a problem. Note that this is in no way an expression on the underlying concerns of this AfD, on which I decline to state an opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is inaccurate, because pollution doesn't necessarily correspond to trash (there are many other sources of pollution). You would have to rename it to List of rivers with the most trash dumped in them, but I'm not sure that's a notable article subject, and with the concerns about sources there's no point in renaming. If someone wants to delete and start over, that's fine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Most polluted rivers" is a notable subject, but it's a difficult concept to pin down with statistics. The website this article is copied from measures it in terms of "toxic discharges", and another list produced by Environment America (see pages 34-5) also refers to toxic releases, but as Colapeninsula says, the river into which the most stuff is dumped isn't necessarily the "most polluted". The other problem is that keeping the list up-to-date would require a significant amount of original research, unless we can rely on somebody publishing an accurate annual report (which we can't). So, yeah, on balance, I don't think this is worth keeping around. DoctorKubla (talk)
Delete Unsourced original research and POV at best. This merits at best a paragraph in an article somewhere about river pollution in the United States. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing verifiablity. Blue Riband► 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, original research. Moreover, almost any effort to identify a river as "most polluted" is almost inherently going to require original research, because (as commenters above have noted in various ways) the metric of "most polluted" is complicated and a matter of opinion. --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not appear to be notable, as a quick search on Google does not find any significant coverage regarding the subject. Additionally, the article lakes no references and is thus completely subject to WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:19, 18 December 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. Per lack of assertions as to the notability of the underlying even to overcome a claim of WP:CRYSTAL. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald

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

Crystal - anticipated event in Feb 2013, not currently notable No unique names 03:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:CRYSTAL Does not apply, as it has been confirmed via multiple outlets. Including the UFC itself. For Official UFC Sources, See: [13], [14], [15], and for non-UFC media sources, see: [16], [17], [18]Hooskerdo (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Hooskerdo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The official sources aren't reliable and don't help with a notability claim. The unofficial are routine, superficial coverage. The first unofficial supports a claim of CRYSTAL. --No unique names 10:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Hooskerdo and "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." Ok well the event is notable, a title is being fought for at this event. And it is almost certain to take place. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Sources aren't particularly good. Can be recreated when and if proper sources become available.--Atlan (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The debate over WP:CRYSTAL is completely overblown. In 221 UFC events, only one was cancelled. So far, more than 99.5% of the UFC events went ahead. The Olympic Games have a far worse record of cancelling events. We are so sure that an UFC event will happen, that when it doesn't, it becomes another reason for it to be seen as a notable event. Evenfiel (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i have proposed a change to WP:MMAEVENT, if passed i believe it would greatly help in the constant debate over MMA event articles. you can view it here. Kevlar (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here, as individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place (my bold). --LlamaAl (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The event isn't notable (yet, anyway). --No unique names 11:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CRYSTAL doesn't apply and all previous keep rationale is sound
Keep Why do we have to go through this for every single UFC article? Hasteur and Mtking's actions clearly fall within WP:WITCHHUNT. They automatically AFD every single UFC article and receive several clear, intelligent, and compelling reasons as to why the article should not be deleted. Every single discussion like this one is overwhelmingly in favor of Keep. These users are abusing their powers and will not rest until every UFC article is removed from Wikipedia. As I have suggested before, if the goal of these people is truly to keep Wikipedia full of relevant, important information, then I strongly recommend that they remove themselves from this discussion entirely and ask another admin, one who is neutral and not on a WP:WITCHHUNT, to look at the reasons presented from both sides and make a decision that is in the best interests of both parties. Until that happens, Hasteur, Mtking, and others will continue to try and delete every UFC article, abuse their administrative powers, and silence the overwhelming majority that is in agreement that these articles should remain on Wikipedia. Courier00 (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Courier00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hasteur (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:TOOSOON, there is no whitchhunting going on. The article is about a stub on an event that may never even happen. It is proper to wait. Even if it happens, there is no guarantee of notability. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I may, I'd like to propose the following t actions. 1. This AfD gets tabled. 2. The article gets merge/redirected to a 2012 in UFC events article (or something appropriate) while WikiProject MMA gets an opportunity to clean house and come up with a viable set of guidelines that are workable. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I may, I'd like to propose the following t actions. 1. This AfD gets tabled. 2. The article stays as it is, while WikiProject MMA gets an opportunity to clean house and come up with a viable set of guidelines that are workable. Evenfiel (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another UFC page trying to get deleted. This is getting tiresome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.214.85 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — 68.44.214.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Event fails the WP:NOT policy, specifically the Wikipedia is Not a Newspaper section, there is no attempt in the article to demonstrate with (or without for that mater) reiliable sources what the lasting effect and significance of this event will be. Of course it will get news coverage, it is after all a professional sports event, but to date it has all been routine coverage of the announcements which is not (according to policy) sufficient for a stand alone article. Mt king^(edits) 08:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new tactic. Argueing to keep this page is pointless because MtKing and Hasteur won't listen to reason. It's time for a new tactic. Contact the Real wikipedia staff at [email protected] and let them know that you won't be donating 1 cent to wikipedia until all UFC pages are rightfully restored. Spread the word.119.225.96.189 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)htww — 119.225.96.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I would argue that WP:CRYSTAL fails as an argument as the UFC has a track record of cancelling only one event ever out of 223 held. Does that mean that the chance of it being cancelled is impossible? No, it does not mean that. Is it dismissible? I would have to argue it absolutely is. If WP:CRYSTAL applies to this event then it applies to Super Bowl XLVII via the same logic. War could break out, or a strike could happen (a World Series was canceled once because of that, and more recently an entire NHL season), but the chances are of a dismissible nature, and should that happen the very fact it was dismissed would make it notable (now if the UFC starts canceling events on a regular basis, instead of once every 200+ times, that'd be different). Beansy (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CRYSTAL is not about declining future events but preventing speculation. That speculation does extend to notability. Will the UFC event happen (pretty sure), will it be notable in it's own right (not guaranteed). I think the latter point is most important in this case since the event will be held within 2 months and the announced fights are pretty much set. Will the event be notable? I don't think so but wont fight over it.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per open discussions with both camps currently going on on the WP:MMA talk page, I wouldn't be opposed to merging this article into an annual omnibus per se, but deleting it first would be quite counterproductive to the efforts to end the current drama. Beansy (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per reasons stated above in favour of the same outcome. Nothing more than the same users using the same failed reasons as to why UFC events are not notable. Would suggest that those users who disagree with these pages to be more productive than add a tag for deletion or vote to delete, such as help those who built up the page/s to beef it up to the point in which questioning notability will not exist. Very strong sources on this subject, and one could compare this sort of event to that of a WWE event, such Royal Rumble (2013), which was originally created on January 30, 2012, which is around a year before it happens, and was largely billed as The Rock's return match for the WWE title against CM Punk, which is unlikely to happen now due to the injury the champion recently suffered. Does this affect that events notability too? Does that mean that that event, just over a month away as well, should have a deletion tag on it because it clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL due to the high profile nature the event has received prior to the injury so plans are now scuffled for the event? Once you come to an answer for that then you have an answer for any events the UFC holds also. Pound4Pound (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial statement is WP:PERNOM, which have had those rationalles shot out of the water above. The remainder of your rationalle is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument using a WWE event to justify a outcome here. Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If these are such "failed" reasons, then why have so many articles been deleted because of them? Try to explain without using the keywords "Mtking", "evil deletionists" and "anti-MMA conspiracy".--Atlan (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: why delete an upcoming event just to have to re-create it. How about people wanting to get rid of it, work on making it better. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an omnibus page, with the possiblity to split out later if the event ends up being notable. I agree with Peter Rehse's interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL in the sense that while it's evident this event will happen, it's not clear whether it will end up being notable or not. CaSJer (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOmnibuses were created and deleted already, by year, by month, by whatever, nothing worked.159.245.32.2 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Only one Omnibus was tried, and that was by year. Want to come at this with clean hands and not 3rd or 4th hand hearsay? Hasteur (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets notability as per WP:SPORTSEVENT since a title is on the line ("Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following: The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league"). 206.132.125.2 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPORTSEVENT only applies IF there's only one championship a season. UFC doesn't have a definite season structure or a limit on the number of championship fights can occur in a time period (As evidenced by the title changing hands multiple times in a few months). Hasteur (talk) 02:19, 21 December 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. Keep....but stub. I don't know exactly if this runs afoul of WP:INVOLVED, but it's clear from this discussion that there is consensus (from those who understand Wikipedia's policies) that the current article is overly promotional. There also appears to be consensus that the underlying subject is notable enough to pass WP:ORG/WP:GNG. As such, I'm closing this diiscussion as keep, but then I am going to go to the article and stub it. I will keep the two sources provided here that DGG specifically points to as being helpful; other editors are then welcome to re-add reliably sourced info that is neutral in tone. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The Next 36

