Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 November	16 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca D'Agostino[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:BASIC guidelines for notability. He also fails WP:WRITER, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:ANYBIO. Note, this article is apparently an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which explains why the article consists mostly of WP:PEACOCK and WP:COAT. I would normally edit the article to comply with BLP guidelines, but in this case, the article would be about one line. The subject's reporting as a journalist and work as a producer are not significantly covered by any reliable sources, and his work is not demonstrably influential (it has not had a significant impact on his field) according to reliable sources. Of course, his reporting, which forms the basis of the article, is about other subjects entirely; it doesn't say anything about the notability of the journalist, nor does it impart much about the journalist biographically. Journalists are supposed to report on notable things. Similarly, his collaborative research is not adequately cited or discussed by others to qualify as a notable academic. The content of this living person's biography is based principally on his own works, however citing to the subject offers no indication as to the actual significance of any particular achievement or publication. This article is a WP:RESUME of non-notable work. JFHJr (㊟) 23:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can not independently confirm much more than simple existence of a person, and the SPS sources do not establish actual notability. Collect (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well, independent searches for sources can not find anything about the subject that would signify notability to Wikipedia standards. Many of the sources in the article are primary and thus unusable. Or they are trivial in-passing mentions not in-depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As already noted, there seem to be insufficient secondary sources to indicate that D'Agostino meets the requirements laid down in Wikipedia:Notability (people). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and for all of the good reasons given above. Qworty (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am gianluca d'agostino, the person cited in this article, i totally agree with you about rhe fact i am not a notable person because i never cared about the press coverage of my work but if my work is not relevant for wikipedia, why did you published it? Last year i donated to wikipedia the copyright to reproduce the central pages of my book high concept because my book was written to re-define the meaning of the term high concept given the great confusion created around the term high concept. Wikipedia accepted my donation and published it on the italian version of the article high concept movie to make it clear about the different theories on the subject and the confusion created by Justin Wyatt. Now after i donated you the copyright to reproduce my book and you published it you want to delete the author? other than being unfair, the main theory that helps the readers to understand the high concept movie would be orphan. i am not saying you have to report my entire biography because i don't meet Wikipedia third party standards enough but if you published my book central pages which are the hard-core of my theory on high concept I think my name should at least be mentioned because I am the author of the work you published and i donated you my copyright which is something not every author is keen on doing it.Gdagostino (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Gdagostino (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC) here's the copyright reference of the text i donated to Wikipedia:http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:High_concept_movie[reply]

Gdagostino (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is the English-language Wikipedia - we have no authority over the Italian Wikipedia, or vice-versa. Secondly, it would seem to me to be most improper to allow decisions regarding article content to be swayed by donations (whether of material or otherwise) though it is unclear from the link you post (I am relying on Google translate) exactly what it is you have donated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your publication about High concept is not influential as demonstrated by reliable sources; even on the Italian Wikipedia you simply cite to yourself with no third party support. Furthermore, you and Behindthewall (talk · contribs) seem to be working in tandem to promote yourself at the Italian Wikipedia. Nobody cares whether an article is orphaned. I just hope someone at Italian Wiki notices what you two have done and has a problem with it. Last point: I left you a notice clearly pointing out your conflict of interest. You've nonetheless chosen to participate in this deletion discussion, despite its clear advice not to do so. Good luck. JFHJr (㊟) 13:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Checkuser indicates possible sockpuppetry in connection with single-purpose account Gdagostino (talk · contribs). JFHJr (㊟) 22:08, 21 November 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. Withdrawn by nominator plus snow keep. (non-admin closure) First Light (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Volokh[edit]

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

Withdrawn ~~I see no eidence of notability of this person.~~ Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well known and highly cited legal academic, very high gscholar hits and h-index, which I won't even bother to calculate. The Volokh Conspiracy blog is one of the best known legal blogs; even gets 1200 gscholar hits. Way above the bar; not a very sensible nomination.John Z (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable both as a commentator on legal issues, via his blog, as well as through a wide range of scholarly articles in First Amendment law. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Passes multiple WP:PROF criteria (highly cited publications, named chair) and is famous as a blogger and columnist outside of academia. With such a vague rationale for deletion, and such obvious reasons for keeping, this looks to me like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and should be closed early. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. One of the more notable names I've seen at AfD recently; as stated above, a very well known writer and academic, certainly no reason to delete this article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold your show in your poketses. Are you forgetting something? Thank you all for knowing and liking this person. But... What is the evidence of notability in the article itself? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy Keep for the reasons well-noted above. Nom misunderstands AfD. See WP:BEFORE, in particular "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" TJRC (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the advice. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Both wholly promotional and no indication of notable. Should have been speedied earlier. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine Carbide and Tool[edit]

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

Fails WP:N Mason Doering (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - vanity self-praising insert by blocked spamusername account for Wolverine, a tiny (30 people) company; full of fluff. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, really obvious advertisement with no good purpose. --EM64T (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're A Tree and I'm a Baloon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NSONG since the only assertion to notability I can find is this. If it's a standalone single it doesn't appear to have charted or garnered significant coverage or reviews. The album's article lacks any supporting references as to its notability as well. §FreeRangeFrog 20:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is not notable, with no sources. EM64T (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Not notable, and Balloon is spelled wrong. Page appears almost as if done on a dare. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the 'Baloon' spelling in the song name is correct. It's a deliberate misspelling. The song does exist and seems to be nearly always referred to with that spelling. Even so, it's not notable. --EM64T (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prykarpattia[edit]

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

This article describes exactly the same geographical region as Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. There is no reason to have two articles, one for the "geographical" (Prykarpattia) and one for the "administrative" (Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast) area. They are exactly the same place. Keizers (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 8. Snotbot t • c » 22:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Keep~~. (Disclaimer: I restored this article after it was redirected). First, geophysical regions are separate from administrative as concepts, even if the territory overlaps. Things like mountain ranges, lowlands, highlands, valleys and so on are notable, even if often poorly covered in sources (but this is just as true for administrative entities, particularly - non-English). I estimate that about 80% of entries from pl:Regionalizacja fizycznogeograficzna Polski (Polish Wikipedia version of regions of Poland, with a much more detailed coverage of geophysical regions of Poland) are missing from en wiki. The solution is to write more entries. And they are notable; with regards to Prykarpattia (which may need to be renamed), a search for Polish sources on the Podkarpacie (the region name in Polish) gives 13k hits on Google Books, and none of them refer to the relatively recent administrative region (here's an English language ref mentioning the "Podkarpacie region": Judy Batt; Kataryna Wolczuk (2002). Region, State, and Identity in Central and Eastern Europe. Taylor & Francis. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-7146-8225-9. Retrieved 12 November 2012., and a quick search shows dozens more, seemingly more popular than Prykarpattia). It is a name for a region near Carpathian Mountains, and while such entities are not as obvious as mountains, they have their (notable) space in the encyclopedias of geography. Anyway, the nom's argument is based on claiming this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, so let me stress and repeat again that this is not one (a geographical region has a separate notability from an administrative one). Also, simply looking at the maps of the administrative division (File:Map of Ukraine political simple Oblast Iwano-Frankiwsk.png) and geographical division (File:Carpathians division.svg, region marked as roman I) shows that the "complete overlap" claim is likely false (also, part of Podkarpacie is in modern Poland, not in Ukraine...). PS. Some further investigation shows we have an article on that region in an even more stubbish form, but at a name that seems more popular in English literature, at Subcarpathia, so: merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it truly is a different geographic territory then I would agree with you. But everything I read said that the regions were the same, i.e. Prykarpattya = Ivano-Frankivsk oblast. Plus, I had understood Prykarpattya to be primarily a historic region designation - and not specifically the place for natural features information to be contained. I believe that it was created as part of a series of historical-cultural regions of the territory that is today Ukraine. If indeed Prykarpattya has slightly different borders than Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, which still IMO is the only justification for separate articles, someone should research and provide that definition in the articles, if there will be two again. So far I am not convinced and I think it is kind of a similar situation to making three articles for, say, Cuba (political unit); Cuba (geographic unit) and Cuba (cultural-historical unit) - obviously this would not be logical.Keizers (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. Cuba - country. Cuba (geographic unit) = Cuba (island) = geography of Cuba. Cuba (cultural-historical unit) = history of Cuba/culture of Cuba. Want to try this with, umm, North America or United States? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there are subarticles for those topics on Cuba, but all the information (geography, culture, political unit) is summarized in the main article called Cuba. So it should be for this region if it is one and the same place, it should have an article called Prikarpattya or Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast with all aspects, and then if there are subarticles for culture and geography, fine. But to have an article called Prikarpattya that deals with geographic features and/or culture and then a completely differently named article Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast which deals only with political administration is just not right, IMO. I'm not sure about the analogy with United States & North America, those are two very different geographical units, with the US being one-half or one-third of the North American continent. Not exactly the same place, as appears to be the case with Prikarpattya/I.F. Oblast.Keizers (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not the same place as Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. It is a region covering parts of several countries, not only Ukraine, especially if we look at its history, in which national borders have often shifted. This title should pretty obviously be redirected to the region's English name, Subcarpathia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Phil notes, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the history/geography of the region. This geographical region should not be seen as a subtopic for modern Ukrainian administrative entity, which doesn't even share the exact same borders. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely fine then! Can somebody please state that in the article then and provide a source? The original article said that Prikarpattya was the same as IF Oblast! That was the whole reason I merged!Keizers (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many geographical entities match or closely match political entities in boundaries, currently or historically, but they are not the same thing. So I would not want to merge with the oblast article. However, the English translation of this term in Ukranian (Прикарпаття) appears to be Carpathia, so it is possible that we need to merge this with another geographical article, such as Subcarpathia. (The maps on both as of now seem to identify a similar area).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:03, 15 November 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, Slon02 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Due to the above discussion I now favor keeping the separate article Prykarpattia, thanks to User Slon02 who clued me in to the Ukrainian-language article uk:Прикарпаття, which (thanks to Google Translate) really does provide a lot of information about the geographical extent of the area and its cultural-historical attributes. Granted, it does not have great sources, but since the region is part of Ukraine today, I am tempted to put great stock in the Ukrainian-language article. The article really shows that Prykarpattia is not exactly the same as Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. The Ukrainian article states: According to modern interpretation Prykarpattya [consists of] most of the Ivano-Frankivsk region…Although historically…Prykarpattya also includes Boikivshchyna, Hutsul, Opole (Ukrainian region, not the one which today is part of Poland!) and Pokuttya.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus has been saying that Prykarpattya is actually larger than that and consists of region I (Roman numeral I) on this map: File:Carpathians_division.svg - meaning that the region extends into today's Poland. But in fact that map states that region I is "Subcarpathian depressions". No reliable source stating that region I is the same as "Prykarpattia". Absolutely everything else I have seen states that Prykarpattya is inside of today's Ukraine and is the same as or very close to the border of Ivano-Frankivsk oblast'. So I have deleted that map from the article Prykarpattia until it can be proven with a source.

As for merger with Subcarpathia, that does not make sense at all, as Prykarpattia is a sub-region of Subcarpathia. However, a bullet point can be added in the Subcarpathia article to indicate that Prykarpattya is part of Subcarpathia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizers (talk • contribs) 02:29, November 16, 2012

I don't see why you'd say so - based on interlinks and reading of Polish sources, it seems to me that Prykarpattia is another, less popular name for Subcarpathia. Regarding the map, it does not cite it sources (but so few of our maps do), and Plik:Carpathians Subcarpathia.svg states that I = Podkarpacie = Subcarpathian depressions, according to the map author. There is also a very nice map at File:Physico-Geographical Regionalization of Poland.png which does show some locations of Podkarpacie region in Poland. According to pl:Regionalizacja fizycznogeograficzna Polski, there are several subdivisions of Podkarpacie/Subcarpathia (Western, Eastern, Northern), each with a number of smaller subdivisions. Note that Oświęcim Basin (one of the few geographical divisions of Poland on that level we actually have an article on), located quite far from Ukraine, seems to be on the far western end of the Northern Subcarpathia, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distinct geographical area. No reason not to have articles on both the physical and the administrative, per WP:NOTPAPER. The Interior (Talk) 09:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Vallaurio[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league. This remains valid. His appearances for Monaco and Evian were for the reserves, meaning he has never played in Ligue 1 or 2. His three appearances for the Monegasque national team are not confirmed by reliable sources, nor do they confer notability, since Monaco is not a member of FIFA or UEFA. More importantly, he has note received significant coverage for any of this, meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country in a FIFA sanctioned senior international match, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:39, 20 November 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'm going to relieve the pressure on AFD ever so slightly by just deleting this now, immediately. Yes, no speedy deletion criterion covers this. It isn't vandalism. It isn't nonsense. It's even fairly easy to figure out what the software is, so there's not a lack of context either. But only the deliberately difficult would argue that an article written in Spanish, with a Spanish language title, that isn't even an encyclopaedia article at all, is headed anywhere other than deletion in a project to write an encyclopaedia in English. This page is an installation and configuration guide, which one can compare to one of Citrix's own, and jorge.albornoz (talk · contribs) seems a little confused as to what an encyclopaedia is.

Please spend the time that you would have spent opining delete here on one of the many currently open AFD discussions that is sorely in need of more than two opinions. ☺

Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instalacion configuracion ardence 4.1[edit]

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

Appears to be an instruction manual for a piece of software. Even if it weren't in Spanish, I think it would be a clear strong delete. No sources, no notability, and hardly any context. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia doesn't do how-to guides. Note: my PROD tag was declined, leading to this AfD. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Link to a Google translation -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Chris857 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 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 Nomination withdrawn. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Mens Shed Association[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. Of the five "references", two don't mention the association, two make only brief mentions of it, and the other is http://www.mensshed.org, which is not an independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a basic google news search shows that there are plenty of independent sources out there ABC, AAP, Herald Sun as well as lots of smaller regional papers. AFD is about what sources, exist, not just what sources are in the article. The-Pope (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep While not exactly headline material it's been on the radio tv and newspapers for the last years or so. Greglocock (talk) 00:35, 16 November 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 (non-admin closure) Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak per WP:G11. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ETEENZ[edit]

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

Notability asserted "one of Kolkata's largest manufacturer, exporter and retailer" of children's clothing, but no sources are available to verify this. All references provided are primary sources: ads for the company's products, press releases, and advertorials. No indications can be found of any significant coverage of this brand in independent media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also, IMO it fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and is written by a user with WP:COI. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Dizon[edit]

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

This individual does not appear to meet notability criteria for biographies. The "references" are unclear and difficult to verify. A web search does not turn up anything to support article content. Many of the claims in this article are dubious (at best). He is claimed to be the head of Dept of Anesthesiology at UCSF Medical Center, but there does not appear to be any mention of him at any ucsf.edu webpage. The whole thing may be a hoax. This may also be a part of an organized effort to promote members of this family - see Errold John Dizon which is currently marked for speedy deletion (edit:just recently speedily deleted as a blatant hoax). Peacock (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no faculty member named Carlo Dizon at UCSF. Age 25 is very young to be a doctor, much less a specialist. Chairpersons of departments aren't hired right out of medical school. This article looks to be pure fantasy. Mark viking (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above - seems to be a pure hoax. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. I've tagged it appropriately, as none of the sources seem to actually exist. I've also noticed that there are two specific accounts working on the article, leading me to wonder if this is a case of two people working to create hoax articles on Wikipedia or if it's one person working with a sockpuppet for some reason. I've opened up a sockpuppet investigation to see if it's the case and if not, to take the next step to potentially getting them blocked from editing. One of the users has created another hoax article, so I don't think that they have anything particularly helpful to contribute.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simina Grigoriu[edit]

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

There is no real indication this individual passes WP:BAND. No claims are made for criteria 2-12, and as for criterion 1, I think the level of sourcing — the subject's facebook page (!), along with three blog posts — speaks for itself. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook link is just given for her date of birth and her schools.--GonzSil (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot see any blog refs.--188.174.125.56 (talk) 09:07, 4 November 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad nomination. as the article creator and the IP above say, none of the three sources at nomination were blog posts (not that "blog posts" are always unacceptable). Faze Magazin is a high-quality print magazine, and the linked review is in the magazine section of their website. it is an indepth review. klatsch-tratsch looks to be a WP:RS [1]. and the Berliner Morgenpost is the Berliner Morgenpost. Since nomination an interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung has been added. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as musician, long list of releases since 2010. On the occasion of her album release lots of interviews with daily newspapers and music magazines, e.g. SZ, Berlin MoPo, Berlin Music TV, Partysan, Zeitjung, MySMAG etc. --NiTen (talk) 12:06, 15 November 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, Wifione ^Message 13:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avacor[edit]

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

Page makes no assertion of notability, has no third party references, and consists of 3 sentences. According to WP:ORG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is."

