Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 September 18 September >

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. -Scottywong| confer _ 20:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season 6B

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Season 6B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable third party sources to WP:verify notability. Previous nomination reached no consensus, but that was based on a mistake. The Discontinuity Guide isn't an independent source, because it's written by a few creators of several Doctor Who series. (Paul Cornell, Martin Day). It's telling that it's basically the same content as published on the official Doctor Who BBC website, which is also insufficiently independent. Again, the WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (and "independent" is further explained at the essay Wikipedia:Independent sources). Shooterwalker (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Isn't this rather a case of "keep nominating till it gets deleted"? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Second Doctor, but no redirect required. Not a notable topic of itself. A single page in the deliberately humorous and personal opinion orientated Discontinuity Guide does not a valid theory make. Or Delete as my compromise positionGraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. Not a notable topic in itself but mentionable in the Second Doctor article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd be against it "polluting" the second doctor article with the current level of poor sourcing. It's also not relevant to any other article as it does not really provide insight into element of production of Doctor Who between 1963-1989. The only place I can think of it being used is somewhere like Doctor Who fandom. Eshlare (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No external sources. Since when did Wikipedia start hosting fan fiction? FurrySings (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree totally with Furrysings. I don't even like the idea of mergin it into the Srcond Doctor article. CAn anyone identify the original source of this interview [1]? 41.133.0.68 (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an essay on the topic in About Time volume 6, by Tat Wood, which I think should count as an independent source. There will be any number of articles covering it in Doctor Who Magazine, too. The Doctor Who fan-industrial complex is rather incestuous: prohibiting people who have written published Doctor Who fiction as sources for non-fiction would have implications. Morwen - Talk 19:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. But if "merge" then merge into The Discontinuity Guide article rather than the Second Doctor article. Oh, and the About Time essay is basically poking fun at "Season 6B"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.16.211 (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In brief answer to a question just a bit above, "fanzines/fan fiction" can't really be called third-party, neutral, reliable sources. Hence a lot of resistence to accepting them, blogs, self-registries, interest articles, self-help listings, etc as sourcings. People tend to "identify" or "create" ideas and situations that become self-important, then they try to export those ideas unto others for validity. Plus these "fan-mindset" thinkers seem to crawl out of the woodwork with penpals in hand when their pet projects get queried. Яεñ99 (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and then redirect to Television program#North American usage. The AfD nominated article notes, "Season 6B is a theory related to the long-running British science fiction television series Doctor Who to solve some continuity problems within the classic series." There is no WP:GNG source materials to support that or any other thing written about the topic in Wikipedia, so there is nothing to merge. Instead, season 6B is a term of art used in the television industry. In the March 25, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article entitled, "Vacation's Over; 'the Sopranos' Returning for One Last Shot,"[2] they note "The last nine episodes will be part of what is being called either "Season 6, Part 2" or "Season 6B," depending on which page of www.hbo.com you consult." In the June 24, 2011 Anniston Star article entitled, "Pop Cultured: When summer and the Braves get you down, just flip around, they note "Futurama is splitting its seasons similar to how South Park does, doing half a season at a time, so this is season 6B for them." Delete and then redirect to Television program#North American usage. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TL;DR. AfD is for deciding whether an article stays or goes, not for whatever happened on this page. Would recommend starting a new AfD with that in mind. -Scottywong| chat _ 20:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gligor Zisov

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

I didn`t find any source on the internet (Google Books, website etc ) about this person and I don`t think that this person is notable according to the policy for people here in english wikipedia. It`s an article with many problems (POV, verification of citations, strusture etc.) Vagrand (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is part from the book published online by the publishing house Изток - Запад. Jingiby (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Bulgarian. Could you please verify the year of this event descripted by person. II think that the year is wrong cause the village was destroyed on 1903, after the Illiden uprising, by the Ottoman army. Another fact is that Kastoria was liberared from the Τurkish authorities on November 1912. The presence of the Greek army this year does not seems right, when the front at the 2nd Balkan War was in Eastern Macedonia.Vagrand (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably there was garrison as in every other village, same as greek troops in city of Kastoria, Thessaloniki, on islands or elsewhere. So works every army in case of military occupation. Do you need source the Wehrmacht dispached troops in Aegean Macedonia or Thessaly during World War II, no matter they fought on Eastern front, Northern Africa, Western Europe, etc.? I don't see anything wrong with the article and i will vote with "no" for it's deletion. --Подпоручикъ (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can not. There is only the beginning of the book. The cited in the article pages are not included. Jingiby (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were Greek troops in this part of Macedonia during the Second Balkan War. Just one example - in July 1913 the Bulgarian revolutionary Vasil Chekalarov was killed by Greek troops (and Greek andartes, too) near Drosopigi, Florina (Bel Kamen).