Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 December	28 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 speedy redirect to British national day. Speedy redirected as an obvious redirect target exists. In the future, redirects like this can be done without coming to AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National day for the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Does this article really need to exist? It's utter nonsense, basically (of course there are English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and indeed Cornish national days) and its supposed subject is detailed excellently in the British national day article. RobinCarmody (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:53, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mixudo[edit]

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

Promotional article about what is essentially a web hosting company with a homegrown CMS. The article appears well-sourced but upon closer inspection some of the claims are not backed up at all. A search did not reveal any substantive third-party coverage or mentions beyond blogs that seem to repeat the same self-generated content on YouTube. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Whilst I can understand your concerns with your findings, I had done similar research, but had concluded the following;

It is not a requirement for websites using Mixudo to display a 'powered by' slogan, nor any text referring to Mixudo at all. The platform had come to my attention from my Journalist years in New York, via an investment banker.

Nonetheless, I shall try to obtain further third party references in support of the page as I believe it to be a well founded software, which is, at least, non-commercial.

Kind regards MarcelBrandon (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I trimmed out the worst of the promotional fluff from the original draft, but now there's not much left. No assertion of notability per WP:GNG, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found other, very significant sources and added them to the listing, I will continue to source further items and add them if I find them. MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still fails WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An SPI that involves the author(s) of this article has been opened. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:FreeRangeFrog has been found on numerous occasions being hasty to add deletion notices and jumping to conclusions. I have, and will remain polite throughout this discussion, but there does seem to be a bias in this users character to 'destroy' efforts of new contributors. MarcelBrandon (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't reproduce my signature, it's confusing to other people. I'd suggest you stop worrying about me and go defend yourself against the sockpuppet allegations; or better yet, go source your article so other editors can decide whether or not it merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies, I had mistakenly copied more than just your name. However with all due respect, I didn't come here to become a self-advocate for silly allegations of dishonesty, because I'm not about to attempt to prove a negative. I am indeed only interested in sourcing my article, because I didn't choose to give up my time to help wikipedia by wasting my time on false allegations. MarcelBrandon (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The supposed Caldwell Banker reference leads to a wordpress-based spam board that a WHOIS search shows to have nothing to do with Coldwell Banker. Other references are either simple quotes of press releases or passing mentions of the company. I don't see where anyone anywhere has found this organization to be that noteworthy. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has a complete lack of reliable sources which actually discuss mixudo. The references are either A) affiliated with it in some way (this includes the http://coldwellbankerbcr.com site mentioned immediately above by Uncle Milty -- the whois matches http://mixudo.com) or B) sites which use mixudo but don't actually talk about. Intentionally or not, this appears to be nothing more than a promotional article for a non-notable CMS. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:15, 31 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Battista Armenini[edit]

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

Biography of an Italian 16th-century art historian/critic/academic. It relies heavily on primary sources, and I have failed to find any secondary sources to back up the notability claim. As a result, he fails the relevant notability guidelines at WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, and WP:ACADEMIC. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Author of a notable historical book about painting. Meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. The book is important enough to be included in the virtual library of the Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento (the Italian National Institute for the study of the Renaissance) [1], and 23 editions of its English translation are held by more than 350 libraries worldwide. A case of perhaps the book being more notable than the author, so no prejudice to a move to On the true precepts of the art of painting, leaving a redirect behind and incorporating the author's bio. However, even with the primary sources (and heck, this is the 15th century after all) I think a standalone bio is merited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am biased since I started the article. But this is a a theory of painting book from the sixteenth century. I mean how did a contemporary of the pupils of say Michelangelo view the master? How many such books from nearly 500 years ago are there? References to this book can give others a grounding of how artistic theory at the time. The book cites the Trecanni encyclopedia as well as the source. It perhaps is a story that should get more attention than it has received.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, notability is currently very clearly shown in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep LK (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. Inappropriate nomination from user who identifies himself as being in secondary school. Anything wrong with that? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Just because the user is in secondary school doesn't mean anything, I myself am in secondary school and I have nominated several articles, this users may have submitted this with bad-faith or just misunderstood. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We all make mistakes in our first few AFDs, no big deal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:19, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dyllan Bernardo Zimberknopf[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Biographical article about a model that fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I was unable to establish notability. Author relies on the idea that notability is inherited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BLP as well as WP:GNG. There seems to be no independent notability here, notability is not inherited. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News searches provided nothing relevant and I don't think there is enough to support a merge or redirect. Although being an Abercrombie & Fitch model is significant, there aren't any reliable sources and several models never receive appropriate attention. The newspaper sentence in the "Personal life" section is vague but from what I understand his mother is from the Walton family (of Wal-Mart). Either way, notability is not inherited through the grandmother or this alleged Walton relation. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to concur with the others after doing a search. Mabalu (talk) 17:58, 2 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Pochanski[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Oleola (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 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, badly formatted copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Role of the Feedback Loop in Solving Addiction Problems[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an essay that covers non-notable subjects. ₮๒Я ∆и∂ﾚ∑ㄚ 21:47, 27 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mothership EP[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about not-yet-released and not-yet-notable EP album. Fails WP:NALBUMS, etc. | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A complete lack of sourcing combined with WP:TOOSOON. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Procedurally, because while there is the expectation that this work will become notable, it is not yet, and has not been released, thus failing WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. In fact I would recommend to the closing admin that the title be salted until February 1, 2013, so that his fans have many, many more available references to source it when they recreate it. Maybe even a review or two. That would be nice. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a source to confirm any of the details in this article, so unless one can be found it should be deleted as failing verifiability. His website doesn't mention it. Amazon don't seem to know anything about it. The Big Beat website doesn't mention it. One track being listed as 'featuring Sonny Moore' makes me suspicious that this is a hoax, given that Sonny Moore is Skrillex. --Michig (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 29 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of football players by passing accuracy[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. C 679 20:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is pure statscruft. – Pee Jay 20:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above. Govvy (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the back of a sports trading card. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATS AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - woah, this is serious stats overload. Giant Snowman 09:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete - Good grief! I've seen some pretty ridiculous stat pages, but this might just top the list. Delete and snow close per above. Go Phightins! 02:59, 29 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. Tricky one, this. Consensus seems to be that, whilst coverage exists, it is insufficiently reliable to warrant an article. Should the subject indeed write a bestselling book in the future, pass the professor test or become notable for other reasons, the article can be recreated. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Essien Etok[edit]

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

Reason: Not a notable person. Citations and references are not notable, many of which are simply links to the subject's own blog. Many of the citations lead to unverified claims. Shritwod (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Added: I note that a request for creation was previously denied for similar reasons: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Susan_Essien_Etok Shritwod (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong SNOW keep and request to close - per [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] (and much much more) It is puzzling how an article about somebody can find it's way to AfD when there is coverage of this person on at least six major news networks across four continents, plus magazines like the London Mirror, Daily Star, LA Times, USA Today, The Sun, etc. etc. As an assumption of good faith, I am going to assume that the nominator intended to nominate a different article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly seems to pass WP:GNG and I don't think what's there is a case of WP:BLP1E at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources support notability. As I see it it's as simple as that.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete on further examination of the sources but also I note I was canvassed.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on Shritwod's talk page asking him not the do any more canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise that it wasn't permitted. I felt that the article had changed very substantially since the AfD went up, but point noted and I won't do it again! Shritwod (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Truth be told, I never heard of this person before this AfD as wierd as that may seem to some people. But now that I have looked into this, I can see why she may be upsetting a lot of Michael Jackson fans. The bottom line is that the MJ drama doesn't really come into this. She was very notable prior to ever meeting him. Things like being a Scientific Associate at the Natural History Museum in London make her very notable. And like Andy Warhol, MJ liked to surround himself with others who were notable in their own right. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I absolutely do recommend this article to be deleted. Let's look at the Michael Jackson connection first: there are absolutely no independent sources that make a connection between the subject and Michael Jackson, but there are several that carry uncorroborated claims of some sort of relationship, the primary source appears to be the subject herself. Some of these claims make no sense - she is quoted as being a medic, but she is a PhD, not a medical doctor. Secondly, this person is just a PhD holder that works in a museum, and there are lots of people like that. Although there are reliable citations for some articles, there are only some very poor secondary sources for editor work. And I don't think that being a news editor for a trade journal counts as being notable. Finally, I suspect that the person who wrote the article is either the subject or someone closely related, several edits were made by 86.13.229.160, which is an IP address in the same geographical area as the subject. Shritwod (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel. This person could be a complete fraud. I understand that. But being a fraud does not exclude her from an encyclopedia article. To perform a fraud on this scale is notable in and of itself. I never heard of this woman before today, but I see you-tube copies of her interviews, articles in the most major of publications, and sourced affirmations that she was notable prior to any association with MJ. Perhaps you are right, these sources are unreliable, but that would make her one of the most major hoaxsters in the last 100 years or so, and that by itself would warrant an article if true. There is simply no way around this. I would suggest that if you think she's a fraud that you put the info into the article, because there is no chance that this article will be deleted with all of the sourcing and citations it has from major news outlets. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is presenting conjecture as fact. The only notable thing about this person is that they claim to know Michael Jackson. But the evidence provided doesn't support that. The news reports are based on gossip and apparent self-promotion, even the news outlets use qualifying words such as "claim" to indicate that they are not asserting them as facts. Yes, you could re-write the article to say that she *claims* these things, but they should not be represented within the entry as verified facts. 02:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shritwod (talk • contribs)

Delete Agree with points made by Shritwod. Sources don't meet WP:RS. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Where are the citations for "coverage of this person on at least six major news networks across four continents, plus magazines like the London Mirror, Daily Star, LA Times, USA Today, The Sun, etc. etc."? It's ridiculous that she was offered $500,000 to be Michael Jackson's doctor when she isn't even a physician and can't "provide drugs to Jackson" anyway. The sources aren't reliable e.g.[8] or are youTube ridiculous[9], or her self published dissertation[10], or are irrelevant.[11] This is concocted, tabloid stuff IMO. Why is her height given in the infobox? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant, reliable sourcing evidencing notability. Subject is on the fringes of the Michael Jackson death aftermath-circus, and rather than genuine coverage, all we have is media repetition of a wholly unsubstantiated claim made by the subject herself, which really wouldn't indicate notability even if it could be verified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite simply, it passes the notability guidelines. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:GNG. There are sufficient citations from reliable sources to confirm the more important claims made here. The article could use more and better sourcing, but that's not sufficient grounds for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shritwod, the nominator, writes above that "I note that a request for creation was previously denied for similar reasons: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Susan_Essien_Etok". However, in all fairness, that AfC request was for a sub-stub article that had 3 sentences and two sources. It is is no way comparable to the article currently under discussion, and really shouldn't have been brought up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The deeper I look into this, the more apparent it becomes to me that Etok is a terrible self-propagandist and publicity-seeker. Her claims about herself are all over the place: businesswoman, model, intellectual property specialist, actor, with every self-generated non-reliable source the claims are different. I believe that she got a degree in materials science, was an editor for journals in that field, co-wrote some journal articles, and is (or was) connected with a museum, but almost everything else seems to be conjecture, spun out of the air. ~~Unfortunately, given that conclusion, it's very difficult for me to believe that Respect77 is not connected in some way with Etok, or is perhaps Etok herself.~~ One way or the other, the view of the subject that has emerged for me does not support her notability, and we should not reward her fantasies with an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my comments, as it's still possible Respect77 is simply a fan and not connected to Etok. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Respect77 11:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs)
Comment Shritwood - I have read your updates with interest. I can't help but feel very attacked by your comments - I am not a Michael Jackson fan/non-fan. I am the author of this article. I have no connection whatsoever with Dr Etok, I have never met here. Dr Etok has been in the local newspapers alot and most recently last week. This was my motivation for writing the article. I have also notice that Shritwood has removed genuine and credible references from the article - another editor has already commented on this. Also, many of the comments that Shritwood has made have been unfounded - the article is based on genuine quotes from credible new sources e.g HLN, ET, TMZ, The Sun, The Mirror, The Guardian, and not a blog. Shritwood may not believe the story but not one credible news source has called into question the facts of this story. It would appear to the untrained eye that Shritwood is closer to this story that meets the eye. I believe your opinion is biased.Respect77 09:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs) — Respect77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am curious, if you have no connection with Ms Etok, then how is that that you are the copyright holder of a studio photograph of the subject - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dr_Susan_Essien_Etok.jpg - which you uploaded to Wikipedia? It clearly says that you are the copyright holder, I cannot find a copy of that photograph anywhere else online. Either you are not the copyright holder, or you are related to the subject. Oh, and please don't try to insinuate that I have any interest in Michael Jackson at all, and I would appreciate it if you desisted from making vague legal threats as you did on my talk page. Shritwod (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shritwood, you have tried to bully me all because I wrote an article about someone that you don't like and who said things about MIchael Jackson that you don't like. First all you tried to get the article deleted on the basis that the article is not about someone notable, now you are claiming that I am close to the subject of the article. Please make up your mind which one. I am not close to the party in the srticle or have ever met this individual. There are 12 pages of google that have Dr Etok's picture on are you saying that you checked every single one? With respect to making legal threats, I did not threten you. You are the one who has been theatening me. Other editors have noted your behaviour. You have spent the last 24hours focused on killing my article at the bequest of Michael Jackson fansRespect77 18:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs)

Respect77, perhaps you should take a leaf out of your username before you make wild accusations. Let me answer your questions point by point. 1) I don't care about Michael Jackson one way or another, I noticed the article because a link was added to the "Notable People" list in the town where I live. 2) I believe that you are both close to the subject of the article and the subject is not notable. 3) Yes, I checked all the photos, but you claim that you own the company that took it. You also claim that you downloaded it from the subject's web site. Which is it to be? I sent an email to the copyright owner to clarify. 4) You are threatening me now, you threatened me when you said "You have also made some comments in the article for deletion section about the subject in the article that could land you in legal hot water" on my talk page. 5) I am attempting to have the article removed because I believe that it is an abuse of process. Shritwod (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another question for Respect77 - you say that "Dr Etok has been in the local newspapers alot and most recently last week". I checked the websites of Bedfordshire on Sunday, the Luton News, Herald & Post, the Luton and Dunstable Express, Bedford Times & Citizen, and The Comet (the local newspaper for Hitchin where you claim that the business you own is based) and I can't see any mention of Ms Etok since September 2009. I can't find any press reference at all since this article in March 2012 - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2605269/Michael-Jackson-wanted-British-doctors-baby.html (which contains many unverified claims). Perhaps I missed all the articles in the local press? Can you give me some pointers? Shritwod (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we don't seem to be getting many replies from the original author, but here's another question.. you say "I am not a Michael Jackson fan/non-fan", but if I type your editor name (Respect77) into Google.. well, what do you see? That's quite a coincidence. Is there some meaning the the username that I'm not getting? It must also be a coincidence that the subject of the article was born in 1977? Shritwod (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - comments like She was very notable prior to ever meeting him. Things like being a Scientific Associate at the Natural History Museum in London make her very notable are complete jokes, and show a total lack of understanding William M. Connolley (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please inform us William Connolley what a Science Associate at NHM is. For your information, I have verified this with NHM and it is an accolade bestowed upon external researchers in recognition of their work. Science Associate is not a job title given to an employee at NHM Respect77 11:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I can find no such reference to her being a Science Associate at the NHM on their own web site. Please provide a reliable citation. Shritwod (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO and WP:GNG both require sources where the person is the subject of the article - you can't be notable just for being somone's friend. Looking at the sources, this in the Guardian is probably the highest quality source, but only mentions Etok very briefly. Sources that are more directly about her (but still really about Michael Jackson) like this and this are based off interviews that Etok gave to tabloid sources such as The Mirror and Entertainment Tonight - not what we want to be using as sources for BLPs or to establish notability. None of the references in the 'Early life and career' section are sufficient to establish notability and WP:PROF is clearly not met either - she has an h-index of 2!. SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to Michael Jackson: no convincing claim made of notability with respect to anything other than Jackson's death.TheLongTone (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore my previous post - I do not appreciate having my posts removed from this discussion, nor do I wish to discuss this topic on my talk page. This discussion will remain here, or I will cease to participate in it, as there is no reason for me to make comments if they are simply going to be erased by others. Thank you and please restore my post. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was deleted because you copied another editor's question to you without his permission to do so. You're more than welcome to move your own words, and to characterize the question asked of you in your own words, but you should never move another editor's comments without permission. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification. In all of my years at Wikipedia, I have never encountered that particular consensus, (in fact I thought that Wikipedia:Etiquette stated that it was perfectly acceptable to quote an original post in a reply). However I am very human, and prone to any number of errors and amounts of ignorance, and your reputation is golden. I am sure that there is a very good rationale for the action, therefore, I will only say that another editor attempted to carry this discussion onto my talk page, and I moved the conversation back here where it was then deleted by the same editor. I will not restore it, as I did not erase it, but those interested should have no trouble finding it in the archive. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay I could point you to a number of people who would dispute that my reputation is "golden", but my thanks anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: you can quote, but you can't move the comment in its entirety - at least that how I understand it. In any event, all one has to do is ask if it's OK, and then you can use the entire comment. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I think the "quoting" refers to a talk page reply, not moving a quote from a talk page to a project discussion. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not have an argument about it. None of this is worth that. I asked you to restore my comments. You have chosen not to do so. I am sure that you have your reasons. I accept them. It doesn't mean we have to dislike one another or anything like that. You seem like a decent sort of person to me, a good Wikipedian. So no worries! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about moving quotes was meant to be informative and not argumentative. I am restoring your comments as requested:

(restored comments by Sue Rangell)

Oh no not at all. But thank you for asking. All of the arguments in favor of deleteing the article have to do with her being a fraud, which may well be true. (I really wouldn't know, I actually know nothing about the subject) However, notability has nothing to do with any of that. Fraud or not, she has had independent coverage from reliable sources, and in the end that is what will matter. The article has no chance of being deleted, no matter how many angry Michael Jackson fans join in. The final consensus will come down to how much coverage this person has recieved, right or wrong, and she has recieved quite a bit. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge To Death of Michael Jackson. I suggest a compromise here that will enable us to keep some of the relevant information in the article and dispell the issues of COI and notability. Let's look at the facts:

* That this person was involved in the investigation(s) surrounding the death of Micheal Jackson is not under scrutiny here; that fact can be easily sourced.