Beyond that, the original creator and primary early contributor has only ever created or worked on this article (which should rise WP:NPOV and WP:COI red flags).

The list of issues with this page is longer than the page itself. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is not whether the "page" is any good--it's not, it's terrible. The question is whether the topic is notable. Per WP:GNG, there is in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, such as [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with keeping the article if someone adds the sources... however those sources are about the lawsuit and tell us very little about the company itself. If we limit ourselves to what those sources tell us, we are left with an article about the lawsuits, not the company. I'm not convinced that notability of the company itself has been established. Perhaps we could write an article about the legal proceedings and incorporate the basic information that the article supplies in that article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Actually, not all of these sources are about a lawsuit. In addition, there are more non-lawsuit sources on Google and Google News searches. I did not try to list all of them. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searching didn't turn up much. The links provided above would give us only an article that said "Avacor is a company that has been sued a couple of times for misrepresenting its product to customers and investors." The company's website still looks like snake oil. Nothing worth keeping here. (I considered a redirect to Minoxidil, but that would be misleading; only one of their products contains minoxidil, although they trumpet their FDA approval of that product as if it applied to all their products. Let's not help these guys peddle their nostrums.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 10 November 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, Wifione ^Message 13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems the links Cowboy listed are just about a legal case regarding this company, their products are still not notable, nor is the company itself. Dengero (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dengero, thanks for commenting, but actually what you are saying is untrue. I provided five links. The first three were about a lawsuit and the last two were not about a lawsuit at all. It looks like link four just died. Here's another version. [7] Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last link sounds just like an advertisement, despite having an author of such. It's claimed "advertisements have appeared on television, radio, in the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade and on the Internet" - well, some shoddy "want it to last longer?" ads also appear on radio and late-night tv, but it's definitely not notable. As for the link you gave above, even the researches are not sure about the product. "The topical solution, which is marketed to men only, claims to dilate blood vessels in the scalp"/"The Web site claims that these..."/"However, this study does not appear to be published in any journal and consumers can only receive a copy of the study if they purchase the product". I smell a lot of fish in here. But either way, yes, that's my reply. Dengero (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012[edit]

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

'International reactions' articles are usually pretty trivial, and this one is no exception. The vast majority of it is simply world leaders congratulating Obama on his re-election and saying they look forward to continuing to work with him. The same happens with every major world election; there's nothing particularly interesting there. The 'financial markets', 'media' and 'others' sections are slightly more interesting, but could easily be incorporated into the main article. Robofish (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Theres no way to keep adding to the main article as it is already much too large and in the coming days when its off the news, will need to be trimmed and put on to other pages. Further, WP is an encycopaedia not a news service, for research purposes (poli scientists in school) it shows who said what and not everything here is straightforward either. Further many mentions are for specific issues not generic congratulationsLihaas (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's way too soon to dismiss this article as a mere list of congratulations. Especially the Media section and supranational organisations have a potential for expansion. And yes, other stuff does exist at International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008. De728631 (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the article appears to be a blatant violation of WP:QUOTEFARM. I'm not saying that the article should be deleted because of its current shape, and if some notable info can be mentioned without full sections of quotes, it can very well be kept. Secret of success · talk 13:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- it offers some much-needed foreign perspective on U.S. elections (which wikipedia severely lacks), and I see no harm in keeping it. --Yalens (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- maybe make the wording of the article more unbias, but the article still serves its purpose where other articles leave off 64.128.27.82 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To the contrary, international reactions are not trivial, especially when it involves something of this magnitude that many countries around the world have been eagerly watching. It isn't exactly repetitive per say, because the United States maintains various important foreign relations that all behave differently (e.g. Iran's reaction is different from Venezuela's, even if they both have cautious relations with the U.S.). While most countries in the world may seem to be congratulating the President with generally similar sentiments, there are those who may not be as keen to congratulate him. Some countries may have not even sent official congratulatory remarks. Not to mention, the article may (if it doesn't already) include reactions from international institutions such as the U.N. As it was stated earlier as well, there have been other pages on international reactions to previous U.S. elections. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need international reaction articles just because we can find information to put in them. Especially ones where the majority of the reactions are going to be the same. They become a list of quotes and to be honest are a lazy way way of adding information to the encyclopedia. Summarise them at the main article, it is actually pretty easy. AIRcorn (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can improve (through dicussion). but thats not a reason to delete altogether.Lihaas (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Substantive and encyclopedic list article, which otherwise would be excessive to merge into the main article. The reactions may seem similar, but touch on notable, ongoing issues relevant to varied geographic and political spheres. --HidariMigi (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "there's nothing particularly interesting there. The 'financial markets', 'media' and 'others' sections are slightly more interesting, but could easily be incorporated into the main article" This sounds like an opinion to me, the only thing you have for deleting this is WP:TRIVIAL which is something you want to avoid in deletion discussions as the article passes alot of other criteria - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- encyclopedic? Yes. Verifiable? Yes. Causing any harm? Nope. —Theo polisme 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Otherwise, why keep the 2008 counterpart article?--Forward Unto Dawn 00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why indeed. I think that should be deleted as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't expect my Delete comment to change anything, but we really need a sitewide rethinking of these "International reactions to..." articles. I don't know why it is considered useful or encyclopedic to note every trite thing that foreign heads of states say in response to ordinary events. There are some international reactions articles that are good, presenting important political stances (e.g. Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden) or noting actions, rather than words, by foreign leaders and organizations, but this is not one of them. A summary of notable or unusual responses should be put in the main election article. -- tariqabjotu 14:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could start a discussion somewhere, but everytime this happens community-wide consensus is against removing them. Bearing in mind that encycopaedic is for the reader not the editor, which is easy to confuse since we get blinkered by our additions/involvement here. The main premise/question being what is wikipedia? Social media/news? Or an encyclopaedia? If the latter then what does an encyclopaedia do? Everything of interest to one person's research is not of the other, and vice versa.Lihaas (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about those previous discussions, but some of these international reactions articles could be useful and informative. The one for the 2008 election, for example, despite being in worse shape than this one currently, is more notable, given the political climate at the time and the replacement of a globally (and domestically?) unpopular president with one who was heralded around the world. But this election, and the reactions, don't carry that significance. As it stands now, this article is just an indiscriminate collection of quotes. No effort is made to summarize anything -- not the quotes from foreign leaders, not the reactions from news organizations (really, that's just a list smushed into paragraph form). And if you did, you'd find it could fit in the main election article perfectly fine (although I suppose it seems to be par for the course there to make a sub-article or sub-sub-article about anything more than a paragraph long). I'm not interested in answering existential questions about Wikipedia, but I can't imagine that this kind of article meets our goals in any way. Just because we can write about it doesn't mean we should. There's a reason The New York Times' motto is "All the News That's Fit to Print", rather than just "All the News". Why can't we show a similar level of prudence? -- tariqabjotu 23:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im not talking about existential views of WP, im making the point that it fits into the intended goal vs. the oft-misviewed goal seeing it as a news source (per user above who said its not news). One can also re-do the page in sandbox and work it in here. Or someone could just take some bold measure and re-work on it. Improvement is not a reason for deletion.

Also the view of 2008 vs. 2012 and taking other cases are then subjective and open each issue for a new discussionLihaas (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic topic. Smarkflea (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As has already been said, this is an encyclopedic topic. AutomaticStrikeout 00:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above.ElectroPro (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close early; obviously notable. Everyking (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it serves a useful encyclopaedic purpose. I'm sure I've seen a graphic somewhere showing how, prior to the election, polls in a bunch of countries showed almost universal popular support for Obama. I may try to dig it out if I can find the time, but it's a great indicator of how far to the right the Overton window is in the US.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many articles have had a similar section to this. The 2008 Presidential Election article has one. Your opinion that sections like these seem trivial is irrelevant, it's very useful. I agree with the previous comments arguing to keep this.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should just be a paragraph in Obama's re-election, having a separate article for it is plainly ridiculous. Are we going to have separate articles for each continent, too? There's got to be limits to how much one can milk a subject. complainer (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we would IF there wee as many. Ive edited numerous election articles int he past when the result was out and the reactions are MUCH smaller. See Finland's 2011 election article (now GA and possibly a FA)Lihaas (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly this kind of cancerous proliferation of filler news that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER tries to prevent. Six months from now, most of the international reactors won't even be in office anymore, and their mostly automated and perfunctory comments will be of no interest whatsoever--if they even are now. And one doesn't need a WP:CRYSTALBALL to predict that. complainer (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement to me, articles on wikipedia dont goto GA status by being a "cancerous proliferation", also when you say Notable by whose standards do you mean? Right now the article has the widespread coverage and the sources to back up notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what it sounds like to you, it is still a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER argument, which, incidentally, assumes there is widespread coverage. As for when I said "notable", I can't help you there: I haven't used the word at all. complainer (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the presence of ITN creates/encourages the creation of news pieeces that stay stubs/little more than stubs and get passed as supportive for its "encyclopaedic content". Also see 2012 Terror attacks in Kenya and the numerous oneevent articles created there.Lihaas (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Tariqabjotu. "International reactions" articles are spinning out of control. There is no indication that these "international reactions" are in anyway notable. This is an unencyclopedic sub-subject and should as such be deleted as WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing encyclopedic in this article as it looks like a mere list of predictable congratulations. International reactions articles interesting sometimes, but not in case of almost full predictability. L.tak (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, please read it. There are numerous more than Congrats" statements including what is expected nad then the other comments of criticism /support for ROmney, etc. Only stuff like Armenia is run-of-the-millLihaas (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems none of the deletionists have put forward any reason for why having the page is harmful in and of itself...--Yalens (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ironically, I consider myself a slight Wikipedia deletionist, because I too believe in "less is more." In this case, though, I'm defending the article for once. As I mentioned earlier, I believe international reactions are not something to be trivialized. They may seem very similar, but it should be important to remember that for all intents and purposes, every foreign relation is treated differently on the international stage. Additionally, the U.S. election has had prominent attention from the outside world (One source has indicated Obama favorability over Romney). GabeIglesia (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do they have to show that it causes harm? AIRcorn (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, why didn't I get that the first time; delete-voters are deletionists! Let's not listen to them! Let's instead stop (not delete of course ;-)) the PROD and AfD processes as they are only favouring those terrible non-community-worthy "deletionist-individuals". L.tak (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - PROD and AfD are fine when they don't go after pages that are verifiable from reliable sources on the grounds that they don't like them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOHARM goes on to try and claim that it's harmful, so even the page you link to seem to think that they have to show it causes harm.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you might be reading a different page. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you linked the wrong page, then, because the page you linked to says "For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in. As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here."--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. It is a collection of congratulatory messages from allies and curses/disappointments etc. from opponents. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's verifiable and from reliable sources and has the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Yes, yes, it has!--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the third time (and counting), nobody is contesting that. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (paragraph 2) is about enduring notability, not about notability per se. complainer (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because no one could possibly want to know the international reaction to the United States presidential election of 1860 or 1980 today, right? This clearly passes the general standard of enduring that Wikipedia uses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This kind of perfunctory messages was not yet in style in 1860; the 1980 US presidential election does not have a separate article for international reactions nor, in fact, even a section or passing mention about them. The same is true for all presidential elections until 2008, when the amount of wikipedia editors was unprecedented, and the ongoing financial crisis had freed much of their time. The same editors worked at previous elections articles too, but felt no need to collect international reactions: this proves better than anything else the point that this type of news is only of interest when it is hot in the press. complainer (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would have closed the discussion as a keep, but for the sequence of increasing delete !votes. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a textbook example of WP:NOTNEWS Back in the days before Wikipedia, this stuff was used as filler to keep the A section of the newspaper from getting too small; most of it went unreported because, well, nobody really cared, and there was generally enough political news/gossip to fill the news hole. And nobody really cares today; it's just more accessible because it's used to fill up websites instead of paper pages. The first two-thirds of it is routine pro forma diplomatic chatter, utterly unnoteworthy. Most of the rest is talking-heads space-filling speculation which in an earlier age would be filed in the periodicals section of the library or put on microfilm and ignored forever after; it is impossible to pick out what is notably prescient or stupid, and unless it somehow seizes the imagination of the world (which none of it has—I would have noticed) there's no reason to memorialize any of it here. Verifiability is beside the point; its the unimportance the material that is the problem. It's being used to fill out the WP:UNDUE trope that this is some sort of "Once to Every Man and Nation" epochal decision, when the truth is that this kind of material is ground out at every election, and then promptly (and rightly) set aside and ignored. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a good WP:LISTPURP with plenty of precedent on other election pages. Given its length I think it's appropriate to keep it separate rather than merge it. Faustus37 (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this "plenty of precedent": I see one other article (for 2008) which is also up for deletion, in my opinion rightly so, and an article for Canada in the 2000 election which I have put up for deletion because it reduces to about two sentences worth of unsurprising content. Whatever international reaction is recorded for earlier elections was apparently somehow forced into the main articles for each. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The precedents are mainly in the election articles themselves, an exception being International reaction to the 2009 Iranian presidential election. I'm referring to "Reactions" sections in articles such as Greek legislative election, May 2012, Philippine general election, 2010, Russian legislative election, 2011, Turkish general election, 2011 and so forth. Under most circumstances I would prefer to have such information in the main election articles as well, but given its size I think it makes more sense to have a standalone article in this particular case (and for 2008 too, for that matter) Faustus37 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These examples mostly fit into the patterns I've discussed. The Turkish case is exactly like this one, only not split out; it was a routine election with routine responses, and the whole section should mostly vanish. The Greek, Philippine, and Russian cases have small, proportionate reaction sections in the main article, exactly as I have been advocating. The Iranian case is, from a quick reading, an example of a more substantial controversy which has been padded out to great length by the inclusion of a lot of reaction from those whose input in the matter is not very important. I think it could be folded back into the main article by editing it down to a more reasonable length.