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

This is a single class at a single school, and i would normally have no hesitation in deleting it as A7. But there seems to be sources about it, indicating it has been cited as an especially interesting example. I would tend to regard the article as rather promotional, but not to the extent of qualifying as G11. At least some of it is copied from their website, but possibly not totally, so if it is notable, that part can be rewritten. I originally tagged it as G12, but on reflection, I can not show it is entirely copyvio. I leave it to the community to decide what to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This program was inspired by a course taught at U of T but is much more than that now. It is a national undergraduate scholarship for entrepreneurial young people - it is awarded to 36 students annually and in 2012 there were 1,003 applicants according to coverage in The Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1296061--many-young-canadians-resorting-to-entrepreneurial-route). This program provides undergraduates in Canada with the opportunity to be innovative, entrepreneurial and to develop the skills to create the next big idea in mobile or tablet computing. Think of it more like a Rhodes Scholarship program with a tech focus. The content of the entry is very relevant to undergraduates in Canada in much the same way that these other scholarship programs are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_scholarships).Mcheater (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Definitely more than a single class (when I went through the program there were 6 classes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.181.177 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Next 36 is a national program that supports undergraduate students to help them start real companies. It's definitely not a high school class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.181.177 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.84.202 (talk) [reply]

Comment: The Next 36 is a startup incubator, similar to YCombinator and Techstars. I should know, as my company started in it. Anulman (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Next 36 is a national incubator program targeting future high impact entrepreneurs. The organization provides teaching, tools and access to a tremendous amount of resources unmatched by even some of the top accelerator programs in the country. This article should not be tagged for A7 or G11 mistakes. The Next 36 is an organization with more than enough content proving it's existence. There have been many press releases in Forbes, Techvibes, PROFIT Magazine, and many others. After reading the article, it is not inaccurate or promotional in any way - merely a source of information :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.166.179 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be an awful ot of IP editors and involved parties interested in this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and the article was written by two SPAs in turn. The arguments above are typical: ITEXISTS, IKNOWITSIMPORTANT, but there's a new one, which I don't recall anyone having the lack of clue to offer before, There have been many press releases. Given that is said about the sources from Forbes, it makes me wonder whether the remarkably similar stories in what are normally thought of as respectable newspapers are press releases as well. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE after researching this, and for various reasons. It should probably have been speedied under A7. G11 and G12 should also be strongly considered as most of the text is lifted from their website. I am also a bit alarmed at what looks like what might be a bit of meat puppetry to me. All but two of the commenters above are IP accounts, of the remaining two, one admits to being involved with the company, the other is a single issue account. But all that aside, the sources are weak. They are all passing mentions, original research, or press releases, nothing substantial. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The arguments for deletion appear to breakdown into one of two main arguments. The first is that The Next 36 is not notable. Notability guidelines have 5 listed criteria, Four of which are the following 1. Significant coverage 2. Reliable 3. Sources 4. Independent of the subject. I would argue that coverage in all three of the major Canadian newspapers, and coverage in various other sources, pass the significant coverage, reliable and sources tests. You would also be hard pressed to claim that the publications (Toronto Star, Financial Post, The Globe and Mail) are not independent or that the individual reporters, as such, are all not independent.

A second argument is that the articles cited above are ‘press releases’. However it's also claimed that the mentions are in passing. These two claims seem to be at odds with each other. A press release would hardly have passing claims. ‘Passing’ mentions is what you would expect from independent articles written on the subject of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs in Canada and the various programmes in the country, including The Next 36, that are trying to effect change, for the better, on that subject. Best efforts were made to pull all information about the The Next 36 from the articles cited. Only in few small circumstances where information was missing was it pulled from the official website. I would not argue with removing the content in the article that is pulled from the official website if that would help with the decision to keep the article. Example, the lower bound on the investment dollars the ventures received was pulled from their website. The upper bound was cited from the appropriate article.

Not a single press release from The Next 36 was cited. For reference, a list of press releases can be found here: http://www.newswire.ca/en/search?Ntt=The+Next+36

Furthermore, under notable the fifth criterion is presumed. Given that The Next 36 passes the first four tests of notability, at the very least The Next 36 should be included somewhere given its notability. However, while it is affiliated with the Canadian Universities mentioned in the articles cited, it is independent of all of them, so inclusion in one of their university entries would not be appropriate.

Concerning being an SPA. I’ve learned a lot in the last week interacting with fellow editors and administrators in the community and appreciate your patience.

Other misc points: I believe Anulmn is talking about his venture, which was incubated in The Next 36, not as an employee or founder of the The Next 36. Lasso615 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not pass WP:GNG at this time. None of the sources establish notability, they are mostly press releases or trivial mentions, failing WP:RS. freshacconci talktalk 03:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

As was mentioned before none of the sources are press releases, they are from national papers including Canada's Globe & Mail, Vancouver Sun, National Post, Financial Post and The Toronto Star. Most of the articles sourced are solely on the program, and not mentions of it. The founding patrons of the program are prominent figures in Canadian business and can be linked through other wikipedia pages. This was my first article I have submitted on Wikipedia, and I plan on submitting more, however I felt this was an ideal topic to start on as I am an alumni of the program and felt that since I am independent of the organization I am a viable source.