* Her relationship with Michael Jackson cannot be established as a fact since all sources on this merely quote her, as journalists are wont to do. However, that is irrelevant because we all know that notability is not inherited.

* Her notability prior to Michael Jackon's death is in my opinion not enough to get past WP:GNG. I am reversing my earlier !vote here, since it was made in the belief that this was the case. She does not meet WP:PROF or any of the other critera, as a journalist, or scientist or anything else.

* If her standalone notability is not enough to get through the GNG threshold, then this becomes a clear BLP1E issue, and as such the bio would merit deletion.

So, what we sometimes do in these cases is to simply merge the non-biographical information about the involvement in the event into the even't article itself. As with other BLP1E's, at this point it's my opinion that this merits no more than a sourced paragraph in the Death of Michael Jackson article. I am volunteering to perform the merge. Two final things:

* I agree with the suspicions that other editors have raised about the involvement of the article's creator with the subject. The inclusion of Ms. Etok's height and the names of her parents in the infobox, plus the existence of a studio-quality photograph that is tagged as having been submitted to WP:OTRS is another red light here. However, COI or whatever this is is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since we're not discussing who wrote the article or who provided the image, but whether or not the subject's bio merits inclusion.

* To the claims of canvassing - yes, I was "canvassed" in the sense that I was asked to revisit my opinion in the light of additional information, and I thank User:Shritwod for having done so. I am always willing to revisit an AFD !vote, because the point of the deletion process is not to get rid of stuff, but to find reasons to keep it.

Maybe this isn't what the warring parties are looking for, but it's a good compromise, I think, and one that has precedent in AFD. And all of you need to chill out, too. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any content worth merging? The Jackson trial judge "excluded a number of defense witnesses, including Etok, from testifying at the trial on the grounds that the subject matter of their testimony was sufficiently convoluted, distracting and detracting as to substantially outweigh any probative value whatsoever": the allegation that Jackson offered her a loads of money for drugs is based solely on her saying so, and rather than denigrating Jackson or whatever (I am not a hysterical fan) is actually a claim for significance on Etok's part. Incidentally, what has she been doing since 2007, apart from possibly knitting socks for Bubbles?TheLongTone (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions - I think that some people are not understanding what notability actually means. In Wikipedia, it means, and I quote from the guidelines, "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources" Now compare that to one of literally thousands of articles out there such as this: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/P25xMPEUly_/Dr+Etok+at+LAX Yes, yes, I have heard the cries of "unreliable source", "fraud", etc. It would not suprise me one bit if she is a fraud, most of these kinds of people are. But this particular fraud has been in literally thousands of news articles, TV, radio, NEWS magazines, etc etc. (Major names, not just tabloids) She's writing a book that will be a bestseller. She has accolades from the London Museum of Natural History, etc. but none of that matters. The woman, (Yes probably a fraud!) is the media equivalent of an atom bomb, she clearly cannot be ignored. There is absolutely zero doubt that she has "recieved significant attention from independent news sources". Can anyone argue this? She meets all notability guidlines unless you begin wikilawyering. That is why this article is a Snow Keep, and as time goes on, well, wait until her book is out, it will all start all over again. Can you, in your heart of hearts, truly believe that she is not notable, even if she's a complete and total fraud? If the accusations against her are ever proven to be true, she would certainly be notable as a great hoaxter, as the fraud itself would be notable at this point. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue: No one can argue with your perception of the article or the subject's notability, but you should take a look at WP:SNOW and the circumstances in which it can be applied. While it surely is possible that the article will be kept -- although the consensus seems to be moving in the other direction -- "SNOW" just does not apply, since there is no unanimity, and the fate of the article is not a "foregone conclusion", as required for a SNOW close.
We also generally do not keep articles on the basis that there might be notability in the future. If that happens, the article can be re-created at that time, but we usualy don't keep it around on the off-chance that it might pass our guidelines in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am well aware of Wikipedia proceedures. But there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this article being deleted. It is a foregone conclusion, even if a few canvassed editors and Michael Jackson fans cannot see it. If someone spends their time in a swarm of Paparazzi, they are probably notable. This article should have never been brought up for AfD, and all of the "She's not notable!", and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and unsubstantiated claims of "fraud", etc., etc. will not offset the deluge of media that surrounds this woman. It doesn't matter if half of them are simply repeating her words. It doesn't matter if she is lying, etc. What does matter is that all eyes are on her. It's a media circus, and that makes her notable, now, at this moment. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say for the moment that you are right, and there is a "snowball's chance in hell of this article being deleted (I'm not an admin, but I don't think that's the case, but let's take it as given for now) - that doesn't equate to a "snow keep" close, it equates to a "no consensus", an entirely different thing.

If I may also argue the article's content, the problem with it is that all the coverage -- even that which comes from normally reliable sources -- is ultimately based on Susan Etok's own claims. In the wake of Jackson's death, and the trial of the doctor, there was the usual media frenzy, and pretty much anyone who seem to have even the merest sliver of legitimacy could get their 15 minutes of fame by giving out interviews, which were then used as the basis for more interveiws, etc. In the new media ecology, once something is "out there", even those media outlets that should know better will pick up the reports and repeat them, and the scandal-mongering entertainment press will report just about anything which will get a headline and keep people watching or reading. We, however, are an encyclopedia, and we have a much higher standard - or should, and do most of the time. Since we mostly deal with these things after the fact, we have the time to evaluate the quality of these reports to see if they have real roots, or are essentially self-generated. In the case of Susan Etok, everything seems to emanate from her - even the "legal filings" in the doctor's trial are based on her statements to the defence, and the judge did not find them credible enough to allow the jury to hear them.

The mere existence of a media circus doesn't make her notable, although if it was extensive enough (and, believe me, whatever "circus" there was was entirely minor and not teally of note) the circus itself might be notable, but that's not the case here, and if it was, it wouldn't necessarily make her notable per se.

As for her being a world-class hoaxer, I'm afraid she's really small potatoes. She got a bunch of people who will print anything to print her claims, but it really doesn't look as if anyone involved in serious journalism was taken in by her. I'm afraid that even as a liar, she is hardly notable at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC):[reply]

Well, you certainly make a well-thought-out and eloquitely spoken argument. Obviously I have to disagree with you this time around. Ultimately an admin will come along and either keep or delete this, and on we will all go to another adventure, correct my friend? Feel free to drop by my talk page and say hello. I have to travel in the morning. Be well. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll agree to disagree, absolutely no problem with that. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claims that Ms Etok makes of being a long-time friend of Jackson's may well be true, but there are no reliable citations to back it up. I could post on my blog that I am Elvis Presley, it does not mean that I could cite it in a Wikipedia article about myself. Every single reference seems to go back to unverified claims by Ms Etok having done this and that. But the real danger that Wikipedia faces is this - the article as originally written unequivocally says that she was a friend of Jacksons and makes several other attempts to reinforce that view, despite there not being any strong references to support those claims. As we all know, Wikipedia is often the first stop for journalists in a hurry who don't tend to question what they are reading, and some of them would repeat the claims with no further questioning. Then what do we get? Yes, we get an apparently independent news article claiming that she was a friend, and that's the start of a circular reference of a self-reinforcing "factoid" that was never properly proven. And given the evidence of the copyrighted studio photo, it seems extremely unlikely that editor Respect77 is unconnected with the source, and if that is the case then it might be argued that this is an attempt to manipulate the encyclopaedia, which is obviously something that we don't want. Shritwod (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, I've read your comments quite closely but there are some things I just don't understand. One is that you say that "She's writing a book that will be a bestseller", but I wonder how you know that for certain? Yes, a best-selling author would likely pass notability criteria, but she is not a best-selling author at this date. Secondly, who are these "Michael Jackson" fans? Which editors are you referring to? Thirdly, what is this deluge of media? Google news throws up two articles for the whole of 2012, only one of which might be citable. Are two articles in 2012 "the media equivalent of an atom bomb"? Shritwod (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the sources on her article, meets the GNG. Likely meets WP:Academic based on her Google Scholar results, which also back up her scientific credentials. The Steve 08:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those Google Scholar results show a grand total of 19 citations to her work. A pass of WP:Academic generally requires many hundreds of citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no specific numbers ever given. However, I suspect you're exaggerating when you say "many hundreds". Also, citation rates differ for different disciplines. In addition, Google isn't exactly comprehensive in all disciplines. I will wait for someone who has alternate access to academic databases before I decide. Note that this doesn't change the fact that she meets the GNG from news sources. The Steve 09:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My quick google scholar indicates that she has 2 papers (using yours, I see 4, with another couple of greyish ones). That's a clear fail (either way) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(@Thesteve) There's no need to wait for someone else with access to academic databases - I just checked Web of Science for "Etok S*" and it lists fifteen papers with citation counts of 11, 4, 1, 1 and the rest zero. Scopus lists six papers with citations of 14, 6, 1, 1, 0, 0. That is way, way below what is required for a pass of WP:PROF in any field. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Very good. Now, for comparative purposes (and because I'm interested in such things) can you name 2 notable Materials Scientists and give their citation numbers. Thanks! The Steve 09:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be getting a little off-topic. The long-standing convention is that h-index of 10 to 15 is the lower minimum (i.e. at least 100 to 200 citations) and this person is nowhere near these figures (and these are the GS numbers, not the more conservative WoS numbers). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment [12] and [13] are informative about the subject, curious that no mention of this activity is made in the article.TheLongTone (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quote possible that I'm missing something. but I don't see in TheLongTone's links anything pertinent to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She has set up some kind of media consultancy business. Such people are likely to promote themselves, calling the motivation behind the creation of the article into question. I would expect this activity to be mentioned in the article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see "Essien" and "Essien IP and Company", but I don't see any specific connection to Susan Essien Etok. Again, is there something I'm missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am similarly perplexed. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have to click the "People" tab in the second link. Didn't realise the link was not a direct connection. The company is cited as source by the imdb entry.TheLongTone (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that just now; I wish you'd made that explicit earlier. So other than naming Susan Etok as a (the) director, the link doesn't have any information, although "IP & Media Ltd." would seem to imply an intellectual property & media consultancy. Since she has no training in intellectual property law, and her media experience appears to be in putting over her fantasies to the media, I wish the best of luck to anybody who hires her as a consultant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a celebrity gossip site at essientv.com run by the subject. Shritwod (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the fact that she is so NN that no-one can work out her current occupation relevant? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very.TheLongTone (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no actual claim for notability in light of WP:NOTINHERITED, re Michael Jackson. Even the webpages and tabloid sources that named her solely in relation to Jackson's passing don't clear WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Also, WP:PROF is not satisfied, as indicated above. Agricola44 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The sources that mention her in passing don't seem sufficient to claim notability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't even come close to meeting the general notability guidelines. It's just a lot of tabloid regurgitated speculation and gossip. Rotten regard 01:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - snow speedy as per previous comments - but as soon as the seven days is up also support - Youreallycan 22:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Claiming to be a friend of someone notable does not make you notable too.Theroadislong (talk) 23:22, 1 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Sports Academy[edit]

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

Principally promotional material and no indication that this topic has been covered in independent sources. C 679 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 20:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The material has been at leat in part copied from their web site. It's done with permission so it is't a copright violation, but that does mean the article is promotional to the point that I'm severely tempted to nomiante it for speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 2 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HSBC money laundering hearings by the US Senate[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER nor is it a vehicle for propaganda or showcasing. The articles subject does NOT seem be an WP:EVENT which will have any enduring historical significance or have any significant lasting effect. Wikipedia is NOT a repository for every senate hearing in existence. Seems to already be a contentious addition/edit war on its relevant page, HSBC and certainly doesn't warrant a standalone article. Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It merits a paragraph on the relevant page but nothing more. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KTC (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Harry. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to HSBC money laundering. This is a massively notable( as well as important) topic. But the current article already covers more in the Senate hearings specifically and there's no reason to be unduly restrictive with the name. The historical significance of this event is clear from sources given and dozens more that are out there. groupuscule (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After lengthy discussions and consensus, this topic consists of 4 or 5 sentences on the relevant HSBC page. Hardly warrants its own standalone article--Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While consensus at HSBC may have been to limit this topic to 4 or 5 sentences, it's a major event and deserves coverage. RogierBrussee listed some of the key reasons over on that talk page. To quote the first point of their summary: "This so called "incident", was practice over a 10 year period involving knowledge of senior staff. It involved billions of dollars in drugs money, illicit trade with rogue countries, business with terrorist financers and clearing hundreds of millions in phoney traveller checques." This piece in the New York Times makes clear the notability of this event: it's both recordbreaking and has raised major controversy over whether a bank can be 'too big to jail'. More:

"HSBC to Pay Record U.S. Penalty", Wall Street Journal
"HSBC: Too big to jail?", CNN Money
"Key players", described in The Guardian
Overall there is lots and lots of coverage.

So, yes, this definitely should be a standalone article, especially if there's not enough space to cover it on the main HSBC article. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I am still !voting delete, I don't like Hu's throwing around of the term consensus in relation to what [I assume] is the limited discussion on the Talk:HSBC page. AfDs provide a centralized place to have consensus and poisoning the well with "we already met consensus" when I don't see it, doesn't help further the discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree. I should add that I'm willing to contribute substantial revisions & research for a new page at (possibly) "HSBC money laundering". Should I go ahead and make this happen so people can see what a new page might look like? (Of course others can contribute also.) I'm quite sure there's enough material out there to justify a full article on this topic. groupuscule (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 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 Withdrawn - Thanks to XLR8TION and Cavarrone for their improvements to the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Weston[edit]

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

Newly created biography of recently deceased porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Portuguese and Italian Wikpedia have article on subject confirming notability. His death has been covered a lot in gay media due to the spread of HIV in videos where unprotected sex has been glorified. --XLR8TION (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:PORNBIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per meeting WP:PORNBIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The title of Gayvn Performer of the year appears to be significant enough to justify the notability of this actor per WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO criteria, and after his death portraits of him appeared in a number of "mainstream" (as not porn-related) gay and LGBT publications (ie Edge, Queerty, The Sword, Pink News, Gay News and so on), so also WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are clearly met. Cavarrone (talk) 06:08, 29 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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Temptation (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template restored after removal by main contributor The Banner _talk 19:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for continued improvements per WP:NRVE and let editors get to it in due time. I immediately found a Variety review. It seems brand new editor DouglasTheMovieGuy actually was trying to contribute and expand the article,[14] but was blocked for apparently not understanding why his work was reverted and for his reverting in response rather than involve in dialogue. Yes, his plot was overlong... and yes, he did not respond to the repeated warnings on his talk page. I would be willing to unblock him myself if he were to ask and promise to read WP:PRIMER, WP:NF, WP:RS, MOS and MOS:FILM before returning to editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But he ended with vandalising my userpage]... That was clearly too much! The Banner _talk 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC) at that time I was not at home, so I have never seen the edit that got him blocked until some time later.[reply]
  - Newbie. If he apologizes and promises to be patient and constructive... we just might have a decent editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor article, but not beyond rescue. The Banner _talk 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable film. DanLancaster (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Variety review and the following print sources. Doubt it will be more than a Start-class article, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 00:15, December 29, 2012‎

"Tonight's drama almost rises above its lurid premise. A divorced caterer, her 16-year-old daughter and mom's 'fantastic' lover slip into a sticky domestic triangle and endure the explosive consequences. Beverly D'Angelo brings emotional complexity to passionate pastry chef Jesse Larson, torn by desire, guilt and resentment. 'I'm going through my second childhood,' she says. A strict, overbearing mom in her 40s, Jesse tries to control restless, lonely, asthmatic Jade. Jenny Lewis from 'Brooklyn Bridge' and 'Shannon's Deal' embodies sexual confusion as Jade, an insecure teen with a glum outlook. 'Silk Stalkings' dropout Rob Estes is suitably arrogant as lusty restaurateur Billy Stone, a divorced dad who wants to be Jade's stepfather. He's younger than Jesse, and she calls Billy her 'warden.' He demands 'constant' attention. He gets more than he can handle."^[1]
"CBS has a potboiler at 9 p.m. Wednesday on KSTW-TV - 'Sweet Temptation,' basically a reworking of the Joan Crawford classic, 'Mildred Pierce.' Beverly D'Angelo (whom I admire greatly and who deserves much better than this) has the Crawford role with Jenny Lewis as her sulky teen daughter (originally Ann Blyth) and Rob Estes (of 'Silk Stalkings') as the cad (originally Zachary Scott) who romances both women. This new version hasn't the class of the original."^[2]
"Sweet Temptation (3/6, 9 to 11 PM; CBS) is no less than Rob Estes deserves for having quit on Silk Stalkings. So he feels neglected by older girlfriend Beverly D'Angelo, too busy with her catering business. So does Beverly's teenage daughter, Jenny Lewis, feel neglected, as well as horny, even though she has a collie to play with. She plays instead with Rob. Everybody will live unhappily ever after."^[3]

^ Grahnke, Lon (March 6, 1996). "Teen Tempts Mom's Boyfriend As `Sweet' Romance Goes Sour". Chicago Sun-Times.
^ Voorhees, John (March 4, 1996). "Three good-looking series get rolling on ABC, CBS". The Seattle Times.
^ Leonard, John (March 11, 1996). "John Leonard's Video Notes". New York.