In the end your defense reads to me as something of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Some of the cases you cite seem reasonable to me because the outcome was contentious or unexpected and had foreign relations repercussions simply by virtue of the event itself (and not just because of who won), but these examples tend to be short and to the point. Other cases look just like this one and need to be pruned back if not deleted outright, just as this one should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Go Phightins! 22:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopedic, and important. A wiki-worthy artcle.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be possible for the vast majority of those supporting inclusion to bother to elaborate beyond the "deserves to be here because it's good" stage? complainer (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, I think it is incumbent upon those supporting deletion to make their case. The article is already "included" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but thinking an AfD discussion consists of those supporting deletion making reasoned argument, and those supporting continued inclusion getting away with "encyclopedic, and important", is a serious misunderstanding of the process. WP:ATA, and WP:UNENCYC in particular clearly imply that the burden of argument is equal for both sides. complainer (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand the popularity of these "International reactions to ..." articles. Maybe we should have an article titled International reactions to Hurricane Sandy. I'm sure lots of foreign leaders must have offered sympathy to the victims. [8] [9] [10] [11] They might even have taken the daring stance of condemning the hurricane. Maybe we could compile 100 entries of foreign leaders saying the same thing, put a flag logo and country name in front of each, and call that an article. ~~I am not submitting a recommendation in this case because my views on this type of this article appear to be far from the consensus, but~~ I would appreciate it if some kind of standard would be established to decide what circumstances merit an "International reactions to ..." article. (And, by the way, I do not actually want an International reactions to Hurricane Sandy article to be created.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You (among others) create consensus, and there certainly is a clear policy on the matter: refusing to express your vote in this case is WP:MAJORITY. complainer (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. See below for my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The comments by world leaders when a new world leader gets elected, is clearly notable for an encyclopedia to have. Dream Focus 12:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see the Encyclopedia Britannica is just crammed full with this kind of articles... complainer (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they had limitless space they might. I created a category to group all these sorts of articles together Category:International reactions and populated it with 33 articles thus far. Many more could be added. It is historically important to record how world leaders and people in charge of the UN and whatnot, respond to various major events. Dream Focus 14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in the article "international reactions to elections" or international reactions to United States presidential elections to see what diplomatism dictates on the "mores" of such a reaction and how cultural differences would change it. No idea if that was studied enough not to be complete OR, but if we'd manage, that would be encyclopedic content! L.tak (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia Britannica does have "limitless" space, as they have gone online-only some six months ago. They still don't have a single article about "international reactions" and those sections they have are limited to events that lend themselvs to non-trivial commentary, chiefly major diplomatic crises. complainer (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt Encyclopedia Britannica though, this is wikipedia every encyclopedia does things diffrent, you cant sit there and tell me that there is a single way every encyclopedia handles things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "clearly notable for an encyclopedia to have" does, not me. The position of the writer is, however, unknown to me: it is entirely possible he was standing while making the assertion. complainer (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aircorn and Muboshgu. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a textbook example of where NOT NEWS does not apply. The international comment about the election is a topic which will remain permanently of historical interest. What the EB covers is only a small subset of what WP covers, and one of the reasons we exist is to remedy their deficiencies. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - great overview article - does not matter some think other articles are out of control. Moxy (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think this one is out of control too, and I am quite sure I am not the only one. But it probably "doesn't matter" either. complainer (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clichéd statements of congratulation that were probably written weeks before the election, and filed alongside near-identical letters to Romney in the hope that the relevant diplomat would make sure he hands over the correct envelope. Kevin McE (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edit statement says "Dear (insert name of winner), congratulations on gaining/retaining (del as applicable) the presidency. Please don't tax our exports too much, and don't bomb us. Yours sincerely, ...". Surely which countries are asking us not to bomb them is interesting in the long run. I'm sure a good thesis is available to anyone who could get both copies and find how similar and not similar they are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whooosh Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for all your asinine mockery, it doesn't look like you bothered to look at the article, which is a detailed discussion of what concerns people around the world about the US. There's nothing standardized or clichéd about most of the responses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic certainly is important, and the article fun to skim through. (I especially liked the reaction of the Cuban state newspaper: "The worst one did not win.") However the whole thing is really a collection raw data, not an article. The data should be archived somewhere, but that's not WP's ~~goal~~ role. Four years from now we can write "Obama presidency#Legacy" and the important info (as reported by secondary sources) will be included there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (again) and comment: This "extended" debate is out-of-order; the discussion already reached effective consensus, but now is being prolonged until every delete commenter can weigh in? IMHO, this sort of article is precisely why Wikipedia exists: it is a well-referenced list of reactions of international leaders and bodies to a major world event. No other place has such information-- nor is it appropriate to any other Wiki project. For those who might be confused, it is not a "news article" -- even if there have been similar (but significantly shorter) resources produced by AP. This is not 1) a first-hand account of original research; 2) written in journalistic style; 3) an insignificant single event such as "announcements, sports, or celebrities." It is an expansion of an important part of the main United States presidential election, 2012 article which it can not be folded back into, due to the sheer volume of reactions. For better or worse, the Presidency of the United States is the most powerful position in the world-- and the election of the president impacts the course of events not only within the American sphere of influence, but in every aspect of globe: economically, culturally, militarily and politically. Those who wish to remove this article seem to me to be losing sight that Wikipedia is not paper. Articles such as this are critical to the utility of the project, where relatively obscure topics tend to dominate, such as lists of every episode of Pokemon. By way of comparison, consider the valuable Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 which is "merely a collection of raw data." -- HidariMigi (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not that there are no "reactions" or that they cannot be documented; it's that these statements are largely routine and unimportant. Soon enough they will be overcome by the press of actually having to govern, just as all the statements made back in 2008 and 2004 and 1900 and 1848 were overcome. The continued going on about how important the presidency is isn't going to improve the significance of the reactions. I suppose if some government said something way out of the ordinary, that reaction would be notable, precisely because the breach of protocol would be taken by all as a very strong message. If any government did that, the TL;DR listing hid it from me; I would expect that an article limited to such reactions could be folded back into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article there are plenty of non-=conventional reactions. An d even for the congratulatuions messages there are many that include specific issues which make it pertinent. Poland's for one is notable in that 3 months ago there were article of "how obama lost poland" and polands anger at the scrapping of th emissile system. Some comments like Armenia are run-of-the-mill, but those are fewer.Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, the list of Pokemon episodes (or other Pokemon-related lists) is something that pops up like an Armillaria in AfD discussion, usually, as it does here, as an incarnation of the other stuff exists argument. It is, however, a way of comparing apples and oranges: Pokemon articles are relevant for a frivolous subject, whereas this article is irrelevant for an important one. WP:NOTPAPER is also a much abused argument, as the fact that we have more available space does absolutely not mean we have a duty of filling it with crud. "Critical to the utility of the project" is, clearly, an exaggeration, as people extensively read only about 1% of the articles, those that would still be there if wikipedia were, indeed, made of paper; anything else is there because we are finnicky, without making a real difference (thankfully) on our server load. Without having the statistics, I'd bet quite a lot of money that more people have read the subject of this AfD because of this AfD than ever will read it out of interest in the inane commentaries it lists. What we are discussing here is, therefore, a formality, one that, indeed matters not in itself, as long as articles like this do not start spreading like the above-mentioned Armillarias; this fungal danger is the core of my proposal to delete it; I see no argument as pressing coming from the side of those supporting its survival. Incidentally, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 is an article whose utility completely expired the moment the actual election results were announced: who, aside from some obscure statistician, would ever care about what people thought would be the outcome of an event after the outcome of such event has been officially announced? This is beyond WP:OSE: it's a spin-off that should aptly be named WP:otherCrudExists. complainer (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of everything in Wikipedia has been announced; it's called the heat-death of the universe. The outcome of the Cold War has been announced; should we start deleting all the reports about what people thought was going to happen, every article about how people responded to the threat of WW3? We could start erasing whole football season; all that matters is the score of the final game, right?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; but bookies' predictions as to what the score of single games would be, or who would win the season, yes, that is definitely not worth an article. As for WW3, I don't see any polling, aside perhaps for the Doomsday Clock; I am sure we could dig some out, and I am happy nobody has that much free time on his hands. Incidentally, before calling an article "valuable", you might want to think hard under which circumstances, barring duress, patrol and AfD you might ever want to actually read it. The result for Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012, or even for the object of this discussion might surprise you. complainer (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as valid, important, encyclopedic coverage of election and too long to keep in main article. Those who think these reactions are insignificant don't have to read the article, but others may find this a valuable resource.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the cost of repeating myself, can you actually think of anybody who might? Or are we keeping the wikipedia staff working for a completely theoretical group? complainer (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite easily. Look at the traffic stats for any page and youll find most people read WP, most are nt editors having this discussion and we are cereating content for just us.Lihaas (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now have--specifically, I have looked at the traffic for [| the page discussed here] and the [| oyster] page, which I chose because it was visited roughly the same number of times. If this doesn't convince you to delete the article, I don't know what will: the oyster page is visited by a steady 2000 people a day, this one shows exponential decay, with over 20000 the day of its creation followed by tapering down to (currently) a few dozens, which will, if the trend continues, completely disappear within weeks. Finally WP:NOTNEWS can be put into a graph even people who can't be bothered to read the policy can enjoy. complainer (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (again) as per above, clearly there are many people interested in it, there are already plenty of analogous pages on wiki for which it is merely data collection or a list of international responses to x-event, and so on... I'm pretty curious though, why its this one that the controversy pops up on, not the gazillion other similar pages that already existed. --Yalens (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really advise you read WP:OSE, which now risks having your picture on the corner of the page... complainer (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are we relodging keeps(/deletes)? L.tak (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because apparently the discussion was restarted here o.O? A better question would be why we're still debating this...--Yalens (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last point. I have heard all arguments multiple times now, so it should be possible to draft a conclusion; I guess it will pop up for closure tomorrow, one week after the extension... L.tak (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to to say it again. The discussion wasn't restarted, it was just extended past its normal one week deadline. Please strike out the duplicate votes. Dream Focus 00:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dream, it just makes things more confusing for the closing admin, when a deletion discussion is extended it usually means to try to extend to new editors POV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can just disregard any post that says again in bold =P. --Yalens (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I see the importance of WP:NOTNEWS, and some reactions are certainly in the moment with no long term value. But I think there will be enough of a sustained impact of the election on international events that this article can be pruned of the ephemeral, and expanded with the more long-term impact. And if I'm wrong, merging to an article about American foreign policy would be a good idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:29, 22 November 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. Tarc and The Devil's Advocate have made good cases for their opposing positions, but apart from a weak delete and a merge opinion, all other contributions appear rather shallow in terms of policy-based reasoning. So we have no consensus. I recommend reconsidering the issue of this person's lasting notability after some time has passed. Sandstein 18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brutsch[edit]

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

This should be a textbook WP:BLP1E; a previously anonymous, private citizen suddenly thrust into the spotlight because he was "outed" for doing controversial things on a web page. Please note that "but I read it in many reliable sources!" is not an effective counter-argument to a person only notable for one event; we accept the "notable" part of the argument, that's not in dispute. BLP1E revolves around 1) "is the subject for only known for one thing?", 2) "absent this one thing would this person be unknown?", and 3) "going forward, is the subject likely to remain low-profile?" IMO 1 and 2 are slam-dunk, while 3 is quite probable. Yes, people caught up in one-event cases will give interviews in the immediate aftermath, but that's really not enough to address this criteria. You would need to see a sustained campaign of spotlight-chasing that keeps the person in the headlines. An example of that would be Sandra Fluke, who has now passed the threshold of notability beyond the initial one-event Rush Limbaugh dust-up. This guy isn't that, and since his livelihood has essentially been destroyed by publicity, I'd say he is unlikely to chase it anytime soon, if ever. This case is more like the girl who was spanked by her father; a news frenzy, then gone. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However I would prefer it to be either merged with Reddit or renamed/spun out into an article covering the event as per my comments on the talk page. However if neither of those gain any traction, keep rather than delete. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, clear BLP1E. This merits nothing more than a paragraph in the Reddit article. §FreeRangeFrog 17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tarc did not even notify me of this discussion, though he is obviously aware that I am the primary author. I am not even finished with the article and I have already rebutted the BLP1E argument twice, once in the edit summary creating the article and a second time on the talk page. Simply put, he is notable for many events. The jailbait subreddit that he created was a significant event a year ago and got him some direct mentions. His outing is because of his involvement in yet another subreddit that drew significant media attention and the subsequent outing that has received considerable contextual coverage, which I am planning to add today. Any suggestion that a person who sought out an interview with a primetime national news program is "low-profile" is a ridiculous misreading of BLP1E. Any merge or rename would be misguided as there is not just one event and it would be coatracky to merge to any other article. Nominating an article for deletion that is clearly listed as still being under construction is disruptive and borders on uncivil. Please withdraw your nomination Tarc.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one event of note; the outing and aftermath (i.e. fired from his job). A blip a year ago about the jailbait sub-reddit had nothing to do with "Michael Brutsch" at the time, since that name was unknown to the public. You can't connect the recent events with something he once did anonymously and say "two events", it don't work like that. This nomination is on solid ground and it will go forward. As for notifications, don't take it personal; I never notify anyone individually when I nominate something for deletion. Interested parties are responsible for getting themselves to an AfD. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does work like that. Notability for doing something under an alias is no different from notability for doing something under one's own name. These are two major news events in the past year where he has played a significant role. WP:BLP1E does not apply to him, even if he didn't do an interview with CNN.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can keep wishing that it does, but wishing doesn't make a falsehood become true. The previous non-event was more about reddit in general anyways, and not Mr. Brutsch in particular. The "two-event" argument isn't going to win the day here. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a "non-event" when the jailbait subreddit was covered. CNN did a report on it and so did several other major press sources. On its own that would not be enough for an article on even the jailbait subreddit, let alone violentacrez, but that was not the only event where he played a significant role. This recent incident actually began because violentacrez was involved with the creepshots subreddit that was also getting significant press coverage. His outing is just another event in addition to that one. He is notable for his involvement in numerous controversial subreddits over the past year and being outed because of his connection with them, not because of any singular event. This is not a "two-event" argument, but a "multiple-event" argument with at least two significant events in the mix where he has been noted by reliable sources as a significant player.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Devil's Advocate seems to think that someone being notable on Reddit is the same as being notable elsewhere, which I think is obvious given his mention of "other subreddits" and so on. The question here is whether or not the external coverage of the issue and the person merit inclusion under the notability guidelines, and as far as I can tell that's not the case. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about every person involved in a controversy that was interviewed by CNN. This whole thing seemed like a huge deal on Reddit at the time (and like other people I watched it unfold), but it's just another case of some minor localized and already fading notoriety that does not merit a full BLP. Like I said in my !vote, I suggest this be condensed and turned into a redirect to Reddit#Controversial subreddits. §FreeRangeFrog 18:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying being notable on Reddit is the same as being notable elsewhere. This ain't my first rodeo. The sources I have already provided in the article are major national news sources from multiple countries and I am not even finished with the article. To suggest that I am saying being notable on Reddit is enough is completely absurd. It is the external coverage that informed my decision to create the article, not Reddit coverage. Honestly, I don't even use Reddit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please link to a definition of "subreddit," an odd neologism. Not everyone here follows Reddit. Is it anything like a sub sandwich? Edison (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, well I do not follow Reddit either, but it is pretty basic stuff. Subreddits are just sections of the site devoted to a certain type of content.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what the nom said. --Vrave98 (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nom is completely wrong on every point as I have already demonstrated. It is not one event for which he is notable, but multiple events over a year. People who seek interviews with CNN are also not "low-profile" in even the most charitable interpretation of the term and so BLP1E does not apply in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That they constitute multiple events is your opinion. It would be wise for you to not snipe at each and every person here who holds a different opinion on the matter. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and Frog responded to my comments above so don't talk to me about "sniping" at every person. It is not a matter of "opinion" that they constitute multiple events. How is something that happened a year ago centering on something he created not a separate significant event for which he is known?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So everyone is clear about this, violentacrez/Michael Brutsch has been involved in multiple events that have gotten media attention, including several that have gotten considerable media attention. He created and moderated a section called jailbait, which at one point was the second-biggest search term for Reddit. That section, or subreddit, was the subject of a major report by Anderson Cooper on CNN and was also covered by International Business Times, DailyTech, NBC News, and The Washington Times. The Daily Dot also reported on the subreddit at the time, noting violentacrez was the creator and moderator of the section. Prior to that he was actually involved in another instance regarding a subreddit called r/beatingwomen. What we have most recently is violentacrez/Brutsch being a moderator for a subreddit called creepshots that has gotten a lot of significant coverage (see here: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]). It is because of his involvement in multiple controversial subreddits that he was subsequently outed and that outing has been the subject of considerable coverage as well. He is not only known for a single event so WP:BLP1E does not apply.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you don't get to nitpick involvement in multiple website sub-fora and call those events, that is extremely disingenuous. This person was outed for his controversial reddit tenure, that is how one looks at this properly and truthfully. Simply being an ass on a website is not an event; this person did not become notable to reliable sources until he was outed and subsequently fired. THAT is the event. Period, full-stop. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who is "an ass on a website" gets named as the most important person that year on the same website by The Daily Dot. That was a year before this recent kerfuffle happened. Oh, hey, look what I just found. Another event that got noteworthy coverage earlier this year (See here: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]) where violentacrez was a significant player by revealing a list of sites that were being banned from Reddit. Are you going to concede the BLP1E objection now?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest, as now you're just googling for "violentacrez" and tallying up the name-drops, not in-depth coverage of the user himself, I'm afraid. There's a wiki-essay for this sort of blood-from-a-stone source-squeezing you're doing right now, but the name escapes me at the moment. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources demonstrate that BLP1E doesn't apply in the slightest. If I were only using the r/jailbait and r/beatingwomen coverage from a year ago and the sources in that comment above to argue for keeping the article you would have a stellar point, but this is all in addition to the significant, in-depth coverage he has gotten over the past month that has delved into many details of his life off of Reddit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that you completely ignored the point about him being named the most important person on Reddit last year by The Daily Dot.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 1 November 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 07:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move this to, um, I suppose, /r/jailbait (if that's a valid article title?), and then make it not a biography any more? Morwen (Talk) 13:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not just about r/jailbait just like it is not just about the outing. He has got press attention over the past year for his involvement in three separate controversial subreddits, his outing, and for another matter involving Reddit. All of these together justify having a BLP.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak delete I don't buy the argument that his notoriety as violentacrez somehow doesn't count because he wasn't then known as Michael Brutsch - it's the same person, why shouldn't it count? (And definitely those prior controversies are separate events, not some strange extensions of this one event...) The problem I have is that other than The Daily Dot, nobody outside Reddit seems to have really paid violentacrez that much attention before this latest event; the jailbait subreddit and other controversies he was connected with received third-party coverage, yes, but coverage of violentacrez's role seems to have been limited to that one source, which doesn't really satisfy me. Absent that, we're left with BLP1E concerns (though it's not clear if he's low-profile enough for BLP1E to apply...) If somebody can produce non-Daily-Dot coverage of violentacrez's role in those prior controversies that predates this latest explosion I'll support keeping. Sideways713 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to locate an article in Gawker that made a noteworthy mention of him at that time. Technically Anderson Cooper made a brief mention of violentacrez, but I haven't brought it up because it wasn't that significant. You should also see the material I just added.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would have deleted this article, were it not for the final comment by The Devil's Advocate, and subsequent improvements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 12:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wifone, the problem is that TDA continuously misrepresents the sources cited, as they invariably turn out to be coverage of reddit's problems and scandals with a mere name-drop of this preson's online alias. In the gawker link above, "violentacrez" is mentioned in once sentence ("...and Violentacrez—a 50-something Texas software engineer who openly brags about having oral sex with his 19-year-old step-daughter..."). 18 words out of an 860-word article. As with the others, this source establishes notability of the scandal, but not this particular person. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reddit and eliminate the BLP material. The main article has a tiny section on subreddit controveries, of which this seems to be the only example with significant coverage. This is another case of one person's pseudo-notability as an exemplar of a whole class, simply because he was picked by some media outlet as a frame for the story. It's clear that there's no significant bio to be found, beyond this incident. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't as simple as him being an "exemplar" or "frame" for the story. He is, in fact, the most notable personality on Reddit. None of the other Reddit users connected with these controversial subreddits got nearly as much attention prior to the outing and his outing was because of his prominent role in those subreddits.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some more substantive coverage of Brutsch and his outing: [22]. I suspect such coverage will persist well beyond the initial news cycle because he has played such a notable role in the controversial subreddits and because his outing was a rather significant event as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A significant single event, yep. I think it's time to put this baby to bed here. Tarc (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have three distinct events over a year where Violantacrez/Michael Brutsch played a central role that was discussed by multiple sources. Two of those events are clearly significant given substantial coverage in national news. His outing is just the most significant event. I am noting the persisting coverage as it pertains to another aspect of WP:BLP1E. One of the other criteria for a valid BLP1E objection is if it "is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" and part of determining significance is persistent coverage. I believe the event of his outing will, on its own, be cited many times in the future with him noted significantly in connection with it and that the source I provided is an indication in favor of my view.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have no distinct events. We have an overall story of reddit's notorious history, that is a thing in itself. We then have a man at the center of that who was outed. You can't lie and glue those two together to call it "two events". Seriously, go find something better to do than to use the Wikipedia to smear a living person. Even distasteful people who do distasteful things, as we can all agree Mr. Brutsch did do, do not deserve to have their life paraded and scrutinized by anonymous, amateur encyclopedia writers. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple events, not just one nor even just two. Just because you believe the other events aren't significant doesn't change the facts as supported by reliable sources. Also, I am not interested in smearing the man. My interest is in writing a neutral biographical article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no multiple events, no matter how much blood you squeeze from the stones that are sources covering reddit, and not this person. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E obviously does not apply, as shown by Devil's Advocate. I found violentacrez outing despicable, but it is all over the place at this point anyway, so there are no privacy concerns to be worried about.Cyclopia ^talk 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And empty vote by a contribution stalker following me from the pedophile DRV, doing a WP:PERNOM of a point (BLP1E) long refuted. Discard this non-vote and hopefully head for a wrap-up soon, please. Tarc (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stalker? What the hell are you talking about? Tarc, pull yourself together please. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it must be an amazing coincidence that a post by you replying to me at DRV is followed by a post here in an AfD I initiated ~45 mins later. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not coincidence, but it's not stalking. Peeking into the contributions of people I interact with (something I do with basically every editor) and happening to find something that interested me is not "stalking". I see that you just posted another AfD -do you see me commenting there? Do you see me wikihounding you elsewhere? I don't think so. I don't even have your talk page in my watchlist. I understand you "have an image to uphold as a dick", as you yourself say on your userpage, but at least do it with some class. C'mon. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Dargaj[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Slovak Super Liga is fully pro. In spite of is said in the lede of the article, Mr. Dargaj has not played in this league meaning its pro status has no bearing on his notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Upon further review MFK Zemplín Michalovce is only in the second-level 2. Liga and does not appear to have played recently in the Slovakian top tier. Oopsie. Faustus37 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and from above prod-remover reversing his decision. Dengero (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no professional appearances as a footballer. Does not meet WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and fails WP:GNG --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:39, 20 November 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 Vermont elections, 2012. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Auditor of Accounts election, 2012[edit]