I too am learning, and have replaced any of the copy that I took directly from the website, or news articles. I would appreciate any advice to changing the article to keep it up. I would argue that the claim WP:GNG about notability was not researched as the community had already approved the article for its notability as it meets:

"Significant coverage" 13 Sources from National Sources.

"Reliable" - Published works in Print and Video. Media available in French and English. Secondary sources noted.

"Sources" - Multiple Sources and Authors from National News Sources.

"Independent of the subject" - Author Independent of the organization.

"Presumed" - No stand alone articles, National News Sources, Canadian University Partnerships.

Thanks for the help so far! Please give feedback!! Samjura (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I see this all as a publicity effort by the founder. I agree the founding patrons of the program are notable; That does not mean every activity of theirs is notable. It remains an insignificant program. Notable scholarship programs of this sort are characterized by notable alumni; this program is too new for that to be used as a criterion, so I suppose the fairest judgment is the frequent "not yet notable" that applies to promotional articles. Let's look at the actual sources in detail, in the sequence used in the article. :

Globe and Mail. Sept 10 This is not about the program. It's mostly about his classroom skills in teaching one particular class I would in this case challenge even this g&m sources as based on press releases, on the basis that It reads just like the others, a sign that they all all derived from the pr efforts of the founder of the movement. I note the phrase "best and brightest" that is found in essentially all the sources.
Financial Post. July 15. Mostly about encouraging entrepreneurship in general. One paragraph about the program.
Canadian Business, Feb 8. almost entirely about Satchu, not the program. Furthermore its not independent journalism: its a interview with Satchu letting him say what he pleases, so it's essentially its a reprint of his own praise about himself.
Entrepreneur section of the financial Post. Jun 12, Almost identical to the same author's article in the Financial Post, above. Same problems. This part of the Financial Post is evidently not an independent responsibly edited newspaper, but a medium for publishing press releases.
Financial Post Dec 4. Same author as the Financial Post & Entreprneur articles. . An account of Satchu's teaching, almost identical to the Globe and Mail article. Proof that the two of them are identical press release material.
Toronto Star A decent newspaper I have often relied on. The article is about Konrad Listwan-Ciesielsk, with one single sentence about the 36.
Financial Post Aug 15. It's about one of the 36's programs. interviewing what the people associated with it say about themselves. good evidence that even a press release cannot claim any actual accomplishments "As for where they all go from here, while some of the founders have graduated from their undergraduate programs others have a year or two to go and some must decide whether to return to school or remain fully involved with their newly formed ventures and “go all-in.”"
Globe and Mail Nov 21, 2011 A personal interview with Satchu. One sentence about the 36.
Financial Post Nov 7. PR interview with the program's director. about the program.
Account that a single university has joined from its own newsletter.
Account that another single university has joined from a blog, .
Account that a single university has joined from its own newsletter .
Entrepreneur Nov 21. 3 one sentence mentions.
(final unnumbered ref), from a campus newspaper.

What do we have here that is even worth considering as being substantially about the program: Financial Post Aug 15, and Nov 7. I consider them both PR. There's nothing else that is substantial. DGG ( talk ) 11:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" - Would any of these articles have more merit in your eyes? I am just wondering how to make it a stronger submission. The program is over three years old now and is the leading incubator education program in Canada.

"Toronto Star" - December 3 2012 - http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1296061--many-young-canadians-resorting-to-entrepreneurial-route
"Financial Post" - August 20 2012 - http://business.financialpost.com/2012/08/20/why-next-36-matters-for-all-canadian-entrepreneurs/

Samjura (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are usable sources. I think them sufficient to justify an article. But the article is at this point to promotional to keep as is, full of adjectives of praise, and personal & corporate name dropping (2/3 of it is a list of sponsors) , and would therefore need substantial rewriting. The best course would be to withdraw the article or let it be deleted, and start over, avoiding adjectives, avoiding PR phrases, not stating the goal 3 times over, and including only the 4 good references, plus perhaps one good cite for each university that has joined if there is no listing of them in the good refs. Looking at this discussion, if I were doing it again, I would have speedy deleted as G11, and given you this advice. AfD can lead to article improvement, but there are better ways to do it. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just read through the article and didn't see anything blatantly promotional. It seems to document a national scholarship that many students might want to know about and apply for, and also gives brief background on its origins as a UofT course and the founders that are involved - which seems relevant if they are part of nurturing the successful student participants as they try to build their businesses. I don't usually weigh in on these but I'm just kind of baffled about where the antagonism is coming from. I work at a university that had 6 students that were included in the Next 36 this year and it was a major accomplishment for us and received a lot of social media and press attention. This scholarship seems very relevant to both the students that receive it, as well as other students at their schools who express pride that they attend the same school as the recipients (expressed on social media the day the recipients were announced). Why wouldn't there be a Wikipedia article such as this one documenting what the program is? 99.255.11.148 (talk) 03:09, 13 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the nominator agrees that there are enough reliable sources out there to merit inclusion of this subject in this encyclopedia. I'm not going to bother repeating them, they have been mentioned above and are referenced in the article itself. The article is promotional, so it needs to be reduced to a stub and re-written with from a neutral point of view. This is "articles for deletion" here, not "articles for improvement." Yes, articles are often improved as a result of an AfD, but AfD should not be used as a tool to force article improvement. MisterUnit (talk) 19:11, 13 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons

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

Fails WP:CORP. No external refs at all. Refs that are provided demonstrate only that it exists and organizes conferences. Highly POV style which fails WP:ARTSPAM. Not notable Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Availability of wp:notability-suitable sources is very likely. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. One passing mention in gnews, seems not to be an official medical organisation. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a fairly new organization (2001) but it does seem to be large, mainstream and professional. Claims 5,000 members in 200 countries, holds annual conferences, publishes a quarterly journal which is indexed at Google Scholar. Nothing much in the way of news coverage, but that's not surprising for a professional medical organization. I think it deserves an article. I cleaned it up a little, and deleted the redundancies and puffery. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean nothing in terms of news coverage hence fails WP:ORG. all the sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11 years is not fairly new. That's enough time to get some mainstream coverage. Is 5000 members in 200 countries verifiable. There's 200 countries in the world, I doubt tiny island and very poor nations have Laparoscopic Surgeons. Alarm bells ring for fake claims.LibStar (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 of the 5 sources merely confirm they held a conference, and they're self published sources by conference organizers. including one for a conference in 2014 (how this advances notability beats me when conferences can get deferred/cancelled this far out). this organization is really skating on thin ice for actual notability. fancy name but no real third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, and in light of all of author's other contributions, which seem to be entirely PR and advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 10 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable per WP:ORG, and though there are some GBook and GScholar hits, they all seem to be passing mentions by a few doctors who note their membership of the group. MelanieN notes above that the group's journal World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery is indexed by GScholar: it's also indexed by Index Copernicus, and appears to be notable enough for its own article. Altered Walter (talk) 11:13, 14 December 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 Adrienne Clarkson. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Clarkson