Keep - Per all above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, per sources found by the above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Samuel Gibert Scott[edit]

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

Seems to be notable neither as a reverend nor as an ornithologist, and so fails WP:BIO in general and WP:RELIG/N in particular. Who's Who tended to include members of the clergy fairly indiscriminately until recently, and isn't much use in settling the question of notability. Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in such an august journal (and a reliable a source) as The Ibis satisfies our requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that, but the Ibis at that time seemed to publish perfunctory obituary notices of all its members. The obituary itself is here, and certainly doesn't suggest that he was in any way notable as an ornithologist, noting merely that "he never published in ornithology". Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single obituary isn't enough to make him noteworthy. Membership in the British Ornithologists’ Union alone is not enough to make him noteworthy. And his vacations to Scotland to observe birds and to fish certainly don't convey notability. As mentioned in the article "he did not contribute to ornithological literature". Also: ROTFLOL that anyone would refer to Ibis as "august" :) Majoreditor (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same reasons as Majoreditor. The only independent source is Scott's obituary in a specialist publication. The article makes no particular claim of importance. Sionk (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO notability guidelines, notability being neither claimed nor any shown. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also note mention in All about Battersea and Halhed. --No unique names 05:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN as a clergyman, since he was only a canon; NN as an orthnologist, since he never published. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 29 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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wenvoe Castle Golf Club[edit]

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

Unremarkable club - the claims to notability are weak. No evidence that a notable competition has been held here. WIkipedia is not a directory. We do not need to have every single minor golf course listed. Biker Biker (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It isn't a minor golf club. Its one of the most notable in the county actually. Wenvoe Castle and grounds has historical significance in the county, It has surely hosted numerous events in Wales, such as the Welsh foursomes Championship here. 87 different newspaper article hits.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per demonstration of notability by Dr. Blofeld. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has 3 references meeting the WP:GNG Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If not kept, merge with Wenvoe. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 1 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aylesbury Vale Golf Club[edit]

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

Unremarkable club. No evidence that a notable competition has been held here. Biker Biker (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:GNG due to two independent sources included. It does not matter if notable competitions are held there or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or merge with Leighton Buzzard or the parish in which it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 29 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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunstable Downs Golf Club[edit]

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

Unremarkable club - the claims to notability are weak. No evidence that a notable competition has been held here. Biker Biker (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence was 2 seconds away, it hosted the British PGA Matchplay Championship (News of the World matchplay, plenty of sources to indicate notability.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the good doctor. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:GNG due to three independent sources included. It does not matter if notable competitions are held there or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why Biker thinks he's doing cleanup duty but golf courses are very poorly covered on wikipedia and if you look on google maps form a major part of the United Kingdom around towns, I believe that most clubs are worthy of coverage and will have coverage in reliable publications whether its books or local newspapers. I consider them geographically, and in the case of the Wenvoe Castle club historically notable to the county. I think that if wikipedia is truly to be a comprehensive source we'd have decent articles on many golf courses in each county.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Dunstable. Hosting a PGA tounament takes it beyond the run-of-the-mill. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that it passes WP:GNG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:02, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winter (Starbucks)[edit]

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

I'm completing this nomination for an anonymous IP, which is also the same that PRODed the article in the first place. Their justification for the PROD was that he lacked notability per WP:GNG. I removed the PROD because at the time I saw enough potential notability to justify removing the PROD. After some searching, I found enough to where I personally believe the article should be kept. However to be fair, I'm completing this so there can be a proper discussion. Here is the argument on the talk page: "Formal Afd requested for this page; notability is in dispute. Article subject is trivial in nature (and also claims to be mononymous without any legal proof of such change)." Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After all is said and done with my listing this for an IP, I believe that the guy in question passes notability guidelines. Yes, the guy's bizarre drive to visit every Starbucks in the world could initially have been seen to be WP:ONEEVENT, but the media has gone back about 5-7 years after the initial reporting in 2004 to follow up on his status in 2009, with a Turkish paper running an interview with him in 2011. If that's not enough, the guy was also the focus of the documentary "Starbucked", which has received a few reviews. If not for the documentary I'd have argued for WP:ONEEVENT status as well, but all in all the guy and his documentary have received just enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to where I believe he passes WP:BIO. Being the focus of a documentary that has received multiple reviews and gaining coverage in RS is not a trivial thing. Silly and ridiculous? Yep. But then something can be silly and ridiculous and still pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah- also wanted to add that in one of the links on the article he states that he has legally changed his name to "Winter". Even if he hasn't and he's just going under the moniker of "Winter", enough articles have reported on him using only the name "Winter" that it's feasible to list the article just under that name. I also want to note that since completing this AfD nom, I've also found where he was mentioned in a Zondervan book as well as a BlogCritics review [15]Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, as shown by sources. "I don't like" the idea of drinking that much coffee, or spending one's life doing such a silly thing, but that's that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep. He's notable for a single phenomenon but has received substantial, enduring mentions by reliable sources, including a noted movie. Majoreditor (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Rename if kept): What a strange world we live in when notability can be conferred on the subject of an article merely by attempting to visit as many Starbucks as possible. The article itself is a construct under WP:SPIP. It's worth noting that although he claims to have also changed his name to the mononym of Winter, there are no independently available references to a legal document affirming this change (unlike Joanie Laurer's legal name change to Chyna), thus failing WP:NRVE as well. Regardless, if the article is kept, it is not feasible to list the article under just Winter or Winter_(Starbucks) as suggested; either an article called Starbucking or Starbucking_(movie) would suffice in its stead, since the "documentary" and activity for which such notability was asserted does not even have an article of its own.71.176.10.183 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also wondered if the article should be about the movie. If the sources mainly talk about the person as the subject of the movie, probably so. If they talk about him without the movie then he's the one that's notable. I don't think his name has anything to do with the question. If he was mainly known for his name I would not vote to keep, even if it was legally changed. BigJim707 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, the earlier articles (2004-2006) all focus on him and his Starbuck quest rather than on his name or on the documentary, which didn't really begin filming until 2006. From 2006 on there are a few sources that focus on the documentary, but almost all of them are predominantly centered around him. He gained media attention long before the documentary and even after that the documentary is usually not the main focus of the interviews or articles. It's mentioned, but it's not the bigger thrust of the articles. I did debate renaming it after the movie since it'd make for a better looking title, but most of the coverage centers on the Starbucks thing rather than on the documentary. It's kind of one of those things that isn't entirely a good fit either way. He's gotten attention for "Starbucking", but then other than the documentary name I haven't seen that term used a whole lot in the non-documentary focused articles. But in any case, he did get a substantial amount of coverage. I just didn't want to bog down the article with any more sources than I had on there already. In the end I'm just not comfortable renaming the article for a documentary that while known and gives his notability that extra push to make me fight for the article, isn't really what he's known for. He was in the media before then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: The above IP is the same one that requested the AfD. I'm not sure whether I should strike the "delete" part or not in these circumstances.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you're the one who completed it for me. Thank you. You then voted. And so did I. Not sure what the problem is, but thanks for being a good wikipedian and helping out. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that as the nominator, your delete vote is already counted into the nomination. Since I only completed the nomination, I could still do a "vote" in the bottom. I could've put it all in the nomination, but that wouldn't have been fair. :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources say he's notable, like it or not. BigJim707 (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability guidelines are intended to serve as a guideline to establish whether or not an article about a subject merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. They're not a web coverage counter. This to me is trivial and pointless, and can easily be construed as failing WP:BLP1E. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage was all lumped together in 2004 when people first started reporting on him, I'd agree that it might be a WP:ONEEVENT type of scenario. However I've found a 2011 news report about him that is fairly in-depth. There's also that documentary, which received some coverage as well. Then on top of all of that, he's been mentioned in a 2008 book. Not in a positive manner, but he's still given a fairly lengthy mention. Given that people are still reporting on him seven years later, it's hard to say that WP:ONEEVENT really applies in this situation. Most times that policy applies to people who receive a lot of coverage in a period of a few months to maybe a year or two, then only receives only a brief mention or so after that. Again, if not for the documentary then I might have been swayed, but it's hard to say that someone isn't notable when they've gotten coverage over a seven year period of time and have had a documentary based around them. I think that the documentary pushes them just above the rank of "low profile". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - 14 reliable citations proving he's a notable person? Kind of obvious of a keep, sure he seems like an unusually famous person, but his article is still well written, well sourced, and proves notability. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. fails WP:BLP1E--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, does WP:BLP1E really apply when that person has received coverage over a long period of time and has been the focus of a documentary? It's true that he's only received coverage for visiting multiple Starbucks, but he's received global coverage in RS over a period of 7 years. He's been the focus of a documentary. People are still talking about him. He gets coverage each year. Granted it's not akin to how much coverage that say, Snooki gets in a year, but he's had a handful of news sources reporting on him each year since he first got notice in 2004. I honestly think that the idea of "one event" is being a bit misused in this circumstance. People can get well known for one event, yet still pass notability guidelines. If someone can prove that the term "starbucking" is commonly used in relation to him then I wouldn't entirely mind moving it to that name, but the thing is... that term wasn't really used for him until 2007, 3 years after he was first reported on. Even now people don't really use that term in relation to him unless it's to briefly bring up the documentary. It just seems more than a little broken to say that a guy that has been reported in hundreds of news articles for his obsession over a period of 7+ years and been the focus of a documentary should be deleted for it being "one event". I know if we had a cute little term to label his obsession under then we'd probably had a lot fewer "deletes", but the fact of the matter is that we don't. We have a documentary that came about because he had been so reported on so much, but it's not the defining feature of him. He has a term that has been used, but is used in less than a third of the articles about him. (A GNews search brought up about 40-45 articles specifically using that term.) The only thing we can really use is the name he's reported most under, which is the moniker he's claimed to have had the courts approve as his legal name. It just seems wrong to redirect to a term that isn't in prevalent use or to a documentary that is more of a side-feature than anything else. Would it make for a nicer looking name or an easier search term? Yep. But is it necessarily correct to do so? I don't honestly believe that it'd be in the best interests to redirect to a term just because it looks nicer or because it makes people happier to redirect to a term rather than to a person's moniker.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also wanted to address the name issue. The guy has reported to multiple news outlets since 2006 that he's legally changed his name to Winter. Even in the early reporting on him, he's gone under the moniker of "Winter"- he just hadn't legally changed his name just yet. I've emailed him to request that he provide visual proof, but considering that there have been multiple news outlets reporting this I'm not sure how much more we need. I'd also like to state that his website has links to all of the news stations, radio stations, and other news outlets that have reported on him: [16] There is also a link to various web coverage, but most of those don't seem to be usable. I guess I just have to restate the question: at what point does being notable for one event pass WP:GNG? If a person has received somewhat regular coverage since 2004 in various sources, at what point does that pass notability guidelines? This is one of those instances where I think that the "one person one event" thing is being used a bit too broadly and I'm worried that saying "only one event so this person isn't notable unless they're one event along the lines of Lee Harvey Oswald" is being far too limiting. Sometimes a person is known for one event that is OK, maybe not something major, but is still reported on enough to where it's more than just a passing news fancy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly Lozano aka Smith got a legal name change in a Texas court (or that's what he's been telling everyone) to the mononym of Winter. Since you contacted him, he can easily post on his website a copy of the court order, or a suitably redacted ID, such as a driver license, passport or social security card with his mononym as the sole identifier, which should pass muster. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten a really quick reply so as soon as I get a confirmation that I can upload the picture to a photobucket account or otherwise show the image, I'll provide a link to his drivers license that shows that he got the name change.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a repository for such documentation that can be used for future (if not permanent) reference? There shouldn't be an issue if the subject also posts it in the section of his website for media reference, given that it is there that he also implores the media to use his assumed name. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the commons area? I'm a little weirded out by the idea of posting someone's license on there though, even with the sensitive data blanked out. I'm sort of paranoid when it comes to personal data on the web.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an image of the DL: [17] I've been given permission to put the photo in my photobucket account so it can be shown here, but if all else fails I guess I can leave it uploaded. I've got like 3-4 photobucket accounts, most of which I rarely use anymore.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DL looks, on its face, to be a valid indicator that the subject is now legally monomymous. Since you are in contact with Winter, perhaps you could suggest that he ADD the photo to his own website[18], as contemplated above? Thus, the article can be updated with the appropriate reference. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets the GNG. Life is stranger than fiction... The Steve 09:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We do not determine directly if something is notable. In particular, we don't decide if visiting a lot of Starbucks is something worthy of note. Instead, we turn to coverage in reliable sources to make that determination for us. There is certainly lots of coverage, so the question is whether this is a case of it being just a one event phenomenon. If the coverage was just a blip at the start with no sustained interest, I would support deletion on the grounds of it being one event. However, the coverage has been sustained over a period of years which for me lists it past the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 2 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 made into teabacon. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teapigs[edit]

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

Apparently fails the notability guidelines for having no reliable source. There are at least 2 blog entries ([19][20]) and reviews from users in a tea review site, though, don't know if these are reliable sources as they are user-generated. Lakokat 16:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's lovely tea but I can't find anything that looks like a reliable independent source for it. If you can, let me know and I'll change my !vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seems nothing particularly remarkable about this company. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tetley — it's a brand of theirs pretending to be an upmarket boutique. There's plenty of sources out there discussing this business strategy — I saw something about it in the press myself recently. Warden (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is this a form of advertising? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Menny Rabinovich[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ACADEMIC. His achievements consist of getting a PhD; establishing the "Intelligent Nutrition Center", which seems to have received no coverage; writing several newspaper articles; possibly contributing to the Encyclopaedia Hebraica, though this wouldn't in itself satisfy any of the notability criteria, unless he were the chief editor; and developing a dietary supplement. The latter, again, has received no coverage, except for a single article in "Shalom Life". I could find no mention of Rabinovich himself in either the English-language or Hebrew press. Alexrexpvt (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject fails multiple notability tests. Majoreditor (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes:
- The corresponding Hebrew article has been userfied for lack of notability.
- There seems to be an advertising issue here. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Now I've made up my mind. No mentions of his discoveries or inventions in anything but primary sources (i.e. vendors) and directory listings. No Google Scholar results (beware of a different scientist named G. A. Rabinovich, who also researched curcumin) other than a patent filed by him and his wife. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well written, Meny did not write a lot. But he did a lot. Please do not delete, it's not an advertisement article. Yaacov Jacobrubinovitz 14:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Jacobrubinovitz 14:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yaacov, if you can find independent sources (sources not from his blog, or from companies that sell his products) that discuss him or his accomplishments in detail, please cite them. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some things on importance in the article entry, Also the article is well written.Jacobrubinovitz 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacob, I don't see any significant changes in the article from the time it was nominated for deletion, besides for fixing some of the wording. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 00:01, 4 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Greason[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Achievements are limited to having been an associate professor at Ursinus College; being currently a visiting assistant professor at Monmouth; editing a non-notable magazine; heading a group that he founded this year; and writing several books and articles, none of which seems to have been "highly cited", much less having made a "significant impact". His journalistic activities also fail to meet the criteria set out in WP:AUTHOR. Alexrexpvt (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject fails multiple notability criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BLP --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AVOIDCOI original editor. The original suggestion for deletion that the subjects only claim to notability is having been an associate professor at Ursinus College is incorrect. He was also elected the Treasurer for the Society of American City and Regional Planning History (SACRPH), sourced in the article, a feat which would not have been possible if he had not made a "significant impact" within the field of urban planning, since it was peers within the discipline, represented by member scholars, who elected him treasurer of the organization. Also, other articles have been published on subjects who are similarly relatively young and therefore have relatively small bibliographies, such as Marc Lamont Hill whose relatively small list of works cited was presumably bolstered by appearances in media like Ebony. The claim that the subject's work has not been "widely cited" is not valid on several counts. Firstly, according to Worldcat.org's search results for Hill, his name brings up 77 results, while a search for this subject brings up 34 results. This is interesting considering that Hill is notable for writing a monograph on Hip Hop Pedagogy called Beats, Rhymes and Classroom Life, a topic which is not bound by place or time, while my subject's work about suburban and rural communities in New Jersey is WP:CARES. Assertions that the subjects work have not had a significant impact do not account for the light footprint of Urban planning in national consciousness and on Wikipedia itself. Original nom came less than 24 hours after much less complete version of article WP:CHANCE, WP:OVERZEALOUS and WP:NOTIMELIMIT.Griffin Walsh (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy WP:TLDR, Batman. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Worldcat is a list of library holdings, not a measure of the number of times a work has been cited.

(2) Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search are better, though not infallible, guides. The latter lists one paper by Greason, which has been cited once. The former has eleven listings for Greason: one is irrelevant, three are book reviews by Greason, two are articles by Greason (no citations), one is a book by someone else, and one is a book by Greason. The latter is cited at least once in this article. His work is grouped with several others in two footnotes. Choosing one of those at random, "Black Corona: Race and the Politics of Place in an Urban Community", which deals with a single neighbourhood in New York and was published nine years after Greason's work, I see that it has 280 citations. "Our Town: Race, Housing, and the Soul of Suburbia", which focuses largely on a single neighbourhood in NJ, has at least 105 citations. Even by the standards of his own discipline, he seems to be seldom cited.