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

Does every minor office's election get an article? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this election is not notable enough for a standalone article, the obvious merge target is Vermont elections, 2012. That article needs to be updated. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above merge comment. I can't see notability for this race. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with above comments. Mostly in general article already. Student7 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The 2006 election for this office has its own page. If a Merge, may make sense to merge some of the information into the Vermont Auditor of Accounts article.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Vermont elections, 2012 as there is not enough info to justify a stand-alone article. Vermont Auditor of Accounts election, 2006 should be likewise merged to Vermont elections, 2006; while there is more than routine result information in that article (the initial results were reversed in a recount), it isn't as though there isn't room for that in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, and yes, should initiate a merge for 2006 as well. Dengero (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marching Illini Sousaphones[edit]

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

Lower brass section of the Marching Illini. A remarkable mixture of Original Research and Sousaphone-cruft, and plain puffery. No coverage at all in third party sources, ala WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It amazes me that a bit of trivia like this could have existed on Wikipedia for over four years. No evidence of any notability separate from the marching band, and no need for an entire article just on this one subsection. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article serves no real purpose. Puff Piece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article references some notability, but I can't see how anyone outside of a few fans or parents would care. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej Chorążyk[edit]

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

Ordinary employee of the Polish Football Association, fails WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Really nothing special about him. Dengero (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems mentioned in some reliable sources, refs in the article include for example large journal Rzeczpospolita (journal). Thus he may meet depth of coverage. Not sure about most of the refs, as there are sport sites, which I know little about. PS. As far as I can tell, the nominator didn't bother to inform the creator of the AfD, please correct this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. 13:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Mentoz86 (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - by reading through the article and the references (even though I don't understand Polish), I get the feeling that this is a notable topic that passes WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've notified the article creator, as the nominator did not bother, and it should also be noted that the nominator did not explain in the edit summary that s/he was nominating the article for deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Rzeczpospolita and Newsweek Polska sources cited demonstrate a clear pass of the general notability guideline. It would be helpful if those who claimed GNG failure could explain why they believe the sources to be insufficient. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed a few things, and added new link to the Association webpage. Apparently, the name search there yielded about a dozen results. Seems important, there's a photo of him as a captain of the youth team also. Poeticbent talk 17:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Alington[edit]

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

All articles were published in small circulation periodicals or non-refereed journals. Notability not established, fails WP:AUTHOR. WWGB (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Added sources. She was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for her work preserving local history of Wellington. There are a number of decent sources about her, but not free online, linked in the article. She also wrote an article(s) in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography so she is considered a national expert by the New Zealand government (probably on Wellington church's and/or Revd Frederick Thatcher). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a historian and for her work on the Bolton Street Cemetery. The DNZB entry that she wrote for Frederick Thatcher would certainly have been peer reviewed. Schwede 66 18:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that she has also written DNZB entries for William Mowbray, Esther Mary Baber, and Kennedy Macdonald. Schwede 66 18:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has done enough to cross notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO and WP:Academic. Article needs more work and improved referencing. NealeFamily (talk) 08:32, 18 November 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationality and Power[edit]

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

The notability of this book is highly questionably. The three citations show nothing apart that it has been referenced by someone else. Two out of the three references are by the author of this book. Possible a self-promotion. There is nothing that indicates great importance within academia, never mind outside academia. Mootros (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm actually finding where this book is often heavily referenced in many peer reviewed journals. ([23], [24], [25])Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had to dig through JSTOR, but I found quite a few reviews from various journals as well as several entries that used this book as a cite. More than one journal described this book as being something that was well used within academia, at least at that point in time. Nowadays? Maybe not, but notability doesn't fade just because it's not used as often anymore.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Particularly in light of citations added by Tokyogirl79, subject satisfies WP:BK & WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As it now has review citations and such, it seems to pass depth of coverage and notability criteria. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Good work, Tokyogirl. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition[edit]

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

The notability of this book is highly questionably. The two links show nothing apart that it has been review in journals. There is nothing that indicates great importance within academia, never mind outside academia. Mootros (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All search tools (News, Books, Scholar) show enough results with significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:NB requirements. Google Scholar shows that this book is cited in a number of academic works. In addition, reviews in journals like:
- Brown, Peter H. (November 2005). "Book Review: Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition" (PDF). Economic Development Quarterly. 19 (4): 387–388. doi:10.1177/0891242405279767.
- Wheeler, Porter K. (2004). "Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition" (PDF). Journal of the Transportation Research Forum. 43 (1): 145–148.
- Zahariadis, Nikolaos (September 2004). "Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition". Perspectives on Politics. 2 (3): 609–610. doi:10.1017/S1537592704620378.

are hardly something you could say "show nothing apart that it has been review in journals." Beagel (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Beagel (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per NBOOK #1, multiple reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghigo Press[edit]

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

publisher of nonnotable product lines. publishers are notable by the titles, and this title is not a significant work on wine. article only shows they exist, and if this is their most important features, they dont qualify for an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources (or no sources at all) that discuss the press, that I can find searching Google/ Books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - The article reads like a purely promotional/advertising page and there are no claims or evidence of any notability. Holyfield1998 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Kashmir skirmishes[edit]

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

Two clashes between the Indian Army and militants, resulting in nine deaths, but otherwise of little consequence. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications that this minor battle is of any lasting significance/notoriety. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Skirmishes on borders happen like every month. We are not newspaper. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubric Friedrick[edit]

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

Delete This article might or might not be a hoax. I found no sources for it or for the educator Friedrick Lutz or Friedrich Lutz after whom the rubric is supposedly named. The source listed in the article was not found in German bibliographic sources nor in WordlCat, variations were tried. So, if not a hoax, (1) notability is lacking as there is no significant coverage, the term is not used; (2) nothing in this article is verifiable; and (3) there are no reliable sources. Any one of which should be grounds for deletion. The author removed the prod placed on the article by Ben Ben on 3 November. I have not recommended speedy deletion since I am only 85%–90% certain that it is a hoax. I have been wrong before. I have just completed researching on a real Friedrich Lutz, the Bavarian politician, and found a likely notable economist with that name, but nothing on this. Even if not a hoax, this doesn't belong in the Wikipedia for lack of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale. Also, it uses the world "flange", which is a dead giveaway. Morwen (Talk) 12:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is also no real content here of what this rubric might be. But it's safe to say that it doesn't have anything to do with pipe fittings or railroad wheels. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's generously call it a non-notable concept. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough sources, per WP:GNG. --Ben Ben (talk) 09:39, 17 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Allegranza[edit]

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

Prod contested. AFD reason is the same as the PROD reason: "Notability appears marginal (at best). An IP says that the subject does not want this information to be here. In such cases of marginal notability, I generally think its best to give the subject what they want." TexasAndroid (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, marginal notability not well-established by any WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unreferenced BLP except for the subject homepage, not seeing any reliable hits (IMBD-like) coming up. Too early for an entry, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:24, 15 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dons of Necropolis[edit]

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

Article has previously been deleted via prod. This is a self-published book, no evidence that it meets the notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 03:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no independent coverage of this book much less significant coverage. It fails the notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search brought up a complete lack of reliable sources for this book. The only things that are out there are tons of merchant sites, false hits, a few non-usable blog/merchant site reviews, and some primary sources. Not much, all in all.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I couldn't find anything either. Dengero (talk) 16:19, 15 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Tuscan throne[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic. PatGallacher (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this is not an encyclopedic article for several reasons. The line of succession to the monarchy of a mini-state which was incorporated into Italy over 150 years ago is a very obscure topic. I also question whether there can be said to be a definitive line of succession, as opposed to some people's opinion of what it is. The source given seems rather obscure and we don't know how good it is, and crucially it was written 10 years ago, it could have been overtaken by births or deaths, this was a crucial reason why the Line of succession to the British throne article was drastically pruned. This article may have BLP issues, some of the people here may not wish to be regarded as having any claim to the Tuscan throne, since it could create legal problems with the Italian government. PatGallacher (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany. Maybe? He, apparently, currently holds the title and any theoretical or actual line of succession would thus be a matter of who comes after him. The whole article seems to rely on a whole bunch of WP:OR or speculation. Let's not forget that anyone (current or subsequent) is considered a "pretender" as the title doesn't actually exist any more. So this would seem to be a theoretical line of succession of people who might have (an already legally invalid) claim to use a title after the current person (not entitled to use the title) has died or otherwise passed on his position as heir to a duchy that doesn't exist. My brain hurts. Beside the fact that the list in the article isn't actually explained in any way, I would suggest that any list (given it is a list of LPs) would need to be very, very, very well sourced to ensure no BLP violations, as the nominator has intimated. Stalwart111 03:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no such thing as the Tuscan throne nowadays (legally-speaking), and this list does indeed smack of both WP:OR and walks the line of WP:BLP. It could also fail WP:CRYSTAL as it's far from certain who from this list would ever be the next Grand Duke of Tuscany. I also agree that it is a very, very obscure topic. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from any other consideration, I doubt that the line of succession to the former Tuscan throne is a notable topic, per GNG or per any other suitable guideline. Cavarrone (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lukeno and the most common outcome. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 19 November 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 : The "Music Career and Salt Mine" section is an obvious joke; with it removed, all that's left is a dime-a-dozen article about a non-notable musician. Speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Williams (rapper)[edit]

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

I have done some brief research on the subject and it appears to be somewhat of a hoax. All I could find were a couple of things on YouTube videos that refer to, among other things, music by a Daniel Williams, not Dan WIlliams, which are not listed on the article. The article also states that between the ages of 2 and 4 he toured with The Rolling Stones playing the kazoo, going on to say he was a key member who lead the band to wide spread success. Being a toddler, and even today the age of 18, I find it hard to believe such a key member of such an iconic band isn't referenced elsewhere, which leads me to believe it is a hoax. There is no mention of this person on the 'Boy Better Know' website, and the personal website listed on the article, not only doesn't work - it doesn't exist (as per a domain name check). Also couldn't find any mention of the listed music. I was considering tagging the article for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3, but decided a discussion may be more appropriate. -- Patchy1 02:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also just noticed a slightly different version of the article, without Rolling Stones claims, on the creators user page: User:EJDuckyy. Which also suggest the creator is the subject (WP:AUTO), but still doesn't explain the lack of any sources verifying any of the content. -- Patchy1 02:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and (ironically) salt - obvious WP:HOAX from what I can tell, and not a very clever one. The Sifto Salt Mine in Goderich, Ontario is the largest in the world. It's owned by Compass Minerals; their CEO is Angelo C. Brisimitzakis, not an 18 year old from Halesowen. WP:NOTFACEBOOK. End of story. Stalwart111 03:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion. Can a speedy deletion take place after an AFD has started? BeyondKneesReach (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I believe so, I've seen it happen before anyway. -- Patchy1 05:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion is considered a type of early AfD closure, per WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This means that if no one objects to the speedy delete consensus, we can close this early as "speedy delete." — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G3. There does appear to be some YouTube links on the web that fit this guy, otherwise, he is not remotely worthy of a Wikipedia article, especially not with such a blatant mess of an article with fake or non-existent sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to find his music, you'd have to Google "Bantorious D.A.N", which is what the YouTube links that match his songs are posted as. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Stalwart & Lukeno94 --Bejnar (talk) 10:30, 15 November 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 soft delete. Soft, because there are an awful lot of ghits for this one and it should be speedy undeleted if anyone can find some decent references amongst them. Spinning Spark 20:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need For Madness[edit]

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

No reliable sources seem to exist for this game. I previously nominated this for deletion, in which it was deleted, but now it's back. Renominating this for AfD since the article's content is new and thus G4 doesn't apply. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a computer game - check. Is it notable? I don't see how. PK T(alk) 13:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News and Google Books provided nothing useful and it appears that only unreliable sources such as videos exist. There isn't anything to establish an appropriate article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant independent, reliable sources. Obvious delete. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; there's thousands, if not millions, of flash games out there, and there appears to be no reason that this particular one deserves an article. Furthermore, I'd say just go ahead and give it a soft deletion if there's still no consensus in another week. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far it seems that there is nothing but consensus, everyone seems to agree that deletion is appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. I meant, more precisely, consensus vis-à-vis WP:QUORUM. Just because this article's been relisted so many times. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Utopod[edit]