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

Non-notable radio presenter. Elongated shorty (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacafoil (talk • contribs) 07:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adrienne Clarkson as a possible misspelling. The radio presenter is unnotable and unreferenced. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adrienne Clarkson to salt (I note the article was deleted before). After some Googling, can find nothing of significance about Adrian Clarkson, hence non-notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 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) Go Phightins! 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic Kids

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

Notoriety - This page was discussed as a merge with Chip Coffey many months ago. Nothing came of that discussion. I have waited many months to see if this page would be expanded. It has not. I do not propose it merging with the Chip Coffey page as that would mean we were left with one page, with two paragraphs. The only citation on this page is one to its A&E webpage. Sgerbic (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue? That it's on cable instead of network TV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 13. Snotbot t • c » 02:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's made it to 3 seasons on a major cable network, has a notable host, and has been released on DVD. Unless nom can come up with better reasoning this looks like a solid keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articles about the show in various news publications:, Norwich Bulletin, New York Post, etc. Has been released on DVD and reviewed. Dreadstar ☥ 04:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:06, 15 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devraha Baba

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

Notoriety - Only one reference to Baba in a secondary source, that mention is highly questionable, other "notes" on the page do not reference him directly except to the story that the mud-man was hundreds of years old and other fictional stories. I cleaned up most of the problems a few weeks ago (including the category for his birth in the year 900) and have been waiting to see if anyone found anything of relevance to prove his noteworthiness, this has not happened. Sgerbic (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 13. Snotbot t • c » 02:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a lot on Google Books about the supposed 300-year old guru who died recently^[when?] - needs a rewrite with more sources, but apparently quite notable. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hundreds of lunatics live on the banks of Yamuna and Ganga, who claim that they are immortal gods and have lived for hundreds of years. No significant claim for notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic though he may be, he is notable one; search Google Books and you will find many independent sources discussing him. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anbu121 what source says he was a lunatic? Please don't make such unverified claims :)... There are 100s of verifiable citations that cover him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viSvx3EjQHw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH7G78UkACI Also he was very noteable in India. Google Books return 124 results, Google Web Results About 37,600 results, Google Video has About 31,900 results and some are his direct interviews... people from India and abroad make a point to visit and interview him. All these make him notable. Finally please jump to 20:30 to see the crowd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUoq-lYOWXQ ... Such huge crowd don't come to see unnotable people when they are alive. And after he died just see the crowd that come to see him for the last time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7grzKLWgkpE please jump to 1:33:17 to see who all visited his death. Atal Bihari Vajpayee (former Prime Minister of India) can be seen among the crowd who had come to see him for the last time. I am sure everyone should realise how important Devraha Baba is. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my personal opinion. I don't need any verification to have a opinion that people who claim to have lived for 500 years are lunatics. So how do you describe him? "He lives in hut in the bank of Yamuna and claims to have lived for hundreds of years" - What is so notable in this to have a wikipedia article? --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"That's my personal opinion." ... please see wikipedia:or. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OR applies only to article pages, not AFD pages. I have put forward my opinion only in this AFD page, not the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your justification calling "Devraha Baba" lunatic? Have you seen his medical certificate or you just go about calling people lunatic just because its your "personal opinion"? I don't see any further reason to further debate his lunatic status unless you have something rational. I never knew people living in huts were to be called lunatics, or why people living 100s of years were to be called lunatics?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors please do consider the validity of Anbu121's arguments towards the deletion decision. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for deletion is that the article doesn't make any significant claim that makes the person notable. Your claim of "So much crowd comes to see him" is not a valid argument for notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"So much crowd comes to see him" is not a valid argument for notability. what is the basis for this argument, or that too is your "personal opinion"? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have ignored the presence of former prime minister of India in the crowd. Did you read my remark above "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7grzKLWgkpE please jump to 1:33:17 to see who all visited his death. Atal Bihari Vajpayee (former Prime Minister of India) can be seen among the crowd" Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! I am sorry, Prime minister came to visit him is not a significant claim for notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of notable? Oxford says "worthy of attention" Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010. Oxford University Press. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/notable?q=notable (accessed December 15, 2012). If former prime minister of India will visit you, will people gossip about that and see you "worthy of attention"? So does that add to your notability or does it not? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but again, "People gossip about him" is not a claim for notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No point arguing further, since you are someone who cites "That's my personal opinion." for your lunatic definition with no rational backing. Also those are not the only arguments in the above para from where you are picking up sentences and arguing. I will be only replying if your further remarks make common sense. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even I am tired of explaining to you. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Lets wait for the opinion of some one else. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait for others to comment. Also I will work on the article and add as many verified points as I can. Hope the article stays. Since I just happen to see this article, please give me time to research and add verified material. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Lots of reliable sources in English, including the Times of India and The Indian Express, probably many more in Indian languages. The Steve 23:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I think that there probably is enough notability from reliable sources to construct an article - but it would bear only a very faint resemblance to any of the historical versions of this article. The subject was fairly clearly highly visible politically in at least the late 1980s (and possibly for a decade or two before that), effectively as a celebrated religious figure who was willing to grant photo-opportunities to a wide variety of politicians, from Rajiv Gandhi to the VHP. And what seems to have originally distinguished the longevity claims for the subject from those for dozens of other figures was precisely this visibility, though the claims seem to have ballooned in the last few decades. But any notability would essentially be as a late 20th century Indian religious celebrity, with the asserted longevity claims a secondary matter. PWilkinson (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, following work by Rayabhari and others. PWilkinson (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person is notable and reliable sources in English are available. Article needs better presentation. Rayabhari (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable with articles in Times of India, The Hindu, Philadelphia Inquirer, Indian Express, etc... [19][20][21][22]. The article is in desperate need of some good copyediting tho... Dreadstar ☥ 22:50, 19 December 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 arguments have it: keep. The [23] version that the delete voters looked at is utterly different from the ones subsequent keep voters saw. "Delete per nom" loses a bit of its value after the nom withdraws; "not urban dictionary" is undercut by the rigorous sourcing presented in this discussion--the article merely awaits implementation of Uncle G's research (hint!). Ryan, I trust there won't be a discussion next month, but I'll accept your lean. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping to conclusions

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

~~I am also nominating the following related page, which is merely a redirect left over from the move, and depending on the outcome of this discussion could be tagged {{Db-xfd}}:~~