(3) Anyone can join SACRPH. The board of directors has at least one assistant professor, the lowest, non-tenured postgraduate academic position. The executive has several associate professors, the lowest tenured position. I see no concrete evidence that being on the board or executive of SACRPH is equivalent to, say, a Guggenheim Fellowship or a Fellowship of a Royal Society. Alexrexpvt (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: If you use Worldcat to measure the number of holdings worldwide, you'll see that, e. g., Marc Lamont Hill has 634 holdings compared to Greason's 57. The author of "Black Corona", incidentally, has 1,914 holdings on Worldcat, and the author of "Our Town", 10,630. Alexrexpvt (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 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 Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger Than Ever (song)[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONGS this song has not charted nor has it received awards/covers by several artists. There is not substantial coverage from reliable third party references and thus an independent article is not warranted as this is a stub which is unlikely to ever grow considering that this album era is also now over. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONGS. Not going for a redirect here since the title is not a plausible search term and the article doesn't have enough history. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Fails WP:SONGS as froggy said above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 29 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. No prejudice against recreating an English-language version, if anyone can work out what the article is about. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Шаталсан хаяглалт[edit]

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

Foreign language article not translated after two weeks -- Patchy1 12:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with the nominator. Zia Khan 13:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Roman text for an article title in the English language encyclopedia is a big no-no. If it isn't transalphabetized quickly then Delete. Majoreditor (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even Google Translate can tell me what that is written in. Over at WP:PNT someone mentioned it's Mongolian, but who knows. Can't see the value in keeping this around if we can't translate it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just using a bit of linguistic nous rather than any knowledge of the language I can see that this is about hierarchical addressing in computer networks, with particlular emphasis on IP networks, and all of those double vowels, particularly the "уу"s, suggest that it's in Mongolian or a closely related language. We can't keep this unless someone who does know the language can help out, but on a quick search I can't find anything that covers the same ground in English Wikipedia, and surely hierarchical addressing shouldn't be a red link? I suppose that this amounts to a delete of this article, but this discussion does reveal the inadequacy of our nearest equivalent, hierarchical routing. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is English Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:19, 31 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Funkids[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:BAND; competed in (but did not win) Junior Eurovision Song Contest, no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Don't seem to have done anything at all since that WP:ONEEVENT of Junior Eurovision. Altered Walter (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's probably too soon to determine if this band will continue past the one event, considering they're only kids. A Google News search provided more results, some of them are English and some are not. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND by far. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. WP:TOOSOON at the very best. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:14, 29 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. The article on Ryan Young should be listed separately (if desired) as it did not garner any significant discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Willmott[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league and also fails WP:GNG due to the fact that he hasn't received any significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-league footballer who has not played at a notable level and lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. C 679 13:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG, see [21] [22] [23]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:51, 27 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, KTC (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robbie Willmott - appears to meet GNG from the sources in the article and shown here (there's a lot of them, more than enough to satisfy it, even if a few are a bit routine.), plus plays in a grey-area league under WP:FLP. Neutral on Ryan Young - but with so many appearances for Telford, I'm sure someone will be able to turn up a bunch of sources about him as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And salt because three AFDs so far. Footballer bios that fail WP:ATHLETE, quite honestly I can't bring myself to care whether they meet basic WP:GNG or not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG outweighs WP:ATHLETE... surely that's the most important guideline? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's a matter of common sense - we're creating a bio for someone whose fundamental claim to notability is being a football player, yet he/she fails at that. Unless the non-athlete notability is above and beyond routine (I mean, way above and beyond) and generally unrelated to their football career, then I tend to opt for deletion. In most cases like these it's too soon of course, and the article eventually ends up being recreated. The article(s) nominated here are basically a collection of routine coverage common to most footballers, used to pad the bios in order to prevent deletion because the author(s) probably looked at WP:ATHLETE and realized that they were on shaky ground. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I'd agree with you, as a lot of these articles are on players who have played very rarely, but these two players have a heck of a lot of appearances at certain clubs, particularly in grey-area leagues, therefore checking if they pass GNG totally valid. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the third AfD, but it has only been deleted once as the last AfD was closed as "no consensus", so no reason to SALT. And Lukeno94 is correct, the most important thing is GNG, not if a footballer played four minutes in a FPL. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - This article is like the villain from a bad slasher movie, it just won't die. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Robbie Willmott - passes WP:GNG per the sources in the article, this AfD and the previous AfD. It doesn't look like anyone has commented on ~~Luke~~ Young, so I guess he should be nominated individually. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Ryan Young, Luke Young is a totally notable player ;) Lukeno94 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry - even though I got the name wrong, my comment is still valid :P Mentoz86 (talk) 03:02, 30 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Harrison[edit]

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

Selfpublished author of dubious notability, does clearly not pass WP:AUTHOR. Any real notability seems to come from relation to Courtney Love (a case of WP:NOTINHERITED), in which case relevant information could be merged into her bio. Subject has edited the article to remove references to his complicated relationship to his daughter, and requested the article be deleted on the talkpage of User:Dougweller. This is not a tacit attempt to grant this request, but a test of whether the community finds him to be sufficiently notable to have an article. My instinct is no. Furthermore the article appears to have been created by the account User;Hankbuddha which looks suspiciously like it is also under the control of Harisson, as it has made strikingly similar edits to those of User:Stone Savant who uses Harrison's email address as its signature. IN this case the article was probably created as a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY with promotional intent. I think the best course is to delete and if notable let someone who does not have a conflict of interest eventually recreate it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 08:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I did remove the one sentence that I think was a BLP violation and had zero encyclopedic value. The padding of sources to events that aren't particularly notable in and of themselves isn't convincing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This guy has several almosts: related to a famous person, been involved with the Grateful Dead in some poorly defined capacity, and a self-published grail mythology theorist. The sources are too flimsy to support an entire page. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping that notability could be established at least based on the books, but I can't find anything that could get him past WP:AUTHOR at this point, regardless of COI or WP:PROMO issues. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't fulfill any notability standards in any category.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 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 to Shakira. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira's eighth studio album[edit]

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

Put down the WP:HAMMER! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This basically amounts to "Shakira will probably release an album next year". There seems to be nothing of any substance in there. --Michig (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shakira - doesn't matter how many sources are in there, the fact that no name exists as of yet means that this article is invalid. However, the sheer amount of sources and content here means that it probably does warrant a place in the main Shakira article. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shakira - per WP:HAMMER. Erick (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the mighty hammer. She has been saying that since the release of Sale El Sol, which was supposed to be released even before She Wolf. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect And merge whatever is salvageable that isn't a rumor. Wouldn't even recommend a redirect because of the title, except for the fact that the article is old enough at this point that we might break something if it's deleted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TOOSOON. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - WP:HAMMER. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no official album title and release date yet. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:39, 4 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Schaeffers[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL by not having played in a senior pro match, and fails WP:GNG due to the lack of in-depth sources on the web. I am also tagging the following players for similar reasons:

Phil Imray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Luke Rowe (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Michael White (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Tom Biss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lukeno94 (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Tom Biss and Luke Rowe have both played in senior professional games for Wellington Phoenix.Simione001 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the AFD tags from the 4 additional articles - they were not tagged by the AFD creator, and they were tagged after the discussion had started. Please nominate them properly and seperately. Giant Snowman 13:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rowe and Biss, as they have both played in the A-League, meaning they meet WP:NSPORT.
Delete the rest. They fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 20:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 20:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article claims he has played two matches for New Zealand A, doesn't that confer notability ? Mentoz86 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand A is not the same as New Zealand national football team; instead it is their B-team. Turkey have called their version the A2. Giant Snowman 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 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 19:40, 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, —Theo polisme 17:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lukeno94, player has not played in any notable matches. C 679 09:44, 23 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, Mediran (t • c) 03:00, 27 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 27. Snotbot t • c » 05:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Why has this debate been relisted? There are 3 DELETES.Simione001 (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe my comment above is the reason for the three relists, but as GiantSnowman stated, he has not been capped for New Zealand and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG as the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as mentioned ample times already, the subject fails notability guidelines due to not playing at a notable level. C 679 19:53, 30 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 Lower level design. No clear consensus regarding High-level design; after discussion with the nominator we've agreed that a second AFD is preferable to relisting. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lower level design[edit]

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

This subject isn't notable. It is a concept in design, but not so significant as to require its own article, especially because the boundary between low and high level design depends largely on context. This can be dealt well enough, perhaps better, in other design articles that provide needed context. Sancho 05:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete Lower level design, because it's a neologism at best and WP:OR at worst. However, Keep High level design, since it's a valid term, widely used and easily sourced (although it's a mess right now). I don't know that it was a good idea to nominate these two in the same AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable WP:NEO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 2 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 Weak Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coles Whalen[edit]

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

Deprodded with "sources" that are just WP:ROUTINE coverage of her concerts. I found no substantial coverage, just "Coles Whalen will be in concert at X" and a couple blog sources that are on the fence at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This seems very borderline re. notability. There are a few sources that are arguably significant coverage such as the Out Front article cited, This from the Park Record, a shortish Allmusic bio, and this appears to be a newspaper article about the singer. There are also examples more routine coverage such as Des Moines Register, Broadcast Newsroom, and Southeast Missourian. --Michig (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My view is similar to Michig's. While no one of these sources is extremely strong, I am swayed by the fact that there is coverage in multiple sources from different regions as well as a brief, but substantive, AllMusic bio. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above, and some additional sources, not available online: Milvy, Erica. "Songs for Sensational Kids Vol. 1: The Wiggly Scarecrow", Parenting 19. 8 (Sep 2005): 237; and Coffey, Kevin. "On her way to a breakout: Coles Whalen returns to Omaha ahead of a couple of CD releases, including one with a major label", Omaha World-Herald 18 Dec 2008: go.16 Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:25, 29 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:SNOW. Warden (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Soltis[edit]

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

This person has no reliable third-party sources attesting to his notability in any way. His FIDE "card" is not a source for anything at all, and some website called "Chessgames.com" is certainly not a reliable source. Furthermore, the information in either "source" does not establish why the subject is notable or special either. This article may be blatant advertising for his self-published works. If not blatant, it still most certainly is advertising.

The only thing cited to any source at all is that the subject is a "grandmaster." That in itself does not beet the notability criteria. Now take out all the unsourced stuff and what do you have? A five word article that goes like "Andrew Soltis is a Grandmaster." So thus delete please.OGBranniff (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sorry, nothing personal, but (to quote Dennis Brown) "I'd be lying if I didn't say" I couldn't stop from being amused, over the idea the Soltis bio would be considered "non-notable". (I know that's not an argument, and I haven't reviewed the status of the article regarding it's supporting refs, but this should be a SNOW KEEP, if that's possible in AfD, and anyone involved in chess for any length of time will say the same, I'm quite sure.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs improvement (especially more references), but the subject is notable. Soltis would qualify as chess player and also independently as an author. Quale (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ihardlythinkso and Quale. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a Chess player as well and I know very well who Andrew Soltis is. The problem is, here on Wikipedia, we can't take our insider knowledge from our "field" (it seems in all our cases, we are Chess players) . . .to deem someone "notable." There has to be outside reliable independent sources to back that up. If Soltis does qualify as a "notable" player there should be reliable sources that can vouch for his fame, notoriety, whatever. Like, we don't have problems finding third-party sources that vouch for Bobby Fischer, Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, etc. The fact that such sources are not extant for Andrew Soltis means that he is not notable under wikipedia standards. If he is not notable under Wikipedia standards then his article should be deleted. User:Ihardlythinkso even admitted he hadn't "reviewed the status of the article regarding it's [sic] supporting refs..." If he had done so, he would have had no choice but to "vote" Delete, per Wikipedia standards and rules. OGBranniff (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. Content can exist on WP without supporting reliable refs, if reliable sources are available in the print world. (And for Soltis, there's no doubt about that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What are you talking about? Content CANNOT exist on WP without supporting reliable refs in articles on living persons. And if there are "sources available in the print world," where are they? Why are you not finding them and inserting them into the article here? OGBranniff (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OGBranniff, Soltis has even got an entry in The Oxford Companion to Chess (Hooper, Whyld), a "bible" of chess notability. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Everyone saying that Soltis is "notable" without providing sources or rationale is just waking the specious argument of WP:Clearly notable, which is an argument with no argument. As far as User:Ihardlythinkso's statements, I agree, sources in the "print world" are more than sufficient to establish notability. The print world is much more legitimate than the internet world, I would say. The problem here is, nobody has bothered to research these supposed "print" sources and include them in the article. I guess "Ihardlythinkso" hardly thinks he's capable of adding such print sources to the article. Unless someone finds legitimate print sources, and inserts them into the article in a manner that proves notability, this article is going to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGBranniff (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. The article is almost certain to be kept even if it isn't improved at all. Despite this it would certainly be best if the article were improved. Since you admit the subject is notable, you should understand that it is frowned upon to nominate an article for deletion that you know to be notable just to try to force others to improve the article. Check WP:BEFORE, section C1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That certainly applies here. Quale (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I knew the subject was "notable." The closest I might have come to that is me saying that I'm a Chess player and thus knew who the subject was. That's about it. Never said he was notable. OGBranniff (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you wrote that I believe Quale was referring to: "I agree, sources in the 'print world' are more than sufficient to establish notability." OGBranniff, I'm more than capable of researching and adding supportive refs, so I don't appreciate the presumptuous insult ("I guess 'Ihardlythinkso' hardly thinks he's capable of adding such print sources to the article."). BTW I agree with others the article needed improvement, in case you thought otherwise. I wasn't interested to do myself due to time & interest considerations, is all, and don't deserve your aggressiveness as a result, it's uncivil, please straighten up. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the lazy pompous one... OGBranniff (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All you're showing w/ comments like that, is that you'd make an excellent WP Administrator. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I sympathize with both sides of this debate, as I do find this subject to be obviously notable but understand the need to demonstrate the bona fides when challenged. I've added seven cites to the article, and I assure you that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands more available from RS sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep he is certainly notable, being in paper encyclopedias. I'm away from home right now, so I can't provide refs. Article does need improvement, though. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grandmasters have generally been kept, and this is hardly an anonymous grandmaster either. Since Soltis's column features in every Chess Life, and the subject has authored several books that have been independently reviewed, I would imagine that this is a bio that people would want to look up. The article is not a very good one (which is in part my fault, the person behind the IP who initiated this article is me, before I registered an account). However, an entry in the Oxford Companion, and Hobbes Goodyear's improvements to the article demonstrate that the subject passes the WP:N threshold. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:53, 28 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone 6[edit]

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

Sorry, I must have been logged out when I was editing at my workplace. Anyways, I believe this article should be deleted as it contains no references and is based on pure speculation, which constitutes WP:CRYSTALBALL. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 04:04, 27 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 27. Snotbot t • c » 04:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON spectacularly. Anyone vaguely familiar with Apple will realize that the next iPhone may not even BE the iPhone 6... There's not a single reference in this article, and it's uncategorised... in fact, I'm staggered it even existed as a redirect in the first place, let alone one created in 2011! The article was changed from the redirect by an IP, was reverted to a redirect, then re-reverted to the IP's change by a different IP - so bin this, it's not a valid redirect link, and SALT it for goodness' sake. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Who knows what Apple will choose to call the next iPhone? Delete. Majoreditor (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTAL PianoDan (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Autarch (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced. For all we know, it could be called iPhone 5S. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:19, 29 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 but with severe reservations. The participation here is split evenly (7 keep, 7 delete) and it is normally a straightforward "no consensus" if both sides of the argument have merit and support for each position is even. But this is a close call, and in one sense I feel I am closing this with the "wrong" outcome in the sense that I would have voted delete had I participated in the discussion. However, there is enough merit in the "keep" argument for me to close this discussion with the standard "default to keep", albeit not enough that would have convinced me to vote keep.

After looking at the discussion and the article, my gut instinct was that the "delete" side had a much stronger case. Basically the problem is that the article gathers together examples of products that media has described as "fastest selling", but where there is no well-defined criterion for what type of time period that is, nor if it is a product that was the fastest selling of its type at the time, or if it is the fastest selling ever. I was a bit alarmed when I read Coin945's (article's creator) statement late in the debate: "Well, I can't say that my research was *that* rigorous at all, and was more like a quick flick through the first few pages of google hits, and latest few pages of ooglenews hits, and stuffing a bunch of links into the article from there." Coin945 should be commended for his honesty here, but I feel that the result is a list of products that are loosely associated by sharing a common phrase in news articles. In my mind, that is treading the line on indiscriminate information. The arguments by Ten Pound Hammer, Colonel Warden, and Jucchan are very strong ones in my opinion.

But still, I am closing this with no consensus. What saves this article is:

The individual entries on the list are (mostly) cited, and should be verifiable. The lowest threshold of the contents in the article passing the WP:V policy is therefore met.
There is a criterion in the lead section that gives some guidance of what should be in the article.
Conceivably, the article does provide some navigational purpose if people want to look for products that were sold quickly when they were released, a topic that is of interest in consumer economics.

There is enough merit in these arguments (which were given in some form or another by Richard-of-Earth, Northamerica1000, FreeRangerFrog, and Colapeninsula) to make this a no consensus, even though my concerns in the paragraph above are not fully alleviated.

Note that some of the entries do not meet the criteria in the lead at all, for instance "Airbus A320" being listed as "fastest selling jetliner" makes no sense if we are going to judge this by sales in its first week. (Aircraft are not sold retail by the week, shortly after release.) There is need of editing here, but problems that can be solved in that manner are surmountable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest-selling products[edit]

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

Author contested prod on talk page with the following:

Because I think think this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions.