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

Raising AfD as proposed deletion was contested in July. Concern is that this podcast show does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. Breno ^talk 06:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. If it is on-going with a sizeable audience (which I don't know), then I guess it's worth keeping and generally notable. Dengero (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm seeing a bit of secondary source coverage complemented by participation from multiple different notable authors. — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would you mind listing the secondary sources found on here or the article? Going through the references on the article the Swiss newspaper article is in French, the 2007 Boing Boing article does start to establish notability of the podcast, and the last two are primary sources. I've yet to see multiple non-trivial published works. --Breno ^talk 01:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a mention of Utopod in Le Temps February 7, 2008, but that appears to be it. Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Puffy.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:55, 15 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S. J. Vellenga[edit]

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

Not notable. Self-published author of eBook. Autobiography with sources only from author's own personal website. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Lack of significant reliable, independent sources. Cindy(talk to me) 02:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Google News and Books (Google Australia) provided nothing relevant for a writer, however, I found results for a Dutch academic. My last resort was a regular Google search where I found two forum posts started by the subject himself, therefore not only would it be unreliable but primary as well. This young man certainly has potential but he has not gained enough attention (or any at all, as far as I'm aware) to be considered notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has one primary source and one Amazon source and it looks like the editor that created the article is the author himself.BeyondKneesReach (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources to show that this specific SJ Vellenga has notability. Other than primary sources and some unusable blog sources, there is not anything out there that covers him.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Tokyogirl79 the sources are just not reliable enough. Crackingstack (talk) 11:45, 21 November 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 Golden Gate Transit. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the Moon Commute Club[edit]

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

This doesnt seem to be notable enough, a privately owned fleet of no more than 5 buses, for transport to SF? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable company, despite occasional mentions in the hyper-local Sonoma press. It's simply a small once-a-day shuttle service. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The Valley of the Moon Commute Club was previously an extensive transportation program subsidized by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District through contracts administered by Golden Gate Transit in the Club Bus program. However, the service has been substantially reduced over the years, and its status as a Club Bus service by GGT was recently revoked (i.e., the subsidy was discontinued). The Club Bus program now includes only the Marin Commute Club, and that service is slated for discontinuation after December 31, 2012. My recommendation is that the contents of the Valley of the Moon Commute Club and Marin Commute Club pages be updated at the end of the calendar and merged into a new Club Bus subsection of either the GGBHTD or GGT pages. I recommend the addition be made to the GGT page. -DavDaven (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable in a fairly large field (bus/transport companies). As for merging, I think this fails the basic notability test of "Would the encyclopedia be any less complete without it?" I don't think the GGT article would be any better an article if it mentioned this company, nor if it mentioned all the companies that operated under its subsidy; just like you don't list any McDonald's franchises (aside from some super-notable ones) at the McDonald's page, there's no need to mention a bus company that doesn't add any knowledge to the GGT article. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, these are not separate companies. These are rider-organized groups that approached GGT for bus service. This type of subscription bus service is relatively unique within the public transportation industry, and in this case, Club Bus service predated GGT's regular bus transit service. To use the McDonald's analogy, imagine if its customers approached the company and asked for tacos, even though it only makes hamburgers, and the company agreed to make and sell them in a way that kept them off the regular menu. That seems notable to me. A complete GGT article would discuss what Club Bus is, at least to some degree, so that readers can have a better understanding of the history of transit service in the San Francisco Bay Area. The service's affiliation with the Golden Gate Bridge arguably makes the information more notable than comparable services not associated with world-famous transportation facilities. -DavDaven (talk) 17:38, 15 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ismailzai[edit]

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

Non-notable subject, with almost no content and no references. - Mr X 22:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks sufficient context to identify the subject. A book search does not connect the Ismailzai to the Bangash; rather, Ismailzai is described as a division of a Pakistani tribe in Peshawar, as here. Does Ismailzai refer to Samilzai, which is described as one of the main divisions of the Bangash? That's unclear, and the article is too brief to establish this any further. In any case, Ismailzai fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage as a sub-clan in Pakistan, if that's what this indeed is about. If it's about a sub-tribe of the Bangash, as is claimed, it fails all notability criteria because no sources actually connect the two. Could be speedily deleted for lack of sufficient context, but it would be helpful if someone versed in these matters could take a look and maybe help resolve the confusion. --Batard0 (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 1 November 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, Wifione ^Message 07:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree with the nominator. --Shorthate (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:39, 15 November 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 Imran series characters. This close makes no assertion on the correct title for the existing article, and editors are free to move that article to this title. Spinning Spark 20:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Imran Series characters[edit]

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

A similar but more comprehensive page by the name of "Imran series characters" already exists on Wikipedia. Therefore, this page is completely redundant and not even needed to be re directed; it shall be deleted. StarryEyed (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As duplicate. Why should this not be a redirect? It's a logical article title to search for. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Here's what I suggest: we take the character material at Imran series characters and paste it into the article up for deletion. Then we redirect Imran series characters to this entry, as precedent has lists of characters titled "List of _______ characters" or "List of characters in _________". Either way we phrase it, that's where the information would be and is probably why a duplicate entry was created: nobody knew exactly where to look for the character info.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Plausible search term for a redirect.--xanchester (t) 02:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If it were a new article, it would warrant an A10 speedy deletion, and my general feeling is that when an article meets a CSD but not one of its parameters (time since creation, size, etc.), that just means that it should be deleted non-speedily. (Or, in this case, redirected, since A10 often results in redirects.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:54, 15 November 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 K_Koke#Albums. Spinning Spark 20:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Ain't Perfect[edit]

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

Lacks notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:NALBUMS (unreleased material), and completely unreferenced. - Mr X 03:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K_Koke#Albums for now - This and this confirm the album is going to be released and contains singles but it is not notable at this time. However, considering the album is slated for a January 2013 release, the album may receive more attention as time goes and January is only two months away. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS in all ways. STATic message me! 05:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per SwisterTwister. An individual album article is not warranted at this time, but the title is mentioned in the Guardian article above so it seems like a reasonable enough search term. Gongshow ^Talk 06:30, 15 November 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 Terrace Park, Ohio. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas Episcopal Church (Terrace Park, Ohio)[edit]

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

This is a lovely church, and an important part of the community it is in. However, that does not make it notable to the broader world. The history of the site it is located on is already described in more detail at the article on the village itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 November 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must agree that there seems to be a paucity of online references. One possibility is the Terrace Park Building Survey.[26] Of possible note, this survey comments that "In 1978 when the Ohio History Inventory was made St. Thomas Church was said to be in excellent interior and exterior condition and eligible to be on the National Register." --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, can find no mention that it has been listed by NHRP, which usually does launch a subject into the magic realm of automatic notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see how this passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bearian's test seems to be a fair one: Just because it's an old building, that doesn't make it notable, and there's nothing about its status as a church that does either. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was about to close this as delete and I agree the subject isn't notable, but I'm not sure if a redirect to Terrace Park, Ohio wouldn't be a better outcome. It seems like a plausible search term, it's mentioned in that article and its existence is verifiable. Jenks24 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if the title were "St. Thomas Episcopal Church," but I'm not sure how many people type in parentheticals when they're searching for things. Why not close this and also add a link to Terrace Park, Ohio to the disambiguation page for St. Thomas Episcopal Church?

"St. Thomas" is hardly an uncommon name for a church. If this one is not notable enough for an article I don't see any reason for a redirect or a dab entry. It seems highly unlikely to me that anyone would search for this particular church without already knowing it was in Terrace Park. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you're, I don't know, a middle school student in Terrace Park assigned to write a paper on the church, and, not thinking about how common a name it is, you type in "St. Thomas Episcopal Church" and get sent to the disambiguation page, it would be useful to see included there a link to the article on the town, from which you might be able to cull material for your paper - by which I mean, since you're a middle school student, find a paragraph to copy and paste. My point is, yes anyone searching for this particular church would know it's in Terrace Park, no they might not know that the Terrace Park article is the next-best thing to an article on the church itself. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:47, 22 November 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 Bush tax cuts#Extension of Bush tax cuts. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slurpee Summit[edit]

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

There's no real indication of the importance, especially of the persistent importance, of this meeting. I can't help but think the name is meant to be a cute comparison to the beer summit. Maybe this deserves a sentence or two at United States elections, 2010, but I really don't think there's anything substantial to merge. BDD (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially of interest: the article has been PRODded in the past, and is the creation of an indefinitely blocked user. --BDD (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr, I don't think that it's adequate to make really short articles for every meeting in a legislature. Merge this to the appropriate article, or delete it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not convinced it would pass a stricter interpretation of WP:EVENT but the fact that, as an event, it prompted a subsequent advertising campaign and had an impact on the legislative agenda for that year is enough to me to think it's worth keeping. More coverage here. Not entirely convinced... Stalwart111 04:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bush tax cuts#Extension of Bush tax cuts. The summit is only notable in its political/current events/recent-historical perspective, which is the ongoing dispute over the Bush-era tax cuts. The "Extension" section already references the Slurpee Summit, and addresses all of this article's meaningful content. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ...Delete - not at all notable. There was no press coverage other than a single internet artcle, and that was clearly "filler material". No redirect is necessary. A mention in the Bush tax cuts#Extension of Bush tax cuts article is all that is needed. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Redirect. Comment from Francophonie&Androphilie was convincing! :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm something of a policy wonk, so normally the fact that I've heard of a term wouldn't count for much in terms of notability, but in this case I heard it on The Daily Show. I could envision someone actually searching for this term, if they'd heard it used in the press coverage at the time. Furthermore, if there's another summit like this, picture the morning show headlines "First there was the Beer Summit, then the Slurpee Summit, now, President Obama's convening a '5-Hour Energy Summit' - and then everyone at home says "What was the Slurpee Summit again?" and looks it up. Point is, there's any number of reasons people might look of this article, and I see no harm in leaving a redirect - it's not like "Slurpee Summit" means anything else. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further - there's a bit more than just one internet article. It was covered by BBC, NBC, CNN and Time Magazine and all called the meeting the "Slurpee Summit". It wasn't just a one-off passing mention in a single article. Stalwart111 03:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you changing your vote to redirect, Stalwart, or just stating a point of fact? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler)

If anything, I suppose my next step would be to drop the Weak from my "vote". As far as I'm concerned, Redirect is the same as Delete, but with a helpful suggestion for the leftover title. More coverage or "more notability" suggests more justfication for keeping it. No one has cited more coverage than when I first looked (so I remain weakly in favour of keeping it) but I disagreed with the claim that there was only once source. Not many, sure. But more than "one". Stalwart111 05:50, 16 November 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Run All Night[edit]

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

Unreferenced and non-notable album. Tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 00:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two reliable sources in the musician's article about the album, from Three Imaginary Girls[27] and The Boston Globe,[28] and possibly another [29] (appears to have editorial oversight, not sure beyond that). Also a review at AllMusic.[30] postdlf (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Boston Globe & allmusic coverage is sufficient. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG; is notable. AllMusic and Boston Globe is fine. TBr and ley 01:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage found is sufficient. --Michig (talk) 07:06, 15 November 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 Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Shore League[edit]

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

No sources provided, and a quick google search does not turn up any reliable sources that I can find. Appears to be a high school sports leauge, which normally does not meet the notability threshhold we require. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 23. Snotbot t • c » 19:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't established my vote yet but Google News and Google News archives provided several results ranging from decades ago and as far as 1915 so this is certainly not a hoax. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association. There doesn't appear to be any notability here and sources are lacking. Maybe this can be salvaged by merging with the MIAA article -- which itself could use some love. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's a source review:
- There's an article in the Boston Globe about the league in 2010.
- A story in Enterprise News about an important game in the league.
- An article about changes in penalties in hockey in the South Shore League, also in the Globe.
- A story in the Patriot Ledger in which a league realignment is discussed and South Shore is described as a "big part of the tradition at Abington"
- An ESPN blog on the league that covers it with some depth.
There are hundreds of articles of this type in the Google News and web results. One issue is that none of these individually represents significant coverage of the league itself in reliable sources per WP:GNG. There's also the fact that this is a high school sports division, and hence isn't inherently as significant as a college or professional league. Nevertheless, I think the presence of these sources in combination demonstrates significant-enough coverage to meet the guidelines. I think the article should be condensed considerably and sourced properly; it's in a poor state at the moment, and it needs a serious review for summary style. There's no need for the article to be more than a concise summary of the league and its constituents. I think part of the resistance to keeping it may be its unwieldy size and poor construction. This can be fixed. --Batard0 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, high school sports league. Also per Batard0's comment that it isn't as significant as even a college league, which I believe itself has a lower status than a professional league. Cloudz 679 13:28, 19 November 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 this article has not been previously deleted I see no need to SALT it. Drop me a note if recreation becomes a problem, though. Jenks24 (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus Worldwide Chauffeured Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Non-notable company that paid for article creation. Article was written by this notorious sock farmer [31] whose various accounts have been blocked over 50 times. Qworty (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Qworty's edits to this article have resulted in a misleading article that does not fully represent whether or not it is notable. I think that anyone reviewing this particular AfD should view this version of the article, which is what it looked like before Qworty removed all of the sources and content. I'll also note that Qworty effectively deleted the article and bypassed Wikipedia protocol when he blanked the article and made it a redirect in this edit. His edit summary, "lack of WP:RS," for that particular and peculiar deletion reflects a lack of sources which was manufactured by the editor. The original article appears to have support from multiple reliable sources. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And it looks like Qworty has used this deletion via redirect tactic on other pages, including the Murray Horwitz article in this edit. This type of editing seems like vigilante editing and does not help the project reach consensus where consensus is needed. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING-->BeyondKneesReach is the blocked paid editor who created both articles, and who created this sock farm [32]. As a blocked editor, he has no right to comment here, so I am going to strike his comments. As to his false allegation, I happily submit my editing on Olympus Worldwide Chauffeured Services for open review [33]. As you can see from my edit summaries, every "source" the paid editor provided was either non-WP:RS, or an outright lie, containing none of the supposed information. This person takes money from his clients, lies to them that he can write deletion-proof articles, and then writes extremely poor articles like this one, with false and unreliable sourcing. He often shows up at AfDs to defend his shoddy work, in a demonstration of bad-faith editing that is hostile to the very integrity of Wikipedia. He should leave Wikipedia for good and give all of his clients refunds. Qworty (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and season to taste - obvious promo-spam relating to a spectacularly non-notable company. Doesn't came anywhere near meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. For the record, I had a look at some of the previous versions ("before Qworty removed all of the sources and content") and it wasn't any better then. Stalwart111 04:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not a blocked editor. I just want the consensus reached here to be based on as much information as possible. To me, the Limousine Digest article that Qworty removed is a WP:RS and people should probably see it, which is why I've provided a link to the old version. I think the short article that Qworty created is maybe appropriate, and I might even be convinced to change my opinion to delete. Either way, the pre-Qworty version is relevant to this discussion. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the magazine itself might be considered a reliable source, I don't think that article is a particular good example. It's not really "significant coverage" of the subject (though I've seen worse), but it might be useful for verifying the fact that the subject won an award. It's not clear who wrote the prose or when (though I would guess that LD01/12 at the bottom presumably means "Limousine Digest, January 2012"). The language is fairly promotional in tone, though that might not be out of the ordinary for an industry-specific publication with a wish to promote all operators generally. It's not particularly convincing as a source for conferring notability, in my opinion. Stalwart111 05:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried to find something out there to save this one, but to no avail. Really the only WP:RS out there is the Inc. mention. I did find a few mentions in trade publications, but most of them just referred back to Inc. The aforementioned Limousine Digest article pretty much states this company has fewer than 30 vehicles. Given that they claim to operate in "450 cities in 65 countries," I find that a bit ... bizarre to say the least. Obviously, they're partnering with other companies through a network. Quite frankly I don't have a problem with paid editing in and of itself, but nevertheless one still needs to be mindful of WP:N and WP:NPOV. It appears to me that this job should have been turned down. Faustus37 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own attempts to find reliable sources yield only the Inc. mention already linked and other references to/rehashes of it. As Faustus37 does, I find some of the claims to notability difficult or impossible to substantiate. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:50, 20 November 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 Reactions to Innocence of Muslims. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Our Prophet[edit]

