Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 June 25 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlabel[edit]

Unlabel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established, primarily unreliable sources, most of article is unreferenced. Nouniquenames (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The whole thing reads like an WP:Advertisement. I was unable to find any helpful reviews, news articles or other coverage through any of the usual Google searches. I don't believe sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't really make a case for notability even if it were sourced, which it is not, other than a few primary links. I didn't find anything worthwhile in web searches, but happy to revisit if someone does. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks WP:RS, thus fails WP:GNG. Even if sourced, I don't think that notability can be established as not many notable acts are associated. →TSU tp* 03:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough to be included. The Determinator p t c 15:23, 1 July 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. Simple vote counting puts delete votes slightly ahead of keep votes (roughly 60/40). An analysis of the arguments shows that most Keep voters argue that the topic passes WP:GNG, owing to the vast quantity of sources available on the subject. That argument is countered to some degree by those claiming that the vast majority of the sources are not primarily about the specific topic of Kutcher's use of Twitter, but otherwise I believe the consensus is that the topic most likely passes WP:GNG. However, the Delete voters make a compelling case for why passing WP:GNG doesn't matter in this case, and that's because policy trumps guidelines. The policy in this case is WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY), which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In the discussions below, there are many examples of other potential topics that receive a lot of coverage in reliable sources, but otherwise would not be suitable for an article as they would violate WP:NOT. In any case, I would be ok with restoring the article for the purpose of merging some of its material to other articles, upon request on my talk page. -Scottywong| comment _ 19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ashton Kutcher on Twitter[edit]

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I am not sure how a person's account on Twitter can be seen as being worthy of an account.

Things like Category:Celebrity_Twitter_accounts make a mockery of building an encyclopaedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Justin Bieber on Twitter just became a WP:GA and there is a lot of encyclopedic content that belongs in this article that is to detailed for a general biography. The article clearly passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although when I passed the Justin Bieber on Twitter GA, I did note that I don't really like Twitter articles. However, it passes WP:GNG so it is acceptable. Regards, ⇒TAP 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't take this as argumentative or confrontational as it's not meant to be. But the sentence "They <Kutcher and GF> were a measuring stick by which Twitter was determined to have gone mainstream in early 2009." and the accompanying source is evidence for the notability of the Twitter article, not a justification for an entire article on Kutcher's Twitter account. And, to paraphrase Vituzzu's comments, non-notability is a definite reason to delete an article but the reverse is not necessarily true. Notability ("fame and popularity") is not a guarantee for inclusion. If an article doesn't measure up to any of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, the "fundamental principles" of the project, it shouldn't be included. This article doesn't measure up to the first pillar: there's no redeeming academic value, it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fails WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quote and source are evidence for the notability of the article in question, also. You have not said why you feel INDISCRIMINATE and NOTNEWS apply, so I will not address those. I would love for "academic value" to be given the weight of a rule or essay as a point in favor of inclusion, like a sort of tiebreaker, but AFAIK it has no standing in a deletion discussion, nor would I want it to. Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an academic writing in this area, yes, there is redeeming academic value. --LauraHale (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Academic writing? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My doctoral thesis is in this area, and I've had more conversations with academics about Twitter, Twitter's role in society, Twitter metrics than you'd probably like to know. I've also talked to people in three departments in my university about this topic in how to design coursework related to this topic, and I've given a training session for industry folks where this type of material would be covered. Twitter is being written about extensively in various parts of the academic world. If you want to cry no-academic value, as some one in that space, it doesn't wash. I suppose the people writing about extinct birds and first century generals from Greece are unlikely to write about Twitter academically, but others in communications, popular culture studies, sociology and business are. --LauraHale (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My claim is that there is no academic value in maintaining individual "X on Twitter" articles (I should have been more clear on that). We already have an article, Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians where the use of these Twitter accounts can written about and centralized. If that's not enough, see my suggestions below. After all, if I'm reading what your saying correctly, it's the use of these twitter accounts that is of interest, not the existence of them. The individual "X on Twitter" articles just border on WP:Fancruft.
That would be nice. I have a whole chapter in my thesis about a specific twitter account. There is academic value in maintaining these because they are a great launching off point for people in several fields doing work in this area. The individual articles, which clearly pass WP:GNG, offer valid case studies. This is why they are of academic interest, despite the claims you're making otherwise. --LauraHale (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I'm not a huge fan of more of these articles, the article passes independent WP:GNG. The articles have value in that they explain how social media and current culture work and would probably be useful in marketing, communications or popular culture studies classes. --LauraHale (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think that the information that provides "value in that they explain how social media and current culture work" should be in the twitter article. If, indeed, it is the case that there is some useful academic information it should be combined into a "meta-article" such as "Twitter in Marketing" or "Twitter's use in popular culture" and have these "famous and popular" examples redirected and included as examples, rather than having multiple individual "X on Twitter" articles and dealing with the same issues every time a new one comes up.
How long do you propose making these articles if you include all the heavily covered WP:GNG eligible Twitter accounts? The case studies these articles represent in an academic sense would quickly explode out a page and could not be dealt with with out presenting WP:UNDUE problems. I think you're trying to cite academic work as an excuse with out having much familiarity with the multi-discplinary work being done in this sphere. WP:IDONTLIKEIT appears to me what the argument boils down because the academic one is not a valid argument. --LauraHale (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why doesn't it fall under WP:OR? (Theoretically it could have been a COI too) --Vituzzu (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is reliably sourced, passes WP:GNG, does not do WP:SYNTH to try to push a point of view that the sources do not support. Hence, it is not WP:OR. What sort of WP:COI are you implying? If you're implying Tony has one, I need to see some evidence of it. If you're implying I have it, early draft of my thesis shows this has little to do with my methodological approach and isn't fundamental to my topic. I'm not supporting this with the intention of using it in a classroom. As an argument had been made this was not of academic interest, I pointed out it clearly WAS of academic interest. No WP:COI there. Go fish again? --LauraHale (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to deem it fishing but, again, it's always you saying it has some academic interest, it has a "stand-alone" importance, all the infos in the page are in topic (even these) and, finally, it's always you saying it passes WP:GNG. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said it doesn't have academic interest, based on criteria I do not understand. The article clearly passes WP:GNG because Kutcher's Twitter usage has been covered independently of other Kutcher topics. I think there would be a struggle for over half the articles on Wikipedia to have as many media references as Kutcher on Twitter. And the topic does have stand alone importance because the goal to get a million followers was widely covered by the media and demonstrates social media related issues in wider culture and marketing. You've yet to demonstrate the topic doesn't pass WP:GNG unless you dismiss thousands of articles from multiple media organisations from several different places around the globe. You haven't offered a compelling reason why this would not be of academic interest, despite claiming it isn't. Google Scholar shows you're wrong about academic interest. This appears to be a fishing expedition, especially when WP:COI was thrown in, in order to justify a vote based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like articles about Pokemon or Bieber albums but they pass WP:GNG so they stay. --LauraHale (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your best point is in order to justify a vote based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is it a kind invite to leave the discussion? Again, you're both producing and judging academic production about that topic, that's a form of COI, since is quite natural all of us will tend to underline the relevance of his own research topics. I already said why, according to me, it doesn't pass the GNG and the only answer I got is such a sort of mantra "it passes WP:GNG" (repeated n-times). As I tried to say dozens of times nothing shows it has an "stand-alone" relevancy, it can be easily summarized and merged into Kutcher's page. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His twitter actions do get ample press coverage. Having read through the article, I see it is clearly a valid content fork from his main article. Dream Focus 21:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Marketing, Media and Technology are all valid encyclopaedic subjects. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break - Non-vote consensus?[edit]

  • Neutral for now(?) - This AFD should have been opened as "{{not a vote}}" at the start. Therefore, voting would have been avoided or lessened, even if numerous "keeps" would make this discussion SNOWy. "Keeps" rely on WP:GNG as part of argument, yet even news media is insufficient proof that this topic is actually notable; one article or 1,000 articles do not prove sufficiency, but at least they're trying. Nevertheless, real-life events happen, and impact (i.e. effects from and on this topic) has been well-sourced enough to balance this article. Hopefully, one academic source, like a peer journal, a published essay, or some mainstream book, would have been enough for this topic to pass GNG. As I'm reading WP:notability, I figured that the notability of this has gained due to some pedophilia case in football and the notable celebrity himself. Nevertheless, I'm reading WP:notability (events) and WP:notability (web), and maybe those who want to vote must study these after this post and before voting. --George Ho (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Time Magazine [1] covers how popular the guy's account is. And this article isn't about one event, its about someone's twitter account which has had multiple events which have been covered in the media. We wouldn't create an entire article for just one media covered twitter event. Dream Focus 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it passes WP:GNG; 1,000 news sources do not implicate widespread attention. To me, GNG is poorly cited, so I can't use it for arguments. I don't think "(events)" applies because the subject was used by the celebrity for such events. Nevertheless, let's use "(web)" then:

    Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote.

    The above quote passes by the impact Ashton made on Twitter: the loss of Demi, and the shutdown itself.

    When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.

    Challenging CNN for bed sheets that reduce risks of malaria helps this topic achieve it. Fortunately, it passes "WP:Notability (web)" because of those events and other events that meet above, but how does it pass GNG? I crossed out my neutrality because I'm starting to figure out that this topic meets (an)other subject-notability guideline(s). --George Ho (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall I add {{not a vote}} in this arbitrary break then? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What are your thoughts on the academic references available to cite? --LauraHale (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Some are inaccessible, as purchase is required. There are some with full access: AAAI.org. I'm still finding ones that pass "significant coverage" and all other criteria of GNG. I get a feeling that GNG is the most unique yet misunderstood or miscited. Many sources there discuss popularity of Kutcher's account and trivially Kutcher's use of Twitter. Someone can be brave enough to go through all Scholar results... I don't know if I'm the one. --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nomination doesn't state any grounds for deletion. I don't care how useless twitter is, I'm sure the nominator has written articles I would personally find useless. But my subjective view is not relevant.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notable article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Statυs (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it isn't. Fortunately, no one uses that argument. Instead there have been arguments about content, encyclopedic quality, whether to merge, etc. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have an argument in favor of keeping it--so can I refer you to WP:ILIKEIT? Drmies (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Down this path lies madness. The President of the USA is regularly covered by newspapers, but does that mean we should have a Barack Obama in the New York Times section? Obviously the Ashton Kutcher article should have a paragraph or two about his presence on Twitter, but having an entirely separate article for what at the end of the day boils down to a single factoid ("first use with a million followers") is complete overkill and serves no useful purpose. Jpatokal (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions It seems that this article is about a publisher of information and their means of publishing it, is that not one valid way to look at this? Are there publisher/publishing notability guidelines that should or do exist? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the citations available and the arguments above and below, this appears to be a notable and discrete topic in the "new media" category, like the articles about individual "blogs." Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2 - Relisting[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Valid WP:GNG Wikipedia:Summary style of Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence and, to the credit of the editors of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, not much in the way of citing to Kutcher's Twitter account to support the Ashton Kutcher on Twitter article. "became the first Twitter account with 1 million followers in April 2009" - of course the news sources are going to write about his Twitter account and have follow up stories on it, giving Wikipedia plenty of material for the spinout article. Wikipedia:Summary style reqires enough text in the given Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence subtopic to merit its own article, so you might want to expand Wikipedia:Summary style. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. - For what it's worth, I recently iVoted to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal life of Jennifer Lopez largely because it failed Wikipedia:Summary style, due in part to the lack of cooperation with the editors of the Jennifer Lopez article and lack of restraint in adding trivial details to the Personal life of Jennifer Lopez article. The 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' article has cooperation with the editors of the Ashton Kutcher (even though there is some disagreement) and shows retraint on adding trivial details to the 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' article. Plus, it has what I noted above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Ashton Kutcher is notable, I can't imagine why a Twitter account would need a Wikipedia article. JIP | Talk 10:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same reasons Sam and Diane from Cheers need an article about themselves, which I created. Frankly, it was nominated as AFD, but the nomination was withdrawn. Unfortunately, in this case, the bickering about Twitter and Ashton Kutcher can't go away here. --George Ho (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In my opinion, this is a synthesis of published material that advances a position (Wp:Synth) which is the claim that this Twitter account is notable: it seems that the significant coverage in reliable sources doesn't establishes a presumption that this subject is suitable for being included in any kind of encyclopedia (WP:GNG, last point of the list), it could be treated as a pure curiosity.--Nickanc (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because his twitter account has gotten ample coverages in the media, for being so popular, as well as various things that have happened involving it. That isn't synthesis. Dream Focus 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question LauraHale, you mentioned your thesis, and said one of the chapters was on a particular twitter account. I gather it's not his, or you would have said so, so what account is it? (if you don't want to be specific, what type of account--a person in what field?) Second, do you think you could in fact do a chapter on his? and do you think an academic article on his would be accepted by a first-rate journal? Third, perhaps you could summarize some of the paywalled sources in terms of how much of the content is about this account in particular? DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG: I have (sub after reorganisation) chapters on Brendon Fevola on Twitter and Anna Meares on Twitter, with a fair bit about Zac Dawson on Twitter. Very early drafts of this material can be found here, here and here. If anyone created those, I'd probably support deletion of them. As Kutcher is not an Australian sport topic, it would not fit into my topic. I could probably easily write a paper about Kutcher on Twitter. If I was very motivated, I could probably get it published in an academic journal of first rate in popular culture, but you'd be looking at a six month to two year lag AFTER I submitted it. (Conference presentation would thus be easier.) I've had a debate as to whether or not I could probably get away with, with conference organiser permission, present Justin Bieber on Twitter as a conference "paper" but that's because the quality of that article is much, much higher. (If I wanted to spend the time, there are a number of accounts that I could probably do that for.) It is important to remember that with a topic like social media, there is going to be an academic lag in writing about it. (Thus, conference papers better.) The publishing methods do not allow for faster times to publish. Hence, there is a reliance on newspaper sources.--LauraHale (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically looking behind pay wall data bases I have access to, I can see one article directly on this topic: "The real meaning of Ashton Kutcher's 1M Twitter followers. Dumenco, Simon; Dumenco, Simon., Advertising Age (0001-8899)" One article that specifically mentions Kutcher and Twitter in the abstract is "Ulanoff L. Facebook Challenges Twitter to Celebrity Deathmatch!. PC Magazine [serial online]. June 2009;28(6):1. Available from: Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 18, 2012." This abstract says: "This article discusses how the social network Facebook is trying to encourage celebrities into using their website to connect with others. The author speculates that this effort is in direct response to rival social network Twitter. The press release available from Facebook on how celebrities and brands can transform their pages is discussed. Celebrities who use Twitter and Facebook include actor Ashton Kutcher and basketball player Shaquille O'Neal. It is suggested that despite the press release, Facebook is still more complex to use than Twitter." The following also mentions both together: The Twitter scorecard. Publishers Weekly. 256.20 (May 18, 2009) p4. Word Count: 182. From Literature Resource Center. The first sentence says: "Although everyone's still a little unsure of just how valuable a Twitter following is--does Ashton Kutcher really have more pull than CNN?--celebrities, news organizations and entertainment conglomerates are scrambling to get more followers on the social networking site. " Another article behind a pay wall is Wheaton K. Twitter no substitute for good ol' one-way communication. Advertising Age [serial online]. April 20, 2009;80(14):25. Available from: Communication & Mass Media Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 18, 2012.. Abstract is: "The article discusses actor Ashton Kutcher, and his race to become the first user of the social messaging tool Twitter to obtain one million followers. It is said that Kutcher's use of billboards and television appearances to advertise his Twitter stunt was contrary to the spirit of online social networking." Reading the articles about Kutcher and Twitter, they come from a popular culture studies or marketing discipline. The focus is not on Ashton himself, but rather the use of Twitter as a platform for communication and the effectiveness of Kutcher (and thus other celebrities like him) in tasks like fund raising, getting media attention, promoting causes and doing outreach. Without reading the current article, I'd expect this to be a major focus where Kutcher is almost the side story. (Which is the case for the Bieber article.) If the article is about Kutcher, it is doing it wrong. Hopefully, that answers your questions. (Please don't ask me to write about this academically. :) )--LauraHale (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comment on this. danah boyd is one of THE leaders in the field of social media research. (My supervisor has been urging me to cite Boyd more.) danah boyd wrote: 7.To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter

Alice Marwick; danah boyd. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. May 2011. Vol.17,Iss.2;p.139 - 158. Source: SAGE Premier 2012. Kutcher's practices for use on Twitter were repeatedly cited in this paper and how it compares to others, in some cases explaining how this conceputalizes how Twitter itself is understood. Quote: "Responsiveness on Twitter is variable: while Ashton Kutcher may not write back to his fans, a fan will typically write back to him, and Ashton Kutcher will typically respond to other celebrities. This type of public recognition marks certain people as more important than others." And yeah, the existing article is pretty crap in that it focuses on Twitter metrics, with out contextualizing WHY this is encyclopediac. --LauraHale (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's some synthesis going on here, and the subject can have ample coverage in the articles on Ashton Kutcher and Twitter. Frankly, all of these Celebrity X on Twitter articles are embarrassing and they all need to be merged into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and leave it at that. AniMate 17:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I saw this mentioned on DGG's page, I was certain I was going to come here and request not just deletion, but complete and utter destruction. But, after reading the comments here, and thinking about it, and checking the article itself, this article is essentially the equivalent of The Rest of the Story--it's a description of a particular type of published content, that has importance (notability, in our terms) independent of the author himself (or his publicists--whoever actually writes the content). It seems problematic because we have no easy way to title the article that makes it clear that this is an article about a work of literature (I mean that in the broad, postmodern sense), but, nonetheless, this is what it covers. Now, merger may be appropriate, but I think that such a discussion would occur better on Talk:Ashton Kutcher, as such a discussion might need more than the AfD format (and time limit) can provide. If you want the WP terms, this subject meets WP:GNG and thus is notable enough for an article, and I see no pressing other need to demand deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For my tastes, all the celebrity-twitter-related articles should be deleted, starting from Justin Bieber on Twitter, but looking at cited (and not cited) sources this subject clearly passes our notability guideline. Cavarrone (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or merge the applicable policy here is ...not case studies, which states that we should be cautious in how we treat "situation X in location Y" or "version X of item Y" types of articles. There ARE enough sources to create articles about television appearances of Barack Obama, newspaper coverage of Barack Obama, humor and entertainment of Barack Obama, and any other number of forks. (And you can see how similar articles could be written for other major public figures.) The principle at play in WP:NOT is that we can let sources dictate what verifiable content should appear in articles, but not always the proportion or organization of said articles. It's possible that celebrities on Twitter or some other article would make sense. But we already have Twitter usage and there has to be an intelligent way to fork this, instead of creating numerous articles about case by case by case. Again, Wikipedia is not a collection of case studies. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting from the part on case studies: "This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest." In the case of of Ashton Kutchet, it does represent that as the research done by academics and the mentions in several marketing related texts demonstrate. This doesn't hold true for say an article titled Anna Meares on Twitter where her Twitter usage doesn't pass WP:GNG and does not represent "some culturally significant phenomenon" because her use and place inside the Twitter hierarchy isn't particularly noteworthy. I think you'd be lucky to have maybe 20 accounts which would pass this threshold, as demonstrated by the Rhianna article being deleted. (And a deletion I fully supported. Nothing noteworthy about her usage and nothing that demonstrated "some culturally significant phenomenon".) --LauraHale (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- most of the "X on Twitter" articles are borderline or delete candidates, and most popular culture figures who use twitter cannot sustain a sub-discussion fork to "X on Twitter", but the article is well-sourced. A merge to the main article would be inappropriate because it would dominate an article that is already pushing prime article length. It would be nice if the photo represented Kutcher specifically on Twitter, but that's no reason to delete. I'm generally against expanding celebrity worship on WP, but this article more than passes the bar. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging a very slimmed down version to the main article. --Bensin (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Bensin: The main article being Twitter? Because of the focus on follower totals and the relative weight of these statistics towards understanding how Twitter works as a marketing and social tool? --LauraHale (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the "main article" be Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the information on Kutcher would fit there? It would seem, unless scaled back to one or two sentences, it would be WP:UNDUE. The list also has a current US centric problem. Hugo Chavez's use of Twitter is not included, and he gave away a house to his I believe three-millionth follower. There is nothing in there about the South Australian Tourist board use of celebrities to promote Kangaroo Island, and this recieved a fair amount of Australian coverage. The article as it stands is awful and I think a good rewrite would end up removing him as there are many, many, many celebrities and politicians use Twitter. Can you please explain why you think Kutcher would be relevant? --LauraHale (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to LauraHale: Thats a good question! Perhaps it's best to split the article and merge the parts into Ashton Kutcher, Twitter and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. Any description and important examples of how Twitter works as a marketing and social tool belongs in the article about Twitter. --Bensin (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is questioning Twitters role in contemporary society, but that role is best described in the article about Twitter. --Bensin (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Up to what level? Although, if I didn't make it clear before, I'm more or less referring to celebrities like Kutcher (including Gaga, Bieber, Britney, etc) on Twitter. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a common article for all celebrities on Wikipedia. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it's a legitimate source of information as a stand-alone article, and then, in general, X_on_Twitter only has to solve the same problem WikiProject:Numbers had, how far to go? Laura mentioned, what, ten, 20 at best? Hardly the plague most of the Merge/Deletes seems to be fearing, especially when 1089_(number) isn't a problem.
woops, signature. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I usually argue WP should be about Cézanne and Niobium, with most anything BLP avoided. However, in this case Kutcher's twitter acct has made a lot of contemporary news: CNN, Wired, NPR and the NYT. I hate this topic, but it is a highly notable cultural trend and in particular has been around for several years, so I think it's time to bite the bullet and declare it OK. -- Ultracobalt  (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a minor section in his bio , not a separate article bloated by trivia. - Youreallycan 23:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on a re-reading of LauraHales information about the sources and their significance, it seems to be there is no substantial basis for the separate notability of this subject, and it constitutes excessive coverage, even by our usually very liberal standards for popular celebrities. The keep arguments basically are saying that the use of twitter by such individuals is a notable subject; I agree with that, but it doesn't mean that the use of it by any one particular individual celebrity is therefore separately notable. I think it would take unusually strong evidence to justify such a split, and the evidence here is a great deal weaker than that, and weaker even by our usual standards. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a misperception of the argument, which is that given the amount and wide nature of sources that discuss this individual's publications in the new medium, it is a notable and discreet topic by the wider world's standards and therefore by Wikipedia's. Outlets that popularize a new medium or have used it in a distinct way are often the subject of their own article (see eg., Nupedia (long defunct), SCOTUSblog (ongoing) etc., etc.) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's standards for keeping an article does not require an academic article that would be accepted by a first-rate journal. Wikipedia's articles do not need to meet FA standards to be kept and the request for LauraHales' information and opinion about the sources and their significance towards an academic article that would be accepted by a first-rate journal is not a way to judge a basis for the separate notability of this subject. My own research turned up more than 240 news articles having Kutcher and Twitter in the title of the news article alone, more than enough to populate article topic subsections such as History, Twitter usage as a communication platform, Reaction, etc. and to provide strong evidence of separate WP:GNG notability of this topic. In a sense, this is a new type of article for Wikipedia. We have articles on newspapers, magazines, and other media communication outlets such as the Oprah Winfrey Network. In the "X on Twitter, Facebook, etc." article, you have a media communication outlet essentially run by one person (probably with the help of their team, publicists, lawyers, etc.), with content covering one person, where that single person media communication outlet is written about by numerous Wikipedia reliable sources (which makes it Wikipedia notable). Because of the newness of these types of article, there's no direct pattern of subsection headings in which to structure the article around, so initially we're going to get some articles longer than they should be and not as well structured as they should be (which is not a reason to delete). We should not crush these new type of Wikipedia articles; instead, we should let them develop and bring out a structured pattern based on a thorough survey of the relevant literature, which will include scholarly articles in the future per LauraHale. In advance of that, looking at the subsections for The New York Times and other media communication outlet articles may provide some guidance: History (straight forward and always a must in my book), Ownership (we assume it's one person but research focused on this would show it probably is a team effort), Content (probably not as important as it is for the New York Times), Usage as a communication platform (LauraHale's suggestion; the article largely should focus on this), Reaction (yes, this is important). There's probably are other subsections that would fit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3 - Relisting, Part Deux[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment I'm relisting this for another week, as although there has been a lot of participation, there seems scant regard for actually building a compelling case for deletion.
    • Many keep !voters cited the WP:GNG. Most of the delete !voters have thus far seemed unable to challenge the assertion that it does meet the GNG, with only George Ho suggesting somehow that 1,000 newspaper articles does not satisfy the GNG. This strikes me as an implausible reading of both the plain words of the GNG and long-standing practice at AfD and DRV.
    • Some delete !voters advanced the view that the article breaches WP:SYNTH. I have not seen any argument advanced as to how exactly the article is synthesising published material to advance a position. If it is, it should surely be discernible what the position it is advancing is. User:Nickanc advances the argument that the synthesis is to push the position that the topic is notable. This seems like a frankly mad argument to me. It misunderstands the nature of notability and also misunderstands the desideratum behind having a policy against original research, of which the ban on synthesis is a section. All Wikipedia articles synthesise notability from multiple sources: is Tom Cruise notable because Time wrote about him? No. Is he notable because USA Today wrote about him? No. Is he notable because Time, USA Today, MSNBC, Entertainment Weekly and the BBC have written about him. Sure. Is this synthesis? In the common and ordinary sense of the term, yes. But that's uninteresting. The policy on WP:SYNTHESIS is what is included in the article, not on what decisions go on behind the scenes about notability.
      • Perhaps instead those suggesting WP:SYNTH are suggesting that the article has to synthesise together sources that cover both Twitter and Ashton Kutcher. That's sort of what articles do. How is this different from, say, the article on Christianity and homosexuality or World War II and American animation?
        • Bleh. I agree that it is perhaps better to leave the notability policy out of the test for synthesis, but I disagree with your reasoning that it would fail that test. Synthesis is advancing a new third conclusion based on two or more disparate facts. The fact that a person is in X number of news stories can be expressed as X separate facts, but they are so similar, it is unnecessary. And the conclusion that is reached is always the same no matter which news stories or how many. Assessing the value of the sources themselves is complicated (substantial coverage? independent?), but counting them up is the most basic of calculations and is allowed under WP:CALC. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then there's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not sure that this works too well either. I'm not wild about the way the article is structured, but I cannot for the life of me see how that based on the sources used, one can honestly say that it is indiscriminate. It covers the stated topic perfectly well enough.
    • The primary reason seems to be a non-policy-based expression of frustration: "Down this path lies madness", making "a mockery of building an encyclopedia" etc. Frustration and dislike of celebrity culture is perfectly understandable (I share absolutely no desire to follow Mr Kutcher's tweets) but basically amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a Keep voter, but I think that several Delete voters have been building a compelling case as well, mostly based on excessive coverage (for instance, there is coverage of Barack Obama every day in reliable sources, but I hope we don't make a Barack Obama in the News on 24 June 2012 article...). DGG leans on this argument in a particularly compelling argument. I'm not convinced, but I do think that it is a compelling case that could build consensus; I agree that relisting is a good idea, but mainly because I don't see one side as forming a consensus over the other. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The key issue here is that to establish notability we're looking for articles that are substantially about the subject, not just mention it. There seem to be no sources that are solely or primarily about the Twitter account of this person, so clearly the sources are being used in a very WP:SYNTH-like manner. You can basically find source mentions of any topic, but just having footnotes doesn't mean that a topic is notable -- they must be of a certain caliber and depth into the subject when notability is disputed. Steven Walling • talk 23:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to check the sources again with special attention to articles like this Time magazine article and this New York Times article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once again, those sources are not solely or primarily about Ashton's Twitter, but rather about Celebrity use of Twitter overall. The content that is substantially about the Ashton Kutcher account is relatively small. Having a series of articles like this when the sources that are reliable only support notability for general celebrity use of Twitter is not appropriate. Steven Walling • talk 02:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This reasoning is rather weak in light of the countervailing standard that a particularly noted intersection or outlet of "new media" and another topic, like "celebrity" (or "encyclopedias" or "breaking news" or any other general topic), make for a focused article on in depth aspects of the other topics, as well as its own. (See also, The Washington Post [2] and AdAge). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reading the policy on synthesis you seem to be trying to explain your point with, it still seems entirely unrelated; or if I interpret it in a way that is related, an inaccurate accusation. Any claims made in the article about Ashton Kutcher's twitter usage and it's treatment in the media seem to be verifiable in the associated sources. If you're talking about claims made on this page, of course, WP:SYNTHNOT, though just an essay, the forth section explains the issue with that appropriately. As for just looking at notability, note that 'Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material'. And while I'm sure anything anyone says about Ashton seems trivial (I know it does to me), the reason for having more than a trivial mention is noted further down, in WP:WHYN, "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." This is clearly not an issue for this article. In other words, if either of these concerns were particularly valid, to say nothing of being grounds for deletion, there would be notable problems with the article itself, such as a preponderance of unsupported statements, or the article would be nothing more than a stub with no hope for expansion. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Just for kicks, must I remind you this for historical study: WP:articles for deletion/Olivia Hack. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into AK's main article (which is surprisingly short and begs for why this is spun out?), and if necessary from there, spin out the filmography of AK into a separate article. Because this involves a BLP, as much of the BLP information should be kept in a single article to make its maintenance simpler. It's not that this isn't notable, but because of how we handle BLPs, we need to be really careful when we do these types of spinouts. (This is a problem all the "X on Twitter" articles have). --MASEM (t) 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see what good a redirect would do. Some of the content--some of it--could find a way into his main article, but this thing as an article in its own right is ridiculous. What's the purpose? (That's a rhetorical question.) There is nothing encyclopedic, of lasting value, about this article that is somehow separate from the subject himself to such an extent that it needs to be treated separately (like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which has little to do with Obama and everything with BLP violations pre-redacted); it seems, rather, an excuse to collect a bunch of facts and numbers to create a DYK/GA, riding on the wave of X on Twitter. Which reminds me: someone needs to write Twitter on Twitter--should be easy. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, I ended up running myself all around Wikipedia to see if I could find an actual basis for the conclusions you've drawn about the article being ridiculous or having no encyclopedic value; the crux of your argument to delete much more so than aspersions on author motivations. As of yet, I haven't found much, so if you could offer up something to justify deletion more concrete than the, as already identified, very 'idon'tlikeit' frustration, that'd be helpful...Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't have to run anywhere--you could just read my comment. "I don't like it"? Do you have anything to offer besides "it's a legitimate source of information as a stand-alone article", which is nothing but "because I say so"? Drmies (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We need policy to justify -not- deleting the article now? Well then, let's start from the beginning. It passes WP:GNG, it's WP:V, and as far as I can tell WP:NPOV, not WP:PLAG, not WP:VSCA (Yeah, that's an essay, but linking to each thing individual seems silly even now)...In other words, it's an article, written on a topic that isn't WP:CARES, with sourced information from not unreasonable sources. I could obviously go on, but, really, this seems backwards, should I be going through all the 'reasons for deletion' that you either don't have or haven't mentioned, just to tell you there's been no solid, actual argument made for deleting it? And I'm not just saying 'rawr you need a policy', though it'd be helpful, there just hasn't been an argument that could reasonably be supported by any policy that's, you know, not 'idontlikeit'. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Ashton Kutcher Sure, it's worth having a section on the main article about the Twitter account, but pointless to break out a separate article about it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reasons such as "Down this path lies madness", making "a mockery of building an encyclopedia" etc. and similar "expressions of frustration" are not IDONTLIKEIT, but policy based arguments, based around the fundamental pillar of policy that WP is an Encyclopedia--all our other rules are really just explanations of it. If I were going to say IDONTLIKEIT, I would use it on the main article on the person! (for that matter, the support for a separate article cannot truly be characterised as I LIKE IT, which would mean they like the tweets; rather, the argument amounts to the even more infantile, IWANTIT). I am indeed feeling quite concerned at this attempt to subvert the principle of building an encyclopedia by breaking out mini-articles from sections of an article which happen to sound attractive. Masem's argument a little above for merging expresses the positive way an encyclopedia should handle such material. . I have in the past often supported break out articles on popular culture--even popular culture that I dislike extremely-- but the primary reason for my support has that they've mostly been instances where the material would otherwise have been edited into non-existence. That's not in danger hereAnd I continue to rely on Laurahale's discussion of the secondary sourcing as a demonstration that there is no substantial coverage, only mention as one a a large number of similar phenomena in which every well known person with a twitter following can be included. I am particular impressed by her comment that as a specialist in the general subject she would not want to write a scholarly article on this. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this popped while I was editing and happened to be on the pillar page. The argument itself, that something 'doesn't belong in an encyclopedia', does have the fact this is an encyclopedia as a legitimate basis, but the personal judgement that this particular article somehow fails to be worthy of Wikipedia hasn't been given any real basis. There is some text to go with that pillar worthy looking at, and I think we'd both be stretching ourselves to find a part of it this article actually violates. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought Laura Hale said she could write a paper on this topic but it's not what she is currently working on and there would be lag time. Also, WP:NOTPAPER suggests that the above arguments are not policy based as they misconstrue what the project is by giving the editors own personal definition of encyclopedia, based solely on what the individual editor does not like to separately cover. It appears what the comment above means is the only possible policy based choices are keep or merge since it speaks so highly of a merge rationale and not for deletion of the topic matter.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POPCRAP, WP:FART, totally agree with Drmies. Sad sign of the state of wiki. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not somewhere to hang POPCRAP.PumpkinSky talk 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... if there were a(n) (auto)biography of Ashton Kutcher and his Twitter account, that book could have been as notable as Full Service (book) and more notable than this article's subject itself. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do hope, when someone writes, It's A Tweet Life, A and K and the unbearable lightness of being, they credit you for the idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meeting WP:GNG does not presume the article of encyclopedic value. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's basically 'on this day he had x number of followers' and 'by this time he was competing with x for' blah blah blah. This is a policy and certainly trumps the WP:GNG (a guideline) which others keep citing. IMO these Twitter articles are an embarassment to the whole project. Till 05:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indiscriminate happens to be that stretch I was talking about earlier. Hopefully, we can work past your shame, to find something actually careless or thoughtless about the article. Honestly, I could list any two pieces of information followed by 'blah blah blah'...it has x protons and it's this dense at this temperature, blah blah blah. Whether that information is actually indiscriminate or not depends on the article and the context in which it's presented. Even though the policy you mention doesn't exhaustively list indiscriminate things, for obvious reasons, comparing this article to excessive statistics (i.e., a series of numbers without context) and calling 'trump by policy' is a bit silly. Consider this example, if the article said 'once, ashton kutcher went to russia', then cited a tweet that said 'duuude, russia', that's pretty indiscriminate. On the other hand, if it mentions he was sent to Russia as part of a delegation focused on social netowrking as a consequence of having the most twitter followers, and that's cited to an external source that reported on such a thing...Well, maybe you still consider that an embarrassment.Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can say my opinion and you can say yours. So stop going around and commenting on everyone's vote to change their opinion. Btw don't bother replying to this, I won't answer. Till 06:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • if I may, the purpose of this is to discuss rationales, especially since it was relisted to give those who wish to delete a chance to come forward with policy rationales. You are of course free not to discuss other's policy points. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that being true or verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think that fits well here as pointed out through the very poor encyclopedic value (IMO) it has, 'x had this many followers' etc. Till 10:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • One must also consider WP:NOTDIARY; "news reporting about celebrities can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary". A lot of the article contains 'x reported this' and 'according to x' and IMO is violating that policy (much more important than a guideline). So yes this is why I consider the article an embarassment and with no encyclopedic value. Till 11:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mr. Kutcher's Twitter activities would fit much better in the article devoted to his life and career. I am not seeing any encyclopedic value to having an article about him or any celebrity with a higher-than-normal following on Twitter. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The owner is notable. But not all he does is notable enough and encyclopedic. Though newspapers must be covering what he tweeted, his "tweets", the subject of the article, are not notable. Would we have a article on some writer who has published 10-12 novels at some local publication and has not been notable at all just because evidence of these publications is available through print advertisements? This article has nothing in it that says about his tweets. It speaks only about owners fame. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong long hard deep unambiguous DELETE' I am sure his e-mail address and facebook get a lot of attention but notability is not inherited and twitter accounts like physical addresses simply cannot be contrived as notable except under extraordinary circumstances that do not exist, a litmus would be if an account where the common name of a scandal that was notable and was leaked via twitter and came to be known by the @twitter name used for its account a la watergate, deepthroat, wikileaks, bradley manning, but it simply is not. This article is not educational in any way and fails to meet the needs of wikipedia readers. Merge into a one sentence statement in Kutcher's article at the absolute most.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I should still be refraining, but; would not something like being included in a diplomatic delegation to Russia be extraordinary? Obviously they sent the man, and not the account, but that's why this article isn't 'Ashton Kutcher's twitter account'. There seems to be arguments that the account isn't notable, which are probably accurate, but concerning the confluence of Ashton Kutcher and his actions on and concerning Twitter; it's obvious that they could be included in the main article, but to do so without giving it undue weight would require culling most of the article just for the sake of making it shorter. Still, regarding only the most recent relisting, there is undeniably a 'rough consensus', whether it's well-founded or not, and there's no reason the most significant pieces of information couldn't be included in the main article if this one is deleted. It's a matter of discretion at this point. Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no difference between Ashton Kutcher on Twitter and Ashton Kutcher on Facebook, Ashton Kutcher on MySpace or Ashton Kutcher on Formspring (significance-wise). A line needs to be drawn for encyclopedic content. Wikipedia isn't a spin-off from NOW Magazine. As WP:WHIM states, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I can't think of how somebody's activity on Twitter is considered suitable on Wikipedia. Till 10:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Therein lies the discretion, since I can easily think of how it's considered suitable. While the article isn't anything like the examples listed under that policy, the policy also states it isn't exhaustive; so whether or not the article is, in fact, indiscriminate (or diary-like), is subject to interpretation of the article itself. I see how this article could be a useful collection of information for someone who, say, heard about the russia thing and googled 'ashton kutcher twitter russia' to find out if it were true/why. (I know I'm harping on that particular instance a bit, but it was actually interesting to learn on my part). Or, apparently, for writing a paper, though it hasn't been written. Collecting dispersed information in such a way seems very encyclopedic to me, otherwise why not let Google do our job for every other article. However, this is merely the way I see the article. Even if I disagree, there is no 'see, this is discriminate' test or policy I can apply. So, for as long as your argument for deletion is based on that particular metric, there's no significant argument I'm making against that. Reasonable enough? Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "There is no difference . . ." It appears there is and it lies in the third party coverage of those things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, I did say significance-wise, not coverage-wise. As in, encyclopedic value. Till 01:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This Russian event did not happen just because of his twitter account. Isnt it? It happened because a famous film-star was using twitter. This event is also not about the account. Its about Kutcher. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be the distinction between 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' and 'Ashton Kutcher's Twitter Account', I should hope. Mind you, I doubt any old celebrity would have done, he did have more followers than anyone else at that point, and apparently some amount of tech savvy to go with it...or so it is reported. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually Googled to check the different results you get for Ashton Kutcher on Facebook and Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. It is pretty obvious that while there is fleeting and mostly incidental coverage of his activities on Facebook, his activities are Twitter have been the subject of a substantially greater degree of attention. The comparison is not valid.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing, because I did say 'significance-wise', not 'coverage-wise'. Till 01:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I admit my first instinct upon seeing "x celebrity on Twitter" is to push for a merge or delete, but this appears to be an exceptional case where a celebrity's activity on a social networking site has racked up considerable in-depth press coverage that goes beyond "x tweeted" as he has marked several milestones for the social networking site including one that involved a competition to beat out a major news source. The pop-hate is a bit misguided as popular culture is still a part of culture whether you like it or not. If something is a notable aspect of pop culture then it makes sense to have an encyclopedic article about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Articles are supposed to be about topics of lasting significance. We are not People Magazine. LadyofShalott 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that other article suggest this one would develop? Among other things, Kutcher has authored/published on Twitter use. See, [3]Has Bieber?Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the most meaningless and ignorant comment I have ever seen in my entire life. Statυs (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'article' isn't about anything remotely encyclopaedic, end of story. Twitter is a website. Websites aren't new. Ashton Kutcher isn't notable for posting stuff on websites. 'Celebrities' posting stuff on websites isn't new. People claiming that something somebody they've heard of doing something they've heard of is 'notable' isn't new. Sadly, the inability of people to distinguish between temporary 'noticeability' and anything any of us will give a damn about in two years time isn't new either. If people want to find out about 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' they can read his Twitter postings - or the gutter press. This 'article' is vacuous bollocks, and not worth the effort involved in explaining why to people who can't tell the difference between hype and significance, or between 'ignorance' and an unwillingness to waste time arguing with airheads... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, Well, I suppose there's no pointing out the ill-tempered behavior of a self-labeled grump. Anyways, it may be worth pointing out to anyone looking over the discussion that, whether you or I or anyone will or will not give any damns in two years, that notability is not temporary when it comes to Wikipedia. An airhead like me knows that much. Darryl from Mars (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Laughing Nutter
Twitter sized summaries are required for twitter sized attention spans.
WP:WHATTHEF***DOWEWANTGARBAGELIKETHISINANENCTCLOPAEDIAFOR
is a vast improvement and outstandingly polite, note the ***'s
where page after page after page after page after page after page (wait, not too much reiteration, I sense a sudden slump in twit-readership) after page of reasoning has failed, using approachable hopefully memorable language to explain policy is f***ing brilliant. Penyulap ☏ 19:48, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have from my first months here been a supporter of very full coverage of popular culture. I urge those who think so also, to realize that this is best done by not being ridiculous. Unlike the corresponding article on Bieiber, where almost all of of the contents is totally worthless FANSITE fodder that belongs nowhere except where it is found already, on his own twitter account, some of this material is reasonably relevant to the article on Kutcher. It will only be harmed by pulling it into a separate article. Trying to make too many articles ofn a favorite subject shows the lack of a reasonable and encyclopedic approach to it. Andy's comments just above are probably unfairly negative--but the existence of articles like this is what encourages such an attitude towards it. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If personal editing history is important, I have no editing history to speak of with respect to popular culture; it doesn't particularly interest me. What does interest me is that it is fairly treated like any other subject, based on the application of the same standards we apply to any subject. Also, this article is actually a media and publishing article, as this by another user [4] commenting today discusses further. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was bouncing back and forth, and reluctant to note my view given how people respond to those in this camp, but DGG's point makes the most sense. It's not about liking or hating the articles, but whether or not the article provides encyclopedic value on its own merits. I'm not seeing it with this one. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this is an encyclopedia; we do not include gossips or any pop bs.--GoPTCN 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article simply has no encyclopaedic merit. Possibly the claim that the account was the first to have a million followers could be included in Ashton Kutcher. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly, instead of paying attention to the "OMG, WTF is with this POPCRAP!?" arguments people should actually be looking not only at this article but beyond to see the unique impact Kutcher has had with regards to his activities on Twitter. Here are some non-popcrap reasons for keeping the article: [5] [6] [7] [8]. If anything, the current article may suffer from having a narrow focus on his account rather than dealing more generally with Kutcher's involvement with Twitter. Anyone looking into the history of Twitter would be ill-served if they did not pay a lot of attention to Kutcher's activity. If we could only keep one of these x celebrity account on Twitter articles, it would have to be this one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable topic. This content can do on the Ashton Kutcher page or the Twitter page, but this isn't needed and isn't notable. Toa Nidhiki05 15:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WHIM. Either that, or FAC it onto the Main Page, per WP:****. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I didn't want to comment on this AfD, I think I should. The article is not independently notable of Ashton Kutcher. By the same rationale for the existence of this article I could find some sources from google [9] and make Ashton Kutcher and shoes. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, it almost certainly wouldn't be the same rationale; unless you can honestly say you see some notable landmarks in the development of shoes as a social concept in those search resuults. Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd. By this argument Abraham Lincoln and slavery is not "independently notable" of Abraham Lincoln. As Tom Morris discussed when relisting, this shows fundamental misapplication of notability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily and obviously notable. I can't see why there's a long discussion about it. Everyking (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AN entirely empty WP:ITSNOTABLE vote to be discarded. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All right then. Its notability is established by substantial media attention. Everyking (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:UNDUE is usually applied to negative "Controversy regarding X..." type articles, but it can also be taken in the other direction; too much weight given to something positive, or in this case, the trivial and the banal. All this is is a byproduct of tabloid media who obsess over everything that a celebrity does, and now we have a notion that "celebrity using social media technology" is somehow noteworthy of our time. It isn't. The media has also taken note of (examiner.com/article/publishing-the-impulsive-imp-a-q-a-with-anne-rice-and-her-sister-tamara) Anne Rice's discourse with fans via facebook, but this doesn't justify Anne Rice of Facebook in the slightest. Tweeting in itself is not a notable, unique, or extraordinary activity. It warrants a line or two in his bio, but the stuff about CNN challenges and what he says about Penn St. is trivial. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From wp:undue, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." So while undue is not an article inclusion criteria, it similarly advises NOT following editor's personal approval or disapproval of what RS choose to cover per WP:BELONG, dosn't it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Unworthy of its own article. This article is about NOTHING and only the necessary information about his Twitter account should be condensed and put onto a new section on Ashton Kutcher called '@aplusk'. – Plarem (User talk) 19:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is not about Kutcher's signifcant tweets. That information can/should be in the Biography article, and mainly is. This article is about the media coverage of Kutcher's tweets, and it is using that same media coverage to source itself. That makes the media coverage WP:PRIMARY in this case, and those sources cannot be used to meet WP:N or any of the salad of policies regarding WP:BLPN. We are not a newspaper, and not a news aggregator. We would need RS covering the coverage to have this type of meta-article meet our policies, we don't have those sources and I have been unable to find them. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the account or outlet, and is using third party reliable sources that cover the account. Isn't that how almost all Wikipedia articles are written? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration break 4 - ?[edit]