~~Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we already have wikt:jump to conclusions; inbound links appear to be inconsequential.~~ -- Trevj (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -- Trevj (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: dictionary definition and a couple of self-help type sources, but nothing encyclopedic.Pam D 17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Urban dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will jump to the conclusion that this is a non-encyclopedic topic. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Surely "Jumping to conclusions" is the informal name for some psychology term. I say we wredirect it there and then explain that it is also known by this name.--Coin945 (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Uncle G.--Coin945 (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Impulsivity, why do articles like this get created? JoshuSasori (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because children in schools like to write juvenile articles attacking their peers. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 13 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 01:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there seems to be a clear consensus to remove the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of it self-admittedly based upon jumping to conclusions and no research. Here is how one provides a good rationale based upon research. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coin945 is right. There is a psychology term for this. It is — wait for it! — jumping to conclusions. See Nevid 2012, p. 582 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNevid2012 (help) for documentation and Moritz & Woodward 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMoritzWoodward2005 (help) for an example. Professor Nevid lists it as one of the "cognitive distortions associated with depression". Other sources, of which there are quite a few, list it as a characteristic of schizophrenia. There's a thing known as a "jumping to conclusions bias", shortened to "JTC bias", which has been studied. Bortolotti 2010, p. 133–135 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBortolotti2010 (help) gives an overview, and a meta-analysis of the literature on the subject is available in Fine et al. 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFineGardnerCraigieGold2007 (help).
Coin945, you had the right idea. You even had the right title. You just had utterly poor sources. Here are some of the many better ones, which should show you where else to look for more. Go! ☺
- Bortolotti, Lisa (2010). Delusions and Other Irrational Beliefs. International Perspectives in Philosophy and Psychiatry. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199206162.
- Fine, C; Gardner, M; Craigie, J; Gold, I (January 2007). "Hopping, skipping or jumping to conclusions? Clarifying the role of the JTC bias in delusions". Cognitive Neuropsychiatry. 12 (1): 46–77. doi:10.1080/13546800600750597. PMID 17162446. S2CID 38133890.
- Moritz, S.; Woodward, T.S. (Jun 2005). "Jumping to conclusions in delusional and non-delusional schizophrenic patients". British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 44 (Pt 2) (Pt 2): 193–207. doi:10.1348/014466505X35678. PMID 16004654.
- Nevid, Jeffrey S. (2012). "Psychological Disorders". Psychology: Concepts and Applications (4th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781111835491.
Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for all your efforts. I truly appreciate all your hard work. Yes, I set up a basic stub as I figured it was better than nothing, but all the deletes prompted me to second-guess myself. Your research has flipped me back to my original position. Now, i guess, we just have to get our hands on those texts and get stuck in....--Coin945 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One wuestion: what is your opinion on this: "When we fail to distinguish between what we observed firsthand and what we only inferred or assumed, inference-observation confusion (better known as jumping to conclusions) has occurred."? Is this the better name for the article as it is more proper (albeit less common)? [24]--Coin945 (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My own, offhand, opinion is no, for the simple reason that it doesn't turn up in the psychiatry and psychology books, whereas, as you've seen by now, "jumping to conclusions" and "jumping to conclusions bias" do. This is not to say that Haney's Uncritical Inference Test is not a part of the subject that is also worth discussing. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn based on what looks to be in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure that it warrants an article of its own, but it now looks to me like a merge candidate. I'm adding a further 2009 article^[1] I found below, along with direct links to Google Books^[2]^[3] ~~(where found)~~ for the sources cited above. -- Trevj (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irony award Isn't there some kind of irony award we can give to an AFD like this?? Zad68 16:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is a win! Mkdw ^talk 23:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Moritz, S.; Glöckne, A. (Dec 2009). "A fine-grained analysis of the jumping-to-conclusions bias in schizophrenia: Data-gathering, response confidence, and information integration" (PDF). Judgment and Decision Making. 4: 587–600.
^ Lisa Bortolotti (11 January 2010). Delusions and Other Irrational Beliefs. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920616-2. Retrieved 13 December 2012.
^ Jeffrey S. Nevid (1 January 2012). Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-111-83549-1. Retrieved 13 December 2012.

Comment I closed this AFD because the nominator had withdrawn, but apparently the discussion must go on, so I apologize and here it is again. Also, my !vote is keep, as per Uncle G. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm just beginning to try to analyze the sources and the various reasons that this article should be kept or deleted. I've taken only a short time to look through the available material and my concern is that while there is material on the subject, it is a cognitive distortion and might be better covered there. I'll try to take a deeper look soon. As for right now, I would say that I'm leaning keep, but intend to revisit the discussion in a month or so depending on how the article is able to expand. Ryan Vesey 00:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:UNCLEG. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:30, 14 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Pistevo

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

The article defines a Greek word. It should be deleted per WP:NOTDICT. - Mr X 01:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article Pistis already exists, describing the Classical Greek mythological personification of Faith as Πίστις. The Christian conception of πίστις/πιστεύω is already discussed in some detail at Faith in Christianity, and there's nothing here that isn't already better covered there. Pisteuo might be an appropriate redirect, but not the current title.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the PROD nominator. Wer900 • talk 19:26, 16 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landfill indie

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

Term just a minor meme/phrase that isn't notable. The article is mostly just quotes from the sources, and doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. Encyclopedic content could be moved to Indie rock or Independent music, though I'm not sure anything is actually noteworthy. NYSMtalk page 00:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is a minor meme that has received trivial mention in a few newspapers and books, but there has not been enough written about to warrant an encyclopedia article. - Mr X 01:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I thought we had a consensus for merger here, but the waters became a little muddy. I think that we can reliably demonstrate that the term was used, but beyond that there is very little to say. Some years on, it looks like a meme that had its time and Wikipedia doesn't do memes.--SabreBD (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the phrase exists outside of the occassional output of a few music journalists. I am confused as to what is going into the landfill - CDs? Deleted MP3 files? As to who it should actually be applied to fluff knows. 'Indie' is a hopeless description in itself, once we start riffing...Scrapyard indie? Bottle bank indie? Sharps bin indie (all 'real' btw)? Just can the article, it's imaginary. DistractedPedant 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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) Mediran (t • c) 05:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Disney Cinemagic

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

This article seems to be a prima facie violation of WP:DIRECTORY. Programming evolves, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopaedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programmes being broadcast. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed with nom. Besides for NOTDIRECTORY it seems to violate a principle akin to WP:NOTNEWS. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AFD, this is a list, not a directory. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are already articles on the service and on almost all of the shows. The information on this list is trivial since Disney owns the shows and can show them where ever it wants to, and probably will continue. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this can't fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY when it's a list, for starters: secondly, I agree with the consensus of the previous AfD (even if it was in 2009) that this should stay. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the previous AFD. - Presidentman talk a [· contribs (Talkback) 22:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Claritas § 18:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 11 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this isn't a directory, it is a list. NYSMtalk page 01:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list, not a directory (notice for example the lack of showtimes or scheduling information, as pointed out in the original AfD), and the programs aired on a channel are absolutely relevant to an article on that channel. BryanG (talk) 04:29, 13 December 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. This is discussion is way overdue (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Thompson