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

Apart from failing WP:GNG (not a single hit on Google news for this) None of the sources mention a "Love our prophet day" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the article to more common title "Love Prophet Day". --SMS ^Talk 20:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current title is not accurate, the actual/commonly used name is "Ishq-e-Rasool" as can be found in several notable media sources online. Moreover, this was declared a public holiday by the government of Pakistan which makes this a notable event 'Ishq-e-Rasool (pbuh)' day: Government announces holiday on September 21 Mar4d (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mar4d. It is a official and notable holiday, The name should be changed to "Ishq-e-Rasool" instead of deletion. --Farah Desai^Talk 12:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do the sources give in the way of coverage? Would a redirect to Public holidays in Pakistan not make more sense? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reactions to Innocence of Muslims. Other observations (not necessarily directly relevant to AfD): The article doesn't make it clear whether this was a one-time event or is intended to be a yearly observance; adding it to Public holidays in Pakistan is appropriate only if sources confirm it's going to be observed in future years. Also, the article requires extensive cleanup work for NPOV; everyone needs to remember that Wikipedia's style guidelines for Islam-related articles (see MOS:ISLAM), as well as the general demands of WP:NPOV, require us to treat subjects like this in a strictly neutral manner that neither promotes nor denigrates the tenets and personalities of this or any other faith. — Rich wales 06:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Richwales above. There's plenty of coverage in reliable sources around the day, for example here and here and here. But there's absolutely no indication that it's an annual thing, and as such is connected exclusively with Reactions to Innocence of Muslims. Merge and redirect because it does not warrant a separate article under WP:NOTNEWS. --Batard0 (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. TBr and ley 01:36, 15 November 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 (non-admin closure) Speedy delete by Jimfbleak as G5. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XS International[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Non-notable company that paid for article creation. Article was written by this notorious sock farmer [34] whose various accounts have been blocked over 50 times. Qworty (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G5 and G11, surely? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged under G5 since no one else appears to want to contribute (created by a sockpuppet of a banned account). Lukeno94 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been deleted, can someone close this please? Lukeno94 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OSTEM[edit]

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

Nonnotable single-referenced organization, no improvement since tagged August Staszek Lem (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I started my search with the group's full name but found nothing so I added oSTEM and received results here (brief mention for an event), here (president claims they had a two-year hiatus so that is probably to blame for the lack of attention), here (this provides better details such as the founder and another president) and here (this article focuses more with a group president talking about sexuality research and only briefly mentions the group). Although people are becoming more tolerant with the LGBT community, I believe this group is not notable at this time. As I mentioned earlier that their two-year hiatus may be to blame for the lack of attention but, considering nearly all of the news articles are from universities and oSTEM has hosted university meetings, the group is probably more based at universities rather than nationally or internationally known. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social reality[edit]

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

This article and it's contents seem to be all contained already in the article Social constructionism. Therefore it should be either deleted or merged (if there is anything to merge).88.114.154.216 (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above nomination was made at Talk:Social reality after the IP editor tagged the article for AfD, and I have copied it here. As it appears to be in good faith, I am completing the nomination process on the IP editor's behalf. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a notable concept, and separate from social constructionism. Social reality is socially constructed, that doesn't mean they are the same (one answers what, the other - how). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social constructionism88.114.154.216 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect The concept is a special unique concept, as stated above, but the article that exists currently reads more as a description of social constructionism. Could it be simply explained in the main article. This is also consistent with what was done with the article Socially constructed reality. 128.214.69.84 (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging of an unreferenced stub in 2005 is not the same as merging of this developed and referenced article today. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The concept and topic is distinct from Social constructionism, it is a central concept for example in the philosophy of John Searle.138.16.108.223 (talk) 17:12, 6 November 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corn cheese (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable concept per WP:NOTABLE and WP:GNG. TBr and ley 01:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I think that this is very notable and well documented. There have been a number of magazine articles and newsfiller-type things. I know it's in a few textbooks. it should be kept and obviously improved. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:14, 16 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Beckett (actor)[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER or the general WP:N guidelines, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. I performed a good faith search but, as this is a rather common name, I will happily withdraw if the sources are out there and I was too thick to spot them. Canadian Paul 15:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Around 20 appearances on his IMDB entry, including a number of significant programmes. PatGallacher (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite various minor roles in TV and films this actor does not meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 01:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. TBr and ley 01:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor roles and no coverage in WP:RS of said roles; not enough to warrant an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:57, 16 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Stachowski (linguist)[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The only reference for this BLP is a meager, self-published (?) web page. - Mr X 00:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marek Stachowski is a well-known researcher in his field, and several of his works are widely cited (his "Dolganischer Wortschatz" is cited 30 times on Google scholar, and he has in total 250 citations, which is more than many scholars who already have a Wikipedia entry. Phonology (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least add a list of his works to his article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep (changed after subsequent comments with weblinks). The only ext. link in this stub leads to a wacky place that does not support Internet Explorer at all. How provincial is that! Poeticbent talk 17:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "wacky place" is Professor Stachowski's home page, which appears to be written in HTML5. I've never seen the availability of external links discussed as a requirement for inclusion, though. Cnilep (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know exactly what content of that unavailable page is unless you created it yourself. And don't label me with WP:PRETTY because I'm talking here about the lack of reliable sources, which is a lot more serious. Poeticbent talk 08:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The web page works just fine using Firefox; as your comment says, it does not work in Internet Explorer. Apparently HTML5 works in IE9 but not earlier versions. Since there is a reference section (albeit a pretty thin one), external links are ~~not~~ no longer crucial for reliable sources. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, prof. dr hab. Marek Stachowski himself does everything in his power to make himself invisible. There's no picture and not a single word of intro at his own faculty listing webpage. No date of birth. No academic background. No bio. Please help him disapear from Wikipedia. He is a very private person. Poeticbent talk 14:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but we do not censor the web, for good or bad. If he is notable, he stays. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep—Google Scholar returns 433 hits; about half of these appear to be papers by or citing Stachowski. This is slightly complicated by the apparent existence of another Marek Stachowski, a musician. I'll try a search in Web of Science or other journal indices when I get back to the office, but for now it looks like he may pass WP:PROF. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found 26 sources by Professor Stachowski in MLA International Bib, but only 9 in Web of Knowledge. I put the latter down to spotty coverage in the database, not any lack of influence by the scholar. By way of comparison, WoK found only 5 hits for Walt Wolfram, compared to over a hundred in MLA. Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see he is the editor-in-chief (possibly the only editor) of the journal Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia. Does this journal count as "major" and "well-established" per WP:PROF #8? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Editorship of a major well-established academic journal does satisfy notability for academics. Apparently (though, I gather, unofficially) "notable per WP standards" is often taken to imply "major well-established" journal in AfD discussions of scholars. But see Talk:Jagiellonian University#Proposal to merge Studia etymologica cracoviensia here for disagreement on the journal's notability. Cnilep (talk) 07:34, 28 October 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, Wifione ^Message 02:39, 1 November 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) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Professor Stachowski has a long academic publishing history, but on Google Scholar I'm not seeing the citation rates that would indicate a pass of WP:PROF #1. Nearly all the cites are in the single figures, with a few papers that rise above ten citations. The highest one I saw had 31 citations (the Dolganischer Wortschatz), and the next highest had 17. (I'm not including the 95 citations for The Turkic Languages because Stachowski was only one of several contributors.) From WP:PROF: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." I also don't think that the journal Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia qualifies as a "major well-established academic journal" judging from the discussion above, so I don't think WP:PROF #8 applies. I can't find any other criteria of WP:PROF that Professor Stachowski might pass, and I can't find any reliable sources to count towards WP:BASIC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find evidence that his journal is a major one of the type that would pass WP:PROF#C8, or that he passes any other WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He is an author of a number of books ([35]), I believe this means he passes notability requirements for published academics. Whether the books have had significant impact, I am not sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:39, 19 November 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 Party of the European Left. Spinning Spark 20:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athens Declaration of the European Left[edit]

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

Page serves only as link to wikisource. Everything is covered by Party of the European Left page and link to wikisource is there too. Magioladitis (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Party of the European Left. It's a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap.--xanchester (t) 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 1 November 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) 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - agree with the nominator that everything is covered at Party of the European Left and so agree with xanchester that a redirect wouldn't hurt. Stalwart111 04:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bevans Branham[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and references cited so far are local news that only mention him in passing. Bevans branham and Bevans Branham were speedied three times as spam on 5/6 Oct., and this less spammy re-write by the same author isn't asserting notability. Darth Sitges (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Darth Sitges (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Darth Sitges (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a promotional page with no independent sources to back up the only tenuous claim to notability. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that the subject meets criteria for notability for two reasons. One, according to the notability guidlines the subject has to have, "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is met based on the sources cited in the article. Two, Branham's involvement with the San Jose (which is bolstered by this stock certificate and article) might be his most notable achievement, but it is not his only one meaning that the article should not be merged under Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. I make this claim due to the fact that most of the articles about Branham are in regard to his restaurants. TrevorElwell (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A scan of a "stock certificate" (which may or may not be genuine) and a comment on a blog post by the same person are hardly reliable sources. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better way for me to confirm the veracity of a legal document that exists in physical form and is, in fact, genuine?TrevorElwell (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two shares in someone else's name = major funder? Even if genuine it doesn't cut it. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His full name, "William Evans Branham", is in the first sentence of the article does match up with the name on the certificate which is "William E. Branham II" albeit with an abbreviated middle initial and his suffix. I will not argue that two shares might not be that much, but I will make the following two arguments. One: we are both unaware of how many shares in total there are- it could be 4, it could be 20000. Therefore my second argument: an acceptable compromise would be to remove the word "major" from the term "major funder" but it is evident and verifiable that he was involved in funding the expedition and is thus, notable.TrevorElwell (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he had any involvement (let alone major involvement) in such an enterprise there would be loads of reliable sources indicating that. All you have given us is self-published sources. His other activities make him no more notable than any other run-of-the-mill businessman. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you guys are the experts, this is my first article and based on this deletion talk page existing it's not going so well. I'm trying to figure out the best way to make this work since when this particular event occurred it was not heavily publicized and the stuff that was publicized was not published online, that's why the information that I've provided is self-republished (they were originally published, I just put them online). I'm not trying to game the system I'm just trying to make this work. TrevorElwell (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to work because he just isn't notable at this stage. That really is the bottom line. The ship and the battle are notable, and they already have pages. Branham is not. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but the current state of the article is in shambles after all of the content was removed. I'd appreciate it if we could reach a decision sooner rather than later. Thank you, TrevorElwell (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD discussions normally run for about a week, but this one has received little input from other editors, so it may be extended by an administrator so some sort of WP:Consensus might be gained. Darth Sitges (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 1 November 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) 17:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please reach a decision on this? TrevorElwell (talk) 19:15, 19 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Rohde Scudday[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The only reliable sources I can find are blurbs about one of her productions and appear restricted to the Dallas area. The mention in the Handbook of Texas is a one-sentence mention. I also do not see notability as an academic. Kinu ^t/_c 06:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:PROF here. Nothing published with Samuel French, Inc.. Can't justify it. Faustus37 (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 2 November 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) 17:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think WP:CREATIVE is the right criterion for this article, rather than WP:PROF. But I can't find any published reviews of her plays that would let her pass it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 17 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surpass hiT[edit]

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

According to Notability standards on Organizations, products should not have their own page unless including them on the main company's page would be problematic. No reason why this particular model of multiplexer is notable enough to be separate from the main Nokia Siemens Networks page. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or summarize and merge to Nokia Siemens Networks. Not notable on its own. - Mr X 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:17, 1 November 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) 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have added a brief mention to Nokia Siemens Networks. Article has no independent sources, notability has not been established and I was unable to establish notability. -—Kvng 21:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:00, 15 November 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 K Koke. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Back (Song)[edit]

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

Lacks notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:NALBUMS, and completely unreferenced. - Mr X 03:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K Koke. The best I could find for the song are these sources, but they are too short to pass as significant coverage; doesn't appear to yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 1 November 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) 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:59, 15 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Arce Torres[edit]

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

Not sure how a hit-and-run victim is notable outside of local press reports. Lots of people are killed daily in these types of accidents. Yes, no-one helped the victim, but does that make this article notable? I don't think so. It's just a standard news report. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:ONEEVENT --UsedEdgesII (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet. MER-C 13:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as sad as this case may be, it doesn't seem to be notable in any way. I have to say I agree with that sockpuppet in that it fails WP:ONEEVENT. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while tragic, as a non-notable event. Coverage appears to be the routine incident→arrest→trial cycle for a crime. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:19, 16 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Daglish[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Does not pass WP:BAND as far as I can tell, although he has appeared on a number of records published by "High Technology Publishing."

Also see related afds:

Bjelleklang - talk 09:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't really explain exactly why he is notable, simply lists the video game music he has created. If this article was kept I'd suggest that this part of the article is improved and expanded. Secondly the article has no reliable secondary references. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ben Daglish is one of the foremost musicians in the world of computer music from the 8 and 16 bit era. Together with Tony Crowther they created some of the most memorable and successful games of their time. MrMarmite (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable secondary sources that have offered significant coverage about him since that type of coverage is necessary to avoid deletion?--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to see any reliable secondary sources about him to support such statements. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources in the Wikiproject VG Library. Article in Games TM and The Games Machine. Retro Gamer source also available. - hahnchen 00:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do these sources provide significant coverage of the Ben Daglish or just passing mention that he worked on the music for video games? --Odie5533 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The former. - hahnchen 02:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I looked at the reference library and the link to the Retro Gamer source. The three articles you mention are actually interviews. As interviews are primary sources, they do not generally support notability which requires secondary sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative ~~keep~~ delete per MrMarmite's notability claim and Hahnchen's sources. I know digging out old sources is usually tough, but I'm assuming these are enough to pass WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that the sources provided are actually interviews, do you still believe three interviews (primary sources) is sufficient to pass WP:GNG? --Odie5533 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I generally consider interviews borderline (primary as in the subject gives the info, yet secondary because it's a publication that conducts the interview and asks questions), so they may push the GNG line. But I still want to see at least one independent source. I'm hoping MrMarmite's claim is backed up somewhere, but I don't think well see a source at this AfD. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per hahnchen - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments made above. No reliable secondary sources offering significant coverage of Daglish were found. Delete per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note A list of Ben's games can be found here. [36] Also refer to Rob Hubbard as another example of a video game audio contributor MrMarmite (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's WP:NOTINHERITED, but that's an impressive list. His arts CV also list quite a few works. Surely, there have to be some secondary sources... — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources shown demonstrate notability. In particular, interviews from reliable secondary sources do confer notability as said publisher is supplying the subject with the coverage in said sources. --MuZemike 01:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm inclined to think that an argument could be made that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability_(musicians)#Others:

1. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.

4. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.