  • Okay, after reading all arguments, delete. Seriously, Ashton Kutcher is notable for one crappy show whose syndication broadcasting will die down, one lousy movie about a missing car, one relationship with Demi Moore, and so on. Kutcher's Twitter account? Well, I see some assertion of notability from this topic. Unfortunately, notability of this account is becoming irrelevant, as too much recentism is involved, criticism or praise on account (or Ashton's activities with Twitter) is not yet found or added, and no books or academic journals about primarily the topic itself are made. Even Full Service (book), a trashy book about Hollywood stars from the past, has some hints of notability that will not go away, and its article has content that demonstrates history of book and reaction toward book. The Sam and Diane article has content of fictional and real-world development that may not be mergeable to Cheers, Sam Malone, or Diane Chambers. The topic of the Kutcher/Twitter article, on the other hand, is neither fiction nor book nor Seinfeld; it is ...something... or nothing... that lacks reaction per WP:IINFO. If there is a book mainly about Kutcher's Twitter, then the book must have reviews, background about the book itself, and the book's plot. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for reaction in books, it's there:[10], [11] Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These books neither improve quality of this article nor prove significant coverage on this topic. I added "mainly" to clarify. As I said, a book primarily about Ashton Kutcher's Twitter activities will have more value than a book's subject itself, and... it's not as if this conversation were Fahrenheit 451 here. Back on the sources, the books you listed do not have critical viewpoint on Kutcher and his Twittering ways. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are at a deletion discussion where the policies are GNG, WEB and the other notability guidelines, yet when hundreds of reliable sources from respected outlets (discussing multiple facets of this topic) and books that actually use the topic as something the reader will readily grasp information from are mentioned and linked to -- the response is little more than WP:BELONG. Anyone who publishes educational books like those linked to, only uses such well known examples, because they indeed evoke a critical viewpoint of the topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Manual of Style applies here, as well. There is no guarantee that notability of this topic benefits or leads to a valuable stand-alone article. This topic could be notable, but... look at this article. It talks primary stuff that has been retold in non-primary sources, like a fictional recap. Can we leave notability out of this between us? After all talk about notability, I realize that any amount of notability does not equal to a valuable article. This article has no indication of value (notable or not), especially since this topic hasn't yet inspired reaction, like "Suicide(s) of..." and stuff. Even WP:BELONG is part of an essay and may or may not apply to what the article says right now and to how every argument can be neither right nor wrong but beneficial to consensus. --George Ho (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you would replace notability with what, how some people may feel today? But leaving aside notability, what we can look to is whether a publisher's communications and his means of doing so can form the basis for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia and every other encyclopedia has already answered that yes in spades. Wikipedia has a plethora of articles on individual blogs. In just the 11 citations already cited here throughout the above discussion, such an article can be written. Add to that hundreds more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not replacing notability; I'm leaving notability aside, as you were doing. To put this another way, this article talks growing statistics, which... I find... valuable probably... but insufficient amount of value. Moreover, it discusses the events that indirectly caused more attention on Twitter and Ashton Kutcher, which is already said in Ashton Kutcher. I'm not sure if mentioning Kutcher's first Twitter intro to Bieber is worth valuable or signifying, but... That's all I can say, as there aren't any other sources that explain impact on Bieber by this topic itself. You don't see "(person) on instant messaging" because specific (not general) people's instant messaging activities are... are they recorded in books and journals? You don't see Ashton Kutcher on instant messaging yet.... Wait a minute; is Twitter also instant messaging? Is blog another way of instant messaging? If Facebook is instant message, then maybe we can add Facebook and other stuff here, so this title would be renamed to "Ashton Kutcher on internet", right? Otherwise, this article would come down as unencyclopedic. --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This publishers message and means is covered by the reliable sources extensively. Someone else? Some other means? -- that article, who knows? Information can always be added to improve any article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the publisher's message does in those reliable sources is a retelling of real-life events (i.e. a recap), as fiction has been retold by non-primary sources. Leaving sources aside, like fiction, this article should not be about only plot and background. There is no source yet about his creating an account and/or review of his account. This article said that he merely created it, posted messages in it, and caused attention by exploiting it. Suicide of Tyler Clementi have background and effects, but a person's profile is too low to have a separate "Tyler Clementi" article (well, it was separate but became "Suicide of..."). There was so much balance on background, court case, and reactions from directly and indirectly involved and uninvolved. Sam and Diane article may have been retold in articles of Cheers, Sam Malone, Diane Chambers, and Frasier Crane, but critical reception of Sam and Diane is not that mergeable to either of them. Account of the publisher was exploited for philantrophy that resulted growth of followers, but philantrophy and comment controversy are more valuable than growing stats and already told in Ashton Kutcher article. Account, on the other hand, requires such reaction about his accounts themselves. No analyst has covered on his article mainly yet, so we must wait... --George Ho (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not fiction. This is communications, media, business, marketing, philanthropy, sociology, advertising -- all these non-fiction angles and more are covered in detail in the sources over a sustained period of years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot one thing from WP:IINFO: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." Account is the publisher's work, and account must inspire scolarly analysis and critical reviews. Get it? --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They "should" and they are "expanded" because they exist -- an example in an educational marketing text or an article in the Washington Post business section is not going to be just a recap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... Link, please? --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The links are above. [1] through [11]; there are also links in the article and at the very top of this discussion.Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These sources either already explain information in Wiki-articles or do not have information that have worthy of inclusion, unless they are meant for Ashton Kutcher article. Look, there's nothing else you can find that's worth including or that's not already explained, okay? I checked the sources (1 to 11), and that's all I found. The upcoming Twitter-based sitcom... what happened to it? --George Ho (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. The multiple reliable sources thought differently about this topic and that's what we base article inclusion on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...Since these sources are reliable, can we put reliability of sources and notability of topic aside, so we must discuss article's current state of inclusion and exclusion, please? I guess this article has reliable sources, but I'm not sure if verified information is worth repeating in this article, especially since no primary analysis is published yet. --George Ho (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The wider world has this article topic, in its communications, media, business, marketing, philanthropy, sociology, advertising, etc. aspects, and the project seeks to serve the wider world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes easily WP:GNG --DeansFA (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Devil's Advocate. Yes, the subject is faintly ridiculous, but its notable. The subjective opinion of random editors unsupported by actual facts is a weak rationale for deletion.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, notability and reference are less important than content itself per WP:MOS (or any other guideline or essay about how to write a valuable article) and WP:N's amount of worthy guarantee of a stand-alone article, regardless of amount of notability. --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times you comment George, your subjective belief is that "Ashton Kutcher is notable for one crappy show whose syndication broadcasting will die down, one lousy movie about a missing car, one relationship with Demi Moore." Luckily wikipedia was not built on such subjective beliefs.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still I wonder: why do you think this article has some value that's repeated in Kutcher article? Did he create any other accounts that's newsworthy or something else, like chatting online (AOL, remember?), posting videos on YouTube, and any other? As I said before, maybe this article cannot limit itself to only Twitter account, especially if anybody doesn't publish analysis and thought elsewhere, like paper. Stats... well, not as much as general background about creation of his account... I don't know, but stats are not sufficiently valuable, even if valuable, to me. --George Ho (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I am not an AK fan, this article easily meets the GNG. For those of you who are arguing that "you could just as easily have CelebX on Facebook (etc)" articles, well, yes you could. Someone may still make them, and then we can have this exact same discussion again! My vote will become merge to CelebX on Social Media.  The Steve  04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" this article easily meets the GNG". Please explain why. This isn't a vote. It has always been Wikipedia policy that those who wish to include content have to justify it - and simply claiming without further evidence that 'it meets a policy requirement' isn't justification at all. Why should an online encyclopaedia have an article about the postings of someone not famous for posting stuff on websites on websites? Where are the sources that say this individuals postings are notable? What are they notable for? How do they differ from the postings of anyone else? Twitter, as a social/technological phenomenon is clearly notable, but why are the postings of this particular 'celebrity' of any lasting significance? Without a clearly-defined explanation of why this is anything other than random fancruft, or hype about another internet fad, there is nothing to support anything more than a passing mention in the bio of the individual concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious where that 'always' Wikipedia policy came from, it's not the trend I've read in them so far. Anyways, assuming he isn't in fact famous for it, which I can't easily say, that's fine, he need only be significant. Incidentally, no one (few poeple?) write sources about a subject and say explicitly 'we find the subject of this article we wrote notable per Wikipedia guidelines'. We find subjects notable based on the existence of independent sources that make note of them. In general, there are a number of verifiable things about this particular guy's use of Twitter that are and have been treated as distinct from that of a variety of other such individuals. I can mention a couple again if you like. Darryl from Mars (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already mentioned WP:notability (web), and WP:GNG has been cited too many times. There is no MOS guideline about internet-related articles right now, so... I would like your examples, please? --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, since you insist. Washington Post article about AK and twitter, Wired article, LA Times article. Three impeccable sources, all reliable, all almost entirely on subject, out of 42 on the page. Now, you could easily have looked at the article yourself, but presumably its easier to grump about it here. You mentioned "lasting significance" - there is no such requirement, sorry. You want sources that say these postings are notable - also not required - the fact that these twits appeared in reliable third-party sources (see above) indicates notability, and you should know this if you read the GNG.  The Steve  07:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm.... can we leave notability and verifiability out of this discussion? I did read WP:GNG and tried to explain that 1,000 news sources could count as one source, no matter what company or agency. If you have your own beliefs, then you may be right. Nevertheless, notability has no actual criteria; Wikipedia made and change rules about criteria of notability. Also, verifiability on one event or another may be met. That's why we're putting "notability" and "verifiability" aside to weigh in on article content itself by value and quality. Look at the article and another, and tell me if the topic itself is worth explaining further and keeping a fork article. --George Ho (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ummm, no, we cannot. I base my votes on wikipedia's inclusion policies and back those votes up, not on whether I think it should be here, or that its too trivial, or any other excuse. Hey, surprise! The news talks about trivial things. If they do it enough, we get an article! I completely disagree with your analysis, as news sources are our normal source of info. If you're suggesting a massive policy change that considers ALL news from EVERY paper, tv station etc, as a SINGLE SOURCE, I'm afraid you won't get much traction, AND you'll invalidate about 100,000 current articles which quote only news sources. Notability may not have "actual criteria", but the GNG explains that Significant Coverage (which I've shown) SHOWS Notability. Even aside from that, this Businessweek article shows the significance of AK's Twitter account in big business, investment, and startups. Clearly notable, by any standard.  The Steve  08:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...All right, I'll rephrase on the 1,000-article part: primary events directly about this topic, such as statistics and messages, have been retold by non-primary sources. Retelling of all Twitter activities might count as one; impact by account might count as another. I got two. Review on account is the third. Unfortunately, a review on one or multiple postings... are not worthy of inclusion. For instance, why including a negative or positive opinion about Kutcher's competition with CNN to battle malaria? Should we include that? A book, which may inspire reviews, or a movie about Twitter and Ashton can tell a better narrative than this article. --George Ho (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's now four distinct people in this little chain, so let's not attribute anything one person said to another. As to George, my personal favorite is still his diplomatic mission to Russia concerning social networking, that certain doesn't work for any random celeb on any random website. Moreover, not just being the first to have a million followers, but turning it into both a public event and a philanthropic platform seem, well, significant, if nothing else. In regards to the value of the article, understanding that we've put aside policy-based considerations for a moment, I can easily see someone interested in specifically the subject of him on Twitter, while not, to use Andy's terms, giving any damns at all about his filmography. Whether the best way to facilitate giving that person the information they want is a separate article or a subsection goes into a discussion of link navigation and search engines and the like, and is probably a discussion worth having on the article's talk-page in the future. Similarly, the article's quality is something for the editing process, and although I wouldn't exactly call it poor now, no doubt it could be improved. What I am confident about, looking at value and quality, is that deleting the article doesn't benefit much of anything. Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does keeping the stand-alone article benefit anything, as well? --George Ho (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean as opposed to a merge? Wouldn't be the worst thing that ever happened, but it risks turning interesting information into a factoid without context. Although maybe you're asking me something else? Darryl from Mars (talk) 09:48, 3 July 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  05:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony terminology[edit]

My Little Pony terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive detail that is not needed for Wikipedia. The sort of page that you'd see on a fan wiki. The plot, characters, setting and other sections of individual pages are more than enough to explain these terms. Thus the page is not needed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This appears to be an ill-named "World of ..." article, of which Wikipedia has dozens if not hundreds of articles: Special:PrefixIndex/World of. These kinds of articles are to succinctly bundle in-universe information in list form so that they aren't fancrufty stand-alone articles. (No advice on keeping or deleting this one from me.) – sgeureka t•c 08:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Harizotoh9,you're always notorious on complaining at things like this and want them removed as an eyesore.Just leave it alone!--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a product guide nor a dictionary. This content doesn't seem to meet independent, reliable sources for WP:GNG and it seems too trivial to keep a page like this as it apparently is not important concept of the series, which IAR may be warrantied (to avoid this stuff to get their own pages). Secret account 05:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tell that to Transformers. I mean they got their separate articles on EVERYTHING! WHY.NOT.THIS?? All of the people here marking my articles as delete gives me a bad mood everyday!--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full disclosure: I'm a brony. Weakest keep possible, I believe that most, if not all of this, is relevant, but I would tentatively support a move to "World of..." as suggested by Sgeureka. Also, a lot of this is duplicated, or could be duplicated, by articles we already have on ponies. Specs112 t c 19:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic cruft. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 24 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of details but nothng to show subject list is notable. --Artene50 (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My Little Pony fandom is a major cultural phenomenon with a vast number of products, which has produced whole books[12][13][14], some of which are unauthorised (i.e. independent) and produced for adults, which could be used to source this article. There are also websites[15][16] and newspaper articles (try googling). This article should be kept as a spin-off of My Little Pony, although a rename to "World of..." or something else wouldn't interfere with this, and is fine if it's considered to be policy/standard practice. My Little Pony fandom may not have the respect attached to Marvel comics or Star Trek, but it's still the subject of significant independent publications. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main series article. Sources about the main series don't justify multiple separate articles of a general nature. It's nearly impossible to WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY about the terminology or universe, as separate from the series itself. And in any case, it hasn't been achieved here, so no separate article can meet our guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:14, 28 June 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. BencherliteTalk 08:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies[edit]

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable new film. Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:56, 24 June 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  17:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodkid[edit]

Hoodkid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject doesn't meet WP: A7. I googled this up and found no reliable sources. This is probably original research about a non-notable figure. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This author wrote on the article's talk page that this is from his interview with the subject, so this is obvious original research. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any reliable sources; this is all social media. Possibly someone familiar with the music scene in Ghana could find a printed source that hasn't made it to the Internet, but I don't see any evidence of notability -- no assertion of anything that meets WP:MUSIC. Ubelowme (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that this guy probably doesn't meet our notability and/or verifiability standards (and the comment on the Talk page about this being pure OR makes me wonder if it couldn't have been speedied, somehow). With that said, though, this has been a huge problem with West African popular music on Wikipedia for years (I've discussed it with others at least as far back as 2006) -- some of it is fairly well documented, but almost always just by blogs, social media pages, podcasts, and other sources that we couldn't possibly regard as reliable. So we end up just not covering popular West African music because nobody's discussing it in print. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any elegant solution to this situation. Heather (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I AFDed it before the comment was posted. He said that the information is all true because he personally interviewed Hoodkid. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:37, 25 June 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 (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 16:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim[edit]

Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for "no references" since June 2009. Unable to find secondary coverage in news or book sources for this one-year post-high school yeshiva for Americans in Israel. The rosh yeshiva is the editor of Jewish Thought, a periodical produced by the Orthodox Union, so he probably deserves his own page. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn – thanks to IZAK for filling in references to prove notability. Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and thank you Yoninah. It took a few hours, thanks to Google, but there are quite a few good references to this notable yeshiva. I have incorporated material about its dean and founder in the article so that there is no need to move the article there (besides, he is not the only rabbi affiliated with that yeshiva that has many faculty members and alumni in rabbinical positions.) IZAK (talk) 23:49, 25 June 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 Walnut Creek, California#Education. WP:OUTCOMES; clear result, no need to string things out. The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Creek Intermediate[edit]

Walnut Creek Intermediate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable middle school, no redirect as the school district only contains primary/middle schools, no high schools. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:34, 24 June 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 Walnut Creek, California#Education. WP:OUTCOMES; clear result, no need to string things out. The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murwood Elementary School[edit]

Murwood Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

elementary school in a school district which has no secondary schools, so no redirect is possible. delete per policy on nonnotable primary schools. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:22, 24 June 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 by nominator. I was wrong! —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 00:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Reza Khanzadeh[edit]

Mohammad Reza Khanzadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article appears to be about a non-notable athlete per WP:NFOOTY. Sources cited are unreliable.

—JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 20:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:43, 24 June 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 20:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar Foundation[edit]

Superstar Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Almost no significant coverage in secondary sources based on an archive search of Google News. Most comes from primary sources, press releases, etc. Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did various searches and could not find any reliable sources giving non trivial coverage to this group. I found one local paper (and for whole articles really need some national coverage at least) that mentioned the group giving an award to someone, but the article was primarily all about that person and not this group. Other hits are to press releases, either directly or on sites that reproduce them with no editorial changes/investigation. The article Social Solutions has similar problems, being another article created by SPA newbies with clear COIs promoting groups formed by Steve Butz.DreamGuy (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable organization. --Artene50 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's nothing in the article that proves notability, and unless there's an article behind a paywall that can be located, soucres are not forthcoming. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced as well as like an advert. It is not a notable org and also fails WP:GNG. →TSU tp* 03:48, 1 July 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 under criterion G3 as a blatant hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moses the Coach[edit]

Moses the Coach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete WP:Crystal - can't even find any google hits for it NtheP (talk) 18:29, 24 June 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. Opinions are roughly divided between those who consider this original research by synthesis, and those who want to keep it because they disagree or consider that it is a notable topic and just needs rewriting.  Sandstein  05:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biology and political orientation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Biology and political orientation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article needs a complete re-write to be even encyclopedic. It currently is a synthesis (WP:SYNTH) of primary studies and relies on media reports from fox news etc covering the studies rather than secondary sources from the peer reviewed literature for weight (WP:FRINGE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It often fails to actually cite the studies and instead cites newspaper who are nowhere near reliable enough for the text (WP:NOTNEWS). The article appears even worse than after the last AfD. The last closer noted that the article was a poorly-written melange of primary sources and news coverage, this is still the case. It also synthesis other vague related topics into the article such as how attractiveness influences voters. and whether conservatives are more attractive (based on an online poll of all things).

In summary, the article relies on a synthesis of news reports and primary studies and would require a rewrite to be encyclopaedic as it is unsalvageable. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites many peer-reviewed studies including secondary reviews. It is a rapidly growing research topic. The many newspaper reports establish the notability. Furtermore, arguing that the article could be improved is not a reason for deletion. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've misread me, I am saying it can't be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Meets WP: GNG as there are reliable sources. How is this original research? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was? No one mentioned original research, re-read what I said. The article is an original synthesis of primary studies and newspaper reports. Look at the content, to be anything close to encyclopaedic it would need a complete re-write. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are secondary sources. Newspapers are used as sources in numerous Wikipedia articles and establish notability. There are no arguments introduced that are not in the sources so there is no synthesis. If you think the contents should be improved, then it would be better to edit the article in order to do so, not delete it completely. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, what we have is newspapers reporting on single studies being stitched together into a complete article. It is the combination of these studies together into the article that is the original synthesis. It also violates WP:FRINGE as well. Newspapers aren't reliable for new claims in biology like this, particularly not ones based off speculation on new and potentially controversial studies. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are reasons for deletions. No new arguments not in the sources are introduced. Newspapers establish notability and can give details not in the studies by interviewing researchers as is the case here. The exact studies cited by the newspapers can certainly be added to the article if needed. WP:FRINGE states that "mainstream newspapers" are reliable sources and allowed although peer-review is obviously preferred. The article also has secondary peer-reviewed sources. In short, your are arguing for improvement, not deletion. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean toward Delete. Even if there were the possibility of an article on this topic, nothing here should be in it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? What is wrong with for example secondary peer-reviewed sources? Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any.
To clarify how I read the nominator's reasoning; it's a synthesis of primary sources and press releases about those sources, with no secondary commentary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Here is one secondary peer-reviewed source widely cited in the article: [23]. There are also newspaper articles but no press releases. Newspaper articles are reliable sources and establish notability. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That source says Original Paper at the top, it's not a secondary review paper. The newspaper articles are not reliable for what they are being used for in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper article doesn't have to say "press release" to be a press release. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary reviews can of course be "original papers". If you read it there is no new research but just a summary of prior research. The newspapers are reliable for establishing notability. They are also critical, ask other researchers, and are not "press releases". If the actual studies are needed they can be easily be added to the article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify and rewrite. There is a reasonable article to be written about this topic - but it should be written by someone who is interested in and capable of describing this controversial field of research in a balanced way based on a wide spectrum of high quality sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anything concrete you are objecting too as incorrect? If the article contents should simply be improved, then please cooperate doing that.Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not my job to teach you how to write a balanced article. And even if it were I tried for a long time to no avail. You should either rethink your editing to the point where you at least make an effort to find and include literature that doesn't support your own view or you shouldn't be editing these articles at all. I would like to assume that you edit in good faith and that you are simply not aware that the narrow body of literature you happen to consistently choose whenever you write an article related to the nature/nurture debate is not representative of the entire field. But given that for the last three years I and a significant number of other editors have been telling you this, I cannot assume good faith anymore. You know very well that your articles present a tendentious view and you are seemingly very happy to sit back and make others make the hard work of bringing them up to scratch. I am not playing that game. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you do not have any concrete examples. That could have improved the article if there are problems as you claim. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are almost funny. But not quite.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Academica Orientalis: Anything you can point to as being a reliable secondary source? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already pointed out this peer-reviewed secondary review article which is referenced multiple times in the article: [24]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what Academica suggests I have posted the titles of a few on the talkpage. The point is that I shouldn't have to do that. He should have done a broad literature search when he started writing the article instead of building it as a showcase for a single article he happens to like. Obviously the best sources would be review articles in social and political psychology, and in behavioural genetics. The handbook of social psychology mentions the Alford study an suggests that it was notable as sparking the field of genetic/politics studies, and then goes on to criticize the methdology it used. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have not created the article. I have added secondary review sources. Newspapers are reliable sources in Wikipedia. They can show notability and some things not stated in papers such as in interviews with researchers. I have not denied that you added some criticisms to the talk page and to the article. But if you do not state concretely what you think is further problematic, then your argued concerns cannot be addressed. Disagreeing with some of the contents is not a reason for removing all of the contents of the article. That seems more like disliking this research field in general rather than scientific arguments regarding the findings in the field. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are the main contributer to the article. You have added onesided sources and written a lopsided one eyed article strongly biased in favor of the same viewpoint you have continously pushed iver the past many years. If I was motivated by my "dislike of the the research field" I would vote delete. I have no problem with wikipedia having articles about topics I don't find palatable - but I do have a problem with articles deliberately designed to mislead readers by showing them only a particular part of the topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, claiming an article has problems with the contents is not a reason for deleting the article. That is a reason for improving the article. If you think the article is POV, then you should cooperate improving it, not just simply delete it.Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG, what is wrong with you? I AM NOT VOTING DELETE FOR THE FOURTH FUCKING TIME! The article needs to be rewritten by someone who is not you. That is what I am voting. And I have done who ever will have to rewrite it a huge fucking favor by spending an hour and a half supplying a shitload of sources. on the talkpage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing all the contents is not dissimilar and the same arguments against apply. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An interesting topic, substantially sourced. There is room for improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Very interesting peer-reviewed WP:RSes about this topic indicate that the interesting but at least to me not at all surpising fact that one's inborn disposition to certain personality traits influences their general political orientation. Any WP:RSes which say that it does not could be included, but I'd be surprised if there are any. Chrisrus (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then if you had read either the talkpage or the rest of the discussion you would have been surprised.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I just read the article and looked at the cited papers, not the above discussion. But if you say that there are such papers I believe you. Please do include them in any planned rewrite if you plan to participate in a rewrite. I look forward to reading it. But this page is only for discussing whether articles should be deleted or not deleted, and so if you want the article to survive in a different form, this is not the right place to discuss anything short of total deletion. Chrisrus (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, something short of total deletion can be discussed. Two examples: redirect and merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you want to do? More to the point, what do you want me to do? I thought you wanted an up/down on deletion from us.
You want to "stubbify" it? What does that mean in this context? What exactly do you want to leave behind?
It's got some good WP:RSes. Are you asking that they be more objectively described? Go ahead. All that sounds like an "article improvement" discussion, which are supposed to take place on the article's talk page, right? So why are we here?
You mention "merge", just as an example, what with? Do we have another article about research into the a biological basis for general tendency towards certain types of worldview? The article left this reader wanting so much more, but not less. Liberalism as a Mental Disorder came to mind. Think of those who tend to go with the crowd vs. boat-rockers. Where do headaches come from, when the topic turns to anything controvertial in some people but not others? Those who can't shake beliefs that nature is not to be violated, vs. a thing to be conquered; I could go on all night. I'd love to merge with lots of stuff. What do you think of this: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1602/2749.short? Take your offence that it describes your particular slant as a brain condition and use it to find the same type of thing but this time about them. Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to this, you'll enjoy it: http://www.radiolab.org/2009/sep/07/ Specifically, you can skip to 00:23:23, and another at 00:48:18throught to the end and let me know if that's not the damnedest thing that just might be true that you've ever heard in your life. Chrisrus (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if there isn't another article like it, I suggest interested wikipedians can create a more encyclopedic version of the article post-AfD that actually aligns with secondary sources. There is nothing here to prevent that. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify and rewrite after having done a careful literature survey. The article at present is a hotch-potch, a random pot-pourri that uses a few hand-picked primary sources as well as related press reports. Some of the choices of sources seem hard to justify, e.g. the research of Satoshi Kanazawa. Until a more comprehensive and representative set of secondary or tertiary sources can be found, the article will fail to be unencyclopedic. At the moment it presents controversial material uncritically without reference to later commentary. Mathsci (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that an article could possibly be improved is not a reason for removing almost all of the contents but for improvement. The newspaper articles are not press releases. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say they were press releases: I wrote press reports. Why suggest your own faulty misreading? But, returning to the point about sourcing and how the article is written at present, I can see no way of salvaging paragraphs such as, "Kanazawa argued that general intelligence developed in order to help solve evolutionarily new problems while for evolutionarily recurring problems there were more specific instincts proscribing how to behave. Those having higher general intelligence are furthermore argued to be relatively more likely than those with lower general intelligence to ignore and act contrary to instinctual responses. To be more altruistic towards those being more genetically similar and acquaintances than towards strangers as well as being religious (see also Evolutionary psychology of religion) are argued to be evolutionarily based instincts. Higher support for social welfare for strangers as well as atheism are therefore argued to be more relatively more common among those with higher intelligence." Maunus has produced what seem like good sources on the talk page of the article. What needs to be done is for someone to read them, to absorb them and then summarize them in intelligible English, without giving undue weight to controversial theories which have not been accepted. Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with a few sentences is not a reason for removing almost all of whole article contents. Neither is the existence of sources claimed without concrete examples to contain opposing views. If there are opposing views they should of course be added. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was just one example. It seems fairly typical of the parts which you have added to the article. Controversial sources presented uncritically and in a barely decipherable form. The heritability section has similar problems. Completely different sources have to be used when writing articles like this, so not much seems salvageable. Gathering the sources is the first step in writing any article properly. Mathsci (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand you are arguing that the article is POV. Possibly, but that is not a reason for removing almost all the contents. If you have concrete, sourced examples of what arguments are missing I would be happy to add these arguments. Although I of course hope you will do so yourself so the article can be NPOV.Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly a precedent for stubbifying your non-neutral articles as was done with Race and crime.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not actually address the issues I raised above. If you have any concrete examples of missing arguments needed for POV then please state them. Considering that you have admitted not reading sources you claim show POV problems one may wonder what your arguments are based on: [25]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct I didn't read those sources for that article. But then again neither did you. But why do you bring that article here, are you proposing it for deletion?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable topic with coverage in mainstream media and scientific journals. Some people arguing for deletion are taking a very tendentious line, refusing to provide clear statements of what is wrong with the article, and comments above indicate that this AfD is based on a dispute over article content. AfD is not the place to resolve disputes over article content. If a topic is notable, it should stay unless people can demonstrate that the article content is entirely worthless and unsalvageable. Some of the content is a bit unclear or jargony, but it aims at NPOV, and I can understand it even if certain people can't. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse other editors of being tendentious, it can be inflammatory (see the essay WP:AOTE). Examples were given above, for example the heritability section. A controversial study using controversial (obsolete) methods and a newspaper press release are the main sources for the entire section. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. There is a peer-reviewed secondary reviews source. It also mentions the study that you dislike. The NYT article is not a press release. Heritability is by no means dead, see this review article in Nature Reviews Genetics: [26] Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge and redirect to biopolitics immediately looks like flavor of the week psycho-propaganda, with File:Amyg.png placed prominently at the top and seemingly designed to resemble a cartoonish face marked 'conservative', when upon further examination, it turns out to be a view of a brain from the underside with the amyg centers in red. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Note: Vote changed to merge and redirect, in light of revelation below that there is already an article covering this same area. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The results of the study showed that conservatives had a larger amygdala,[10] a structure of the brain associated with greater sensitivity to fear and disgust emotional learning." WTF??? Is this "new age" grammar? Are "fear and disgust" nouns, or verbs? Is this seriously the best you can do? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing that this error is a reason for deleting the whole article? I see no cartoonish face and disagreeing with an image is hardly reason for deletion of all other contents. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am arguing that the whole article ought to be deleted because it is very much like a case of an Emperor that is wearing no clothes, and I'm not afraid to say so. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm somewhat sympathetic to those who'd like to see this stubified, but there does not seem to be any coherent golden-thread to the research which might one day give us a useful article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources all cover this clearly. Quite encyclopedic. Good way to explain why people think a certain way. Dream Focus 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the topic is notable and if written without the major issues I would support a keep, I think suggesting that the article (C rated) in it's current state has no actual issues is plainly absurd (what happened to Article rescue squadron actually trying to fix articles as the basis for keep). I suggest the closer have a look at the article to see the issues that have been mentioned by the delete/stubify votes. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not cleanup. Any issues in the article should be discussed on its talk page and dealt with. Dream Focus 11:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as synthesis. This article pulls together unrelated studies and creates a new topic. If any of the studies have any notability, which is doubtful, then they can be put into their own article. We put together for example the view that there is a liberal gene and that liberal and conservative brain structures differ. If this were a field of study worthy of an article then we should be able to find a secondary source that writes about both theories. Much of the article is about the differences between liberal and conservative psychology, which is irrelevant unless the sources say that the psychological differences have a biological difference. TFD (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Oh, and in Italy, for example, liberals are conservatives. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an original topic, see the recent special issue of Political Psychology titled "Political Psychology of Biology, Genetics, and Behavior", but yes it is a horrific mess of inappropriate synthesis, weight issues and unreliable sources. There is a conspicuous absence in the article of any discussion on the interplay between the environment and biology (c.f. this article with the introductory review in the aforementioned special issue) which might betray POV issues, as well as a lack of any discussion on the considerable inferential issues associated with this subject (e.g. as in Aue et al. 2009 or Theodoridis & Nelson 2012). --92.4.177.142 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of article which should be kept, even if it needs considerable re-writing for improvement. Re-writing rather than deletion would be the appropriate action here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that re-writing would need to start from scratch. There is nothing worth keeping in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on the 28 May 2012 issue of Political Psychology below. TFD (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as per WP:NOTCASE. This is starting to get into the territory of a specific essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Might be suitable as part of coverage in another topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the concerns of WP:SYNTH. I'm sure an actual valid encyclopedia article could be written on this topic, however, this article would need to be completely rewritten to become so. Per WP:TNT, sometimes it is a lot easier to just delete and start over from scratch rather than trying to improve an article that would need to be completely rewritten. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Synthesis of various sources, misrepresentation of sources, over-reliance on low-value sources. This article has no redeeming qualities. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would not say that it has no redeeming qualities, nor would I say that there's no synthesis. This is a strange article, which while factually true, I am unsure what to do with it. It may need TNT and starting over from scratch, but it seems like an awful lot of work would be erased. Place me in the 'confused' camp. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify and rewrite after having done a careful literature survey and being written inline with WP:MEDRS. This subject exists, we ought to have an article. However, the article is currently so poorly written that it is unlikely to be rewritten in a manner meeting core reliability policy for medical science articles (or, for that matter, for the long standing custom and practice in academic social science topics). We use no field reviews, ie sources that are secondary for Medical Science are currently cited. Rather case studies are inappropriately SYNTHesised. The article needs to proceed outwards from secondary sources in the sense of MEDRS: reviews and field reviews; not from case studies or experimental studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Synthesis in what way? This has not been elucidated. RL0919 in the last AfD reads SYNTH incorrectly, but that's not surprising, as everyone who has ever voted Delete and used SYNTH as an argument has done the same thing. And of course, he got to have the last word, last time, so I could not address that, but I am pleased to see that the first substantial argument for Delete from TFD zoomed straight away to parrot him, so I get a chance to refute it.
SYNTH is a content concern, and should never really show up at AfD at all. There is no such thing as synthesis of sentences to make an article, or synthesis of ideas to make an article topic. SYNTH is, loosely speaking, a rule to prevent reasoning by WP editors (yes, that is potentially ironic), because they might fall foul of logical fallacies. The only circumstance WP:SYNTH addresses is statements that are potentially erroneous because they rely on an interpretation of the implication of two sources. There are no such statements in this article; each statement in this article is linked to a source, which directly verifies the statement. That is all that is required to avoid SYNTH, ever. If individual statements do not fit into the article's scope, that is for editors to decide on the article talk page. An article's scope (the article name) is what we are deciding here at AfD, and it is judged on its merits, not the merit of the content supporting it. To be fair, there was some, I guess you could call it Sourced Original Research in the article, extrapolating facts directly from what was claimed by a single source, but that is not SYNTH either. There was also a passage with "voice" issues, where the statements made by the studies were stated directly, rather than pointing out that they came from a study. That also has been rectified.
Now I understand that there are some practical considerations (I call them cop-outs, but that's just me, apparently), such as, everyone is sick to death of how Talk page and RFC discussions never get anywhere or never get anyone to show up, respectively. But I must contradict unequivocally, the assertions that the article content as it stands is worthless.
There is a huge disconnect between the opinions voiced here by Delete voters and the state of the article; too much to be merely variances in opinion. To be fair, there is some bowing and scraping before the supposed magnificence of its interestingness by Keep voters as well. I would love for all of the studies to be as well referenced as the Ryota Kanai study has become since the last AfD, but that is not possible, yet. The article has improved greatly, and will come into its own in due course, whether it is deleted this time or not. The studies will continue, with the same focus, and more and more content will be available for it. Hopefully it will one day be possible to split it into MRI scan, Genetic, and Behavioural/Functional sub-articles.
There is a small issue that may need to be addressed at some point, although at the moment it does not threaten the article or even these proceedings very much, only Acadēmica Orientālis' peace of mind. As can be seen in this AfD alone, Maumus cannot restrain himself from making personal attacks against AO, with IRWolfie tag-teaming to a lesser extent, and Fifelfoo to a lesser extent again. Both sides are at fault, but I am concerned that AO will be blocked for adding content similar to what I removed from the article. There is no need to sanction those who added that material, or AO, but failing that, the sanctions should at least be balanced. This has gone on in various fora; the Talk page, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard#Biology and political orientation, and WP:ANI#User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre (Fifelfoo absent from the final forum). Anarchangel (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, "There is no such thing as synthesis of sentences to make an article, or synthesis of ideas to make an article topic.": actually synthesis of disparate topics into a single articles without a reliable source making the connections is a reason for deletion (and has been used as an argument in AfD successfully). If there is a novel combination (or synthesis) of topics, then it is done through original thought and is non-encyclopedic. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for deletion where? Not WP:DEL#REASON. Lots of things are used as arguments in AfD successfully. Some of them are in WP:ATA. The word "topics" occurs nowhere in WP:SYNTH. Anarchangel (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As summed up by Jimbo himself in the recent past [27] on the topic of novel combinations of topics (not this article in particular):
This is a classic type of article that I have seen many times in the past, in which someone has a new idea to lump together a bunch of related things under a new name, and tries to justify the existence of the article by noting all the valid references to the underlying related things. The problem is often that to a casual reviewer, the sourcing looks good.
IRWolfie- (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC) (removed the strong delete part IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
You are quoting someone out of context, they commenting on a totally different article. What does that have to do with things here? Dream Focus 14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am showing that voting delete based on the argument that it is an article which is made by grouping separate topics together in a fashion not done in reliable sources, is a valid one to make. (Anarchangel stated that it wasn't) IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dream_Focus posted this at Jimbo's page, note that my comment was not meant to imply that Jimbo had commented on this particular AfD, I never suggested that, see [28] (currently open here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Jimbo_Wales.2C_you_are_quoted_out_of_context_in_an_AFD.). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we admit that there is any connection at all between the mind and the brain, it follows that "biology may be linked with political orientation" as the lead says. Beyond that, all the current state of research seems to offer is a morass of meaningless alleged correlations, and that's what the article now is. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel: Yeah, that's what I meant by 'flavor of the week'... The scope of an article with the title 'Biology and political orientation' ought not be restricted to new-fangled, recent stuff. "Scientists" have been making failed attempts to link the two (at the behest of those govts who pay them) for an embarassingly long time, all of which have eventually come to naught. (See physiognomy) One of the most successful was Freud's theory, that how your parents potty train you determines how liberal you will be. Surely that falls under the scope of 'Biology and political orientation'. Then it should also mention that the Nazi doctors certainly did a lot of theorizing in that same regard, as they found it of particular interest to their ends. Etc., etc., etc. So, all this crapola is really nothing new - but the current article's incarnation reads only like an advertisement for the latest babble, and so ought to be outright deleted. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best theory came from W. S. Gilbert (1882): "Nature always does contrive, That every boy and every gal That's born into the world alive Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what WSG would have made of Mrs T, who saw herself as being a Conservative in the Liberal tradition of Gladstone. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How very fortunate for those who know so much better than any scientific literature, past present or future, what observations are meaningful and which are not. It must make voting on these sorts of things so easy for you. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One key issue that, in the absence of secondary source review articles, claims made in primary sources are being taken onboard here by Wikipedia without any proper critical filter of the methodology and reporting. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MistyMorn claims that peer reviewed science articles do not have a "critical filter", a critique which has no basis in WP guidelines. Even if I give the benefit of playing devil's advocate, this is old ground, covered above by Academia Orientalis, and at the previous AfD. If only news articles (establishing notability) are used, it is claimed that they lack sufficient peer review or lack scientific credibility. If only primary sources (peer reviewed with scientific credibility) are used, it is claimed they do not show notability. That is why there are both types of sources in the article. It would be fair to say that I have gotten so used to the goalposts being moved, that I have learned to score on the rebound. Anarchangel (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So as to respect WP:CIVIL, I'm keeping out of this kind of tendentious "no basis in WP guidelines", verifiability, not truth kind of argument, which I find intellectually insulting. Suffice it to say, that as an experienced peer reviewer myself, I feel more comfortable where the WP:MEDRS content guideline can be applied to protect Wikipedia from nonsense such as this] and much more. I honestly don't know whether the page should be deleted, stubified, or what. My knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies is too limited to hazard a view. What I will say is that, in its current form, I find this page painfully embarrassing... Starting from the deliberately eyecatching, but encyclopedically absurd illustrations at the top. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct! The article, such as it is, depends on its own interpretation of primary sources; a fatal flaw. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a synthesis problem, although not one normally considered to be part of WP:SYNTHESIS. The assertion that all these papers are in the same topic is a unique synthesis, even if some (many, most) of the papers, are misinterpreted by AO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a kind of synthesis that is required for writing an article uincorporating more than one source - we can hardly expect all sources to state "This article treats the same topic as articles x, y & z"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Maunus [29] and TFD [30] both rightly point out, much of the content has nothing directly to do with Biology and political orientation. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not exactly. We (Wikipedians) do need to synthesize topics, but:
  1. Most (all?) of the disparate papers are not on this topic, and
  2. There is little evidence that this topic (Biology and political orientation) is a notable one on which something can be said.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anarchangel. When major news organizations cover scientific topics, they act as secondary sources - even if they lack scientific accuracy, their widespread coverage provides an imprimatur of legitimacy to indicate that these reports are not mere random noise, but of general interest and relevance. And primary sources, when summarized according to their main conclusions from their abstracts, are reliable sources. The focus of the article is broad - we could have a narrower article on the correlation of liberalism and higher IQ, backed by plenty of data, but there seems to be room. Adding new facts into an old article is not "SYNTH", it is "writing Wikipedia"! Wnt (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or stubify) [reconsidering]. As I see it the underlying the question here is not whether the topic announced by the title is potentially notable, but whether suitable secondary-source review articles in reputable peer-review journals in the field of biology or general science (eg, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc) currently exist to provide the scientific basis for a tertiary, encyclopedic approach. Objecting that WP:MEDRS has no bearing on a scientific topic focusing on both human biology and political science, and in which epidemiological methodology is key (including the especially complex area of genetic epidemiology), seems to me to be missing the point about Wikipedia's role as a reliable tertiary source (WP:TERTIARY). —MistyMorn (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A recent (28 May 2012) issue of Political Psychology states that "...over the last several decades, research incorporating neurobiological approaches has reached into the core of human behavior and remains central to issues of enduring concern in political psychology... The majority if not all of the critical work in this area has been conducted outside our own field of inquiry with little if any input from our disciplinary brethren. ("The Political Psychology of Biology, Genetics, and Behavior", 28 May 2012)[31] IOW words it is only as recently as the end of last month that anyone (except Wikipedia editors) have attempted to gather together unrelated studies in the hope that a new field of study will emerge. While this may happen, per WP:CRYSTALBALL it is too early to write a coherent article. TFD (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a brand new field, see eg. "Review article: biopolitics after three decades - a balance sheet" published in 1998, or this book published in 2001, "Biology and Political Science". On a side note, we appear to have another article, Biopolitics, on the same subject (although the definitions section is unrelated). --92.4.177.142 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The artile Biopolitics treats a completely different topic - namely the concept developed by Michel Foucault.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, apart from the material in the definitions section it is the same subject. --92.4.177.142 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the term "biopolitics" is not (as far as I know) a term commonly employed to refer to studies that set out to explore possible biological associations with individual political tendencies, maybe the scope of the Biopolitics page needs some rethinking? There currently seems to be something of a disconnect between sections. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biopolitics as a term describing the use of biological methods in political science was not uncommon and predates Michel Foucault's usage, but appears to have fallen somewhat out of vogue as far as I can tell. Biopower covers Foucalt's usage and describes the history of the term as used elsewhere. --92.4.177.142 (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right I was thinking of our article on Biopower (which is also terrible) - in any case the word biopolitics is definitely very commonly used for Foucault's concept. At least in my field that usage of "biopolitics" is the only one I know of.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not so out of vogue after all. Alford's 2008 review of the field is titled "The New Empirical Biopolitics" [32] and there is a long standing series edited by Somit and Peterson called "Research in Biopolitics" that published its 10th volume this year [33]. --92.4.177.142 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This paper gives some useful context about the use of the term: "The Competing Meanings of 'Biopolitics' in Political Science: Biological and Post-Modern Approaches to Politics". --92.4.177.142 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 92.4 FM. I suspect you may already have registered a Wikipedia account at some time, but you're posting good stuff here, imo. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Response/clarification here --92.4.177.142 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The anon has convinced me that there is already an article that should cover this topic called biopolitics, and that 'biopolitics' is a current and common field of discussion. And when we have two articles about the same thing, we're supposed to merge them. I am thus altering my vote above from "delete" to "merge and redirect". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how Wikipedia should approach the "two competing" usages of the term biopolitics, but I too am now reconsidering my !vote (and feel that something genuinely constructive may come out of this AfD...). —MistyMorn (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially Michel Foucault's usage dominates, but biopolitics in the other context is also occasionally used. Active researchers don't really seem to have any particular convention in naming their field, biopolitics is a more historical usage. The paper I linked above suggests abandoning the term for these reasons (as well as possible Nazi connotations). --92.4.177.142 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK it's not the best written article and the referencing could be improved. Perhaps it should be completely rewritten. However even as it is, it clearly demonstrates that some research by reputable institutions has identified a link between brain structure and political inclination. This research has been reported in secondary sources. Therefore it's notable and we need an article on it. In time, rewrites, stubordination (don't like "stubbify"), etc may happen. Mcewan (talk) 22:38, 28 June 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. It's a blizzard in here. The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines–United Kingdom relations[edit]