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

Classical case of WP:BLP1E. Just living for a long time does not make someone notable. Also fails WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Rather than deletion it would be better to redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would work for me, too. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is not just a super centenarian, but the oldest living person in Florida and the last person in Florida born in the nineteenth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.155.164 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. As is usual with most of these supercentenarian articles (Bernice Madigan is another) the notability is marginal at best. Adding trivia (which surely violatess some wiki policy) does not add notability. Previouss cases such as this have resulted in a Redirect to a List by Country but as the List of supercentenarians from the United States is already at 126k I can't see the benefit of adding such a minor case as this would benefit that article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's already in the list, so you wouldn't have to add anything to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — She is the 8th oldest living person in the world. If this were a discussion of tennis player rankings, no one or almost no one would suggest deleting the Wikipedia page of the 8th best curernt tennis player. Why should it be different for the oldest verified living people in the world? Futurist110 (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the 8th ranked tennis player certainly would be notable and justifiedly so, but this person is not notable. The difference is that to become the 8th ranked tennis player, you'll have to win a number of important tournaments. Those multiple events will be covered and almost certainly there will be articles discussing this person's biography in-depth. To become the world 8th oldest person, all you have to do is continue living. Usually there is some coverage in local rags. Not really the same accomplishment or level of notability... --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To continue living at an age where the annual odds of dying are 50% or more is a very large accomplishment. I'd be extremely impressed if you or anyone else on Wikipedia managed to keep on living for years after turning 110, considering that at that age it's extremely easy to die. It's easy to live for an additional several months when you're 20, 30, or 50. Not so much when you're 110 or 113. Specific supercentenarians do often get covered by the media, as in this case. If you're saying that the media covers tennis players more, perhaps, but then again the same thing might be said of media coverage of tennis players vs. scientists, even though the work that scientists do is much more important. Futurist110 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is: to go on living, you don't actually do anything, it happens to you. So I don't really see it as an "accomplishment". And whereas the coverage of tennis players may actually tell the reader something of interest, with (super)centenarians it usually is limited to "she still likes to smoke" or something trivial like that. Very few (if any) of these people actually had a life that is even borderline interesting, apart from being long... --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False. One's actions do often affect how long one will live. If one avoids overeating, using drugs, getting sick, et cetera, and continues to have a will to live, then one's odds of living another several months after 110 go way up, as do his/her odds of reaching age 110 in the first place. How long we live is based on both potential and expression of that potential. If someone had great genes but partied all weekend and didn't eat right, they wouldn't be pushing 114. To claim that "very few (if any) of these people actually had a life that is even borderline interesting" is POV-biased and you should recuse yourself from this discussion for POV bias. Clearly, if you don't want an article on Wikipedia because "I don't like it," that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, "110th birthday", "111th birthday", and "112th birthday" are multiple events, each receiving coverage. Also, please read the info in the articles linked to her page. There might be some interesting stuff in there. Finally, in my opinion, the top tennis players don't have much practical value, since tennis is just a game. In contrast, supercentenarians are studied by scientists in order to see why some people live so long and how the human body and mind act at age 110+. I apologize if some of what I wrote sounds harsh, but I was just making an effective argument. Futurist110 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Your reasoning above contains so many misunderstandings about what an encyclopedia is or is not (and about WP policies) that I really have no time to explain in depth all the ways in which you go wrong. Just one point: if there is anything interesting about the life of this person (apart from just continuing living), please add that to the article. And I don't mean things like that she "uses her kitchen table as a piano" if she hears a song that she likes (a gem of information taken from the Tampa Bay Times reference in the article). --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If redirected, and if she stays alive and moves up the rankings as the oldest living person, the page can always be restored and added to. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those enamored of living life to its fullest possible extent, myself included, the relavence and importance of Elsie Thompson's life increases in meaning both as she advances in age and others older than her, such as Besse Cooper, pass on. I have been "checking in" on Elsie Thompson on a nearly daily basis since her 112th birthday more than a year ago. I would enjoy learning more about her life. I hope that her article is retained in Wikipedia.Sanpete55man (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)205.197.208.65 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanpete55man (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article needs definite improvement). The nom stated "Classical case of WP:BLP1E". WP:LOWPROFILE shows how WP:BLP1E is "often misapplied in deletion discussions". First, the article definitely can be beefed up with more details about her. To avoid COI, I work for Gerontology Research Group and I'm only here as a Wikipedia editor with my own personal concern about this AfD. Second, I'm uncertain how many times Elsie Thompson has been interviewed, but she has been interviewed by multiple sources for different birthday events; that is not one event, which meets WP:GNG. The nom did not explain why this fails WP:GNG. I unfortunately don't have them handy and I hope other Wikipedia editors can provide the necessary sources and citations to improve this article. Like a particular tennis event in where one played while 8th ranked in the world, a birthday event in where one is the 8th ranked in the world is *each* considered one separate event. After all, in neither case, the person doesn't maintain the same "status/rank" over time. Just because tennis is covered internationally on a much bigger scale than human longevity, they both still should deserve the same treatment. Like WP:LOWPROFILE points out at the end, the status can change over time and it's a very fair assumption that regarding human longevity events, the older the person continue to live, the profile increases from medium to high (if some considers this as a medium profile right now). "To go on living, you don't actually do anything, it happens to you" shows a lack of understanding in why humans are fascinated to find encyclopedic information about shortest people, tallest people, and oldest people in general. Being the shortest adult in the world "just happens to them", but they still get notable because of that nonetheless. Also, "having an interesting life" is not a requirement to keep a biography article alive. I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ that the List of supercentenarians from the United States is already quite long so I also don't support a re-direct there. Instead, a keep of this article with improvements should be the way to go. Of course, if there are no further improvements, then I would concur with the consensus whatever that may be. CalvinTy 20:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Just because tennis is covered internationally on a much bigger scale than human longevity" is exactly why tennis players are more often notable supercentenarians. --Randykitty (talk) 21:21, 12 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, being one of the oldest living human beings on Earth seems notable, article is sourced, has capability of being expanded NYSMtalk page 01:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Some of the comments above seem to be based on a misunderstanding of how notability works on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how much of an achievement it is to live to 113, nor does it matter how interesting her life was. All that matters is significant coverage in multiple sources independant of the subject. CalvinTy says these sources exist, but I'm not seeing them. The only sources I can find are the three already in the article, all from the Tampa Bay Times. That's not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No argument from me there, DoctorKubla. I'll see what I personally can find in my files (as I know reliable sources do not need to be online). In the meantime, I do see the issue of insufficient reliable sources here (not yet meeting the criteria of WP:BASIC). CalvinTy 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of numerous supercentenarian WP:BLP1E cases (being very old is the "one event" not each birthday) not meeting WP:N. I don't even really think it's worth a redirect, because that just encourages people to revert these articles back to an article once they think that no one is looking (see the history of Koto Okubo for example), but a redirect would be better than keeping the article. Canadian Paul 15:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Rant. Let us agree to disagree, Canadian Paul. You decide that "being very old is one event" based on what guideline; I have looked all over and don't see it clearly explained? Analogies should not be used in discussions, but we are human (chuckles), so to make one: "being the shortest adult" or "being the tallest mountain of a continent" is literally one event regardless if they were covered in various years (like birthdays), but they are notable anyway so you are saying they should not have a stand-alone article? Like DoctorKubla says above, and I'm paraphrasing here, it's the depth of the coverage throughout time that matters (and independent of the subject).

I really think this essay says it all about mis-applying WP:BLP1E in AfD's. Supercentenarians usually are noted for their age at first; it is a matter of whether their coverage gets ballooned from there (or not).