My reasoning is that the list has no specific criterion for inclusion. Literally any product can be "fastest selling", the information does not seem terribly relevant, as this seems like an easy record to keep breaking and breaking. Also, there is no set criterion for the unit of time, as the article even elaborates on — comparing something that was fastest-selling in a week vs. fastest selling in 52 weeks is apples and oranges. As it stands, this is far too loose of a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Wikipedia is all suppose to be cited, then the list will only contain items reputed in reliable sources to be fastest selling. It therefore cannot be too loose of a list. Per WP:LISTPURP this list has useful information and can also be used for navigating Wikipedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't really see a valid reason for deletion in the nominator's rationale; all I see is an issue with how the article is set up - that can easily be fixed by making a criteria for inclusion. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Because this article has a well-defined criteria for its content located in its lead section, and also keep WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems too indiscriminate and promotional. There doesn't seem to be any uniformity or standard setter and so the information is not reliable or comparable. Warden (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator Just wanted to point out that this article is not one of the "directory-type articles" that I was referring to. Rationale-wise, I'm with Northamerica1000 on this one.--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Warden. There may be a clear stated criterion, but it's arbitrary. "The definition of 'fastest-selling' usually refers to the amount sold in the first week of its release" is unreferenced WP:OR. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles are a form of trivia I suppose, but properly sourced and assuming they don't turn into a coatrack, I think they're perfectly fine. This is a good example of a list being far more appropriate than a category (well, a category would be useless here). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though every example of fastest-selling is gauged to a different time period, thus making this entire list several steps beyond apples and oranges? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Properties" section is a bit fringey, but nothing a bit of consensus can't fix. The other ones seem fine to me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Fastest-selling" is a commonly used word in music and video games, with a definition given in multiple references, and attracting frequent media interest. I know some people think this is too trivial to feature on Wikipedia, but there is space for both high seriousness and well-sourced random information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and trivial (fun to read, but not encyclopedic I am afraid.). --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article was nurtured, it could be as useful as the "highest grossing films" or "best-selling products" articles. As is, I agree with you... it is a bit of a mess, but if we put our heads together we can achieve something great indeed. I'm sure there's a very useful article just waiting to be unleashed.--Coin945 (talk)

Keep No valid rationale for deletion JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Warden. The list is too trivial, and it needs a uniform standard of time. The products seem to be listed almost at random; "Game console (Japan)", "Pre-Order of 2012", "Barnes&Noble Product", "2012 Album (UK)", etc. What happened to Pre-Order of 2011 and 2010? What about Game console (US) or 2010 Album (Spain)? What about 2002 rubber ducky and 1999 magazine? Jucchan (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the article was complete by any means. All I did was dive right in, trying to find as many sources as I could as fast as I could to give the article *something*. Now, we can start to fill in the content coverage holes, and get rid of the worse material. I'd rather include every source I find listing something as "fastest-selling", and then sifting through it later, than excluding some for various reasons, and having to go back and find them all when we get back to it. I entirely agree with you. We most definitely need "Pre-Order of 2011 and 2010... Game console (US) or 2010 Album (Spain)". By all means, go out there and locate this informaiton. I'm sure we'll all be eternally grateful. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list. - Nabla (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial and indiscriminate list of information. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are these deletes based on the current state of the article, or on the topic's potential? If your delete is based on the former, let me say this: At the moment, yes the list is rather indiscriminate, but the information that would made the list discriminate is most certainly out there, and just has to be found. As I responded to Jucchan, the only reason it may look like trivia is because it is unfinished. If the "highest-grossing films" article was seen in this state, would you still be voting delete?--Coin945 (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both. The topic does not seem notable, and then the current state does not point me any way that it may be notable which I might have not considered before. When thinking about "highest-grossing films" I think total revenue (over time and over media) of films, I have some sort of criteria from the start. "fastest selling products" is what? 'fastest' is... sold most on first day? weak? hour? month? year? 'selling' is quantity? value? 'Product' is iPhone? iPhone4? iPhone3? cellphone? bathtubs? video games? video games for Windows? horseshoes? large horseshoes? small horseshoes? Golf clubs? seeds? farm? calendars? encyclopaedias? encyclopaedias? That sounds like the definition of indiscriminate. - Nabla (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in answer to one of your points, I suspect that the definition of "fastest-selling" will vary depending on the type of product involved. Obviously the categories will be notable in their own right, and so will the products within them. Also, if the "fastest-selling"... (i dunno.......okay i'll use the calendar example that you gave) calendar is notable in its own right, and we have sources to confirm this, grab that source and stuff it into the article as fast as you can. The fact that at this point in time, there are different measures of "fastest-selling" within the same product category, is merely a testament to the particular sources that I locates, rather than on whether the informaiton is actually out there or not.--Coin945 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can not use as criterion that some newspapper called it "fastest selling" because newspappers do not have a set criterion. That you can not find standard measures is a hint that maybe there is none. How come your subjective perception that some criterion should exists, overcomes the fact, collected by you, that none was found? - Nabla (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't say that my research was *that* rigorous at all, and was more like a quick flick through the first few pages of google hits, and latest few pages of ooglenews hits, and stuffing a bunch of links into the article from there. Plus, I was having trouble with my computer (lagging horribly), so my work was cut short. I'm sure if I researched further and wider, the sources would show themselves. Yes: at the moment there is no strict criteria of what "fastest-selling" means... but in my opinion there is one.. or at least one for each product category. And theres only one way to know if I am right or not. Let's get to work! :D--Coin945 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

«my research was [...] more like a quick flick through the first few pages of google hits [...] and stuffing a bunch of links into the article from there». I would bet so, and would won. It would work out so much better if instead of creating poor articles with this google-paste method, and then spending lots of effort - your and other's - discussing to keep or delete them, instead you took the trouble to create better articles... or chose the next idea and move on when that is not possible. - Nabla (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic is potentially notable (did that make any sense?) and looks indiscriminate because of the current state of the article. HOWEVER, because there are lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of products and product types, the article will never be discriminate. The topic is too broad to begin with. What was the best-selling headphone in Rwanda? What was the fastest-selling type of sand in 1965 in California? What was the fastest-selling pajama in China for 1997? Fastest-selling brand of butterscotch in Finland, or in Tokyo, or in Seattle, or in Australia? Also, what timeframe will be used? First week? First month? First year? Although Brawl sold the most on its first week, Wii Sports sold the faster in its first 5 years. The possible entries are infinite (not literally). Jucchan (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my theory is that this article is on par with "List of best-selling products". That concept would probably also be indiscriminate in your view, but as enough sources had been located, the topic was split up into List of best-selling albums, List of best-selling singles, List of best-selling video games, List of best-selling books etc... The only reason all the information is in this one article is because if I split it up now, there would be maybe a couple entries in each, which would just be stupid. I'm keeping everything in the one article until we have too much information in it, from where we can discuss various splits to have discriminate sub-articles. Plus, in accordance to what I said before, I do not know what "fastest-selling" means, but I assume that it is a notable topic, and expect it means a different thing depending on product category. I suspect all it tales is a bit of research to find this out for sure. Can any of you get past paywalls? I'm severely disadvantaged, especially in an article like this which probably requires a lot of news sources... :/--Coin945 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? You created a list about fastest-selling products without knowing what fastest-selling even meant? Wow. Jucchan (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what I meant. I know that in general "fastest-selling" refers to which product sold the most in its first week of release... but I also know that sometimes you start off with a fixed number of copies and you compare the amount of time is takes for them to get sold. I specified that in the intro. The sources, however proved that there are other ways of judging fastest-selling that I had not taken into account. I had assumptions, yes, about this topic that I deemed notable, but only once I actually started researching did I find that it may be a bit more complicated than it first appears. As I have said already, however, it may just be due to the specific sources that I found. There maybe be sources which deem a whole variety of different products fastest-selling by how much they sold in the first week.... and I just picked the dud articles that compare them based on arbitrary criteria. I don't know. But as I have said, even if different product categories have different measurements for fastest-selling, we should be able to create a well=sourced, notable article.--Coin945 (talk) 03:16, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dambski Roman II[edit]

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}}.

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

No assertion of notability per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Sole source so far is a website claiming to be his official site, replete with amusing sale offers on buying his royal title ("20% OFF until 31 Dec 12! FREE Coat of Arms"). Possible WP:HOAX. Altered Walter (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any evidence where he is descended from either Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach or Stanisław August Poniatowski, the only two possible ancestors through whom a claim could be made. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're in political considerations. On wikipedia we must explain all. About the sale of nobility, James I (England), Louis XIV (France) have made that. About the pretentions of the dukes of Urach, are they more strong with a king who has regned a few months without to go to his kingdom? I think we must propose all pretenders but the article is in construction and it's impossible to explain all without some time to realise the article. I see that contributions about nobility are very politised and it's a shame. In 1994, while the Russian Communist influence was still felt in Lithuania, Roman Dambski was invited by Dr Jonas Stankus to attend a world congress of Lithuanian nobility in Vilnius. Around 400 people attended, over double the number who attended the gathering in 1996 which produced the present Lithuanian Nobility Society (LRUN), which uses the name Royal, but has no Sovereign. Roman Dambski was appointed a founding Senator of the newly formed Lithuanian Royal Nobility Society (LBKS) on 23 April 1994, but was subsequently snubbed by the 1996 society. Although accepting the Polish historical lineage by default, the LRUN does acknowledge that Lithuania was a Kingdom. It is that Kingdom which the present Roman Dambski seeks to restore in its fullness. Differents sources have been added to explain differents opinions. Please see them” Calleville— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calleville (talk • contribs)

Self-published sources aren't generally reliable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of the books listed as a source by the article's creator in the current version is "Roman Dambski, Royal Lithuania (Universal Books, 2008), ISBN 978-0-9587-2092-2". But a Google Book search for that ISBN brings up a book titled "Golden Vision Superclub Money Mates Manual: How to Make a Million the Easy Way! & Much More", by Prince Roman. Yet more evidence that this article is an attempt at marketing for a "royal title" salesman, or a hoax. Altered Walter (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damski is a writter in differents domains. I don't understand why you haven't deleted this fake reference and you have probably founded the book wichh is adapted for the bibliography. Don't be partial and give access to the sources and excuse the eventual mistakes in this new article with imperfections Calleville —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most of his "domains" appear to be nice little earners. If it's a "fake reference", then why did you add it in this edit? I see you've changed it now to another book self-published by "Prince Roman". Altered Walter (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've deleted the book with the tittle "Royal Lithunia" because I've seen it's a private edtion and we haven't ISBN code. I've tried to find it but it was a bad reference. Dambski is a writter and he edit differents books. For neutrality, I think we must propose only book with ISBN code. I've made a few articles on wikipedia. I've a lot work and some mistakes are possible during the redaction. I need some time. Some of them have been corrected by another contributors. Thank you! I see that another contributors help to create and correct this article. I'm french and my contributions are essentialy on wikepedia France. I'm doctor of history (contributions on wikipedia france about the general François Grouvel and the duc de Guines for example). I'm not specialy a Dambski's partisan but it's an original exemple of pretender who has declared in 2005 that Lituania is a kingdom with a king (him) who unofficialy reign from Australia (Darwin). He has accointances with a part of Lituanian nobility. An another part has snubbed him because they accept the republic and a pretender for the "folklore". I've insered links wich exprim the differents opinions. Dambski's example is interesting because we can see that the Litunian throne is controversed with him and the duke of Urach. I try to present this example with neutrality and objectivity. Create an article isn't make a panegyric about a pretender. You seem to have real competences. It will be perfect to help to create this article with objectivity. Please exprim your opinion with neutrality in the article and correct some mistakes before me. I'm french and my english isn't perfect. The article isn't ended but i must go to the countryside for Christmas. I'll continue in a few days. I've programmed a section with the different pretentions and the duke of Urach must be mentionned too. Thanks for your help. Best regards and happy Christmas Calleville (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2012

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Thinking Person's Royal Encyclopedia is written by this person, and it's the only source that actually backs up the claims made in the article as far as I can tell. This smells to me like a clever hoax. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The claim of notability appears to be a pretender, but as "natural" (i.e. illegitimate) son of the previous claimant, his claim must be dubious. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was absorbed by Russia in 1795 under the third Polish partition and had long been a possession of the Polish crown, so that I cannot belive that this is an active claim to a crown. Indeed, I am dubious whether than title claimed can be more than one of nobility. We have many articles on the nobility of various European countries, but not (I think) on currnet nobility of countries where nobility has been abolished. We would need something much more substantial to make a worthwhile article. I also smell WP:HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm the article. Wikipedia is an encylopedia who must give all informations. We've a pretender who is a member of the lituanian nobility. We've on wiki personnalities who don't make unanimity. For example Paddy Roy Bates of Sealand and now prince Mickael who sell titles of nobility. We've a link to their site and all items they sell. I don't understand this procedure of deletion. If you delete this article, you must delete lot of anothers and it's incompatible with the universal values of wiki. It's my opinion licinius123 (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Licinius123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Wikipedia does not have to "give all informations"; also please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Objectivity. Objective article. All details are in the article and each can build his opinion. This article respect neutrality of opinion as an historian. I don't understand why this article create a polemic. if it's a problem delete it. Calleville 20:04, 29 december 2012
Comment Article's creator Calleville has been blocked for a week for sockpuppetry, along with sockpuppet account licinius123, both of which are accounts used for posting to this discussion above. Altered Walter (talk) 16:32, 2 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 no consensus. KTC (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Yager[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had exhibition fights on Spike's TUF as well as his pro UFC fight. Passes WP:GNG. You might want to also see WP:NOTTEMPORARY in regards to his notability gained via TUF and his UFC loss to Rich Antonnito . Please also see WP:TUF for a compelling essay noting reasons why the TUF fights these guys had should count.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont believe exhibition fights count. He needs to have more PRO fights. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They count towards establishing his passing the WP:GNG. it says at the top "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline". I believe all these TUF guys who are being tagged for deletion aren't being given a fair evaluation under Wp:GNG and people are adhering to WP:NMMA to strictly. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. TUF matches, except for the finale, are exhibition matches and should not be counted towards the requirements for WP:NMMA, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NMMA. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how people keep saying he meets WP:NMMA when he has one fight for a top tier organization and is currently competing for a minor promotion. As I said at an earlier AfD discussion--exhibition fights don't count, just like the sparring partner of a champion boxer can't claim he fought for that boxer's title. Jakejr (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the UFC's own records or sherdog or other major MMA sources or the original consensus at MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 15:30, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Fails WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:23, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yakut American[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG. In search for the subject, there does not appear to be any reliable source material regarding this subject on the web, or books. Therefore, failing general notability guidelines I am proposing that this article be deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This one is tricky. Perhaps this would be better suited for WP:N/N? There is a page for Asian American, Armenian American, Albanian American, Angolan American... You get the picture. I think the issue in question here is: "How large does an American ethnic group have to be before it warrants its own page?" AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong with the subject as long as there are sources. Yakuts in California is just as good when it will satisfy WP:GNG. Size of ethnos irrelevant Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Staszek Lem. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a tiny ethnic group within Russia, and it is not clear at all that Yakuts who immigrate to the United States would identify as "Yakut American" rather than "Russian American". RightCowLeftCoast has done a search for sources and has found none that refer to "Yakut Americans" as a distinct topic. This is classic WP:SYN: Yakuts exist, and some Yakuts have immigrated to America, therefore Yakut Americans exist! No; there have to be actual sources that treat this topic "Yakut Americans" as separate from Russian Americans in order for us to write an article, but there aren't. Shrigley (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement about "separate treatment". There does exist a requirement about "nontrivial coverage". The article does have two sources which treat the topic of Yakuts in America in a nontrivial way; one being a book whose title, in part says abour role of Yakutia in Russian colonization of the Americas. On the other hand I do agree that the term "Yakut Americans" is rare usage and no modern info.

Therefore Rename to Yakuts in America is a proper solution, rather than to delete a verifiable and rarely seen (strength of wikipedia!) information. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This maybe a notable subject in connection with important role of Yakuts in colonization of Alaska. Here is another online source about this in Russian. But as it stands right now, there is little to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You contradict yourself. The problem is not with the topic, the problem is with the article title, and the solution is not deletion of information verifiable from multiple sources, but renaming of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in reading the source, via a Chrome translation, it appears to focus VERY HEAVILY upon the history of Fort Ross, and not about the subject of the ethnicity Yakut Americans. The source, if found to be a reliable source (it claims to be a Russian Magazine's website), would be very good to use on the Fort Ross Article or maybe Russian America, but since it focuses on the history of Fort Ross and Russian America, and not primarily about the subject that is the discussion of this AfD, it does not show that the subject Yakut Americans is notable. Perhaps, what verified content within this article can be merged into the article about Russian Americans, however the two references presently used, the 1st reference is about Russian America again (not Yakut Americans), and the second is again about Russian America; therefore in truth there are NO reliable sources presently used in the article that support the notability of the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Or it could be merged to Yakut. Perhaps it would be best to make this a redirect right now, but without protection. If anyone wants to develop this page to something better in a future, they are very welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Staszek Lem. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind other editors of WP:VOTE. Only stating that an article should be kept without advancing a reason per essays, guidelines, and policies why an article should be kept does not advance the discussion.

The primary question in an AfD, is whether a subject is notable. No discussion has been advanced by those who oppose deletion, thus far, that the subject is notable per the guidelines and policies that define what notability is on wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every person voting can come up with an entirely new set of opinions. If Staszek Lem outlined the arguments well, and very similar to what others would've said, then people can concur. I have also not seen an argument here why the topic doesn't meet the notability guidelines, but would be open to a specific argument. Ufwuct (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, let us look at the reason for the keep opinion of Staszek Lem. The editor stated that if there are sources then it should be reasonable for the article not to be deleted. However, the editor did not say whether there were sufficient editors to show that the subject has passed notability guidelines and policies. In my opening statement of the AfD. I showed clearly that there are not sufficient reliable sources that cover the subject that would meet significant coverage requirements for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Does the subject exist; I am not doubting that. But is the subject is notable; it is my opinion that it is not.

Furthermore, the references that are found, do not primarily focus on the subject, but on the historical Russian America period, which I have suggested the references pointed towards be used to enhance.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an ethnic group in the United States. I have met at least a few myself - though not in any of the apparent Yakut hot-spots listed in the article. The size of the ethnic group is most likely exaggerated, but I think that would warrant a "citation needed" and/or "dubious" tag rather than a wholesale deleted. Would not support merging with Russian Americans, because they are entirely different. If it is decided to merge this information, "Asian American" or "Yakuts" seems a much more appropriate place. Ufwuct (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Until very recently (maybe early 2010), Kazakh Wikipedia had very few articles (maybe 5000 articles). It would really bug me because I knew that there were significant topics that were not covered on the internet or Wikipedia, yet I knew they were important (sorry, I can't think of specific examples, but I think they had to do with specifc practices during Nauryz and historical figures from the 1500s or so). Eventually, maybe some Kazakhs got together and collaborated on writing articles, because there is more information.

I've also created or worked on stub articles before which were not well sourced but eventually became decent articles. I really don't understand the rush to delete an ethnic group from Wikipedia. It's not advertising, spam, or likely to fade in significance within two years. It's not a POV fork article. And it's not like an article for Negidal-Americans or Vep-Americans. There are likely to be more than just the couple Yakuts I met in San Antonio in the United States since there a half million of them, there is increasing international involvement in mining and oil/gas within Sakha Republic, and the fact that they had at least some presence in North America dating back 200 years.