Philippines–United Kingdom relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not required and is unlikely to be read Calu2000 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is an invalid criteria for deletion that is tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly this is a valid topic with non-trivial coverage. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Requirement for an article of this kind is mandated by notability. The relationship between two sovereign, enduring nations is likely to be covered in numerous reliable sources. As to whether the article is likely to be read? Well, I couldn't say. But obscurity and unpopularity are not reasons for deletion, when things can be properly sourced. --Several Pending (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The exclude/include line seems to be someplace between the Marshall Islands and the Philippine Islands for bilateral international relations articles... Carrite (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain a little more what this means.  What is the line?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The exclude/include line is WP:N --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  No argument for deletion, article is already sourced.  Also keep as per solid arguments by RJH and Several Pending.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously notable subject, standard topic, not valid deletion rationale forwarded, .... KTC (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Just because it may seem obscure to you doesn't mean that people won't find it useful. There are several articles on Wikipedia about relatively obscure topics (like Japanese singers or African conflicts that rarely get Western coverage), but surely such article may be useful for someone. As for the topic itself, the UK is one of the Philippines' major trading partners, and their bilateral relations get relatively good coverage over here. Surely notability has been established here. I suggest trouting the nominator for this invalid nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep – The topic is notable, and prior to nominating articles for deletion from the encyclopedia, the nominator should consider following the suggestions for source searching at WP:BEFORE in the future.
It's appearing to be a snow keep...
—Northamerica1000(talk) 15:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep No trouts for this relatively new nominator, but I hope he'll review notability criteria before future nominations. We all have our bad days. I'm not sure in what sense any topic is "required" on Wikipedia, and if "unlikely to be read" were a valid argument for deletion (putting aside its extreme objectivity), we'd jettison a massive amount of special-interest articles. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep clearly notable, and while the article needs word, no reason to delete.--KarlB (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is notable. Nominator probably just doesn't like it. Xeltran (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep even as someone that as found many low notability bilaterals, enduring historical relations and military interaction makes this notable. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the consensus is already quite clear, I recommend that we close this discussion as soon as possible. It's quite cold here already. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:46, 27 June 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 20:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh La La (The Dirty Picture song)[edit]

Ooh La La (The Dirty Picture song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable thus fails WP:NSONG - VivvtTalk 17:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't even try to assert any notability. Article for the film it came from said it was released to the Internet and also says nothing about its notability. I don't think a redirect is necessary as the title as written is not one people would likely search on Wikipedia for, and Google searches would most likely bring up the film page anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current form, this unsourced stub merely repeats info already provided in the article for the film it's from. Following WP:NSONG, for it to be worthwhile having a separate article on the song, there should be substantial coverage from reliable sources and there should be "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". It's possible both these conditions could hold for this song, but it is not obvious. I'd suggest no prejudice against recreation with real content and real sourcing, but nothing is lost by deleting article in its current form. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as given above. There's nothing in this article that isn't in the article for the film. -Coolcool2012(talk to me) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has since been updated with numerous plausible claims of notability—namely that the number (including the music and the accompanying choreography) won nine separate awards from six industry bodies. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been updated with Reception,awards and it has been also been updated with many things I.am.the.best0 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the 7th edit of User I.am.the.best0 (talk · contribs) on English Wikipedia and the user also shows similarities in editing to the blocked creator of this article User Fineuser (talk · contribs). §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed puppet. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly no indication of notability.The same information exists on the article of movie. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 14:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NSONGS (although I liked the video, what a shame I am voting for deletion :)--DBigXray 11:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I'm guessing that there are several Bollywood songs out there which do not fall under the notability guideline. Secret of success (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although there seems to be many awards for the singers, choreographers and other associated people, no notable award is won by the song itself. We can't blame that on the song as no such notable award exists. However had the "song" received any critical acclaims from notable sources it would have had a chance to stay. Also the article as of now and most likely in future too would never have anything more to tell than what the film's article does. Hence delete. No redirect required as the title doesn't seem like someone would search. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 00:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is really a famous song here but anyhow, not so notable. It fails WP:NSONG. →TSU tp* 03:49, 1 July 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. Opinions about whether the sources suffice for notability are divided.  Sandstein  17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Island Ink-Jet[edit]

Island Ink-Jet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the two sources that could be construed as reliable, neither offers significant non-trivial coverage of the subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - The WSJ article is arguably nontrivial as it mentions this company several times as part of background and testing of their product, but the Boston.com barely mentions this company even in passing. So even if we give the WSJ the green light we'd still need some others. Did a quick search in the obvious locations and couldn't find any others. It's odd that something with so many outlets has so little news coverage anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please note that I write this as an ink and toner cartridge industry expert and as a member of the company so there is no ambiguity.

Regarding news coverage. Bear in mind that printer manufactures do not like the refill industry - it means less profit to them. The ink cartridge refill industry as a whole (including IIJ) has received very little news coverage which makes sense if you check the manufacturers financial statements and realize their most profitable divisions involve print consumables. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising with media outlets. The old saying "never bite the hand that feeds" comes to mind.

I respectfully submit that it is possible to achieve notoriety by the general community without the traditional "press coverage". Island Ink-Jet has refilled over 10 million cartridges to date which is impressive given we merely provide a service. It is ultimately the consumer that has chosen to refill and done so by bringing their cartridges to any of our locations (We wonder what would have happened if there had been substantial press coverage).

That said, there has been several nontrivial articles dealing with Island Ink-Jet however many are not preserved on the internet. In addition to the WSJ article cited, WSJ featured IIJ on the front page of the Business section on August 3rd, 2004. Island Ink-Jet was also featured on CTV's 6 o'clock evening news in 2005 (Pat Foran's consumer report segment) which discussed the refilling of ink cartridges and was shown nationwide within Canada. There have been several newspaper articles over the years but most are found in actual print rather than being searchable online. Island Ink-Jet has also been the recipient of numerous awards from chamber of commerce awards to consumers choice awards (Barrie Chamber of Commerce Green Award, Edmonton Consumers Choice award for #1 cartridge refiller, Canadian Office Products Association -COPA- award of excellence to name a few)- again none of which you would find by searching the internet as they are material things that are verifiable to anyone who contacts us and asks. Anyone interested in validating is welcome to contact Island Ink-Jet and request copies of articles that have appeared in print.

I am apalled by "Ohnoitsjamie"'s actions in nominating the Island Ink-Jet page for deletion. This is ultimately his retaliation in response to an update I placed on the "Ink Cartridge" page which he undid without any cause. I believe this is an abuse of power. As an expert within the industry I want to ensure the information is accurate and up to date. I removed a reference from an older PC World article an replaced it with a newer one. I also added information relating to how cartridges can be refilled. I was cognoscente that being an expert within the industry and being a member of IIJ could create a COI so I ensured the update was unbiased and neutral and it was certainly not promotional nor did it contain any external links. Wikipedia rules say use common sense and common sense would suggest that someone with a background in having refilled 10 million cartridges is probably an expert in the field - (even moreso than a PC world article writer who has never once refilled an ink cartridge). It's a shame when Wikipedia displays poor information as a result of a power tripping administrator like ohnoitsjamie.

We ask that common sense is used by other editors when reviewing this delete request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — 174.112.26.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Note that this is one of serveral WP:SPA accounts spamming ink-cartridge related pages over the last year or so; see also this blocked user and these IP edits from the same geographical area. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We dispute the comment by Ohnoitsjamie. As an expert in the field and while I know there was the potential for COI, I updated information on certain pages which accurately reflects the topic in a neutral fashion, that is not promotional and contained no spam. Ohitsnotjamie has simply used his power to delete subject matter, block my account, claim I am spamming etc based on his limited knowledge of the subject matter and his assumption that anything we write is spam regardless of the content because "most people who update the Ink Cartridge entry are spammers".

Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith. Wikipedia's guidelines go so far as to state "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." In stark contrast to these stated goals Ohitsnotjamie simply uses his power to delete content without expertise on the subject matter, without cause, without reviewing the content and based on an assumption that writers on the subject matter are spammers and should they protest, he blocks their account. I think common sense would suggest this is going overboard. Common sense would also suggest that Ohitsnotjamie has nominated this article for deletion as a pesonal vendetta against "this account" (as he portrays this account as that of a spammer) when in fact the reality is that it is he who blocked the account in the first place and as a direct consequence to our disagreeing with his removal of content without any just cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WSJ source mentions IIJ several times but we really need at least one source that covers IIJ directly and in significant detail. The WSJ source does neither of these things. If the IP above can supply the 2004 WSJ article he/she mentions where IIJ was featured on the front page of the Business section, that sounds like a start and might change my vote. Failing that, and per WP:BURDEN, for now this is a delete. I'd also caution the IP from similar massive outpourings of text in this discussion, as they are almost inevitably counterproductive (a common response: "if you need that many words to explain why it's notable, it's probably not notable"). This is to say nothing of the manner in which you devote so much time to saying how "appalled" you are at the existence of this AFD and the "power-tripping" of OhNoItsJamie, which is also very counterproductive and, in addition, totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being relatively new to wikipedia didn't know the best place to take up recurring issues. My apologies. Regarding articles, see note below.207.112.18.250 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why the IP is upset; an AfD nomination that is lazy deserves to be riduculed sometimes. This nomination statement is useless to me "Of the two sources that could be construed as reliable, neither offers significant non-trivial coverage of the subject." The current state of an article often has very little relation to its notability. I could go around nominating thousands of articles for deletion under that rationale, even when I knew the subject was clearly notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come come now, this is such a standard rationale that it borders on being boilerplate. The argument presented is that the article is not notable, based on asserting that the sources supplied do not establish notability. While I'd never argue against going the extra mile in drafting a detailed nomination statement, simply doing the standard spiel can't possibly be grounds for ridicule and outrage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't standard spiel. This was punishment for my other edits which were factually correct and which were deleted by the same individual. The most recent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ink_cartridge&diff=499154861&oldid=498938678 All reliable articles dealing with the subject matter discuss the same companies in almost every news article available on the subject yet any attempt to add relevant information to wikipedia is met by a lazy delete because he considers something "rinky-dink" (as quoted below)207.112.18.250 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IT should be grounds for ridicule and outrage. It is lazy and pathetic and virtually spitting in the face of editors who work to write articles. If people looked at it that way, they would think harder before making such nominations. This nomination is ridiculous, this chain had hundreds of retail units throughout north america at its peak and much written about it. Shame, shame, shame.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not shamed and stand by the nom. It's a rinky-dink franchise that was written as an advertisement by an employee. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lyra Research considers the article's topic be one of four companies that (when combined) accounted for 62% of retail cartridge-refilling locations in North America in 2006... The deletion of content is akin to implying the industry doesn't exist. Give me a break! This is beyond ridicule.207.112.18.250 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, if you combine this company with three other companies you get to 62% of the market? So what's this company's share of the market? By that math it could be 1%. It could be 0.1%, for that matter. What's the actual number? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to Lyra Research there were 1103 total stores offering refill services in North America in 2005. According to Specialty Retail Report, Island Ink-Jet had 208 stores as of April 2005. So roughly 20% of the marketplace give or take.174.112.26.83 (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A business is notable if its accomplishments get coverage, plus what those accomplishments are. The Wall Street Journal states Island Ink-Jet has opened 75 stores and this was in an article from 2005. I don't see on their official website how many stores they now have. Clearly a notable business. Dream Focus 04:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A business is notable if it is the "subject of significant coverage" in reliable sources, not "if its accomplishments get coverage." I am quoting WP:NCOMPANY. I'm not sure what you're quoting :). The relevant question is whether the coverage supplied of IIJ is "significant." There is definitely coverage, and it's definitely in reliable sources. I question its significance. This is, unfortunately, a wholly subjective area. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources, except for the Comox Valley Echo (and I'll get to that in a moment), address the subject "directly." That's literally all I'm missing. All of the sourcing supplied is about the ink cartridge refill industry, and IIJ is mentioned (repeatedly -- that is, to be clear, I'm not intending to suggest that IIJ is mentioned in a list and then forgotten about) in the context of the industry. I have yet to see an article in a reliable source that is about the subject. ...except for the Comox Valley Echo piece, which confuses me. It's about an Island Inkjet that went out of business in 2009. It mentions another competing company called Island Ink-Jet and Toner. The subject of this article is still in business. As such, I have to conclude that the subject of the Comox Valley Echo piece is either an entirely separate company with the same name, or was some kind of distribution or manufacturing subsidiary of IIJ that shuttered. In either case, I don't see it as covering the subject of the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh! Okay, forget what I just wrote about the Comox Valley Echo piece. Parent company rescued from oblivion in 2009, apparently. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Comox Valley Echo piece does actually refer to a separate company however the subject of this article is the brand, not the company. The brand was owned by a company that not only ended up closing, but was also sued which resulted in courts awarding the brand to another owner hence two companies owing the brand at different times (note tonernews article from company's site). 174.112.26.83 (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Echo cite. Yes, its the same brand/company. As is typical with these things, big money men come in when they see an opportunity and the founders end up elsewhere eventually. As a Canadian company, I am sure there are more articles not readily found because Canadian newspapers don't give away archived content for free. I added the Echo and one other cite after a 2 minute search.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that a selection of articles are found here: https:// www. islandinkjet .com/inthepress/ (You will have to put it together. It appears the admin also went so far as to block the site!)207.112.18.250 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has several links but they seem to be limited mentions, announcements and mostly trivial coverage. Even the WSJ mention is one among similar organizations. Either way they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" for Equipment leasing company ltd.--Hu12 (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP does not include any provisions suggesting that "being a franchised business" equates to notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 10:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, I'm talking about what overwhelmingly happens in practice. These articles are many, e.g., Cartridge World, and even rarely get nominated. This chain had 240 locations as of 2006[38], which is fairly large. I guess nobody wants to look for articles about the chain, but its not like they don't exist. They are myriad.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: OK, I'm tired of this crap. I fired up my highbeam account and added a number of additional references. Notability is not in question. AfD is not for cleanup.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is in question, hence the lack of WP:SNOWBALL here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lots of Americans still question whether Obama was born in the United States.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merely adding in mass, a indiscriminate amount of search result links, does not establish this subject as notable for inclusion. I've gone through them and Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.
-action-intell.com/2011/03/03/retail-cartridge-refiller-island-ink-jet-opens-e-commerce-website/
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops - fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
-tonernews.com/message.aspx?vy=bb&id=22170
Anonymous "Forum Message" PR post with sales and contact info - Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG
-highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125926333.html
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
-highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11943643.html
About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited.- Fails WP:GNG
-highbeam.com/doc/1G1-157897207.html
About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited.- Fails WP:GNG
-articles.boston.com/2006-09-11/business/29242757_1_ink-cartridges-replacement-cartridges-cartridge-world
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
-online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111871321693558814-pE_pv5NrwRCx9T6hLKOonuGDgNc_20060613,00.html?mod=blogs
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
-highbeam.com/doc/1G1-124345725.html
About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited - Fails WP:GNG
-highbeam.com/doc/1G1-129013774.html
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
-highbeam.com/doc/1G1-111270185.html
no mention, behind a paywall looks to be a press kit - Fails WP:GNG
-specialtyretail.com/issue/2005/04/retailer-profiles/ink_refill_retail_franchise/
self-publicity, advertising, press kit interview, its not Independent of the subject.
-.canada.com/comoxvalleyecho/news/community/story.html?id=294a3e0a-f0a3-41b9-bd0e-3fce9901ef15
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Clearly Island Ink-Jet Fails Notability. --Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
utter bullshit. you guys are idiots, i'm done with this discussion.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added another 10 or so sources and references including 2 new WSJ articles, research from Lyra Research, various newspaper articles that are non trivial, letters from government sources, commendations from city's. Note that some articles are retrieved from the archives on islandinkjet.com which has been blocked by wiki (and therefore the url cannot be added properly to reference materials)on the Island Ink-Jet page. I wasn't sure how to add these articles which are relevant to this discussion so I removed the https://www. from the url. Would appreciate it if an admin can update this properly as I don't know the process..174.112.26.83 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Notability;
-seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/makeitcount/2002902393_keepyourmoney02.html
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
-islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/newwaytothinkofink.pdf
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
-sptimes.com/2004/10/11/news_pf/Technology/Cost_of_ink_cartridge.shtml
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
-islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/fillitupwithcolorwallstreetjournal.jpg
Is merely trivial coverage, such as: routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops. Its also a duplicate of the WSJ already used - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
-bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2006/10/02/story3.html?page=all
About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited.- Fails WP:GNG
-ecotrust.ca/energy/refill-not-landfill-a-winning-slogan-island-ink-jet
Anonymous PR SEO blog post with hyperlink - Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG
-islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/EnvironmentAward2006Nomination.pdf
Not Independent of the subject; Chamber of Commerce Member Services start at $483 for class "A" all the way up to "k" which is $6783, this is paid marketing
-islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/greenawardfrombarriechamberofcommerce.pdf
Not Independent of the subject; Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce Member Services include Marketing
-.islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/letterfrombarriempregreenaward.pdf
Not Independent of the subject; Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce Member Services include Marketing
-islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/congradulationson50thstorefromministeroftheenvironment.pdf
Seems to be a standard correspondence letter that goes out after registering substance(s) ie.(ink) with the Minister of the Environment (required). Trivial as corporate papers
I've gone through them and Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.--Hu12 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've examined three of the sources analyzed in the previous post, and in none of the three cases could I confirm the results.  The selection was not random, I selected three links that looked interesting.  sptimes.com/2004/10/11/news_pf/Technology/Cost_of_ink_cartridge.shtml is a dead link.  I also looked at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/makeitcount/2002902393_keepyourmoney02.html, where the entire article is about the concept being marketed by "Island Ink-Jet", and the attention of readers is directed to three companies, one of which is "Island Ink-Jet".  IMO, the representation that this is "trivial coverage" is not guideline based.  A third sample was http://bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2006/10/02/story3.html?page=all, which provides direct in-depth prose that goes to WP:GNG notability.  The analysis was, "About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited.- Fails WP:GNG".  The first part is correct, there is discussion about a franchise owner.  The subsequent analysis fails to report that attention in the article is also given directly to the topic and that the attention given to the franchisee is also going, at least in part, to the topic.  This error by omission suggests that the analysis is not reliable.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. In the nwsource.com link above the only mention of Island Ink-Jet is as follows;
  • "...chains of refill shops have a total of 14 stores in the Puget Sound area: Cartridge World (www.cartridgeworldusa.com), Island Ink-Jet (www.islandinkjet.com) and Rapid Refill Ink (www.rapidrefillink.com). "
Fails the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP which reads; "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations", Which is entirely guideline based. the bizjournals.com link is about a frachise Mark Tremont, and there are only two mentions
  • "Island Ink Jet isn't the only company in the region to offer the recycling service. Another franchise, Cartridge World"
  • "resellers such as Island Ink Jet and Cartridge World"
Neither of these establish notability and is trivial and incidental coverage.- Fails the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP and WP:GNG--Hu12 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the previous poster aware that there are a number of sources listed on this page?  I can relist them if needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well aware, however they also fail the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP--Hu12 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we are not talking about WP:CORP.  Is the object here to understand the support for my !vote, or is this an exercise in denial?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we are talking about the specific inclusion guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Is the previous poster aware that Island Ink-Jet is not a musical group? --Hu12 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that music groups have any relevance to this discussion.  Is this a red herring argument?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What we are discussing is my !vote which is about "WP:GNG", which is the general notability guideline.  An assertion that my !vote was about WP:ORG rather than WP:GNG becomes evidence of a logical non-sequitur fallacy.  As per [[WP:N], "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline..., and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not."  Unscintillating (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion made, I addressed your !vote in my first comment above. To clarify, the sources fail WP:GNG's "Significant coverage", put forth in the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP. --Hu12 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"No assertion made"?  "[W]e are talking about the specific inclusion guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)", was that not an assertion in the context of my !vote?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no context of your !vote. "Obviously passes" is not a valid argument for inclusion. Obviously What? The sources fail WP:GNG's "Significant coverage", put forth in the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP. How is that passing WP:GNG?--Hu12 (talk) 02:17, 2 July 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 as content fork, per WP:SNOW. User:Agunter999 has been blocked as a purely disruptive account. postdlf (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wwii equipment[edit]

Wwii equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a content fork of List of common World War II infantry weapons, with some information from other WWII-related lists, used by the article's creator to evade discussion at Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons#Neutral countries. jfd34 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]



  • It has other information
  • IT is also clearer and holds more information than the others, maby they should be deleated

Agunter999 (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Akbar has also been involved in these edit wars so also be cautioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agunter999 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't been involved in an edit war with Agunter999. I took no part at all on 20 May and all I have done over the past couple of days is reverting his irrelevant additions on List of common World War II infantry weapons, without breaking the 3RR rule, and detecting and reverting Agunter999's signature forgery on Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons. So don't try to put the blame on me. Allan Akbar (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Clearly this issue needs to be arbitrated, rather than being hashed out here. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV forking. This is clearly a run around to circumvent consensus.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is easy enough to hash this out here, as we don't do multiple artilcles on the same topic just because someone doesn't like what the editors on the the main article come to a consensus to do. There's nothing to salvage here, it just needs to go away. DreamGuy (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree - POVfork is quite relevant here. Skier Dude (talk) 00:27, 25 June 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. Sources provided which demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 01:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Punk[edit]

Golf Punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, original rational was "Non-notable defunct magazine" which remains valid. GiantSnowman 15:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's received significant media coverage[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. It's won awards which don't themselves prove notability but demonstrate the magazine has had some impact. It also had a sister publication Football Punk[48][49] which should be mentioned in the same article (or if you want to combine it in an article on the publisher). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I don't think all of thsoe above sources are valid references, many of them are, and are more than enough to establish notability. Being defunct doesn't automatically render something unnotable, and there was enough media coverage on it to pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read some of the sources linked to which are major British publications. Enough coverage to prove notability. Dream Focus 23:01, 27 June 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) →TSU tp* 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actuarial Society of South Africa HIV/AIDS Models[edit]

Actuarial Society of South Africa HIV/AIDS Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The refs are all first party ones except for one press release and one that briefly mentions the models. Other than that no indication of notability. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One should see the sources and citations for this article before proposing it for deleting, its properly cited this article should not be deleted as this is most important encyclopedic information for the world as ASSA AIDS MODELS has very important value in field medicine research on HIV / AIDS, its very notable and written according to Wikipedia Policies, I am agree on the point that content is less and may be citations are not proper however it can be improved, it should be keep as improved not for deletion of article because its notable, kindly share your views, Thanks. -- Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 15:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that this article deals with an important topic, but its content needs to be strengthened. I see that its creator plans to strengthen it, so I suggest he is given time to do so. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google Books search for ASSA AIDS model turns up various publications discussing or using the model, so it seems reasonable to expect that this article can be improved through normal editing. AllyD (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I specifically pointed not to Google Search, but to Google Books and to coverage of this specific actuarial model. See for example [50] from that page for the use of the model in SA govt decision making. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a joint task team of the National Department of Health and the Treasury used the ASSA model convinces me even more of its notability. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been improved since nomination by GorgeCustersSabre and again by myself. Although a couple of the independent sources are brief mentions, the International Monetary Fund publication is such a thorough examination of this actuarial model, I found more material for the article in it. Anarchangel (talk) 05:11, 26 June 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. Already CSD'd by one editor and gthen deleted by another adlmin. Recreation of a previously CSD'd article under a slightly different nalme. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joey shaw (photographer)[edit]

Joey shaw (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

dePRODed without addressing the issues of references. Just adding more websites of people the subject might have photographed does not add notability. The subject needs to have done something creative that gets written about, and awards, for its own merits - and then proven with WP:Reliable Sources Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:27, 24 June 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. Sources satisfy GNG. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 02:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Cheng[edit]

Bobby Cheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The achievements of this chess player are not high enough to be notable for an encyclopedia. SyG (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC) SyG (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A world chess champion is surely notable? Without wishing to give offence, SyG, by his own account on his User Page is an extreme deletionist and a chess enthusiast. Therefore his NPOV on this article is questionable. Do we discriminate on the basis of age on WP? This young chess player is only 15 years of age but he has achieved at a high level and come to the attention of the media and is therefore notable. Another citation would be desirable. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every year, "world champion" titles are awarded in under 18, U16, U14, U12, U10, and U8 categories; x2 for girls as well. All of them are local celebrities after they return home victorious and receive brief media attention. Do all of these kids then deserve a Wikipedia page as well? What's the cutoff for "a high level"? Sasata (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, hence satisfies WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WWGB. Whether being U12 world champion is notable or not, enough coverage exists to pass general notability regardless. The Errol Kiong article demonstrates news coverage prior to the 2009 championship, so BLP1E doesn't apply either. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On its own, a FIDE master title is usually insufficient for notability, and in the past, age restricted national champions have usually been deleted. However, in this case it is a World championship we are dealing with, and membership in that club is far more exclusive. The achievement has clearly been noted by the mainstream non-chess media as well such as the New Zealand Herald, so the sourcing is clearly adequate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 26 June 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 discussion indicates that the topic might be notable, but would need better sourcing.  Sandstein  05:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of "Umalatova" awards[edit]

List of "Umalatova" awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There appears to be no article at ru for Умалатовой награды or even Умалатовa награды and a quick google search didn't find anything that looks particularly notable, although I accept my Russian isn't as good as it was 10 years ago. Looks NN. Spartaz Humbug! 10:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about the Партия мира и единства, but nothing about the tsatski (correct word order is награды Умалатовой). But I've found a news about prohibition of this business: http://lenta.ru/russia/2002/04/17/umalatova/, so Keep. Ignatus (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly not enough for a stand alone article, so this should be deleted and the subject covered at an article about the party. Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. But it also seems that these (among other recent doubtfully legal Russian private "orders") well-made ones are object of collectioning [51], can we have list of them for such reason? E.g. as bones of some minor unrecognized governments of Civil war time. Ignatus (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is adequate reliable sourcing yes, but this isn't sourced enough for that. Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These awards are collectibles, there's no doubt about that. There are multiple threads on most phaleristics forums World wide dealing with them, on OMSA's and GMIC's web sites for example. They were originally included in the article Awards_and_decorations_of_the_Soviet_Union and later removed, the concensus being they didn't belong there. They remained on the article's talk page for quite a while, I created this list mostly in an effort to free the talk page. The political party no longer exists but these medals are very very present on the market. Personally, I have no objection to the article's deletion seeing these awards as fakes. But they are misleading to the beginning collector, this list serves as a warning "CAVEAT EMPTOR". For those not familiar with the term "Umalatova", it refers to Sazhi Umalatova, a Russian politician who pines for past Soviet glory. She was the chairwoman of the Party of Peace and Unity, they issued their own medals in the Soviet style until the practice was outlawed by the Russian government. Like I said, I have no objection to a deletion, as long as the decision taken is an informed one. Cheers. Fdutil (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 19 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but maybe move to "List of Umalatova awards" without the quotation marks). Entirely notable and verifiable subject. Lots of stuff in Russian (Ms. Umalatova herself should have a page here, too; I'm a bit surprised that she doesn't already). There were a few news stories just last month about veterans wearing Umalatova awards (particularly the Order of Stalin) to the latest Victory Day parade. I will add refs. Heather (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a very long article at ru:Награды Постоянного Президиума Съезда народных депутатов СССР and if there is English-language coverage of these medals (as collectibles) I suggest the article is moved to whatever description is most common in those sources, perhaps without "List of ..." Sussexonian (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't see how this unsourced, hyper-technical, possibly-OR content could be usefully merged, sorry Bearian.  Sandstein  05:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Investigation of Nanoparticle from Sol-Gel Method[edit]

Design Nanoparticle from the Brown Motion Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Investigation of Nanoparticle from Sol-Gel Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hopeless technically complicated. The weird "opening statement" in italics indicates a probable WP:OR problem too, as evidenced by the lack of sources. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G11 by Kusma. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joining a server[edit]

Joining a server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How-to guide on how to join a game server on risingdead.com.br. Wikipedia is not a manual or guide. jfd34 (talk) 11:34, 24 June 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 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Thompson (author)[edit]

Scott Thompson (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of an author with a single published work, which has received no attention outside of his hometown and a few small bloggers. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Thompson has received two articles from his local paper, but that's hardly enough to show that he's had a depth of coverage. He's just not notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:10, 24 June 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 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Di Flash[edit]

Minecraft Di Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not actually sure whether this is a hoax, speculation, or just a very obscure future film. The only hit I get for "Minecraft Di Flash" is in a Punjabi film internet forum. No sources are given in the article, and even a search for "Jelly Manjitpuri Baljit Deo" is inconclusive. If the film is true and more sources are found, then the article can be recreated, but for now, if it's not speculation, it's just too soon. PROD was removed by the author. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's suspicious that a Punjabi film would be shot in Canada. Production costs are lower here than in the US, but the Punjab? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they wanted to try an exotic location? Many Indian films already have scenes shot abroad. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that he currently fails the notability guideline, but without prejudice to being restored if//when he does meet the guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Branimir Hrgota[edit]