You mentioned about a concern about redirect -- solely on a personal observation of past event(s)? "Past performance does not reflect on future events" or whatever that saying goes. If someone has an issue with a revert from a redirect back to a stand-alone article, then it can be brought up in that article's talk page and/or AfD. As for the example you mentioned, Koto Okubo, I haven't gone there but I recognize the person's case, and I realize she is a great example of WP:LOWPROFILE (at near end) in where her status has indeed changed over time from low (past) to high (present). She is now the 3rd oldest validated living person in the world so, naturally, there has been more coverage on this person compared to the past. Saying "once they think that no one is looking" is irrelevant and is a biased opinion anyway. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've changed my argument by leaving out a key part of the sentence. I said "Delete as one of numerous supercentenarian WP:BLP1E cases [...] not meeting WP:N." Being the shortest adult, the tallest mountain, or even the oldest person might be one event but, as you pointed out, the amount of coverage they receive makes that irrelevant because they will satisfy WP:N (and the fact that a mountain isn't a person makes the policy irrelevant anyways, but whatever). So when you include the bolded part of my sentence, it agrees with everything else you're saying. And I now always include the part getting old rather being the one event rather than individual birthday, because it always comes up in deletion debates, so it saves me the time of having to explain that later. There's no "guideline" that says this, it is my opinion (as is any application of BLP1E), albeit one that is based on a past history of prior deletions/redirects. And this isn't a forum to discuss Okubo, but I'm always happy to share my opinion on your talk page. Just let me know. Canadian Paul 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to List of supercentenarians from the United States, she's the oldest in her state, but not the oldest in the US. She is the oldest person in her state, and she is the oldest white person born in America, however I can understand how some people would want the article merged with the oldest people in America. Longevitydude (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the sources (which are in-depth) in the article. The Steve 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Robert Young, Dina Manfredini just died, if this is true then Elsie Thompson is America's oldest white person. Of course, I'm still understanding of anyone who thinks a redirect would be in order. Longevitydude (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2012/12/17/manfredini-oldest-person/1775025/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevitydude (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She is the 2nd oldest living person in the United States out of a population of over 310 million and 7th in the World (List of living supercentenarians). ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Sources establish notability; yes, it's based on her age, but I suppose that this doesn't merit a delete. dci | TALK 00:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep This page should be added to and improved, but NOT deleted. Information about the supercentenniens add credibility and are of interest to those who follow and do research in geriatrics. User:Thaddeus 05:54, 19 December (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.210.161 (talk)
Comment Yeah, this has really become a fascinating article during this AfD. We now know that she was married, is white, and (not even mentioned in the article!) likes "chicken, salmon, coffee and cookies". Oh, and she sings hymns, almost forgot that. Yep, that really is the material we need to build an interesting article for this encyclopedia. No way all that important stuff would fit into a list. And don't forget that supercentenarians are studied by real scientists (never mind that the article on Stephen Coles only shows us some lists of oldest old people in a -rather fringy- journal). Am I being sarcastic? Yes, I'm afraid I am, but I think that many people participating in this discussion here are too much in a mood of seeing this as a race with somebody being the winner as opposed to serious encyclopedia-building. In addition, the only sources that we have up till now are, as WP:N calls it, " minor news stories". Yes, they're in a reliable source (Tampa Bay Times), but these are indeed decidedly minor stories, so whichever way you turn it, this does not meet WP:N. --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell by the video of her 112th birthday that she's white, and besides, the fact that her husband serves in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, a very important and notable fact (that being white, I mean). And her husband being a representative. What with notability being inherited, that's important, too. Probably explains a lot on how she got so old! --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica was "not a serious encyclopedia", what with articles like this one, about some guy whose only claim to fame was his age. The Steve 19:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a 1911 printed (i.e static) encyclopedia bearing little relation to a modern electronic encyclopedia, and Thomas Parr not being in any way verified, and if he was being the oldest person ever then you could draw a parallel to some who is not only not even in the 100 longest lived people ever but is not even the oldest person in the United States let alone the world. But realistically, her only claim to fame is her age, and that is, as has been repeatedly decided in similar cases, insufficient for a separate article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extreme longevity meets notability criteria. --bender235 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof/link for this statement? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC. Cresix (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NYSM. Seems like this would be notable. Not sure how BLP1E applies here. Living 110+ years does not seem like one event. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not BLP1E, BLP41547E. Ryan Vesey 08:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the death of Mamie Rearden, Elsie Thompson is now the oldest living person in the United States. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. I am keeping my previous Keep vote for this article. Futurist110 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed, this discussion is now moot. Canada Jack (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Being the oldest whatever and liking cookies or singing does not make someone notable. Unencyclopedic content that should be listed in a short entry in a list article. I maintain my previous Delete vote. If that makes me the odd man out, so be it. --Randykitty (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 1779Days (talk) Wikipedia has over 4 million articles, and is, and will always be, fast growing. There is no size limit on an encyclopedia. The oldest American is an unequivocal keep. 1779Days (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for the exact same reasons we have kept Onie Ponder, Besse Cooper, Dina Manfredini and Mamie Rearden. Quis separabit? 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - If this is not notable, then delete all the Wikipedia! (Gabinho^>:) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep - As oldest person in the US and FL (and for sometime before that as a runner-up) she is notable. If niggly bits of trivia about computer games and movies qualify because they record our culture, the oldest people, who are witnesses to history, certainly do. Pleonic (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Record holders of oldest living American usually have an article. Cresix (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bimal Banerjee

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

Non-notable artist. Also, the content is almost irretrievable and it is embarrassingly bad. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've decimated most of the article. It was almost entirely unsourced by unreliable or primary sources, plus the way it was laid out was fairly promotional or at least non-encyclopedically written. It's not even a fourth of what it was, but the current state looks far better in comparison. I am finding some mention of him in some books, but much of it is brief. I do see the Who's Who mention, but I don't know if that's one of the 1% of Who's Who that actually counts towards notability or if it's one of the other 99% that simply list names for a fee. I'm currently looking into that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not Notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 December 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) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite a few mention in google books. Not bad coverage for an artist whose most productive period probably preceded the www. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 7 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, refs are passing mentions--Nixie9 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Donovan (musician)