--AKeckarov (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drosopigi and Polykeraso are not in the same side of the mountain of Verno (Vitsi). The article still can not fulfill the criteria of the encyclopaedia of life and the text lacks references attesting to the biography and the historical events that took place. And we still don`t know any other fact about his death, why he was send to Zagoritsani, why the other 8 persons are not mentionned anywhere, the month of the execution and the most significant WHY this person is significant.--Vagrand (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd Balkan War started on 16 June 1913. According to the article, Gligor Zisov was killed in the period between the two balkan wars.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article Zisov was beaten by Greek soldiers In May 1913 "on the eve of the Second Balkan War". It is said that "soon after" he was arrested and killed, but there isn't a date or some other benchmark - before or after 16 June. How do you know when he was killed? Are you have any further information?--AKeckarov (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You questioned the presence of Greek troops, pointing out that the Greek troops at that time were in Eastern Macedonia. I answered: "Not only in Eastern Macedonia (in Western too)" and prove it. (I can add more arguments for that).
The article referred to a serious source: a book by a recognized professor, a specialist in this region. In this book, Professor Shklifov used one of the approved methods of modern research: interviews. More than one of his informants confirmed the facts about the teacher Zisov. It is true that it is better to add more sources, but it does not make the information false.
Which "other 8 persons"?--AKeckarov (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perchaps it`s my fault. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources:
  • On the article now, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (WP:Identifying reliable sources#Overview)
  • Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable sources)
  • Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper)) [The book was published after the death of the author Blagoy Shklifov who died in 2003. The book is published (?) in 2011. I think his works are not accepted by the most historian or scholars of balkan studies.]
  • As for his father, *Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves (the bold is not mine), especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves)
  • Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources)
  • Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Quotations)
  • The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.(..)Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Academic consensus)
  • The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Usage by other sources)
  • Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.(WP:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable)
As for the POV issues of the article:
    • Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views.(WP:POV#Explanation of the neutral point of view)
    • Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity.(WP:POV#Explanation of the neutral point of view)
    • Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.(WP:POV#Explanation of the neutral point of view)
    • Thinking of quotations: The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. (WP:POV#Article structure)
As for the accessibility of sources
      • When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.(..)Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.(WP:Accuracy#Accessibility) [Note:Sources must be translated in English, keeping in parenthensis the original title and the publisher)].
      • challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest.(WP:Accuracy#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources)
Οther thoughts:
        • His father was from Aposkepos and lived their. But he did not witness the events. (The fathers author is one of the interviewrs). They are many accurancy issues (see version [4] before it was changed without providing sources) about if he was a schoolmaster (when he was the only teacher), if he was born in the city of Kastoria or not, the reason why he was arrested in the end, if all facts are real when their is not other sources about the burning of the village in 1913 (, the beating of the Bulgarian school teacher, the presence of the Greek army in the village, and the killing of residents of Zagoritsani including Gligor Zisov. The second quotation arw POV as the beating of the teacher could discribed in one phrase. The part I watched all this, wondering if a mother could have possibly birthed such animals. is an example of it. There are σομε things that I cannot understand such as why a teacher of Bulgarian language who didn`t educated or studied in Greek (?) was forced to teach in Greek, why he said that Greece and Bulgarian were allies when their was war among them (2nd Balkan War), why he was not executed (;) in first place, why he executed in the end and why, why he was sended to Zagoritsani, if the Greek soldiers had orders to torture Bulgarian teachers if they refuses to teach Greek or to execute civilians in Zagoritsani and the most significant, why he was send back to Polykeraso to teach in the school as an example.