Branimir Hrgota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Reckless182 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In just 2-3 months this player will play for a german team in the top leage. And he has already won a couple of prizes in Sweden witch gives him some general notability. Just give it some time and it will meet the required notability --Divine time (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:CRYSTAL certainly applies here, currently fails WP:NFOOTY, no problem recreating when he has made an apperance for Montengladbach.Seasider91 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:50, 29 June 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 only is this WP:ENT but it's a BLP. As such, it's unsourced - forums do not count. The actor does to appear to meet the "notable roles" requirement (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaida Parveen[edit]

Zaida Parveen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indian Hindi TV actress who doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Significant? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in Jyoti she is the mother of the main character, in Punar Vivah the same, in Yahan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli she is the main "antagonist". Cavarrone (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I don't find that significant. TV soap's lead actor's mom's roles!! Will let others comment on that. But this does fail GNG. All the references provided currently are from a fan-chat forum. Which are completely unacceptable. But i don't wanna waste my energy telling that for Hindi TV show related articles. It goes in vein. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn....WP:ENTERTAINER does not require you are the protagonist of a production, it requires you have SIGNIFICANT ROLES: being in the main cast of a tv-series means that your role is significant... otherwise you would be just a guest-star of the series for an episode or two... why do we lose time in discussing what is obvious? if you want to say she does not pass GNG you are free to do it, but saying she does not have significant roles in her career is just wasted time. Cavarrone (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right to speech! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aa..Aa!! Not lead, lead's mom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided are from a ⇒Newsgroup⇐, and the pages that have been referenced are not created by fans, and neither are they chat threads - just keep that in mind. ∗∗Pearz25 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and if you are considering this page for deletion because it has no references, I know other sites that beside India-Forums that can be used. ∗∗Pearz25 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QUOTE
"India-Forums.com is the # 1 Discussion Forums with more than 350,000 members currently (Nov, 2008) and was started in December 2003."
UNQUOTE
This is what the first line in About Us section of bold-inward-arrows-newsgroup reads. And you knowing other references doesnt help Wikipedia. If you know, add them. And read WP:Reliable Source before that. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:46, 13 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so this article is being deleted because it has no references? Rani P23 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No! Because the subject is not notable. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:17, 18 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:43, 24 June 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 Rocket Science (band). (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 02:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Warhurst[edit]

Kit Warhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable member of a band. There are sources of him where he is being interviewed with his band etc. but no independent notability (such as activity outside of the bands) has been demonstrated. Thus fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Till 09:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rocket Science (band). If any of the other bands that he's been in can be shown to be notable then an article may be worth keeping, but it looks like Rocket Science is the only one that's likely to have a WP article. --Michig (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rocket Science (band). Gets a about a dozen mentions in reliable sources and I think I can recall seeing him on TV once, so I think his name is a plausible search term, but doesn't have the significant coverage that's required to pass the GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Lets be honest, he only has an article at the moment due to his relationship with Myf Warhurst, and notability is not inherited in that way. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:32, 29 June 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 is no support for deletion here (apart from the nominator) and while there is support for merging there is a rough consensus that the article is sufficiently notable to be kept. This does not prejudice however a consensus on the article talk page later reaching a decision on a merge. Davewild (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West Rome High School[edit]

West Rome High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was dePRODED but still fails to address notiability issues. Article needs to be about a school, or about its sports people, either way it needs more substantial coverage by WP:RS Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is about a now-closed public high school. GNews reveals literally thousands of potential sources.[52] I added a few to start. I can't see any reasonable argument that this subject is not notable under our current standards relating to school articles and under WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rome High School. There's little chance that the current stub will be expanded. The best outcome would be to merge it. WP:WPSCH has discussed this before in regards to a different school (which is substantially more than a stub) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Archive_21#Merged_Schools. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The school holds multiple state records; once notable, always so. Anyone have access to Zell Miller's May 30, 1980 speech there? Dru of Id (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per standard practice for high schools, which treats these community landmarks in the same way in which are cities, villages, rivers, professional athletes, etc. Under no circumstances should a high school piece ever be sent to PROD. Who thought that was a good idea?!?! Carrite (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has been prodded twice.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Don't know why this was nominated, we don't spend time with high schools at AfD for the simple fact that they are easily sourced by local newspapers and government agencies.  And the high school here is not a small rural school, this is a high school with coverage in multiple books.  I don't think that this is a good merger target, but merger is more up to the people that are willing to do the work, than participants at an AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools, even closed high schools, are notable and this school did win numerous awards. --Artene50 (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone provide a good argument as to why this stub article of a school that closed ~20 years ago should not be merged into the article of the successor school? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my viewpoint, it is called factoring.  Why should we have two bundled articles, when they have almost nothing in common but ancestry?  How would you handle the geo-coordinates for the three schools?  I did a merge recently, a "WP:BIO1E" merge that the AfD volunteers called for, so that now at [53] we find that "Mantell UFO Incident" was a birth in 1922.  In general, IMO Wikipedia has a problem with not knowing the difference between a stub and a short article.  But like I said, if you want to do the work, that is ok with me.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merger could be discussed in the normal course of editing, outside this AfD. I'm not adamantly opposed to a merger, but it would have to be substantive, not just a token redirect. I disagree with the assertion that "There's little chance that the current stub will be expanded"; expansion has already started. There actually is quite a bit that could be written about this school, which sources show was notable for demonstrated academic and athletic achievements and for its role in Rome's segregation and desegregation. Given the substantial sources that exist not only for West Rome High but also for the current Rome High's other predecessors, including East Rome High and Main High, I suspect that the end result could be a rather long article, maybe not suitable to keep as one. In any event, discussing a merger of this type means a "keep" result for this AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and yeah I agree that the content should be kept (and I have frequently stated so at WP:WPSCH and elsewhere). I'm not volunteering to do the merge, as I've still got Vaucluse High School and Rose Bay Secondary College to do, but perhaps Kudpung wants to do it. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly opposed to merge; still holds the (later tied) state record for four consecutive championships, unaddressed if total records (5) was or still is state record, and if it was, and later tied/exceeded, this school's closure prevented further accomplishments. It's four consecutive state titles were 59-1. While an achievement to include in our not-yet-available bio of Coach Nick Hyden, West Rome High School's 1968-1973 were at least 6 consective other winning seasons (63-12-3 84%), his first 6 seasons; he would later win 200th game in state-record 20 seasons [54], though mainly associated with Valdosta High School, retired after 28 seasons (winningest in Georgia history?) [55], and for whom FL/GA all-star game named.
If Rome High School later titles and 6th title makes/ties record, it will be with an asterisk* of it's West Rome heritage. Dru of Id (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - while we normally keep such articles at AfD, this school is defunct and has merged in real life with the other HS in Rome. This is a sensible outcome. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus is that all verifiable secondary schools are notable. The fact it is defunct is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 28 June 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. Davewild (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Storm[edit]

Gay Storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be notable, created by a SPA.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Search is difficult, given this particular phrase. Adding "actress" did not help much. No evidence of coverage beyond passing mention. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. DarkAudit (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very minor non-notable actress. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 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. Davewild (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kast[edit]

Robert Kast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BIO. Credentials, while they may be impressive on a resume, aren't referenced and aren't so notable as to set the subject apart from many other physicians. The single reference is not about Kast and only mentions him a couple times in passing. All GNews seem to be about other people named "Robert Kast". Dismas|(talk) 06:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Resumé is that of almost any successful and civic-minded physician, not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Subject lacks significant coverage at Google News; the only reference listed in the article mentions him in passing. PubMed finds no publications by him; Google Scholar search is overwhelmed by other people with the same name; but he does not appear to have any significant publications which might qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC. Probably a fine person, but not sufficiently notable for an article in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gross vanity with a dollop of commercial promo thrown in. EEng (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable. Famousdog (c) 13:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hudon[edit]

Charles Hudon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Not a first rounder in the recent draft. Contested PROD, removed under the mistake that the QMJHL counts towards criteria 3 (100 games played in minor professional league). The Q is a junior league, and doesn't count towards this criteria per long held consensus. Ravendrop 07:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY Article has WP:CBALL issues. He may be a professional hockey player in future and merit a wikipedia article but not at present. Its a bit too soon? Some prospects become professional players--as in football, basketball and hockey--but others don't make it due to ill health or issues beyond their control. --Artene50 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep recipient of a notable award. Agathoclea (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rookie of the year of the QMJHL is no longer a notable award per NHOCKEY. Ravendrop 05:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the RDS Cup article should be deleted, else it is a notable award independantly of NHOCKEY. Agathoclea (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument isn't that the RDS Cup itself isn't notable; but that its winner isn't necessarily notable on that fact alone. There are a lot of awards both in hockey and in everything else that are like this. Ravendrop 09:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY (QMJHL Rookie of the Year isn't a notable award) and WP:GNG. Can be recreated if he becomes notable later in his career. Tthaas (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can be recreated when/if he meets nhockey or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 29 June 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 20:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elxis[edit]

Elxis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously a Prod on the rationale "No evidence that this software meets the notability guidelines." Prod was removed by the article creator. There is a published Official Guide, but I found no reliable 3rd party sources that would establish notability, so I am bringing the article to AfD on the original rationale. (Note: there are also Engineering and Real Estate firms with similar names.) AllyD (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:01, 3 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The lack of forged sources is the evidence of notability for this years old software --Hiddenray (talk) 09:32, 12 June 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, →Bmusician 02:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, what? How is lack of sources evidence of notability? DarkAudit (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find no evidence of notability. There's a book by the software's author but obviously, that doesn't count. More significantly, this German book on content management systems mentions Elxis exactly once, in a table of available software. Elxis was already three years old when the book was written so you'd expect coverage if it was a significant system. Also, this page mentions Elxis in passing to say "Joomla! has the press whereas Elxis does not, even thought it’s deserving of it" — in other words, there are very few sources available, which is pretty much the definition of non-notability. Dricherby (talk) 09:41, 24 June 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. A fine line between "keep" and "no consensus". The policy-based argument that this is a unique aircraft, and thus meets notability (and the associated Janes entry) moves me to Keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atol (aircraft)[edit]

Atol (aircraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally nominated for speedy as G11, but declined. No notability for this one type of aircraft; the author de-proded after adding "reliable sources" from youtube, the manufacturer's website and a few databases etc. There aren't any other sources and so fails WP:GNG. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reliable sources included a wikipedia page, the Finnish aviation museums website and the Finnish flying associations website. As I stated earlier, I will continue to develop the page and I will make it compliant with wikipedias rules. If you tell me what I must change then I will change it. Matiasko (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the sources you're trying to use establish notability. I'll deal with them one-by-one.
      1. The wikipedia article on the [Finnish Aviation Museum] - First, read WP:CIRCULAR. In this case it truly is absurd as the article you're using is itself unreferenced, and so anyone could've just made it up. In addition it only makes a passing mention of the subject, which does not satisfy the general notability guideline.
      2. The flyfinland website - this doesn't establish notability because it's just a database entry, and so doesn't constitute the "significant coverage" required by GNG.
      3. The ilmailuliitto website - same problem as above; just a passing mention.
      4. The final source is the only one which seems appropriate, and it's a short non-English source. More is needed than just this alone to establish notability.
    • Overall, you seem to be confused over the standard needed for inclusion in wikipedia. Simple truth or existence is not enough (or I would write an article about my left thumb). Subjects of articles have to be notable. Please see WP:N. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is NOT the issue. All aircraft have inherent notability!!! The issue is the source or sources of the information. Please confine assessment for deletion to the relevant criteria!!Petebutt (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must agree with Petebutt, notability shouldn't be an issue when talking about any aircraft. Wikipedia has several articles about all kinds of aircraft so why should the Atol not be included into the database? And the source being non-English isn't an issue either, there are several Wikipedia articles with references to non-English sources. What I ultimately want to say is please don't just hastily delete my article, but help me to improve it. Matiasko (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Nothing is inherently notable. However, WP:Notability (aircraft) suggests that verifiably distinct "types" of aircraft are generally notable, with emphasis on the "verifiably". This isn't my area, so I'm not going to !vote, but if Atol 495 has been recognised as a distinct "type" of aircraft, that's what you need to establish through reliable sources. Claiming notability without providing any evidence won't help your argument. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comment DoctorKubla, and thank you for showing this to me WP:Notability (aircraft). It would appear that the Atol 495 meets the required criteria under "types" Notability (aircraft),type atleast in "types" sections 2. (it is type certified under Finnish aviation authorities) and 7. (it is being sold commercially). The claim on section 7. can easily be verified by going to the manufacturers site: www.atol.fi/en Matiasko (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it seems to be mentioned in All the World's Aircraft as well ([56]), though snippet view isn't good enough for verification purposes. If you can get hold of a copy, it could be the evidence you need. Bear in mind, though, that WP:Notability (aircraft) is only an essay, not a guideline, so the article could still be deleted. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While sources are sketchy, the Jane's reference (which shows more on the gBooks search page, sufficent to establish that the aircraft is, in fact, included) is sufficient to verify, via a reliable source, that this is a distinct and unique type of aircraft. Sources need not be in the article, only available, and this is so. The article desperatly needs a mop taken to it, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added two separate literary sources (both of them are in English) to the article. That should end the discussion on notability. And could someone redirect the Jan Bodin's book as a reference to the development section? Yet again, my wikipedia newbieness is showing itself... Matiasko (talk) 07:23, 10 June 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,  Sandstein  08:38, 16 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:45, 24 June 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. This is unsourced, incomplete, and as noted would be better served as part of Davao City#Cityscape. However, as the entries are currently unsourced, no merge is possible. At some point, those entries (such as top 5) could be moved there. As it's so unsourced, delete becomes the de facto consensus (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Davao City[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Davao City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list has no particularly tall buildings at all, so a question of notability is raised. Plus, another "Tall Buildings" list has been deleted for similar reasons: insufficient info, the city does not actually have "tall" buildings that warrant a separate article, etc. Xeltran (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's just plain silly (and perhaps even subtly insulting) to have a tallest buildings list of a place with no tall buildings. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the list contains several completed buildings over 10 storeys and several proposed buildings over 20 storeys. These are tall by many peoples' standards (though obviously not if you live in New York or Hong Kong). However, the list needs much cleanup, being filled with ??'s and mainly unsourced. Sionk (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sionk. There's 28 buildings in the list with ten or more storeys, at least 19 of which appear to be material. It's also worth noting that this is the fourth largest city in the Philippines; we generally should want to retain as much pertinent detail about it as possible.   — C M B J   21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but just barely. As the fourth largest city in the Philippines and the largest in Mindanao, it should probably have an article like this one. Normally I wouldn't say so (even 20 stories is not particularly tall for me, but probably because I've been spoiled with Manila), but since it is a major city, and it has many (by Philippine standards) tall buildings (even my city doesn't have even one), it can have article, even if just to get rid of systematic bias. If there can be a List of tallest buildings in Miami article (the population of Miami proper, but not the metropolitan area, is smaller than that of Davao's, although obviously Miami has more high-rises), then we should have one for Davao. Addition sources to improve the article are welcomed however. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Davao City#Cityscape - the majority of the entries don't even list how tall the buildings actually are, just how many stories. No need for this to be spun off from the main article for the city, the referenced bits of it can be included there. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:33, 23 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge : I support merger of the article as suggested by fellow user above. There is not so compelling reason to have an article like this. Questions can be raised like :
1. Why not have a list of Top 10, Top 50 or Top 100 building? Why only Top 20?
2. Why is this city only significant to have such an article as a separate case?
In future, users might go on creating such articles for each and every metro or town (as in case of Miami cited by user Narutolovehinata5) . Obviously, this is not very significant until unless the city has some very high sky scrappers that might list in World's Top 10 or so. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  10:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati of Atlanta[edit]

Illuminati of Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think that this branch is notable enough to have a individual Wikipedia page. If this isn't deleted, maybe we should merge it? Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Bakish[edit]

Robert M. Bakish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman. He's president/CEO of Viacom International Media Networks, which is a sub-division of Viacom. That's not the kind of position that would create automatic notability. There are insufficient third party sources to demonstrate standalone notability. GrapedApe (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Profiles in Forbes and Bloomberg Business Week seem adequate to demonstrate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is Forbes' database on stock owners that are automatically created based on SEC filings--anyone with substantial stock ownership gets one. The Bloomburg one is similar, albeit with more detail, but all it does it re-state his positions, which aren't substantial enough to create notability without substantial coverage third party coverage, as required by WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These sources seem to me to be adequate third party coverage in themselves. Yes, both Forbes and Bloomberg are getting their information from the same primary source, but they have both decided on editorial rules for who is included and who isn't (presumably some threshold investment size, although I admit I'm not familiar with their rules). And the section of prose on Bakish's personal history in each is different, suggesting each of them have done some research independently of the other, so we can't regarded them as a single duplicated source.
Dismissing these sources because the decision to include has been made based on fixed rules applied to a database of financial information also suggests we shouldn't include stuff like Forbes' Richest People list as a source, but we do. JulesH (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The WP:N requires that the subject has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Being on the Forbes List of Richest people is significant attention. Being part of an SEC database that gets dumped into a Forbes "profile" without any actual authorship doesn't mean significant attention.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" is that which is not trivial.  How much "significant coverage" amounts to "sufficiently significant attention" is not clear.  One metric is two "good" independent newspaper articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 17 June 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, →TSU tp* 04:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Here is a bio published by Reed Exhibitions.  Bloomberg BusinessWeek's business depends on their data being reliable, and the source listed above goes to notability.  I couldn't find the Forbes source mentioned above.  This source is already in the article, written in London; as is this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8). Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Merry[edit]

Andy Merry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band member who appeared on TV talent series, The X factor. He is clearly not notable outside of this contest. Sionk (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band does not have its own article - and most of this article is taken straight from the X-Factor entry for the band. Nothing to show independent notability. noq (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 June 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, →Bmusician 02:43, 17 June 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, →TSU tp* 04:38, 24 June 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 05:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These Brittle Bones[edit]

These Brittle Bones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No notability asserted. No reliable refs. All refs are catalogue entries or twitter feeds. Highly advertising  Velella  Velella Talk   11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as the person who added the 'notability' tag to the article, I have to agree that the subject fails to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. It is generally cited to blogs, Twitter and non-reliable, trivial sources. I can't see anything of substance online to change my mind. All the same, he's obviously a talented young guy, so good luck to him for the future! Sionk (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:27, 17 June 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, →TSU tp* 04:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not entirely sure why this AfD is being repeatedly re-listed. Three editors are arguing for deletion, while the article is clearly cited to user-edited/submitted websites and blogs. Sionk (talk) 14:47, 24 June 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. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Adventure Resort[edit]

ACE Adventure Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient links to show notability. The only serious claim to notability (that Truman once stayed in one of it's buildings) does not seem to be verifiable. It's a weak claim at best. On the whole, even after clean-up this article appears to be promotional in tone. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've reviewed Chromal's links. The first seems to be worded like press release, so does not really count towards notability. All the other links are very short articles about the exact same story (a zip-lining record) which took place at ACE. None of these stories are substantially about ACE. None of these stories are significant, reliable secondary coverage of the subject. None of these zip-lining articles provide any useful details about the resort. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See WP:ORG "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". The record (and where it took place) can be mentioned at Zip line but that does not give this organisation notability, and editors searching for sources showing Ace is notable so far have not turned up anything to meet our criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 15 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As noted above, the additional references are a press release from PRWeb (which does not contribute to WP:Notability) and trivial coverage of a single event (not coverage of the article subject). I was not able to find addional sources which would meet WP:GNG. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:00, 2 July 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 JT Tran. The two first "keep" opinions advocate a merger, three other people recommend deletion as non-notable, and I'm discounting Josh769's opinion as it does not appear to offer any argument. The other opinions can be reconciled with a "redirect", this way anything that's worth retaining can be merged from the history, editorial consensus permitting.  Sandstein  18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABCs of Attraction[edit]

ABCs of Attraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination of a page which appears to have little notability and appears to be have been created by sockpuppets to promote the company. Information on the company - which offers 'pick-up artist' tactics - seems to be based on promotional material.