This is a stub, not non-notable. Ufwuct (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There need to be some reliable sources that can actually flesh out this article, otherwise it should be removed. As noted above the historical article in Russian really doesn't have much to say directly about Yakuts in America. And while the census bureau has "Yakut" as an ethnic category, in the latest census figures that I've seen no one has chosen it as a form of identification. So the half million figures are unsourced and probably wildly over-inflated. Either some strong sources need to be provided, or the whole thing should be canned.Konchevnik81 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can shed some light why, as some people mention here, recent census does not have "Yakuts": whoever minimally familiar with the topic would have known that after the collapse of the ~~last Russian Empire~~ Soviet Union, Yakuts prefer to call themselves Sakha people. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, there does not appear to be significant coverage of Sakha Americans. See this search here for web hits, and here for book hits. The closest that the search gets is for a "Sakha American Business Education Center" found at the University of Yakutsk. Otherwise, the subject does not appear to be notable. Furthermore, if we look at the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey report for 2009-1011 on ancestry (used for ancestries of White Americans and African Americans, you will find no mention of of Yakuts or Sakhas. This maybe because the may fall under the Russian Americans ancestry, but that is speculation on my part. Furthermore, it cannot be said that they are not included due to a small population size, as populations as small as Cypriot Americans are represented, with a population estimate of 5,560.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a |link to the American Community Survey results on ethnicity/ancestry in 2010 (and just for good measure here are |stats for ancestry of Asians in any combination from 2011). Neither "Yakut" nor "Sakha" makes the list. Claiming that there are 500,000 Yakut Americans is in effect arguing that there are more people identifying as Yakut in the US than there are identifying as Romanians, Iranians, Armenians, or Croatians. I highly suspect that the claims of existence of this ethnic community in the US is OR. The reason I mention the census data is that in order for this to be a legitimate article, it needs to discuss an actual community. Therefore there needs to be some evidence that there are Americans who identify as Yakut/Sakha *as a group*. "Americans who have ancestors from Russia/USSR who may have been Yakuts/Sakha or who may have lived in Yakutia at some point" might be an interesting article, but that's a bit different than what this article claims to be (maybe more of a category, if any noteworthy people can be defined as such). Considering that a Sakha | delegation was just visiting the American Museum of Natural History, one would think that at least a mention would be made by the museum of Yakuts living in America, if there was such a community. Likewise, I would expect actual news | sources from Yakutia/Sakha to mention this diaspora in their summary of Sakha foreign relations since 1991. I'm all for considering the article notable, whatever it's title would be (Yakut or Sakha), if some actual sources can be provided to show that this group actually exists in the US, rather than as a state of conjecture. Konchevnik81 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and accept all your arguments. At the same time please understand mine as well. Bear with me for a sec:

I agree that "Sakha Americans" and "Yakut Americans" as a separate ethnic communities are fairly nonnotable (despite having a couple of forums/websites) in terms of reliable 3rd party sources.
At the same time the article contains a piece of interesting historical information about Yakuts ina Americ in 19th century, verifiable from at least 3 reliable sources.
The goal of wikipedia is to serve as an information hub, especially for information not redily available form other wikipedias (and I am not talking about articles kind of ~~"List of towns with obscene names"~~ ..er.. List of the longest English words with one syllable.)
An article with valid verifiable content may have a really lousy title, but to delete on this formal grounds is hardly in spirit of wikipedia. A better approach is to rename the page (my suggestion above), so that the content preserved.
In other words, it is a good idea not to confuse article subject and article title
References at hand, I could have happily waited for the article deleted and after that I could have written Yakuts in America, with nice edit count increase, DYK, good article, etc. But I do want the original author's contribution to wikipedia recognized and this new author educated about wikipedia ways, rather than chooed away.

In other words, I am a devoted inclusionist, as long as an article in question is not a vehicle of promotion of someone's glory or original thought. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So to sum up what I understand is the statement by Staszek Lem, although the subject does not meet notability requirements due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, particularly tertiary sources, we should ignore all rules because there is historical reasons to keep the subject?

If this is the case, then may I offer my previous rebutle. Although, there are reliable sources in use in the article, and have also been included here in discussion, those sources primarily deal with Yakuts as being part of the historical period of Russian America. As such those mentions of Yakuts being part of Russian America, should be used in that article, and used to enhance that article, and does not necessarily mean that the Yakut American ethnicity is notable in and of itself.

Perhaps a redirect to Russian American might be in order, as the population is related to the larger ethnicity, and what verified content exist from this article (that we are discussing in this AfD) can be merged into the Russian American article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 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, Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: There are some complex issues being raised here, and I think another week will help editors to reach consensus. You may want to reach out to other editors to see if anyone else has more relevant information; while you can't canvas, specific editors, I recommend posting notices on relevant Wikiprojects. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both DelSorts for the two wikiprojects that cover this article WP:USA & WP:ETHNIC have this AfD listed. Perhaps as the relisting Administrator you can use a Please see, message that is keeping with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, on both those wikiproject's talk pages?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem: Could you provide some of those references and forums that you have? I would be interested to look through them...I have found next to nothing online on the subject of these communities, so I think it would be helpful to review the information you have. Otherwise, I would tend to agree with RightCowLeftCoast about redirecting this article elsewhere (Russian America and Russian Americans).Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yakuts - Google Books search for "Sakha-American" -business reveals that according to the book "Russia's Diamond Colony: The Republic of Sakha", there used to be a Sakha-American Center at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. But that was published in 2000, and I can find no evidence that the center now exists - it may have been folded into their American Russian Center. In any case, what's available would make a useful addition to the Yakuts article, with a redirect from this article, but there's not enough material for a separate article. Altered Walter (talk) 10:59, 14 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 20 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:57, 27 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Warwick[edit]

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

Coverage of this shopping centre is trivial and routine, such as attempted burglaries and abductions. The topic therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, and as such we should not have an article on it. Till 11:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree with nom. Fails WP:GNG. coverage is limited to trivial incidents and nothing in depth about the centre. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 23 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:24, 29 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wood Productions[edit]

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD). Reason given in PROD (by an IP) was: This article is incomplete, it lacks citations and any references or reliable sources. This article doe not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Notability of this article cannot be established. The article improvement tag has been since May 2012, the article publisher had enough time to improve it and he/she did not improved it nor added any citations and any references or reliable sources. This article qualifies for speedy deletion and deletion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Illia Connell (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, article appears to be almost entirely about Josh Wood, with barely any mention of Josh Wood Productions. Article was created by an SPA with a name that was very close to the article name, and I see two very similar SPAs in the edit history - but the last one appeared in 2011. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per the deletion policy. No references, article appears to be almost entirely about owner, with barely any mention of company itself - Josh Wood Productions. This article is incomplete, it lacks citations and any references or reliable sources. Luisa (talk) 1:35, 3 January 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrij Devejian[edit]

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

WP:NN living minor figure in the Armenian church. I have removed several paragraphs of poorly sourced material from this article which attacked the subject. The article's sources mostly only mention the subject in passing as the translator or spokesperson for Karekin II. Pburka (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 3 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 00:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- It seems to me there is something no being said about his career: why was he defriocked? In most churches that is for some serious offence. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is/was in one of the sources and it's not very noteworthy or even salacious. He was married before he entered the priesthood and was defrocked when he divorced. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 14 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! 22:34, 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing about him makes the grade for WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:36, 20 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:39, 27 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 106 & Park. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Prostyle[edit]

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

BLP, no 3rd party sources. Notability very questionable. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put back as redirect - The "Latin Mixx Award" gave me pause, but the award itself doesn't appear notable. The page was created as a redirect, so I'd rather truncate it back into a redirect than delete it entirely. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sven Manguard. I was going to go for delete, as this was the only significant coverage I could find (though there are a lot of brief mentions out there), but given a target to redirect to, let's do that. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Certainly does not warrant a stand-alone article. Even redirect is thin. I tagged this for notability some time ago. Thanks to Andy for the follow-up.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 29 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. Courcelles 00:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Sundari[edit]

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

No reliable sources exist for this article. So delete per WP:GNG Forgot to put name (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems, per the only book source that has a direct hit on the term, that this is a character from a play by Shambhu Prasad Dhungel. I would opt for a redirect here but since we don't have an article for this person, meh. As it stands now, the way the article is presented can be considered a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 07:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 07:21, 14 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 20 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:25, 29 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. —Darkwind (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North American Allied Fight Series[edit]

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

Doesnt seem to be a notable enough organization to have a wikipedia article. It's a local fight promotion, of which there are tons of. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: if this article is deleted then the redirect NAAFS should be deleted per WP:CSD#G8. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local promotions don't get licensed to put on shows all over the eastern US. They are licensed all the way from Michigan all the way down to South Carolina. The argument that they are a local fight promotion fails miserably from the start. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I would like to point out that NAAFS belts are contested at Bellator events. I never dug into the connection but every so often i'll be watching a sherdog pbp and it will talk about the fight being a NAAFS fight. Here is some Evidence to support some cross-over between submission wrestling and NAAFS, as well as to support their having notable UFC fighters such as Stipe Miocic and Jeff Monson have fought for them. http://naafs.biz/site/2012/03/16/a-pair-of-naafs-titles-on-the-line-at-bellator-66/ http://www.ludusfightclub.com/2012/03/12/naafs-is-promoting-2-title-fights-for-bellator-66-undercard/ .

Keep. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's notability was pre-established by the consensus of people within the project as it was placed on the list of promotions who needed an article done. Anybody who follows MMA is fully aware of the NAAFS notability. They put on as many shows as the UFC does, and is a major partner with Bellator. I'm not attacking the person, but take a look at the history of the person suggesting the deletion. He has been changing up my work, starting editing wars, and trying to get my work deleted. It seems odd that just after he get unblocked for initiating an editing war, that he goes to my articles and suggests them for deletion. Please don't let him convince you to delete my work. Thanks. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POT is my response to the irrelevant and unrelated comments about past edit wars that have nothing to do with the AfD discussion. It may be your work, but it still has to pass the guidelines. If it does it can be kept, if it doesnt well... it'll be deleted. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response:Not to try to be mean or anything, you are going around proposing countless deletions. How about contributing articles and help make the articles better. Also, so many of these people that you are asking to be deleted are relevant names in the sport. The NAAFS is a huge part of the MMA world, they literaly put on as many if not more shows than the UFC. A significant portion of UFC fighters got their start in the NAAFS, not to mention they are the go to organization for Bellator to help fill up their cards with good fights. If you don't understand why an organization like this is notable and significant to the sport, maybe you should consider getting involved with editing something other than MMA. Like I said, I'm not trying to be mean or call you out on it, just want to help create a legit reference for people, especially MMA fans to easily go to. Have you looked at some of the MMA forums. You and another guy are becoming well known in the MMA forums, and not very positively I may add. Just think about that please. Willdawg111 (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really could care less what some stranger on a forum thinks about me. I dont feel wikipedia needs a bunch of articles for unnotable fighters. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it matters to anybody, but happened to be looking through some MMA forums, and people are upset about the amount of articles being deleted on Wikipedia because they like to use it as a source as reference. http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/wiki-deleted-ufc-155-event-2257217/ Wiki operates off of donations and if people aren't coming to wiki, they won't be getting donations. How about we stop trying to delete everything and work on improving it. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note This organization was on the project list as an organization that needed to be done. Everybody though it was important enough to do an article on, but after 1 is done, you have somebody trying to argue that it isn't notable enough. Where was that debate before the article was written. If you have an issue with the notability or a project requested article, then you need to do that sooner, and not doing so should constitute you agreeing that the person/organization is notable and you should forever hold your peace.I've taken the time to do some research to work on articles requested by the project community, and if you guys let them be deleted, then I won't be taking the time to help do anymore of them. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a regional organization that appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. GHits appear to be limited to the usual event and fight card announcements on MMA oriented sites and local newspapers. No significant coverage outside of that. --TreyGeek(talk) 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal(I see you have changed your argument from local to regional) and I would argue that since they are from Ohio anything that includes them in a Bellator related news article is regional(Being regional does not make it automatically non notable) or better unless it takes place in Ohio. For example :Not local
Rebuttal Anybody who thinks they are just a regional show is seriusly mis-informed. They are actually licensed to put on shows in quite a few states, even as far as South Carolina. Please tell me that we don't have people who believe that Ohio and South Carolina are in the same region. There is also one other thing about the NAAFS that makes them very significant. They are one of the few promotion companies that is actually used by some of the athletic commission to sanction fights. The perform a similar function as the ISKA does in some states, where they help the state out by performing the duties of the sanctioning body for some smaller shows. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious if you have a source (even primary would be cool) that supports your last sentence? That sounds like a nice tidbid to support the keep. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to go look and see what I could come up with. It isn't something that is really talked about, and the reason I knew that was that SC had some real safety issues with the ISKA doing its sanctioning. The NAAFS had a couple of its reps come in, and help fix the sanctioning. They were actually seriously looking at using the NAAFS to do the sanctioning in SC, but ultimately deciced to consult with them and use them to help fix everything and do the sanctioning themselves. Not to be funny, but very few people really understand all the behind the scenes stuff that goes on unless you are a part of it. That's why none of the sanctioning information was placed into the article, because what I know came from inside sources, and nothing public that I could provide. If I can find it somewhere referenceable, then I will add it to the article. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect: Based on the reading of the article and how it appears to dangle as a hanger on on the Bellator promotion (including it's title belts being fought for at Bellator events) , I think it would be appropriate to merge and redirect this article to Bellator. No objection to an appropriate spinout in the future when this sub-promotion gains significant notability. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification This is NOT a sub-promotion of Bellator. The NAAFS has been putting on shows years before Belltor ever started. They have put on over 150 shows since 2007. What promotion in the world has put on over 150 shows in 6 years. The UFC doesn't even do that. These guys are a huge part of MMA, which is why Bellator sought them out to co-promote events. This is one of the biggest MMA promotions in the world. We should be discussing adding them to the top tier list, not whether or not they are relevant to have an article.Willdawg111 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No... you missed the point. Read the text again. I said appears meaning that since this promotion's belts are fought over at Bellator, it makes sense to align them there. "These guys are a huge part of MMA" Really? Prove it. Show that they have more clout than the entries on the first tier of MMA organizations at WP:MMATIER. Just because they've ran a significant amount of events. I'm looking through the fighters as notable veterans, and just from my spot check (meaning random sampling) I'm not even seeing mentions (or at minimum a few entries there) of this league in their records. I still assert that this would probably be better served by a section at Bellator. Hasteur (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are a licensed referee, judge and fighter. I think you have a conflict of interest. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're digging, and digging really deep. Being a ref and a judge is about being able to be neutral. I have to be neutral even when working events for guys that I have trained, trained with, been acquanted with for years. That's a good point, except that it shows I have the LEAST conflict of interest. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

llama: The other side of the coin is that he could be considered an expert. I also received the same accusation on another afd. Just because individuals such as myself and Dawg have first-hand knowledge of the sport does not necessarily represent a coi. I have seen no statement from Dawg saying that he is on the NAAFS payroll or is married to the owner of the organization. I think "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern is governed by common sense. An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a dose of reality. Just for the record. I have never been employed by the NAAFS. I don't have any family members employed by the NAAFS. I have never even been to one of their live shows. Like he is trying to point out to you, what I do within the sport just gives me a better understanding of how things work. I'm there at the shows when things are being setup, when the doctors are doing fighter physicals. I'm part of the pre-fight meetings, the verification and approvals by the athletic commission reps. It gives me an inside track on how the system works, but in no way does it make me biased. I'm not really sure how it could. If if makes you feel better, I won't write any articles or get involved in any articles dealing with the state athletic commissions that hire me to work the shows.Willdawg111 (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you've made the admission that you're a ref for a MMA organization, therefore you have a vested interest in having MMA articles included in Wikipedia. Therefore you have a Conflict of interest. Hasteur (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless amounts of referees. I would argue that it is incidental that Dawg is a ref. And he has brought up angles to argue that I haven't seen others present. Why would you want to stifle valid points just because of a technicality you assert he has triggered. Read back a couple posts where I posted a quote from the COI article talking about using common sense. There is no identifiable connection with Dawg and NAAFS so at thins point you are on a WP:WITCHHUNT PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to either be willfully ignorant or lacking in common sense I shall draw the map for you. If MMA articles have a significant representation on MMA, then more people know about them, then people go to MMA events, which encourages promotions to have more events, which means that fights need to be refereed, which means that Willdawg111 has the potential for more work. It's 5 levels of linkage, but enough to make me strongly think that Willdawg should not be making the primary defense for this article. Hasteur (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bonafide conspiracy theory you have going on. You want so badly for what you are saying to be true. What you are saying is that Dawg is editing articles on here simply to fuel events so that he might have more work? I'm not even going to address that directly except for WP:WITCHHUNT. It's not just him earlier. Because you made the same accusation towards me (of having a coi) for an even more vague reason. Did you ever stop and think that you might be the only one that feels this way? or at best that you apart of a fringe minority whose arguements grow increasingly desperate for next to no reason?? You have now retreated to the assertion that he should not be making the primary defense of this article. Even if that were true it does not discount everything he has said up till now because WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I don't see anything in this article that couldn't be gotten from that company's website, or from the sherdog page for this article. I'm sure they play an important part in the MMA minor leagues, but nothing in this article demonstrates that. I don't see a list of events, or any single event of note. The list of fighters who've competed for them is pretty bare. If something beyond a info-skeleton could be developed, something that talks about the history and importance of the organization (and is not original research), then there is an argument for keeping it, but as it appears to be an even smaller organization than KOTC I don't see a lot of justification.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a small organization. This is a huge organizations. Nobody has put on more shows than they have in the last 6 years, including the UFC. This isn't some local show who puts on an occasional show. This organization is the real deal, the major leagues, and should be listed as a top tier organization.Willdawg111 (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of organizations that put on a lot of shows, not all of them are really important. What have they done other than put on a lot of shows, put some filler in Bellator, and been a starting point for the occasional notable fighter? The idea that this organization should be considered as big as the UFC, or any other top MMA organization, because they put on a lot of shows seems hyperbolic at best. Who are their current champions, what's been their biggest event? Do they get extensive, consistent media coverage? At this point it appears to be of about the exact same profile as Rage in the Cage, a persistent feeder league that provides a stable, bare bones base for pro-mma while having no obvious presence in the sport. These kind of organizations dot the globe, there's Finn Fight, ProFC, ZST, Rage in the Cage, Cage Force, etc. All of these organizations are important for building new talent, but if any of them went away it would go almost entirely unnoticed even by dedicated MMA media and fans. At that point it's hard to see why it needs an article here.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the organization didn't need an article then why was it on the list of organizations that needed articles created by the project. The consensus of people wanted the article done, and now a few people who didn't speak up when it was put on the list of articles that needed to be done, no longer want it?Willdawg111 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it would appear that anyone can add any promotion to that list, it's just a list of promotions people think ought to get made. It appears to include some potential consensus ability, but I see no signs that that is pursued with any vigor. Beyond that your above argument against deletion is circular, if a few people can agree that an article should get made, then why can't a few people agree that it isn't good enough to keep as well? It's the same basic process both ways.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:MMATIER#Current list of notable MMA organizations and promotions lists criteria supporting notability and deletion (for some of the data, see http://www.mma-core.com/organizations/North_American_Allied_Fight_Series_NAAFS/1854):

Criteria supporting notability

1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage. - this a bit more detailed than what I have time to do now - Unknown

2. Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable. - in 2012 had 16 events and in 2011 had 21 events (by comparison Strikeforce did 7 events in 2012 and 16 in 2011). - Met

3. Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable - been around since 2005 and in MMA terms 7 years is a long time - Met.

4. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters. - There seem to be a lot of UFC and Bellator vets, but I am not comfortable with what standard is 'well-known' and 'large number' - Unknown/Lean towards Met

Criteria supporting deletion

1. Has only promoted a single event. - has promoted many events - Not Met

2. Short history as an organization. - in view of notability criteria 2 and 3 - Not Met

3. Few notable fighters fight in their events. - lists at least 10 notable fighters, which is more than a few - Not Met

4. Fights are no-holds-barred, or rules are much less restrictive than the unified rules of martial arts - all fights appear to be sanctioned by state commission that follows unified rules (e.g., http://aco.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6aNFV8Uaiq4%3d&tabid=71) - Not Met

5. Promoted fights are not licensed by state or regional governing bodies. - See criteria 4 for deletion - Not Met

Seems clear to me that there is relatively strong support to keep and very little reason to delete. Therefore, this appears to be a keep. -RonSigPi (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew for sure they are definitely a notable organization but wasn't sure what guidelines I needed to prove it to those people not involved in MMA. This was very well laid out where anybody regardless of having any knowledge of MMA or not should be able to understand. Willdawg111 (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No's 1&4 are certainly not met for criteria to keep. It is very very rarely the subject of any media coverage even within MMA journalism. And has promoted a few fighters, many of whom were not well known or highly ranked at the time of their competition there, and those fighters are a severe minority for the number of shows and fighters this promotion has hosted. which would put it in criteria 3 for deletion. I think it's on the very low end of what might be keep-able (essentially I think it should probably be deleted), but your score tallying seems way off base. The only arguments that can reasonably be made for NAAFS is that they are putting on a large number of shows per year and have been around since 2005. This stub still contains no information that couldn't be gotten off the business website or off sherdog, and two of the links are to MMA stat archives (Sherdog/Tapology) and another is to the business website itself, and none (except for those pertaining to the notable fighters) actually match up as references to any of the written text in the article. Right now the only thing notable about NAAFS is that it exists.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your assertion that NAAFS does receive some coverage would lead me to believe it passes WP:V. Did you not read about the scandal they got caught up in? If you havent, then it is near the bottom of this discussion. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That does not make them the subject of multiple independent articles. As I said coverage of the NAAFS is incredibly rare. The number of actual articles that are about the NAAFS as the principal subject (i.e. not about a fighter who happens to be appearing on one of their shows) could probably be counted on one hand. And that's across the entire 7 year history of their organization. To spin that as multiple independent articles from national and international media is gross misrepresentation.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets criteria supporting notability listed at Wikipedia:MMATIER#Current list of notable MMA organizations and promotions. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . I only need 2 fingers to count the articles it needs to be found in (and it doesn't have to be in the article title. The article just has to have more than a trivial mention of the subject) to meet WP:GNG]. Luckily, and i'll say it just once more, we have that in spades. Sorry, We seem to be arguing in circles. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing the part of GNG that says as long as a subject is mentioned more than once in its entire history of existence it is grandfathered into wikipedia and may never be challenged as worthy of coverage. I think this subject barely passes the loosest possibly interpretation of GNG, that is my argument against it. That it is the least possibly notable thing which could be argued to have a place on wikipedia. If this AfD acts as a method to greatly improve the quality of this stub, then great, but I don't think that enough information exists to develop this article beyond what it already is, which is almost entirely devoid of meaningful information.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- to quote the GNG ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]". It passes. Also keep in mind that Notability is not temporary. also please see WP:NNC and read " if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." and to be reasonable. I don't think Wilddawg is trying to inflate the NAAFS to be something it isn't. On his talk page (and in the notability article where I copied and pasted his rankings) you will notice he placed NAAFS in the new tier three. So while it IS notable, it is not by any means a UFC/Bellator equivalent. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty ₈₄₅ 02:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Comment It would be helpful if some additional discussion could occur focused on whether the subject meets WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines that have already been adopted by the community at large. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it does pass the WP:GNG by having multiple quality refs that span 2009-2012 , here, here, and here, here, and here

PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you read any article about the NAAFS is uggest you read http://www.mmaweekly.com/naafs-admits-shock-over-revelation-of-brandon-salings-past. It's about how they let a registered sex offender with Nazi tattoos on him compete several times. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make them more or less notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say more. That article + 1 more(which it has in spades) is enough for it to pass WP:V PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough outside references in the article already although the new ones mentioned above should be worked in.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's pretty obvious that this is one of the more notable MMA organizations. Can we close this out as a keep? Willdawg111 (talk) 04:49, 4 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 speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted per csd a7 by User:Jimfbleak. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knightwatchers[edit]

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

Self published book series by non notable author. Fails WP:NBOOK. Safiel (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I did a search and ultimately this is a non-notable self-published series. A search brought up nothing that would show that this series has gained the notability that some of the other self-published series such as Wool have garnered from reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 27 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. Not a snowball's chance... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Josef Caballes[edit]

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

The subject is non-notable and fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. It also fails WP:BLP as per the article has no verifiable sources. The article may be deleted as A7 but because of he is the founder of an org, it may be declined. Mediran (t • c) 01:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional, fails WP:BIO badly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Puff Piece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither him nor his company appear to be notable. This is due to a lack of reliable coverage for either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable in every way possible. I have Sticky PRODed this as an unsourced BLP just on the off chance something takes a drastic turn with this AfD discussion. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, could - and should - go as a CSD A7 as it is just the autobiography of a guy caught in the light of his webcam. Having his own company as a web design contractor is not evidence of notability. (Incidentally, I got led here from following the links on a newly created article about the company, created today by new editor User talk:Lerson cabela; I've nominated the company article for CSD A7.) AllyD (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:AGF - the author may well have believed he should have an article, it is enough to say "Autobio of someone who does not meet our notability criteria" - calling it promotional or a puff piece does not add to the discussion. Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I've just deleted the company's article for not showing significance. This one doesn't either. Peridon (talk) 18:31, 1 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance[edit]

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

Request for AfD at OTRS by User:Arodb - Rationale - This is illustrative of the inherent difficulties of a very specialized procedure, use of legal precedent to describe an argument. At the least it requires an understanding of the hierarchy of courts, U.S. Supreme Court, over Federal appeals, over District. This is parallel to the similar State courts that even have different terminology IE, in New York State, the lowest court is called Supreme Court. So, this is complicated, even for the average lawyer.

And the appropriateness of citing a given precedent to advance an argument is far from self evident, as shown by split decisions by Jurists who are all steeped in professional skills and specific knowledge of the subject being contested. I happen to oppose the ritual of the Pledge, and am preparing a long argument advancing this thesis which led me to the article in question. Ironically, the case against Wikipedia trying to create this article as a group process is not unlike the words of Justice Robert Jackson on pp 333 of McCollum v. Board of Education - 333 U.S. 203 (1948):

It is idle to pretend that this task is one for which we can find in the Constitution one word to help us as judges to decide where the secular ends and the sectarian begins in education. Nor can we find guidance in any other legal source. It is a matter on which we can find no law but our own prepossessions. If, with no surer legal guidance, we are to take up and decide every variation of this controversy, raised by persons not subject to penalty or tax but who are dissatisfied with the way schools are dealing with the problem, we are likely to have much business of the sort. And, more importantly, we are likely to make the legal "wall of separation between church and state" as winding as the famous serpentine wall designed by Mr. Jefferson for the University he founded. Added for Arodb(talk) 01:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator or Arodb clearly has no rationale for deleting the article rather than his own personal beliefs about the Pledge of Allegiance, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal values are not at issue. If anything multiple perspectives are included in the article, but they are do not follow even the headings IE: a decision of a lower court, along with a Supreme Court case decided in 1948 was included under the category of "1957 cases" This could be corrected, but the inherent complexity of citation of precedent is not being followed as this is a specialized skill, one that is not even undertaken by ordinary lawyers. There are specialists in formulating briefs to appeals courts, including the Supreme Court that require extensive knowledge in both the process of such argumentation and the subject matter. The references to the cases give the appearance of authority, but they simply do not cohere, for instance one case in the article dealt with allowing time for religious study in school, which is only tangentially related to the Pledge, and the connection with the topic issue is not addressed. I do not have the skills to make this coherent if I tried, and I have some familiarity with the relevant legal issues. Arodb (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of these issues don't change anything, if you think something should be fixed then fix it! Per WP:IGNOREALLRULES! You still haven't given me a reason or policy why this should be deleted other then your long complex and confusing statements. JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do the best that I can. Sorry if I didn't make my case clearly. Look at the history of dissension and deletions, and the IGNOREALLRULES clearly states its an individual's opinion, not dogma. This site is a mess because the level of professional skill required to weave together disparate court decisions is not available to write this. And, strange the No Rules thing referenced Larry Sanger as a source. Look him up. He's the man who split with Wales because he believed all articles should have a professional in the field to have final word. I spoke to him about it and ultimately disagreed. Now, I see his point, at least for certain arcane subjects, like this one happens to be. I've said about all I can. As the article now stands, it is one of the most incoherent I've seen on Wikipedia. At the very least let me suggest that this article be flagged as needing some professional assistance from those conversant in appellate procedure in this area. But these guys are used to making a grand an hour, and I'm not sure they are interested in seeing this alternate venue succeed. Arodb (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is fatally flawed in that it fails to cite a legitimate reason for deletion. The nominator has confused this article with a legal brief and opposes based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Next, he follows with the argument "It's too complicated to be an article." Really? If we can manage articles on Quantum Mechanics we should be able to pull off a simple legal criticism sub-article. If you don't like the way it reads, please collaborate with other editors to fix it. Majoreditor (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legal and philsophical theories underpinning a political movement citing notable and reliable sources is encylopedic. If an editor thinks the style of writing needs work that can be discussed, deleting an article over style is not a wikipedia practice. Rather than deletion wikipeida has a tag that can be placed on pages to address the nominator's concern: Template:Expert-subject I believe posting that on the page and laying out your concerns in full on the discussion page may allieviate the nominator's concerns. The nominator is not saying the information is worthless, unreliable, biased, or not notable - merely that it would be better presented by an expert - it would seem the tag would notify readers of this and I can't see why anyone would oppose the addition of such a tag.--Wowaconia (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the individual who suggested that this be removed, I now appreciate the value of the material that has been presented, and that there are solutions short of deletion, which is the destruction of so many editors efforts. I still maintain that the formal presentation of precedent is lacking the traditions that control this modality of technical argument. This is why briefs citing precedent in this area often run upwards to a hundred pages, with connections made between the various decisions. A tag requesting such legal specialists assistance would be appropriate, but it would take someone who could abbreviate the formal legal arguments. Such a person would have to have some sort of assurance that this major effort would not be easily removed. A suggestion for starters would be to divide the cases between pre and post "under God" and then reference the article on Legal Precedent. Given the complexity and contentiousness of this subject it is inherently a difficult one. Is there a way to take an entire article like this, and work on it, and then submit it as a provisional substitute that may be more coherent. Arodb (talk) 16:36, 27 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Nightmare[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY New Jersey Nightmare is a team in the American Inline Hockey League, where the league article is currently under discussion for deletion. This team article lacks references and appears to fail WP:NHOCKEY. It is not a professional team. The external link provided for the New Jersey Nightmare is a dead link. Blue Riband► 03:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable organization. It should be noted that WP:NHOCKEY does not cover teams as directed in its lead; "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." - WP:NHOCKEY. Mkdw ^talk 04:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:59, 20 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, Courcelles 01:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Expansion tags have been up since July of 2010, also seems many teams of this league do not have an article JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should have been speedied. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Inline Hockey League#Teams; contrary to the OP's comment, the league article is not, and was not, "under discussion for deletion". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 29 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 & redirect. KTC (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amped Across America[edit]

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

Non-notable forthcoming musical release. No independent coverage. No professional reviews. Only ref is to a pre-order site. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Possible redirect to BoDeans#Live_albums.2Fcompilations for now - December is nearly finished and the album is slated for a "Summer/Fall 2012" release which doesn't provide much time. I found a blog here linking the pre-order website but aside from that, everything else is primary and Google News provided nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 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 00:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't appear notable. NYSMtalk page 00:57, 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 21 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, Courcelles 01:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. This does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS, but it's a plausible search term as a release by a notable band. Gong show 22:19, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Coffey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notoriety - I've edited this page several times, there was discussion that we were going to merge this page with Psychic Kids which is also a stub. That never happened. I've waited some time before bringing this deletion notice forward because I wanted to see if anyone was able to come up with noteworthy citations. I've had Coffey on Google Alert notice for months and have seen nothing but tour dates and fan pages come through. This stub currently has only his website and imdb links. I do not think it should be merged with P.K. and am nominating that page next. If they were merged we would have only two paragraphs of content, all of which link to their websites. Very little activity on this page other than vandalism control and bot edits Sgerbic (talk) 01:18, 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 » 01:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), just a short search finds several reliable sources that show Coffey "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I'm sure there are plenty more out there. Dreadstar ☥ 03:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Free Press - Rare Medium
Gwinnett Daily Post - Medium to host psychic reading at Coolray Field
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal - Paranormal State to bring ghost hunting to Texas Tech
Star Gazette - Psychic says he's `flying sky-high' over `Airline' appearance
Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Lilburn psychic featured on A&E series 'Paranormal' and 'God-given talent'is channeled in mysterious ways

Delete, other than three sentences, there is a clear lack of content, with none forthcoming for some time since its last nomination. This individual's notability may certainly warrant a Wikipedia article, at some time during which there is encyclopedic content with which to populate it. Nmillerche (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how policy works, the amount of content for a subject that meets WP:N, WP:V, and the other content policies does not factor into whether or not an article should exist - it would only apply if there were very little or no verifiable information on the subject in sources anywhere outside of Wikipedia (e.g. external sources with his name only, or other very limited sources of that nature); that's why we have Wikipedia:Stub. With the sources above, the article can definitely be expanded, and I've begun doing so from those sources. Clearly, lack of content - or potential content - is not a concern. Dreadstar ☥ 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:09, 15 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. See the sources provided above by User:Dreadstar for starters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 21 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, Courcelles 00:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns still stand. We now have a very small improvement in the history area. It is just quotes from interviews about his "powers". That might help the article if there were more article to help. Sgerbic (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage exists to establish notability as noted above. That the article is in poor shape means that it needs improvement, not deletion. This is afterall, a collaborative editing environment where imperfect articles are expected. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 2 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. There were two suggestions that something could be merged, but nobody specified what should be merged, and that leaves those votes too vague. The consensus is that the article is an essay, and essays are generally not particularily merge-able. Note that there is already an "advantages" section in the Signing Exact English article, and the title here is a inplausible search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of Using Signed Exact English in the Classroom[edit]

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

This is an essay and doesn't seem to contain anything but the types of pro-con lists we like to avoid. Maybe some of the contained sources could be useful. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, personal, advocative essay. JIP | Talk 07:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - surely this could be added as a subsection of Signing Exact English. It seems to be sourced, although not wikified. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an original essay. If parts of it can be merged to Signed Exact English, fine. Otherwise, it should be deleted as original research and advocacy for one point of view in controversial SEE/ASL education debates. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 17 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:47, 20 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, Courcelles 00:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Per above JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete. Nothing worth salvaging for a merge. Angr (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Article is obviously a personal essay. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:00, 5 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 merge to Optical disc drive. Sandstein 12:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compact Disc shattering[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Officially submitting AFD for Towardsabetterwiki, who submitted one a month ago that wasn't properly formatted. Here are the contents of the original nomination:

Nothing notable here. Mythbusters fan boys can go elsewhere on the web. This article does not belong in an online encyclopedia.

No citations for "compact disk shattering" as something that actually ever happened. All we have is a link to a TV show where they caused a CD to shatter using conditions that never have been shown to occur in an actual Compact Disk drive. Fan boy articles for "Mythbusters" do not belong on wikipedia.

(X! · talk) · @243 · 04:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge and redirect to Optical disc drive#Rotational mechanism or a new sub-subsection thereof. Yes, CDs can shatter[24]. Hard drives can fail, trees can fall, and hailstones can damage cars. These and a billion and one other trivialities don't merit articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even notable enough for a passing mention in the CD article. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Towardsabetterwiki is apparently not a fan of Mythbusters, but this article isn't about Mythbusters, it's about the CD shattering phenomenon. Reliable secondary sources discussing this in depth are a New York Times article and the PCWorld article mentioned by Clarityfiend. An education company posted a warning about CD shattering and prophylactic measures. Given the video evidence, the Mythbusters source is a reliable demonstration that such a thing is possible. Because they were testing an urban myth, they could perhaps be counted as a secondary source. Even if one discounts the Mythbusters experiment, however, there seem multiple independent secondary references to support notability for this topic; the article should be kept. Note this phenomenon is mentioned in the Optical disc drive article as being a real concern, to the point that some manufacturers have altered their rotational speed strategies. It is also mentioned in CD-ROM article. Mark viking (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By your definition, slates falling off the roof of buildings also deserves an article... Lukeno94 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to judge how deserving a topic is of an article based on my personal biases. The general notability guides (see WP:GNG) and its specializations were created to help editors determine whether a topic is worthy of inclusion independent of personal biases. It's not perfect, but it is the best we have. My keep recommendation was based on finding multiple reliable secondary sources with a quick Google and Wikipedia search. Mark viking (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally not judging it based from personal bias. We do not have an article for every single type of failure there is, nor should we. There is no article on car brake failure, for example, and nor should there be. The issue of CDs shattering is nowhere near important enough to warrant an article, regardless of if it meets GNG or not. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging to somewhere in Optical disc drive? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 26 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, Courcelles 00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This ironically happened to me, aside from that this can be merged to Optical disc drive JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge The information seems to be notable, having been reported in reliable sources. I'm not sure if it should have its own article or just a section in another article. BigJim707 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why isn't there an article on car brake failure? BigJim707 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It definitely has some coverage in reliable sources. But there's no reason why it can't be included in the main article Optical disc drive. We don't have a separate article about every danger of a product or every product recall. The title isn't very descriptive, either, since the article only refers to disks breaking at speed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:18, 28 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) JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven stages (Yogi)[edit]

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

This an unreferrenced orphan article on a subject that does not seem not seem to satisfy WP:GNG BO | Talk 19:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't actually unreferenced, per the second sentence: "The following is taken from the commentary on the Yoga Sutras by Vyasa". The reference may not be formatted in the standard way, but it's still a reference. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a couple of references to books from reliable publishers. Plenty more such sources can be found here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to find sources, the seven stages seem somewhat controversial if not completely unfamiliar, but do these sources demonstrate notability? (I.E. are they indicative of that this be an article in it own right which should be cleaned up and expanded, or do they suggest that it should it be merged with say Yogi or Deleted). I would expect an entry in the yoga encyclopedia, a peer reviewed journal on this subject or a monograph. All I see are mentions which point to merging or renaming. BO | Talk 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I cited in the article discuss this subject "directly in detail", to quote the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citation of the second source is incomplete as it lacks the volume. Having tracked it down and examined it in depth, I noticed that it is aluding to something other then which is the subject of the article - it is discussing the seven stages of Prajna and these are discussed in the context of the philosophy of the ... mythical sage vashista, not Vyasa - which are the subject of this article.