--Vagrand (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the fault is mine, because I didn't show you previously that I am familiar with this policy. Then you could avoid part of these quotes - some of them are pointed even twice. There is a term "Primary source" in Wikipedia. Primary sources are permitted (“primary sources are permitted if used carefully”). We have here a primary source used by scientist, specialist of this region. Of course, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". So, if you find "interpretive claims" etc. you are free to mark them in the text and discuss. It is always better to find more sources and to point not only the facts, but also to improve the interpretations.
  • If you suggest that we have here "poor reputation" of the source etc., you should prove it. Also, if you suggest that these sources are extremist (or even widely acknowledged as extremist?!?), you should prove it. Of course, then you will need to discuss whether Carnegie endowment for international peace. Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan wars, Published by the Endowment Washington, D.C. 1914 is "extremist" too. (There are facts there about many atrocities of the Greek army on the eve of and during Second Balkan war. They have been identified by an international committee with representatives of the contemporaneous Great Powers.)
  • What that means: “I think his works are not accepted by the most historian or scholars of balkan studies.” You think so? And which scholar?
  • I don’t understand this: "As for his father, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ..., especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources…” Which father? Do you remember my words that this Wikipedia article is based on the on the interviews of more than one contemporary?
  • You are right here – “Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject”. Let's see what are your suggestions for improving phrases. Or maybe you can propose some different view for this person and his life?
  • Regarding this “When quoting a source in a different language” – We have three times quoting the source. In two of them the quotes themselves are in English. I'll try to improve this gradually.
  • Which “many accurancy issues”? How of them do you try to improve? Or maybe you just not like this article because of other reasons ?
Please dont be irritable. I dont access the book and I dont understand phrases of it, like how his was a schoolmaster in a one-teacher school, why the first editoer mentionned as place of birth the city of Kasroria, why he cooporatited at first with the authorities and then was exexuted, was he was at first sended to Thessaloniki (ie. report) but then in the village of Zagoritsani sth probably happened and he was executed, why he was simply beated and not arrested or jailed if was a member of the Bulgarian agent, why they didn't execute him at first but after, who said that he was Bulgarian and not Slavophone, Macedonian Greek or what ever, if the bodies of militia had orders for these events etc. I cant edit an article if I dont have access to the book or the text has many open issues.--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not irritable. I just don't understand why do you writing things that have never been included in the article. Let's start one by one. Where the first why the first editor mentioned as place of birth the city of Kasroria? His/her first edition was Zisov was born in the village of Aposkep. If you are claiming otherwise, please give a link.--AKeckarov (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, be more accurate about some facts:
    • Where did was written in the article, that he was born in the town of Kastoria?
To begin with, the first author of this article, had a internal link to the city of Kastoria [5] and his name was added from him in the city`s article [6]. So the fist writter how had access to the book considered his place of birth the city of Kastoria.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the first author had put wrong internal link in the article, but there wasn't assertion in this article that Zisov was born in the town of Kastoria. The incorrect link was put for the region where he was a teacher. We are talking only about wrong link (and incorrect term for Kastoria region - it was in Bulgarian "Kostursko"), not for assertion that he Zisov born in Kastoria.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above you wrote about some "other 8 persons"? I asked you “Which other 8 persons"? I see no response.
I answered that. See in my first line.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Vagrand, I can not find the answer about these 8 persons. Can you help me?--AKeckarov (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Perchaps it`s my fault.".Period. Search this phrase with Ctrl + F.--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still cant not find the answer why 8 persons?--AKeckarov (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What burning of the village in 1913?