Not only is the topic seemingly non-notable, but it also appears to exist only because of multiple editors (or sockpuppets) with obvious conflict of interest and should be deleted as per WP:SOAP

I am also nominating the following related page due its connection with the topic of this AfD and lack of notability, along with some being written in large part by some of the same group of editors/sockpuppets involved with this article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxti (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - But cut way the hell back and merge the two articles. Yeah, it's had enough coverage to technically merit notability (no accounting for taste). Add his name to the fifteen-bazillion name list of guys that have sure fire, can't miss, set in stone rules for dominating the opposite sex. - Richfife (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cut back the main article significantly. I need to take a breather before looking at JT Tran. This is disturbing stuff. - Richfife (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge, cut way back and de-peacock and de-spam. JT Tran's PR efforts worked and he got himself covered on multiple, independent news sources, enough to pass WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've undone the redirect at JT Tran. It's not appropriate to essentially remove the article while it is under an AFD discussion. I agree the article itself is dreadful, but the content, especially the sources, should be there to assist editors in reviewing for the deletion discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable company. Autarch (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article has now been pruned to only include reliable links and the result is a page which contains no info. Non notable company--Paxti (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Paxti, but you aren't supposed to use bold text saying "delete" if you are also the nominator. I struck the "delete" part of your comment. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:40, 24 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If all those references produce no content the company is non-notable.--Charles (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure about the exact rules, but this has been nominated for deletion before recently and it was kept. I'll be working to expand it again from the references, anyway. Josh769 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agents of Secret Stuff (2010)[edit]

Agents of Secret Stuff (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
AfDs for this article:
Agents of Secret Stuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know why this has to be discussed yet again, the "film" still has not increased in notability. The author of this article has not established any sort of notability or importance, or included any reference to any of his or her claims. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete and Salt - still no real indications of notability, no references. This should never have been brought to AfD again - it should have been G4'd in a heartbeat. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except G4 doesn't apply. The criteria requires that the article be substantially similar to the old one - this isn't. If you have an issue with that, propose altering policy. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it's been a year since this was deleted, I have no way to compare it with the prior version, and this version's in such poor condition, it might as well be a duplicate, since we have nothing to compare it to. Either way, it definitely deserves to be deleted - there are no indications of notability, no references - no need for it. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to recommend a potential redirect to Nigahiga, but the sources on that article kind of make me wonder how notable that person really is. There's a lot of primary and otherwise unusable sources on that article, such as links to IMDb. You might want to lump the two together, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep. Before we all rush off to grab a salt-shaker for an amateurly-written stub that was brought back without any sourcing or "major" imrovements,[63] how about looking past its massive amount of blog coverage to see if any reliable sources speak toward the topic in enough detail so that we might expand the article to add sourced encyclopdic content and THEN determine if it ekes up on the notability criteria of WP:NF. Sure... the deletions of stubs in November 2010 and July 2011 may have been reasonable per lack of sources then... but the phenomenom released in November 2010 has spread and sources are available that were not in earlier AFDs. Expansion and improvement has already begun.[64] I believe the project is benefited by retaining finally this article which now has the context, sourcing, and enough encyclopdic information to serve the project and its readers in THIS version. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mr. Schmidt. At the risk of sounding WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm not sure how this is any less notable than any YouTube personality or production with coverage in mainstream press. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like the earlier versions were simply contributed and re-contributed too soon to have decent sources available, and the latest was brought back with a only slightly changed name and no sources at all. This time, its time had finally come. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, would the closing admin be kind enough to move the page to simply Agents of Secret Stuff? It currently redirects to nigahiga. --BDD (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had thought to do so myself if the closer did not... moving the improved content to overwrite the redirect. 01:25, 29 June 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 Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G3 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Club Penguin Comedy Episodes[edit]

List Of Club Penguin Comedy Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MADEUP much? Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete All of the creating editor's edits (NickKuhls (talk · contribs)) have been reverted as false information, vandalism, or nonsense. Flagged as a G3 speedy because no context has been given for a show or even a network, and asking that a final warning be given to NickKuhls for introducing false information. Also asking an admin to check the content of speedied article List Of Kuhlboy915 CP Comedy Episodes for similarities in content to this one. Nate • (chatter) 02:42, 24 June 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 List of Barbie's friends and family. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly (Barbie)[edit]

Kelly (Barbie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep No adequate reason to delete has been provided. Note that Barbie dolls are documented in sources such as Warman's Barbie Doll Field Guide and Collector's Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Exclusives. Warden (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Barbie's friends and family per Mangoe --Artene50 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - come to think of it, merging is a way better idea now. Maybe I should've just WP:BEBOLD and merged it instead of RfA'ing this here... CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 07:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All Blah(Barbie) articles into one "Barbie dolls" article. It's going to be more mangeable, progress from one (Barbie) will be more likely to carry over to the other dolls, and the info will be more structured and - last but not least - presented in a more encyclopedic way then. Clearly, only "Barbie" looks notable enough to have an article of its own; the others are hardly individually notable. 217.251.156.68 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd even think that these AfD items should be merged into one great discussion - or maybe close the individual ones in favor of the new one. Admins? 217.251.156.68 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - This character appears to be discontinued and/or replaced by yet another little sister with a different name and doesn't seem to have had much of an identity/storyline beyond just being a "toddler" for the older girls to care for. As those familiar with the Barbie "universe" may already understand, Barbie's friends/family are constantly changing (a new character is often introduced, and within a few years they're gone, never to be seen/heard from again). Certain characters such as Ken and Skipper have been around for almost 50 years and really do merit their own articles, but I honestly don't see the need to begin adding a separate "stub" for every single character that has been added to the line over the years. If she were to reappear in the future, developed some "staying power" and an identity beyond that of a mere "accessory" for Barbie to "babysit", then the argument could be made than she possibly merits her own page, but that doesn't appear to be the case as of now. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tutti and Todd (Barbie)Weak keep/Comment While I agree with Crakkerjakk's arguments on these AFDs, it strikes me that Kelly(Shelly in Europe) has been around since 1995 so if she's still being manufactured, she's been over 15 years in production. I don't know when they discontinued her, or even if she has been discontinued, but I do see a number of fan groups (Friends of Kelly, Kelly's Corner, etc...) on a Google search. Am not a Barbie person at all, but I know quite a few Barbie collectors, so I've heard quite a bit about the different dolls/have some peripheral awareness and do remember seeing Kelly dolls in shops over quite a significant time period. Mabalu (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, hold the horses - if Stacie/Kelly are the same doll as they seem to be according to the Friends and Family page, and Crakkerjakk has argued compellingly for merging Stacie to Tutti and Todd (Barbie), then merge Kelly to that article too - especially if Kelly/Stacie are the same renamed doll. Mabalu (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a "Kelly" doll introduced in one gift set back in 1991 which was believed to fill the "Tutti" role, but the doll was re-named Stacie almost immediately and the "Kelly" name was instead used for a younger toddler-aged little sister of Barbie. Beginning in 2010, the name of this toddler-aged sister was changed to "Chelsea". I know it's confusing, but essentially (with the exception of one gift set in the early 1990s), Kelly was a different, younger sister than Stacie and, as of now, is no longer part of the Barbie family. Rationale for this confusing web of family friends among collectors appears to be the fact that Mattel has trademarked all of these various names, and simply recycles/reuses them, often for a completely different character, without any attempt to maintain continuity. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:40, 28 June 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 List of Barbie's friends and family. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krissy (Barbie)[edit]

Krissy (Barbie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep No adequate reason to delete has been provided. Note that Barbie dolls are documented in sources such as Warman's Barbie Doll Field Guide and Collector's Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Exclusives. Warden (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - come to think of it, merging is a way better idea now. Maybe I should've just WP:BEBOLD and merged it instead of RfA'ing this here... CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 07:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - This character appears to only be included in the Barbie "playline" for a short time and doesn't seem to have had much of an identity/storyline beyond just being a "baby" for the older girls to care for. As those familiar with the Barbie "universe" may already understand, Barbie's friends/family are constantly changing (a new character is often introduced, and within 2 or 3 years they're gone, never to be seen/heard from again). Certain characters such as Ken and Skipper have been around for almost 50 years and really do merit their own articles, but I honestly don't see the need to begin adding a separate "stub" for every single character that has been added to the line over the years. If she were to reappear in the future, developed some "staying power" and an identity beyond that of a mere "accessory" for Barbie to "babysit", then the argument could be made than she possibly merits her own page, but that doesn't appear to be the case as of now. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Crakkerjakk. All essential info is in the Friends and Family of Barbie article. Mabalu (talk) 10:50, 28 June 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 Tutti and Todd (Barbie) if that article is kept, or to List of Barbie's friends and family otherwise. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stacie (Barbie)[edit]

Stacie (Barbie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep No adequate reason to delete has been provided. Note that Barbie dolls are documented in sources such as Warman's Barbie Doll Field Guide and Collector's Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Exclusives. Warden (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - come to think of it, merging is a way better idea now. Maybe I should've just WP:BEBOLD and merged it instead of RfA'ing this here... CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 07:17, 25 June 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 List of Barbie's friends and family. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea (barbie)[edit]

Chelsea (barbie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need an article for every Barbie that has rolled of the production line? CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename & Redirect- Incorrectly titled - fix; redirect all to List of Barbie's friends and family as valid search terms, which should have been attempted (or Prod'ed) prior to AfD. No independent notability. Same as the others, and this is a rare example of where bundling would have been preferable. Headed offline, or I'd paste this to the others, minus the renaming. Dru of Id (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No adequate reason to delete has been provided. Note that Barbie dolls are documented in sources such as Warman's Barbie Doll Field Guide and Collector's Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Exclusives. Warden (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - come to think of it, merging is a way better idea now. Maybe I should've just WP:BEBOLD and merged it instead of RfA'ing this here... CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 07:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - This character appears to have only been around for 2 years. As those familiar with the Barbie "universe" may already understand, Barbie's friends/family are constantly changing. Certain characters such as Ken and Skipper have been around for almost 50 years and really do need their own articles, but I honestly don't see the need to begin adding a separate "stub" for every single new character that is added to the line. If she's still around in another 10 or 20 years, then the argument could be made than she possibly needs her own page. Not now. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Just a copy of Farhan Saeed with the title changed, made by user with same username as the title Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra.Meena[edit]

Devendra.Meena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, seems to be copy-and-pasted from somewhere. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete If you translate between the Urdu between parenthesis you get this and Farhan Saeed already has an article. So I'm saying that this is pure vandalism. Btw, as nom suspected that's where it's copied from.- The Determinator p t c 02:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax - already tagged as such. Article is a copy of Farhan Saeed, so the facts about "Devendra Meena", in this (childishly made) article, are obviously false. →Bmusician 02:52, 24 June 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 05:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enbrightenment[edit]

Enbrightenment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this article fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. It is on a concept written about by one author, and I can't find any secondary sources that discuss it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Galilean Library is well known.

Not all sources are dependable, but Galilean Library is, and I have two separate links that show the use and appearance of the word back in 2005. Some links are there to show that the word is taking on a life in society, and being part of major product line names, and other products, along with various people using the word for their own spiritual descriptions of life. Siddha Buddha (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Galilean Library link you provided above is merely the author of the book trying to promote his idea on an internet forum. Also, I'm afraid that other people using the term doesn't help satisfy WP:NEO either. I understand that you feel strongly about this guru, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote his views. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else made some nice changes. Have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO as this is not a word recognised by dictionaries such as the OED. Warden (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The real subject, Jared J. Kimble, has a couple of his own books in a book search, and the first two pages of results in a web search are social networking pages. He is the author of every reference in the article, so I'd say there's no notability here. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any third-party reliable sources that give significant coverage to this subject. It fails WP:GNG by a lot. First Light (talk) 05:34, 30 June 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 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Toll Free[edit]

Custom Toll Free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed a good deal of advertising from this, but I don't think they're actually notable. The awards are local and sourced only to PR sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company is notable and the article satisfies WP:GNG. WP:RS have been used to prove the fact that the company is actually notable. Not every company is worthy of getting local awards. There are thousands of companies in a state and few of them get awards on their performances by their respective states. Getting an award on a national or international level is not a criteria to nominate an article for deletion.
--Inlandmamba (talk to me) 16:00, 23 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure how this meets GNG as claimed above. There are 8 references; the first is a directory listing for the CEO, the second, third, and sixth are simple press releases from the company, the fourth is a user editable directory listing, the fifth is a one sentence blog entry, the seventh does not even mention the company or support the statement it is alleged to support. The last one appears to be the company's entry in a a non-notable local list of growing companies; hardly an "award". There is no significant coverage anywhere in those refs, and I cannot find any quickly. Kuru (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. As pointed out above, nothing in sources meets WP:IRS. A reasonable search doesn't help much. A news search gets 143 hits, all in Seattle Post Intelligencer, and all linking an ad about a contest this subject is running in the SPI. A general search garners 220K hits, but most of those don't relate to the company, but to a generic use of the phrase. Of those which do refer to the company, nothing meets the standard for independent reliable sources directly detailing. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 1 July 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. Obviously promotional IP opinions discounted.  Sandstein  17:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Govil[edit]

Sanjay Govil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't agree that a "lesser" (term used very loosely) award received 10 years ago evidences this person's continual notability. That seems to be the singular assertion of notability. However I am interested in what other folks have to say.   Thorncrag  15:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - Heh, I moved it back to the AfC space before the AfD was filed (I think we were working on it at the same time...). It was clearly copy-pasted from there. Please ping me if you'd like me to undo my actions. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 21:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the reason for being notable for an award received 10 years ago. I think the notability factor lies in how fast he grew the business in the small time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alli440 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Alli440 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That doesn't meet WP:BIO, though. And since the aforementioned award was ostensibly for the same reason, that's why I raised the issue. Still interested in seeing what other folks think.   Thorncrag  15:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on whether there was significant coverage noting his rapid rise. Observe also that this article was created by an indef-blocked editor with a possible conflict of interest, and the only other comment above is from an account that mysteriously appeared after the author's account was blocked. Those facts don't make the topic non-notable, but they do make it more difficult to justify keeping this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:10, 18 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanjay Govil is one of the most impressive business figures in the Washington DC area in the USA and he has been considered as a role model by many budding entrepreneurs - Growing the company from 0 to 5000+ employees in 12 years is certainly notable. He came from an average middle class and grew to the upper echelons of business in the USA. He made it to the board of Wharton School and is a philanthropist in the areas of education. Given the current Asian immigration levels in the United States, Sanjay Govil is an iconic figure in the American Indian community and there are thousands that are trying hard to emulate him. Therefore, this makes Sanjay Govil a notable figure per the Wikipedia definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.118.61 (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 71.171.118.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Sanjay Govil is a visionary entrepreneur who has built one of the fastest growing IT services organization in a short span of 12 years. Sanjay's growth from modest roots to a extremely successful entrepreneur clearly epitomizes the American Dream and serves as a ideal example for young people to follow. I do think, that this makes Sanjay a notable figure as per Wikipedia's definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.4.202 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 67.62.4.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Two more WP:SPA comments. Here's a free hint for you: You need sources to back up those claims. Otherwise, the topic is not notable by Wikipedia's definition. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 24 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete article looks like a personal webpage content. provide evidence for claims and third party sources please--Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, the SPAs sure came out of the woodwork on this one, without anybody even registering a !vote. Well here's mine. I originally declined a speedy-delete nomination because the weak claim of notability disqualified it from speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 but I can find nothing further to redeem this article. Delete it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:48, 1 July 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 geocoding. The Bushranger One ping only 20:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geocode[edit]

Geocode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
Advanced search for: 
"Geocode"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Advanced search for: 
"Geographic coding"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

No evidence given of WP:GNG (or any references at all) after 5 years for this (allegedly brand-name) product. Closeapple (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 04:58, 17 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Can't find any sources to indicate notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as no refs for the described product. There is an oddity here, as Template:Infobox settlement contains an optional field Geocode and the usage note for the field says "See Geocode." There are settlements in several countries with that field completed but clearly the data are not related to the specific proprietary Geocode covered in the article, unless the product is WP:MADEUP and the inventor just added the numbers. Sussexonian (talk) 11:06, 1 July 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 20:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago Mathematics Olympiad[edit]

Trinidad and Tobago Mathematics Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable high school team; no sources. Prod removed by author DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 18 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found that would allow us to substantiate and verify this article. Google news archive turned up nothing useful for me, and the only thing I found in Highbeam was this article about a particular mathematics student that says only that he competed in the 2004 contest. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 24 June 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.

Closing this as non-admin as speedy keep per justification here. Player clearly meets WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Ross[edit]

Terrence Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a professional player - still at college level so this fails WP:NPLAYER. Spartaz Humbug! 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Terrence is not yet in the NBA, but most likely will be as he has declared for the NBA Draft and according to various websites he is a projected first round draft pick. Also, in the notability guidelines for college athletes, one of the criteria states that the individual garned national media attention. Terrence received media attention when he was named to the All-Pac 12 First Team, for his play during the NIT and when he declared for the NBA Draft. NBA Fan44 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One doesn't have to be professional to be notable. At WP:ATHLETE, college athletes can be notable if they: 1) Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, 2) Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame), or 3) Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. Ross received significant media coverage as one of the best players in one of the highest profile leagues in college basketball. Wikipedia editors from outside the US should understand that college basketball in the US receives more media coverage than most countries' pro leagues do in their own lands. Also, Ross is likely to be drafted in the 2012 NBA Draft in less than 2 weeks, which would make him notable again. But a simple Google search shows his college career already meets WP notability standards linked above. Rikster2 (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 18 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this AfD tag will come off when Ross is drafted in about an hour. He's one of 15 players invited to attend the draft, meaning he's projected as a sure-fire first round pick. Rikster2 (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy, snowball keep. Easily passes GNG and NBASKETBALL. He was just taken 8th overall. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NBASKETBALL states that first round picks in the NBA draft are notable. Susfele (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SNOW. Patken4 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More snow. Per WP:NBASKETBALL after being drafted in the first round of 2012 NBA Draft on June 28.—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 29 June 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 05:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Younas Azam[edit]

Sheikh Younas Azam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

could not verify any information about the dead journalist. a single dead link used as a reference. Tagged for notability since 2008 DBigXray 09:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even the search for the Urdu name did not turn up anything. Which is strange as the person being a journalist. --DBigXray 05:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 18 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 June 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 05:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hale (Resistance)[edit]

Nathan Hale (Resistance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is currently listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 23. I don't believe it qualifies as a copyright violation (other than the technical sense, that the attribution isn't sufficient) as the source is licensed CC-BY_SA, and a cursory review of the source history suggests it wasn't simply copied and pasted from another place.

The article has no references, which can be fixed, but it is written In-universe, contrary to MOS, and, IMO, would take as much work to rewrite as it would to start from scratch.

My specific suggestion is to userfy (and no-index) the article to the primary contributor, so that the editor can look into whether some portions might be merged elsewhere, or a new article should be written in an acceptable perspective. SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC) It should be noted that an attempted was made to convert this to a redirect, but it was reverted here. That may still be an option, but it clearly was opposed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not "clearly opposed". That editor is a persistent vandal which has a dynamic IP and has been repeatedly asked to discuss and blocked. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 06:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By clearly opposed, I mean it was reverted, so not accepted by at least one editor. I didn't use the word consensus; apologies if that was implied. It may still be the right option; I simply wanted to point out that we cannot simply do that and be done with it, there needs to be a consensus.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nom CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 06:43, 19 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: can't find any third party sources to WP:verify notability. (The copyright issue would be reason to delete it too, but the lack of sources is why it shouldn't be re-created, at least until something big changes.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:00, 24 June 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. ^ Smith, Peter (2009-02-09). "Twitter and the Dalai Lama". IT World. Retrieved 2012-05-27.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_June_24&oldid=500502457"