The latter, I think, being particularly applicable. He might not meet notability criteria on the basis of depth of coverage but the few reliable sources that exist verify that he created the works in question and his combined body of work is considered notable. On balance, there's enough there to convince me. Stalwart111 05:01, 15 November 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 . Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth About Love Tour[edit]

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

Without even referring to WP:CRYSTAL which it violates terribly. The only source to the tour is first party information, except for a mention in the first reference. No other notability presented, third-party or otherwise. Presents as factual Wikipedia information which is only a promoter's hope based on procuring venues and dates, and not disappointing ticket holders. :- ) Don 04:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must Keep The sources are good and this page is very helpful to people. Sure the article might need a little improving but should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennySOTOTW:) (talk • contribs) 11:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being helpful or not has never been a reason to keep an article, we keep articles because they have encyclopedic merit, not because they are useful to someone as a guide (WP:NOT#GUIDE. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources seem notable and independent of the sources. The article itself could use improvement, but still should be kept. Vacation9 (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh, you still think it contains "Only first party information"? Please take an actual LOOK at the article. I've made it my duty to not use first party information. The article is an acceptable stub. Not much about it is revealed yet, as it hasn't begun yet. Statυs (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the entire Australian leg has sold out. So it's certainly not a "hope". These are all confirmed dates that are on sale. Statυs (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tours are not inherently notable, something has to make them so. A tour that hasn't even happened cannot be notable. If it turns out after the event to be notable, recreate. Until then, this is advertising and hype. Emeraude (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tours are not inherently notable, but that doesn't care here. This tour has proven to be very notable IMO. And, also, sources out there that are not on the article may help prove the notability of it. Remember that content on the article is not the only thing we have to assess when voting/nominating at AFD. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I found several interesting sources covering the topic [third-party ones]: Midland Daily News [37], Chester Chronicle [38], Billboard [39], Herald Sun [40], PRWeb [41]. I guess this is only a little proof of notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Those are clearly first party sources. Get yourself together Hahc! Learn what third party sources are! They come from Mars! Statυs (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First is a deadlink. This gives 4 paragraph at the end of a list of other news: [42]. This is 4 sentences: [43]. Is [44] a press release? They even include where to buy it. It's a small local newspaper Chester Chronicle, not a great indicator of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: SoundSpike [45], Michigan Live [46], Sky News Australia [47], Popular Critic [48], Herald Online [49], Chicagoist [50]. Just some other sources I found. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More ones. Hispanic Business [51]; PopCrush [52], the very notable Daily Telegraph [53] [54] [55] [56], a brief mention in Pop Justice [57], Yahoo! News [58], Idolator [59]... — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you SERIOUS? How are [60], [61], [62], [63] first party sources? Tell me that and tell me no more. You've yet to respond to that at all. "and not disappointing ticket holders" What is that supposed to mean? Statυs (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these lack any real content beyond what the press release would say. They mostly consist of a list of dates etc and where to buy, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The tour is by a highly notable artist and has been talked about in multiple third party sources mentioned by those above. Ryan Vesey 04:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Highly Notable (weasel} artist does not make a notable tour. Tours are almost never notable... If there are reliable third party sources about the tour, not the artist, why are they not in the article. That is the idea of references. As to the above tags [1] reads 404 error to me. [2] is usable. [3] is usable, but says little. [4] is a press release. (first party) [5] is a press release (first party), the title of the publication tells you that. [6] is second party if not first. [7]-[9] appear to be press releases. So you have two third party sources, neither of which are in the article. Are you going blank this also. Let's not confuse the issue with facts, right? -- :- ) Don 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep it is a highly notable tour about a highly notable artist, and if this goes, then many other tours - for instance Rihanna's Diamonds World Tour will have to go too. Jagoperson (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the existence of this other article is meant to show. If it isn't notable, it should also be deleted, if it's notability can be demonstrated, it should be kept. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. The info could be added to the artist's WP article for now, but I don't like it being a stand alone article when it hasn't even happened yet, I don't care how many good sources it has. But it doesn't really matter what I think, so if it is kept, could I suggest that "upcoming" tour be changed to "planned" or "pending" tour, since there have been numerous examples of artist's pulling out of highly publicized tours at the last minute, whether it be a break down in contract negotiations, health reasons, or otherwise. Ditch ∝ 02:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Emeraude has noted, tours are not inherently notable, and you cannot prove the notability of a tour before it has even occurred. In addition, as Ditch Fisher has said, this violates WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing here that cannot be mentioned in the artist's article. The debate about first-party versus second-party sources is beside the point, all the sources talk about an event in the future. The keep votes above do not cite any policy in support. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. Also lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. The sources listed are mostly trivial and routine concert announcements, or rehashes of the bands own promotional material. The only source that represents substantial coverage is more about the artist, with the concert tour itself relagated to the background. Until there is substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources supporting the fact that the tour is notable, the material here can be presented, in greatly reduced form, in the article on the artist. Wikipedia is not a valid venue for concert announcements or promotion. There's a lot of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES evident in the keep !votes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete/merge. Per DV. Concert dates are added; concert dates are cancelled; such information is best looked for outside the Pedia, for people who are interested. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, there is not that much information pertaining to it, but that is not our fault. P!nk has released very little information on the tour and was still in the process of planning it during the live web chat with her fans in which she confirmed it. But the article should be kept because more information will be available soon and there are articles for all her other tours. Besides, in the live web chat, she does give us some important information - she pretty much tells us "Blow Me", "How Come You're Not Here", and "Beam Me Up" will all be on the setlist for the tour, and she hinted at possible openers. I think the article should be expanded, but I don't think it should be deleted. The above comments stating why it should be kept brought up some good points, too. ---Tsu'tey♫ (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a crystal ball argument; you acknowledge the lack of sources but say the future will show it is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, which pretty much trumps any other concerns about notability. As the tour is not scheduled to start until February 2013, any "coverage" about it now is purely speculative until the tour actually happens. MSJapan (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via WP:CRYSTAL. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 08:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's absolutely no reason why this article should be deleted and articles for other upcoming concert tours such as Warped Tour 2013, Ten: The Hits Tour 2013, Red Tour, One Direction 2013 World Tour, Dreamchaser World Tour, Depeche Mode tour 2013, Diamonds World Tour, and Because We Can - The Tour be kept. MovieBuff74 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some amount of difference between WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and precedence. Ryan Vesey 13:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you saying that a "precedence" exists? Sounds like baloney to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At some level, consensus exists because the act occurs. I was flabbergasted that anyone would want the article deleted because I've found it to be incredibly common to have articles on concert tours before they occur. Ignore my comment if you wish because there's no way I'm going to waste my time looking for examples because I really don't care that much about this article. On the topic of WP:CRYSTAL I again am going off of precedence that concert tours by notable artists are notable. (Note the 5 articles on P!nk tours) If that is indeed the case, the policy doesn't apply because the event is not speculative and the policy doesn't apply to events that are "notable and almost certain to take place". There is no speculation in process because the existence of the tour has been confirmed. Ryan Vesey 16:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is specualtion, confirmed tour or not. Pink could drop dead tomorrow. She could become so embroiled in scandal that all the venues pull out. Now, these would be notable events, but they are just two possibilities that there is still specualtion. Quite simple, it ain't happened until it's happened, and until then WP:CRYSTAl applies most definitely. As does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this tour must be notable for itself, and cannot be justified just because other tours have articles (perhaps they shouldn't). Emeraude (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the tour was in some way cancelled, it would be notable for being cancelled and that would become part of the article. The Olympics could technically be cancelled and the 2018 Winter Olympics wouldn't occur, but that doesn't mean it is WP:CRYSTAL. Ryan Vesey 18:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that argument, the article should not be created until the tour is cancelled!!!! Emeraude (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is no longer speculation. Speculation is if a couple of sources said P!nk might do a tour in 2013. We wouldn't create an article because some people think there might be a tour. In this case, the tour has been confirmed by P!nk. And don't use multiple exclamation points, it's childish. Ryan Vesey 21:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must keep. The whole argument about not writing articles that cover future tours are just ridiculous. Like many before me have written here, look at the Diamonds World Tour. This spring the article about Madonna's MDNA Tour existed although it hadn't started yet. The Nicki Minaj Pink Friday: Reloaded Tour-article existed before the tour started and as mentioned above so does the article One Direction's upcoming tour. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. User:Elste007 22.08, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elste007 (talk • contribs)

No, you haven't made your point at all. You have merely invited other editors to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Emeraude (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions The purpose of this article seems solely for promotion and listing future concert dates. Can someone explain why we would need promotional material listing possible future concert dates, on the encyclopedia, given the pedia's general disregard for promotional material and future events? And please, for this question, focus on this article not others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that the article is not written as it should be. As of now, it is on a very bad shape, but it can be substantially improved with the sources I have found. Not needed material may be removed as unencyclopedic. Also, topics about future things, like tours or sport events are notable if they receive coverage from media. In my opinion, this has. Although, we have to be carefull with which information to add. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What sources have you found and in particular are they about something else besides buy/buying/bought tickets for this future event? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the 15+ sources I have written on my Keep vote above :) There you can see several reliable sources discussing the tour, lineup, australian dates, opening acts, etc. — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Again. Which of those sources represent significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Looking at the links, one sees either promotional (stuff we don't use) or somewhat biographical (stuff that belongs in biography, if anywhere). In general, the coverage (for this topic) does not look significant, nor in good sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It's simply too soon for an article on this. TBr and ley 02:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON applies to articles that aren't verifiable because sources don't exist yet. Ryan Vesey 03:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the case here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is little more than a promotional puff piece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No different to Diamonds World Tour. AARON• ^TALK 14:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not, not really much different. So perhaps you would like to nominate that for deletion a well, just to be logical and to avoid teh trap of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Emeraude (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 16:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–San Marino relations[edit]

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

Non notabily for WP:FOR#Bilateral relations Stigni (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion for procedural reasons. WikiProject-specific guidelines cannot serve as a basis for determining notability (only the WP:N criteria can) and, subsequently, for deletion. (But if objections based on WP:N are brought to light, I'll consider striking my oppose out).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2012; 18:41 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Although the WikiJargon link WP:FOR#Bilateral relations looks impressive at a glance, it is nothing more than a suggestion for members of a WikiProject — not a notability guideline approved by the community. As such, there are no grounds for deletion presented by the nominator in this nomination. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly replaced phrasing at the workgroup so that the link cited by the nominator now reads "Suggested standards." Hopefully this will avert future confusion along these lines... Carrite (talk)

For this article there is the same argument of the Belize-Russia relations, I forget to post also here: it is notable for WP:GNG because article from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the two country doesn't respect the criteria: "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability"; and such article could be considered as primary sources ("written by people who are directly involved"). Stigni (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relations between two european states that engage in a listed number of international organisations is notable. Outback the koala (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE the link to this Afd from the page was broken; editors trying to comment here were unable to do so because of the broken link. I have repaired it now, hopefully more time is given to this Afd to allow for a more complete discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I can't imagine there is much more to add and source. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article doesn't suggest there's much notable about this relationship. In fact, it suggests the opposite: neither country has an ambassador stationed in the other country. (San Marino's ambassador to Russia is based in Vienna, Austria -- more than 1,000 miles from Moscow, and in a country which not only doesn't border Russia, it doesn't even border any country that does border Russia.) On the other hand, San Marino was once the only country on the west side of the iron curtain with a Communist Party in government, so maybe there is more to write about with regard to San Marino's relationship with the Soviet Union. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wikiprojects do not make these determinations. The article is weak, but keep-able. It adds to wikipedia in a positive, albeit a weak, manner. Perhaps it can be improved. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sue Rangell and Carrite. Go Phightins! 03:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition Fight Music[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 64.30.196.253, who attempted to nominate the article for deletion here. Their rationale, as included in the template, is included verbatim below (with the timestamp of the edit noted). On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a mess, no reliable, independent third-party references that give significant coverage as a primary topic to the subject of the article. 64.30.196.253 08:11, 7 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This group's association with UCMMA appears to fulfill WP:NMMA(mixed martial arts notability), plus aspects of WP:ENTERTAINER (parameter #3 large fan base/significant cult following - official YouTube channel has 110,000+ hits) plus WP:BAND, specifically BAND's parameter #10 (performing theme songs since their work is broadcast in the UP and US as part of PPV broadcasts) and #1(interviews not just press releases, etc.). Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD rationale as posted is duplicate of an expired WP:PROD dated June 2011. Article much improved since the initial (June 2011) PROD notice as can be seen from the June 24, 2011 version to the present version. (Also, article had another WP:PROD notice errantly placed on it early this month, it should have been nominated at that time for an AfD instead.) --Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entry is entirely promotional. Lacks objectivity, notability, also sources are not independent or reliable, reliability is especially questionable when coming from interviews and press releases as this would not be a 3rd party. This belongs on the band's website or facebook, but not as a wiki article. 64.30.196.253 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of a Wikipedia guideline against using interviews as sources. Is there a specific rationale regarding the statement that the subject is not notable? Since the AfD tag was placed on the article, unsourced assertions have been removed, many references have been cleaned-up or removed and so on. This is the article's present version, but this is what it looked like when it was nominated for deletion. I am sure there is further improvements that could be made, short of deleting the article.Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this AfD was brought to my attention because I am the article's creator. Since I have stopped working on it, many false statements have been included in this page. To clarify, when I renamed this article to Coalition_Fight_Music, I did not include the AfD text. I don't know what this means as to whether this is first or second nomination, but this explains the confusion. I agree that is promotional and poorly sourced. AwayEnter (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(There really isn't any confusion - as the article's creator, you were automatically notified by the Wikipedia system when the article was nominated for deletion by 64.30.196.253 on 7 November.) I'd be interested in knowing how many of the references are poorly-sourced and exactly which statements are false. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Shearonink (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPROMOTIONAL; sourcing problems. TBr and ley 00:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Promotional Puffpiece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:24, 16 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maiman Mohammed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only passing references in reliable sources. Repeatedly created and deleted at Mohammed Al Maiman [64] Hack (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello, why would you like to delete this article? He is a famous international model. And he has an article in the french wikipeia and in the Arabic wikipedia--Brunoetenna2 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note User:Brunoetenna2 is a banned sockpuppet of User:Taztouzi. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this model does not fulfil the notability requirements to have his article on wiki and must be deleted. On top of the link given by Hack, I can also mention Mohammed al Maiman [65] and Mohammed Al maiman [66]. Udufruduhu (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see the small handful of news hits for Mohammed Al Maiman where he was certainly "Mr France" in the 2010 Mister World contest, but that's pretty much all there is news wise, and his mention on Mister World 2010 is sufficient. There is clearly no precedent of automatic notability for contestants unless they win. (I saw that the runner-up had an article too, but checking, I see he is an athlete so has separate notability.) Plus, the repeated attempts to create an article do nobody any favours. Mabalu (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:ANYBIO. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inchrosil[edit]

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

This appears to be an advertisement for a new product. It is written in promotional language, and multiple sources are listed, but as far as I can tell none of them mention the subject of the article. It may also be original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as non-notable, promotional, original research. This novel technology claims to be inorganic DNA based on silicon which I think is nonsense (at best WP:FRINGE): it certainly is not supported by independent reliable sources. It was supposedly invented in 2006 and as of this morning the only independent references were published in 1974. The references added later today are all generic citations for the terms used in the article such as "chemistry" and "chromosome" and appear to have nothing to do with this subject -- indeed most of them also predate the alleged invention. There are no independent references to this topic in Google Scholar or Google Books. The article has been entirely created by 3ln (talk · contribs) who has edited no other article and whose username is somewhat reminiscent of the name of the company that makes the device, threellop. Deltahedron (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The same user has actually edited two more closely related articles last August, Threellop and Threellop Nanotechnology. Both were speedy deleted as articles about a company that don't indicate its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting -- the latter matches the user name User:3ln even more closely, of course. So a pretty clear history of trying to use Wikipedia to promote this non-notable device. Deltahedron (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- it is not true, inchrosil is a electronic device with different patents and several papers in spanish and english (you can see in references of article). Principal objective of 3ln or llopis siblings (that is login), IT IS NOT A PROMOTION, our objective is to publish this new way in a DNA computing. Because, DNA computing is a new area, exist a lot of information about, but in organic material. Our technology uses all these knowledges but in inorganic material. You can see, for example different techniques of Dr. Leonard Max Adleman (leonard Adleman) or Dr. Amos about new system in DNA computing.

Also, if Kim kardashian (other artist or something, Apple or other company, ipad, etc) have a page in wikipedia, why not inchrosil.......it's a scientific page. what happen??? some people yes, and other no. --3ln (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3ln (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat that what is needed is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is spelled out in detail at that page, but "significant" means more than just a passing mention in a newspaper article or press release; "reliable sources" means sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as peer-reviewed journals and books by established experts; and "independent" means by someone with no vested interest in the subject. So far the subject does not qualify. If it is indeed notable in the broad sense, then sooner or later other people will write about it. On the last point, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists may help with that argument. Deltahedron (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for this reason, the article is not finish, because i'm writing all skills and references about inchrosil, for example, i have not explain core of inchrosil, it is the demostration hamiltonian path problem (version Profesor Adleman with organic DNA) by inorganic material. Please, let me finish the article and remove that ad. --3ln (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is in such an unfinished state that input from other editors can be of no help in writing it, then it should not be in the encyclopaedia at all. It should be moved to user space, for example at User:3ln/Inchrosil. Any article in the main encyclopaedia needs to demonstrate notability of the subject and verify its statements by citing reliable sources. It seems almost certain that User:3ln has a close connection with this subject and a probable conflict of interest. If so, they should ask other editors for a second opinion before attempting to return this material to the main article space. Deltahedron (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why InChroSil page should be deleted? this afternoon i have wrote all independent verification of governments, universities and important research centres about inchrosil. On the other hand, notability!!! MIT and brown university said and wrote both verification reports, where they said that inchrosil is clever and amazing. We have not problem to show these reports. What you propose? delete this page and In future i will create new with same name - Inchrosil - ???. i don't understand, please let me know. Also, it's possible only i will write about hamiltonian path version by inchrosil in this article and it will be finished (only few days). Not exist conflict of interest because, exist a lot of people write article in wikipedia about their scientific work (99.9 %), directly by their hands or by means of co-workers or subordinates in their research groups. it's true....it's more common read bibliographies about one professor of one specific university (and this professor is not important in science), is it conflict interest? in my opinion, Yes, but these pages don't delete.--Jose daniel llopis (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is finished, no more data can be add it, also references or corrections.--Jose daniel llopis (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Why InChroSil page should be deleted? "

Because it shouldn't be kept. It is the author's WP:BURDEN to produce a credible, notable article. If it can't achieve that much, then it should be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about DNA computing. It is about silicon computing, inspired by DNA. Those two things are different. The confusion between them is one of the biggest problems in making this article unreadable, and unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE. Their whitepaper spends 2 pages discussing what type of lab coats they like to wear. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, they are talking about DNA profiling and the materials and services they would like to sell. To describe the lab coats and gloves used in forensic work isn't a fashion statement. It is, however, clearly sef-promotion and I agree with the FRINGE. Deltahedron (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete for being badly written. It is near-impossible to work out just what this thing is. If I've done that correctly, then much of this article is an irrelevance that's only there to give some sort of kudos by association.