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

Non-notable musician who fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NMUSIC, as well as WP:42, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rusted Root. Donovan himself doesn't appear to qualify for WP:NMUSIC, but his former band, having released several albums on a major label that hit a national chart (though none of that is currently verified by reliable sources, which is a problem in itself), do. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rusted Root - Google News archives provided several results, a large portion of them are only workshops and references through Rusted Root. Additionally, it seems he is now better known as a teacher than a musician and this news article from 2011 supports it. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Jim Donovan hasn't been a member of Rusted Root for several years, and merging his article with theirs makes no sense. I don't get why being known as a teacher would make a difference: Babatunde Olatunji, Sikiru Adepoju, Mickey Hart, Layne Redmond, Airto Moreira, Zakir Hussein, Cyro Baptista and many more drummers are known for their workshops. He is also a drum maker, and a columnist for Drum! Magazine. Before making a decision, I would urge you to look at his article as it was before Qworty's deletions. It can certainly use some citations for verifiability, but he is a notable musician, teacher, writer, etc. He has a new band, too: Sun King Warriors. Rosencomet (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you recuse yourself after admitting your connection to the man. The other musicians you mention are nothing more than WP:OTHERSTUFF. You don't mention a single policy or guideline or give a single reason why this person might meet the official notability standards for a musician. Your entire argument is WP:ILIKEIT. You can't just keep supporting the inclusion of people simply because they once attended the Starwood Festival, of which you are one of the principle organizers. That's not what Wikipedia is all about. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you stop attacking the character of other editors? Why don't you argue the merits of your position instead of trying to defame those who disagree with you? I didn't bring up the Starwood Festival as a reason for anything: you did. I ask that editors look at the article pre-Qworty [25] and judge on the subjects merits, and ignore the campaign of attacks Qworty is engaged in on me and any articles I have edited. You may also want to look at his activities with St. Francis University and the World Drumming Ensemble[26]. Qworty's tactics of personal attacks are not what Wikipedia is all about. Rosencomet (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not attacking the editor's character. I'm addressing the sources. By all means, look at the sources in this version [27], and look at the edit history, with the policy rationales [28] for why each source does not meet policy. The WP:COI is indeed a secondary issue, but routinely comes up when relevant to an AfD. I don't think you should be defending this article, since you wrote it and you know the man. Other, non-involved editors need to lend their eyes to it. Qworty (talk) 02:20, 1 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 16:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least two of the excised claims appear to be easily backed up with reliable sources and lay a foundation for independent notability. For example, this removal of a claim is very easily sourced via this. I'll take a closer look at some of the other removals, which are fairly dramatic. I absolutely agree that with a BLP unsourced claims should be removed, but I generally think it's a good idea to see if they can be cited before removal, and that one is very very easily cited. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current sourcing in the article supports Donovan being an award-winning musician as a solo artist, and Google News reveals an awful lot of coverage of his drum workshops. I don't think Donovan is the most noteworthy musician -- or even drummer -- in the universe, indeed he's far from it, but I agree with Rosencoment's questioning why we would redirect an article on someone with an award-winning solo career to the article on his former band, even if the former band is certainly more notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rusted Root. one or two references to a drum clinic on a boat - all other references refer to Rusted Root. Not really notable by himself, it would seem. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete When it's all said and done, the subject simply isn't notable. There also seems to be some POV and promotional issues. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jim Donovan is a relevant enough drummer and musician both solo and with his work in Rusted Root to keep up. Vittala (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to make an argument based on sourcing and/or policy? Or are you simply saying WP:ILIKEIT? Qworty (talk) 20:26, 8 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Rusted Root not notable by himself. --Phazakerley (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG with articles in the Pittsburgh City Paper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, The Charleston Gazette, and more. The Steve 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are behind a paywall. Of what I can read, there doesn't seem to be much beyond "Jim Donovan used to play in Rusted Root". Can you list the other sources? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course that's what they start with. He's most famous for being in Rusted Root for 15 years. However, they all go on to say "and now he's doing this..." I won't list all the sources, as there are over 50, and lots of them are passing mentions. Here are a few about Jim Donovan and not Rusted Root.

Syracuse New Times: But over a career spanning more than 20 years, Jim Donovan has proved himself as one of the foremost drum circle experts in the country.
Percussionist Donovan brings beat to people:His current band -- Drum the Ecstatic International -- has another vision of music, one that unfolds at a leisurely pace and is performed on a much smaller scale.
Benefits of drumming go beyond music, Jim Donovan says:Donovan has been conducting drumming workshops and clinics for 10 years. In 2008, he was named Drum Circle Facilitator of the Year by the readers of Drum! magazine.
FEDERAL GRANTS FOR ARTS COUNCIL:The project will feature nationally known artists including: spoken-word performers Mayhem Poets, steel drummer and calypso performer Andy Narell, and Jim Donovan and Drum the Ecstatic.

The Steve 21:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Passing mentions, all of them. None of this is the significant coverage that is required for notability, as encapsulated in WP:42. Qworty (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Haha really?! Two headlines (listed on the links) in reliable sources mentioning his name, and you call them passing mentions? If the subject is in the headline, it isn't, by definition, a passing mention. Is this something personal for you? Because it seems as though you didn't bother to even click on the links... The Steve 05:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes WP:GNG for his activity independent of the band. "POV and promotional issues" are no argument for deletion. - filelake shoe  14:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the multiple, independent, substantial published sources noted by The Steve. Those without HighBeam access might not be able to see the stuff, but it's surely sufficient for our purposes. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 20 December 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 Roll with It (Oasis song). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Better People

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

Non-notable B-side to an Oasis single that has not appeared on any other release by the band. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 19:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roll with It (Oasis song) or List of songs recorded by Oasis. Plausible search term but not enough coverage found to warrant an individual article. Gongshow ^Talk 05:00, 12 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roll with It (Oasis song), not notable to stand alone, but fine to redirect to the main single article. NYSMtalk page 01:03, 13 December 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 Regular Show (season 1). j⚛e decker ^talk 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeinated Concert Tickets

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

A contested prod. Non-notable episode of a TV show. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect all to Regular Show (season 1) - Although the article's author has started alot of work for users, I think the nominator has also started alot of work starting individual nominations, Just Set Up the Chairs, Grilled Cheese Deluxe, Death Punchies and The Power (Regular Show). The only options are either delete or redirect though redirecting may be slightly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Regular Show (season 1): None of the episodes are notable enough to warrant separate articles. Lugia2453 (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Rotten Regard says, this has no notability. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these are no sources in the article. Also, it is just a summary of the show plot with no explanation of why it is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Redirect to Regular Show (season 1) serves the project far better than does outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:02, 12 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Regular Show (season 1), cleary should be redirected, better alternative than deleting altogether. NYSMtalk page 01:01, 13 December 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 Regular Show (season 1). While there is a consensus that the article is not notable, no direct or indirect argument was made to the suggestion of a redirect. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Power (Regular Show)

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

A contested prod. Non-notable episode of a TV show. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Rotten Regard says, this has no notability. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve this article on the premiere episode of a notable animated series per WP:EPISODE. Even if not improved, a redirect to Regular Show (season 1) serves the project far better than does outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:28, 11 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, has no notability. NYSMtalk page 00:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited notability Nacafoil (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no evidence that there has been any coverage of this specific episode. It would seem more worthwhile to give summaries of the episodes in the article on the show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 14 December 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.

[Glockne2009-1] Moritz, S.; Glöckne, A. (Dec 2009). "A fine-grained analysis of the jumping-to-conclusions bias in schizophrenia: Data-gathering, response confidence, and information integration" (PDF). Judgment and Decision Making. 4: 587–600.

[Bortolotti2010-2] Lisa Bortolotti (11 January 2010). Delusions and Other Irrational Beliefs. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920616-2. Retrieved 13 December 2012.

[Nevid2012-3] Jeffrey S. Nevid (1 January 2012). Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-111-83549-1. Retrieved 13 December 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]