Also the first is a primary source - and is unsuitable to establish WP:N. (i.e. you cannot bring three translation of a single religious tract and claim that these are a demonstrate that verse so and so is therefore notable - this is the reason the source must be Independent of the subject. c.f. general notability guideline.

"Yoga and the Luminous also includes a word-by-word translation of Patañjali's Yoga Sutra, the foundational text of Yoga philosophy and ...." from the back cover.

I think these sources only demonstrate that this is not WP:N concept being a subject which can means different things to different writers under various contexts. BO | Talk 15:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:11, 15 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:53, 20 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, Courcelles 00:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per patent lack of WP:BEFORE. A rapid search in Google Books with the key words "Seven stages" and "Yogi" shows 987 results, and in the main part they are not trivial mentions. Also included in encyclopedias such as Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies: Indian Metaphysica and Epistemology the Tradition of Nyaya-Vaisesika Up to Gangesa by Karl H. Potter. A withdrawal of the nomination is suggested. Cavarrone (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An examination of both Google Scholar, Books and Google itself for "Seven Stages Yogi" as well as a numbered of variants revealed no independent reliable sources for this non-Notable concept in Yoga. If such can be found I'll gladly improve it and upgrade it's position in the Yoga project. But if notability cannot be demonstrated it should be removed. The far broader search mentioned above however returned many unrelated results referring to a number of similar sounding concepts but this has no merit since it is to be statistically expected of any search which is too broad - in particular looking up Yogi in a eastern philosophy book is not particularly earthshaking. Accordingly I maintain that the burden of establishing WP:N has not been carried out. If you believe you have uncovered hundreds of high quality texts please provide citations. BO | Talk 13:26, 28 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. Courcelles 00:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Norlin[edit]

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

This individual doesn't appear to be notable. The article itself has a spotty history and it speaks volumes (to me, at least) that none of the mentioned companies have articles of their own here. I recommend deletion. MZMcBride (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this individual does not appear to be notable. He is the CEO of Alphabird. A search on Wikipedia only finds three articles mentioning the word. The company does not appear to be notable.--Joey (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 20 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, Courcelles 00:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:28, 29 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. Courcelles 00:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristall (singer)[edit]

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

Deleted by PROD in August 2011 and by BLPPROD in November 2012. There is no evidence of notability; I also suggest SALTing to prevent re-creation. Giant Snowman 15:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or at most, redirect to Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. The "14 solo albums" claim, by age 14, seems highly unlikely, and reaching number 1 on the UK, Irish and Ukrainian charts (much less with all 14 albums) is simply false. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence in independent reliable sources that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 17:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:03, 20 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, Courcelles 00:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Not notable by any of the usual yardsticks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 29 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. Sandstein 20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Grippaldi[edit]

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

Biography of someone lacking notability according to guidelines, made by a single-purpose user, using copyrighted material from this non-notable person's website Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google news has no hits and while a Google search for the name turned up some hits none of the ones I looked at appeared to be significant coverage in reliable sources. The author of the article claims that the bibliographical information contained in the References section goes to articles in magazines but I was unable to verify that that content actually exists or states what the editor claims it does since I was unable to find the half of it I searched for online. It certainly seems possible that the subject is notable but need to see something that the rest of us can verify. The subject of the article founded a company called Gravitis which has been spamming Wikipedia for years now (see USER:Unotretre for an example of an account that used multiple sockpuppets and was blocked for making legal threats both on Wikipedia and in emails to various editors). This history makes me skeptical. SQGibbon (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: I was given all magazines I indicated, 'cept the last, online, but it's curious a wikiEditor asks to make a scan of printed magazine (I WILL NEVER TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INFRINGE COPIRIGHT TO SHARE IN THIS SKEPTIC PLACE), why? I gave exact number of Issues, eaxct name of articles, and renowned national magazines The Scarp well knows and YOU all have seen in Broox path link with all miniatures. SQGibbon was wrong, because Gravitis is a brand, not a Company. And if you want more referenced links, you know well you have to see the Google Italian engine, which shows Story pages, and images. SQGibbon is not reliable in this discussion to me, trying to add intentionally mud to the discussion, which is not the case.--Wrwrw (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, italian google shows basically the same nothing as english one (facebook, twitter, no relevant article, etc)--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I created this page, so my opinion on this should be obvious, but just wanted to add my explicit "vote" on the matter.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins know the nominators support of deletion is obvious, the only reason for a nominator to ever need to make a bolded !vote is if they have changed their minds. Courcelles 00:37, 27 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, Courcelles 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Appears to meet WP:BLP as well as WP:ATHLETE and WP:ARTIST. Article needs a little work to make it look nice, but everything needed is there, and AfD is not a forum to improve articles. It's a system to remove articles that hurt Wikipedia, and this is definitely not one of those. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Keep - I did not know him as a car designer, but he represented DH Italian scene from the beginning, produced the S-Games (http://www.ncdsa.com/29/214/238/Street-Luge.htm), search for "grippaldi street luge", consider in late 90s the only places to browse were Yahoo and the X-Games rosters, as we used email client to communicate each other: it looks like some of you are not in skateboarding from a long--SfBOT (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - quackery has now been reported. Stalwart111 09:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI concluded - have struck comments from now-blocked sock-puppets of User:Unotretre. Stalwart111 14:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SQGibbon and nominator. Sarah 15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There are ongoing legal threats, please delete asap. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having noted the sock-puppetry above and given the ongoing trouble, it seems obvious to me that this article is WP:PROMO by stealth, created by someone close to the subject who has failed in his campaign to insert the subject's company (Gravitis) into various articles. The editor was blocked for trying to legal-threat that company back into Wikipedia and now again for sock-puppetry. I can't help but query the honesty/legitimacy of the claimed sources - added by an editor with a history of system-gaming and bad faith. I can't find much online (by way of WP:RS) to verify notability or the claimed plethora of sources. The one that does have a link includes one mention of the subject - hardly "significant coverage". Stalwart111 10:19, 4 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. Keep on Roby Monroe and Steve Reese. —Darkwind (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bird (footballer)[edit]

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

Article about a footballer hasn't played in a fully pro league and also fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Michael (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Michael (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Professional Arena soccer league not count? Footballgy (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. See WP:FPL. – Michael (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:47, 21 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, Courcelles 00:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The fact that the Professional Arena Soccer League is missing from the WP:FPL is an oversight in my opinion. These players almost certainly fail WP:GNG, and they fail NFOOTBALL as it stands, but I'm fairly sure they have played in a professional league - unless the name is completely misleading! (I'm aware this isn't the most in-depth vote ever, but) Lukeno94 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Professional Arena Soccer League isn't fully professional. As this article notes, each team has a very tight salary cap and all players in the league either have a second job or attends school. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 20:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simon Bird and Roby Monroe Unless there is somehow proof that Simon Bird played at least one game for the either Forest, Mansfield Town or Lincoln City, which could be possible, on the what is down, he current fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I don't see any help for Monroe! As for Steve Reese, I am not sure, does he count as he played top level football in Romania? But I am not sure as I see no stats for that. Needs more research before I pass judgement on him. Govvy (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - in the absence of reliable sources confirming the contrary, all three fails WP:NSPORT, and none of them have received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Steve Reese - passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in the Divizia A per this which is a fully pro league. If Roby Monroe is this Robert Monroe who played in the USL Second Division, then he also passes WP:NFOOTBALL but it's hard to tell if it's the same guy, and if we can't prove that its the same guy the article should be deleted. Simon Bird (footballer) has not played in a fully pro league, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL in addition WP:GNG and should be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was messy, and I hope the closing admin understand what I meant. I also hope the nominator will think twice before bundling a nomination on three footballers with totally different claims of notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bird: fails WP:NFOOTY and no evidence of enough media coverage to pass GNG.
Keep Monroe: it is the same Robert Monroe as identified by Mentoz, so passes WP:NFOOTY. If anyone had the time and inclination to incorporate references into the article to upgrade from a half-line stub referenced to a dead link, I'd be more comfortable with the keep...
Keep Reese: not only played in the Romanian top flight, but according to this issue of Soccer America, was the first American so to do, and had a couple of paras in the New York Times. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:31, 4 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Starship[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an anonymous editor who posted their rationale on the article's talk page. I have included it verbatim below. On the merits... I dunno. Sources are lacking, and there's not a whole lot of obvious notability, but there has been a smattering of press coverage. It might be a case of "Not Yet" as opposed to "Not Ever". No recommendation from me. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is advertising and also New Starship is not a notable figure or organization. Nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.235.68 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon, this is WP:CRYSTAL gazing. If this museum every becomes a reality then it can be reevaluated. Until then, it is hard to see this as anything other than promotional. RadioFan (talk) 23:17, 15 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, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 23:05, 20 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, Courcelles 00:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Notable enough. There's some press coverage already, and due to the subject matter it will probably be a household name and tourist destination for certain people. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon. There is some press coverage but it's not significant. Delete without prejudice for recreation should the "museum" actually become a reality. RadioFan (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete too soon, not notable today, we can't predict if it will become notable in the future 74.198.9.218 (talk) 17:48, 29 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 Apotropaic magic. Deleted before redirecting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demons in Apotropaic Prayers and Incantations[edit]

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

I came across this while looking into the PROD categories and seeing another page by the same user that is up for PROD. While I think that this is a page for a student user, this is pretty much a personal WP:OR research paper that has been posted as an article. In the state it's in, this is pretty much WP:NOT. If someone can find a way to prove that this passes notability guidelines then I'm all for it, but offhand this just looks like something a little too specific to really have notability out of the basic article for demons. In case this is a student assignment, I've put a copy in the editor's userspace. I've also given her a little info about NPOV and all that good stuff, as I've noticed that some of her other few edits have been reverted by other users. (Basically telling her that editing in her userspace will make the info less likely to be deleted and that until she gets a hang of how the articles should be written, that doing that and getting a more experienced editor to help mentor will keep her stuff from getting reverted or deleted.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is essay-like and not fully referenced. I'm leaning towards deletion but wonder if any could content be saved and merged to Apotropaic magic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an easy delete, is it? There is some merit here, but I'm not sure in what context it could be saved. The big issue is trying to figure out what is OR/essay and what is specifically sourced by the references.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article topic could be notable, but in its current state, it's a hotbed of original research that does not quite meet notability. We're not an academic journal, we're not a secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Apotropaic magic where reliably-sourced content can be used to construct a paragraph or two on the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 17 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, Courcelles 08:26, 19 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, KTC (talk) 00:21, 27 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. A9, no indication of musician notability either Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living The Dream (album)[edit]

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

A non-notable album I cannot find reliable sources for. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:19, 27 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. Courcelles 00:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaela Le' Anne Elkins[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 20 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 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bio is not backed up by reliable sources that establish notability. Edge3 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are from LinkedIn, for Pete's sake... --Randykitty (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor sourcing, and the whole thing reads like a self-promo piece, especially given the author's cross-wiki edits only have to do with this subject. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 31 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Center for Studies in Creativity[edit]

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

Article on non-notable program within a single non-notable department in a university. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 15 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:43, 20 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 00:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Among the few press items that I can find is an October 2012 news release which includes a quotation that "the ICSC doesn't have the kind of international recognition we'd like it to have"([25], via Highbeam, subscription reqd.). On the other hand, there is an article in a magazine called Distance Learning where the programme is described as "prestigious"([26], via Highbeam, subscription reqd.). AllyD (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding evidence that this programme has attained distinct notability; as things stand, it is covered in sufficient depth at Buffalo_State_College#Curriculum. AllyD (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing here that belongs in an encyclopedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:35, 29 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. Courcelles 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bailey[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 20 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 00:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If he is an academic, I would expect him to be engaged in academic research or writing, but unless the articlew is severely deficient, it would appear that he did a small amount of writing for dramatic media over 30 years ago, and nothing since. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:40, 29 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McGillivray[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be reasonable. Nobody tries to delete notable fighters. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:MMANOT as he has multiple appearances for the UFC (in and out of the house) and has fought for Maximum Fighting Championship for most of his career which is also on MMANOT. The tiering on MMANOT has been misconstrued. Some people think that tier 2 is to be ignored, which it isn't, or there'd be no point in having it. When you have TUF experience, plus lots of fights from a promotion listed on MMANOT, you're notable enough... Paralympiakos (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is like so many other discussions. TUF fights, except for the finale, aren't counted even by the UFC. Sherdog and other MMA sites also don't count those fights and consensus at MMANOT was that only finale fights count towards notability. Jakejr (talk) 15:34, 26 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 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to comment why? Just saying "not notable" isn't a proper rationale. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it fails WP:MMANOT, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ATHLETE, WP:BLP, and WP:NMMA (and a few others) in a big way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't those policies, as I've explained above. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:18, 29 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. There's clearly no consensus for deletion here. Any potential mergers can be discussed outside of AFD. KTC (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic skiing at the 1924 Winter Olympics[edit]

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

Totally redundant considering everything listed on this page already has an article and this article has no information which couldn't be found on those articles. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated AFDs on the same pages for each Winter Olympics into this one. Also nominated are:
Nordic skiing at the 1928 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1932 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1936 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1948 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1952 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1956 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1960 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1964 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1968 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1972 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1976 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1980 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1984 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1988 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1992 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1994 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 1998 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 2002 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 2010 Winter Olympics
Nordic skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics
Given the lack of substantive differences in the pages or deletion nomination rationales, this should give us a higher quality discussion against holding it spread over 22 AFDs. Courcelles 19:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Nordic skiing at the Olympics or Nordic skiing at the Winter Olympics -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until things are sorted out properly. For articles up to 1964 these articles used to hold the results (example) until these were removed diff. More recent pages were created deliberately in this reduced form (example). I wonder whether this has been appropriate but AfD is too blunt a weapon to decide what is best. Merge is unlikely to be an option because the links in each article are to the corresponding year-specific articles of Olympic discipline results and these are in better shape (example). The articles under discussion are rather akin to WP:SETINDEX articles. Thincat (talk) 20:47, 26 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 00:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - The grouping of these events into Nordic skiing provides an overview of the event group that is not present in the individual articles. There is an opportunity to provide a better overview with information like the medalists. In the cases. -- Whpq (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Nordic skiing at the Winter Olympics. No prejudice against a Section within such a new Article that would document medalists for each year. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:56, 4 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 merge to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Songs[edit]

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

Contested PROD. While the show and some individual episodes are notable, and the composer is notable, no songs are. If there was an official soundtrack I could see morphing this to work for that, but there's been no announcements. MASEM (t) 23:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge* Although I (personally) wouldn't mind seeing this as a separate article, the best place for this list right now would probably be as part of the List of Episodes. Yellow1996 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 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, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Yellow. I've looked around and can't find a list like this for any other series, and even songs like "See My Vest" by Mr Burns are just redirects to their respective episodes, so this won't be a particularly helpful list for navigation in the future. Yep. PhnomPencil (✉) 07:31, 27 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. A10 / G12 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR[edit]

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

This appears to be a cut-and-paste version of sections of the article Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and various other sources with no attribution given. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the G12 (copyright violation) criterion. Per WP:COPYWITHIN and the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, the copyright policy still applies when the infringement is on another article. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course, we still could supply the necessary attribution, but in that case the article would still all under A10 (duplicate).) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I've added A10 to the CSD template, since I suppose you could view this one of two ways - both of them grounds for speedy deletion, however.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a rather implausible search term, especially in all-caps. Incidentally, if consensus is to redirect, it would probably be simplest to delete the page, and then recreate it as a redirect, to avoid any nasty attribution issues. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:22, 27 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. Invalid rationale for deletion, can't be considered good-faith. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 phenomenon[edit]

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

This is now over with. The world did not end. Now it is time to delete. RightGot (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose to delete 2011 as well as it is over? If this is a joke, I don't think it is funny. If not, I don't get it. --134.3.213.74 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep - whether the event happened or not, the amount of attention it received means it plainly passes our notability guidelines. We have plenty of other articles on prophecies that failed to come true but were nonetheless historically significant (Great Disappointment, 2011 end times prediction to name a couple), and this one is no different. Robofish (talk) 16:26, 27 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.

[1] Grahnke, Lon (March 6, 1996). "Teen Tempts Mom's Boyfriend As `Sweet' Romance Goes Sour". Chicago Sun-Times.

[2] Voorhees, John (March 4, 1996). "Three good-looking series get rolling on ABC, CBS". The Seattle Times.

[3] Leonard, John (March 11, 1996). "John Leonard's Video Notes". New York.

[1]

[2]

[3]