The writing is awful. It's clearly hugely promotional in tone for one particular group's innovation. Now it's possible that this innovation is notable and important, but if it is so, it's the author's burden to make a clear, readable article that explains this. If instead they're using WP to promote their development, then we have to find a way through the mire of self-interest, dubious and irrelevant claims. I'm just not prepared to do that for an article this impenetrable.

If I do understand this correctly, the idea is for a new paradigm in small-scale cellular digital logic processors, built out of conventional silicon and inspired by some aspects of genetic behaviour. Such processors and cellular automata have a long and notable history, and have potential applications in a range of fields needing massively parallel processing of certain classes of mathematical problem. This device has an additional factor, in that it appears to be biomimetically inspired. That's an additional valid point of interest. However, such a device becomes a silicon computer, for doing a silicon computer's work. It has no special affinity for "genetic processing" or the storage of DNA profiles. The Uses to Inchrosil section is a gross violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It's also doubtful if such a CPU / memory would ever be commercially advantageous against the brute force of cheap conventional computing. Given the overblown claims being made throughout this, and the poor state of the core of the article otherwise, I'm not in a generous mood towards keeping it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being badly written isn't a reason to delete, although being FRINGE/CRYSTAL is. Deltahedron (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it's so badly written as to make the article unintelligible, to the point where a potential editor can't even tell reliably what the article is claiming, then that's enough reason to get rid of it. The original author might be able to fix it, but the rest of us are stymied by it. We shouldn't delete because a bad article hasn't been fixed yet, but we ought to delete if a bad article can't be fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - That the article has severe COI and self-promotion troubles is obvious. However I'm not sure of the reason given for deletion. My question is: Has anybody looked at the references -the Spanish, first 11 ones? What do we know about their coverage? They could be well enough to pass WP:GNG, but it's hard to tell without looking them. (Also -incidentally- being a fringe theory is not reason for deletion: notable fringe theories are still notable.) --Cyclopia ^talk 00:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not it is promotional article, because today, Threellop don't exist, it is closed, the reason this big crisis, don't exit new ideas. Principal objetive is to explain this new way to compute and share that knowledge with all world, because today, all people use von neumann architecture and this technology use teory of graphs and formal language. DNA computing is new type of computing using different nucloetide of DNA, more research groups use organic DNA and others research groups use mathematicals equations with nucleotides, for this reason it is wrong to use silicon computing, because in this new area exist new ways to solve it.

Exist a lot of machines with use that technology, principally in governments. This technology has several certification by MIT and Brown University.

I'm disappointed with wikipedia, because i thought that wikipedia was other thing (it is more objective and impartial), but that, it is real world, nothing is impartial, it's a pity. Because not all people have open mind for new ideas and somebody don't understand some concept, but it means that concept or theory is FRINGE or not correct. On the other hand, it's possible this article would be delete, but the idea can't delete..... --Jose daniel llopis (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly en:WP is about communicating in English. If an article can't achieve that, it doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English is not a problem in this article, i think so, it's other thing, i can read before. On the other hand, WP is multilingual, this a goal in this encyclopedia. No only in English, Spanish or other language.--89.240.240.223 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia is multilingual, but this is the English language Wikipedia. If the language skills aren't adequate (and believe me, they're not), then an article doesn't belong here. es:Inchrosil would be a better home for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No delete: I think all article is written in english, scientific english, but finally in English. On the other hand, your words about "it is better in es:inchrosil", sound very bad, belive me. Because only some references is written in spanish, i said before, rest of article is in English. Rest of comments, i think they are more partial about one editor. This editor is leader to delete this article. In my opinion, I would not like delete this article. Because i think is more interesting for WP. I know this article is very complicate to understand, because mix different scientific areas, biotechnology, electronic and mathematics, but no cause to delete it. --89.240.240.223 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — 89.240.240.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No delete: In reference the question before, i have checked the article of semiconductor times, because i have subscription in this electronic magazine, it is true. My spanish is not very good, but i can read some references in this article, and they seem true. My opinion is don't delete article. --89.240.240.223 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Removed as a repeated !vote from the same IP address[reply]
No delete: Congratulations siblings llopis for that invention, i'm phd at genetics in a genetic research institution at USA. It's interesting the article, because mix different concepts and areas. I'm very suprised and my opinion is NOT DELETE.--Daisy-konovov (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Daisy-konovov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No delete per original: all time, i have used wikipedia in my work, also other tools at internet (google, etc). This morning i have read the article, it's very original and simple the idea. I know it's complex to understand it, as writes Daisy-konovov, the article mix different knowledge and it is a new idea. NO DELETE.--Jonathan Sutherwald (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Jonathan Sutherwald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. To the closing administrator: Please note that (along with the apparent sockpuppet invasion above) the comments signed "3ln" and the comments signed "Jose daniel llopis" earlier are all from the same user account as each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non notable product. - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 19 November 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 Friends of Europe. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's World[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable journal. Lots of unreferenced claims, and no references of note since tagged with {{notability}} in december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 21:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their website claims to have a firmly cemented "reputation as a platform for new thinking and ground-breaking ideas" but the references in the article are primary, and there is a scarcity of 3rd party note of this journal: a comment piece in The Guardian by its editor (link), a brief mention in this book, which is more about its parent organisation. I'm inclined to suggest this should be merged into Friends of Europe but the ongoing relationship - aside from sharing officials - is unclear from the journal's website FAQ (as are topics such as the source of their funding). AllyD (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of claims and name-dropping (but notability is not inherited), but no independent sources at all (ref. 2 is to a blog...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Journals are notoriously difficult to determine notability. Giving this more time to find refs.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 00:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Friends of Europe if others agree that it is a valid target, weak delete otherwise. I can see the journal's articles being quoted a fair number of times, and my impression is that it has indeed built a certain reputation, but the sources to show that are really scarce. The best I could gather are these [67] [68] [69]. It's strange that their website doesn't mention FoE at all, but the connection is stated on the three links above, as well as by the FoE website itself [70] — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 15 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lipsynch Party[edit]

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

If I understand this properly, this was a public access television show that ran for all of two episodes. Very, very few public access shows could be considered notable and I have found nothing whatsoever to indicate that this on would be. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero indication of any notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Not notable at all. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:04, 17 November 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. Spinning Spark 15:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Dennis (California politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Any coverage of him comes not from his business career, but from ~~having the temerity to challenge~~ challenging Nancy Pelosi twice, which makes him nothing more than a paper candidate. She ~~cleaned his clock~~ defeated him both times by the same 85%-15% margin. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable failed politician. We could redirect to the appropriate election, but there are two such: United States House of Representatives elections, 2010#California and United States House of Representatives elections, 2012#California, at both of which he is already mentioned. Or we could redirect to the company he claims to have co-founded, Humanscale, but I could find no independent confirmation of his connection with it. (The article link is to Politifact which is self-supplied information.) Overall I think a simple Delete is the best course. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15% is a score that places Dennis above paper candidate status. Notability is derived from being a Republican having support from Cindy Sheehan and being Anti-War. Can Muboshgu's colloquial `cleaned his clock' be part of a Wikipedia editorial discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I need to redact that, I can. But 15% of the vote is certainly the result a paper candidate would receive. And since when is Cindy Sheehan's endorsement meaningful? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for redacting. This was giving me the impression for a minute you were showing bias in favor of one candidate. 15% is really significant, compared to the percentage obtained by third parties in general, barely reaching 5% so it is quite an achievement in light of the incumbent overwhelming odds. Cindy Sheehan's endorsement is notable because anti-war movement rarely supports Republican candidates so there is some unusual coalition there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a third-party candidate. He was the other major-party candidate, making 15% a rather pathetic showing. In any case, we must not judge according to whether he deserved to be notable, but rather whether he was notable, as measured by the independent reliable-source coverage he received - or didn't receive. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. 15% for the Republican candidate in a general election (or Democratic candidate) is a paltry sum. Meanwhile, his only coverage is about his candidacy, which means he fails WP:POLITICIAN, and there isn't enough about him to pass WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has coverage in NYT, SFChronicle, SFWeekly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there has been coverage, but as Mubosgu pointed out, all of it is about his candidacy. He is not notable for anything except his "quixotic" (a favorite media word) campaigns. He wouldn't get any coverage at all except that his opponent is so high-profile. Her notability doesn't rub off on him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit now that quixotic returns even more hits on Dennis and Cindy Sheehan (16% against Pelosi in 2008). So MSM labels citizens quixotic when they go against an entrenched incumbent or are anti War/Patriot Act. That is sad but at least, one can hear about them since Wikipedia will snuff that information out if it does not fit the classic republican/democrat worldview. I'll know to look at Wikipedia for information on inanimate things but not on anything else where you can continue to play your little prima donna roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - mostly because it's okay to be a notable failure. I don't think he's a paper candidate, as suggested above, in fact there is at least one source that plainly contends he was not. His campaign received coverage, like this, this and this, though admittedly in relation to other people and other things where the subject is an "also" mention or one of a number of examples given. I don't think this is really a matter of the subject inheriting notability from his opponent - he was endorsed in his own right by politicians like Ron Paul and his candidacy (though mentioned with reference to his opponent) is covered in its own right. The only question, then, is whether a campaign (or two) counts as "1E" for the purposes of WP:BLP1E. I don't think it does, but... I'm not about to die in a ditch over it. Stalwart111 05:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Roll Call doesn't contend he wasn't a paper candidate, it says his campaign was aiming to portray him as a legitimate candidate, which his 15% of the vote shows wasn't the case. All of those sources are about his campaign and not about him as a person. In fact that Roll Call article makes a great case for WP:INHERIT because the premise was about candidates who were challenging House leaders, and goes on to mention Wayne Powell, another paper candidate who only received coverage for challenging Eric Cantor. And then it goes on to talk about Terry Phillips and Tony O'Donnell, who actually are notable for their own careers outside of their longshot candidacies against Kevin McCarthy and Steny Hoyer respectively. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Muboshgu, you aren't helping your cause here by continuing to repeat "paper candidate". He WAS a legitimate candidate, because he was the candidate of one of the two major parties. The commonly used term used for people like him - who undertake longshot/hopeless runs against apparently unbeatable opponents - is "sacrificial lamb". In any case, none of these semantics matter. What matters is whether he is notable under Wikipedia criteria. Since all of his press coverage was about the campaign - and was more about Pelosi than about him - and since he appears not to have been notable for anything else, I contend that he is not notable and his article should be deleted. Others may interpret his press coverage differently. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would've used the term "sacrificial lamb", but it's wikipage directs to "paper candidate" for this usage. It doesn't matter that he was nominated by one of the two major parties. Many House districts are so severely gerrymandered that one of the two major parties simply can't realistically compete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The wikipedia article Paper candidate says "The paper candidates themselves do no campaigning and neither incur nor claim any expenses.". That was not the case with this guy; he did campaign. (BTW and FYI, gerrymandering in California was eliminated by a new, non-political system of drawing districts - which is why seven incumbents lost in the recent election. Pelosi wins so overwhelmingly because she represents San Francisco - and because no candidate with a legitimate chance cares to challenge her.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Good point. Dennis certainly did campaign for himself, and you're right about the non-partisan redistricting in CA, which doesn't exist in most states. Perhaps sacrificial lamb (politics) should be a separate article from paper candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably not a bad idea. Perhaps those involved here should thereafter work together on a new article. You've both basically covered my original point and my disagreement with the term "paper candidate". But you're both right - it doesn't really matter because neither of those terms is used in relation to WP:N. I still think his (marginal perhaps) notability is not a matter of WP:INHERIT but my opinion above was weak for a reason - it's not the most valuable article on WP, but there's enough (for me) coverage to establish WP:N and justify an article. Stalwart111 20:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Whatever this guy thought he was doing, he passes WP:POLITICIAN criteria by hitting the 15% level. If his campaign was a just a protest or whatever, it was clearly a notable one. I don't really know. But obviously this guy was the republican choice to go up against Pelosi (to crash and burn). A little research will show that 15% is about the expected number when one "sacreficial lamb" is placed up against a giant of the opposite party. This holds true for both parties in entrenched areas. Obviously he's not a paper candidate, therefore he's a legit candidate. The article should stand.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN for that very reason - Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability - so he then needs to pass WP:GNG. Unless I've missed something about WP:POLITICIAN and "15%"? Stalwart111 04:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that Democrats in Republican entrenched areas, and Republicans in Democrat entrenched areas pretty much score the same across the board. That 15% figure is pretty typical. I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss somebody simply because they failed (badly) in an election. It was an important election, and he was the Republican candidate. This is for a major national office. If the Republican candidate for President had been a complete unknown, if all things in this article were the same except that it was a presidential election, would we be having this discussion? It is true that simply being a politician does not guarantee notability, and I think that applies 100% to elections for local city councils, judges, county supervisors, etc. I do not think it applies (in this way) to any of the three main branches of the United States Governemnt. If you would not apply this rule in this manner to the Presidency, then it should not be applied in this way to the House or Senate.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I mostly agree with your assessment, WP:POLITICIAN is non-US-centric and has to be - this is enWP not USWP. Don't forget that the same rules have to be applied to my country (Australia) as well as all other candidates in all other elections. As a result, if we added "candidature for national office" we would end up with every failed candidate in every other country. Trust me, some of the candidates who run for national office here would be entirely non-notable - voting here is compulsory so major party candidates can get 30-40% of the vote (by default) without running a campaign.. That's why the fall-back (as always) is WP:GNG - where a failed candidate is considered notable enough in his/her own right then there should be an article for that person. While 15% might be "typical" in the US, adding it as a threshold criteria would open the floodgates everywhere else. Stalwart111 21:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this argument before - "major party candidates for Congress should automatically be considered notable" - but it has never gained consensus. That leaves us with the automatic inclusions specified in WP:POLITICIAN (namely, that the person actually held national or state/provincial/equivalent office), and failing that, with the requirements of GNG. GNG is the only criterion that applies in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally not remarkable. How can a "nominee" "who ran for and lost the race .. of California in 2010. On June 8, 2010, ... became the Republican nominee" possibly be notable. Clearly no one other then the page creator is willing to defend this obscure page. It must go. Leng T'che (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brant Hansen[edit]

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

No assertion of notability of subject- most sources on web (not cited in article) appear to be social networks and/or promotional sites. Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hansen is a national, syndicated, award-winning radio show host. I do agree that there is plenty of opportunity for more information and better sources to be added to this article, but there is some information out there outside the social network spectrum. I have added some additional material (including reference to several awards Hansen has won) and some citations to help clean things up a bit. Omgee (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a nationally-syndicated radio host with coverage in reliable third-party sources, crossing the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:16, 15 November 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 Bishop Shanahan High School. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Shanahan Rugby Football Club[edit]

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

This is a non-notable high school rugby team whose article I originally redirected to the high school. The creater of the article reverted the redirect so here we are. Essentially the only coverage provided is either primary or very local. There is an absence of detailed secondary sources from independant reliable sources which means this fails the inclusion threashold. I'm asking AFD to mandate a redirect and selective merge rather than outright deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is incredibly detailed in comparison to other rugby union clubs, especially at the high school level. The club also has a rather large following not only at the school, but also the extensive alumni base that this spread throughout the northeastern United States. The club has also established relations aborad with teams in Scotland, Belgium, Canada, England, France, the Caymans, Portugal and Bermuda.DukeArlington (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with any of that and your attention to detail does you credit but, unfortunately, the point is that none of these are reasons why wikipedia would host an article. Our inclusion standard is quite specific and to keep the article you need to show how the article meets that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect anything sourced and encyclopedic to Bishop Shanahan High School. I see no evidence that this team is notable outside of the scope of the school it represents. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:56, 16 November 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.