It was mentionned by a user in the Bulgarian wiki. I sould not mention it here.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Maybe it's better not to mix the two debates or when we quote something from the another debate, to indicate it.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ι agree with this. The village was burned in 1904 for the first time for Makedonomahoi and for the second time in 1946 (Greek Civil War).[7] Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can not explain certain facts, please ask. I’ll explain what I can, but if we can't understand something that does not make the information in the article false. So:
    • You wrote: “ … why a teacher of Bulgarian language who didn`t educated or studied in Greek (?) was forced to teach in Greek”. I will not go into an explanation of educational struggle between Greeks and Bulgarians in Macedonia, but I will offer you one possible explanation - it is on page 44 of the book, where, describing Zisov conversation with the Greeks, is pointed that he knew Greek.
This is only an ypothesis, no source says that he know well Greek, that he was able to teach this language, then it was katharevousa, more difficult Greek and almost all greek teachers were educated in Athens.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to raise hypotheses, the problem is that these hypotheses are intended to image the information in the article as false. So, the information isn't false - we have a source that this teacher from Aposkep knew Greek. (By the way, off the topic - Can I ask do you have some statistics what percentage of the Greek educational staff in Macedonia was educated in Athens? We have some examples for the contrary.)--AKeckarov (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Its a difficult period for my to find sources. But I know many examples of Greek teachers, like Konstantinos Tsioulkas, who educated in Athens primarily and Constantinople with scholarships). Where is that source that he knew Greek?--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that there were many Greek teachers educated in Athens. I mentioned above the source about Zisov's knowledge of Greek and the page.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wrote: “why he said that Greece and Bulgarian were allies when their was war among them?”. I have to ask you, did you read the article that you criticize. It is clearly written: “… on the eve of the Second Balkan War”, i.e. before the formal dissolution of the Balkan Alliance.
Their was not a formal dissolution of the Balkan Alliance, the alliance broke up with the unexpected attack of the Bulgarian army. As for the "alliance" before the start of the 2nd war, bulgarian rebels was entered in Greek Macedonia.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said exactly this. The formal dissolution was later, in June 16th, so it is logical that in May 1913 Zisov refers on Allied Relationships between 2 nations.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can to countries, after a war, be allies, when guerillas were formed?--Vagrand (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two countries were allies until June 16th 1913. There were repression against the alien population, even armed conflicts (at Angista (bg:Бой при Ангиста)) in May 1913 etc), but until June 16 the two countries were allies.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wrote “…the most significant, why he was send why he was send back to Polykeraso to teach in the school as an example. Who state that he was send back to Polykeraso to teach in the school?--AKeckarov (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None. The phrase says that he was sended (from the Greek army?) back to Polykeraso. To do what there; Why they sended him there and when? Ι dont have access in the book but all seems to unclear to me.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the problem is that you do not have access to this interesting book. He was sent to Chereshnitsa to serve as an example for the locals - edification (εποικοδόμηση I think), intimidation, not to teach anybody.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was send back "to serve as an example." I still dont understant this, its seems unclear. Intimidation in Greek meens εκφοβισμός, Zisov was send to back to teriffied who? Edification meens διαπαιδαγώγηση, so Zisov was send to back to educate people. What you meen, he cooperated with authorities and after he was executed ??? Pour l'amour de Dieu (Για όνομα του Θεού in French) what happened realy?--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself - to terrify the local residents. He did not cooperated with the new, Greek authorities and and therefore he served as an example of what happens to dissenters. Maybe the word "bound" in the article is not very clear. It is clear from Shklifov's book that his hands were tied and thus he was back in Chereshnica by the autorities.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn`t said for any author that he is an extremist, sorry but you said. (And please don't prejudge people). As I said I think that the author of the book Blagoy Shklifov is not cited in any article of english wikipedia or Google Books ([8] [9]) for the general aspects of slavic speakers in Macedonia or the history of the area. In my opinion (that is not part of the discussion because is my personal thought and cannot be used as an argument in wikipedia, when we speak only whith arguments based on the policy), an historian in the end of 20th centunry when he says that all slavic speakers (absolutist view ?) of the region nowdays are Bulgarians and modern Macedonian [sic] language is a Bulgarian dialect, those are not seems accurate for me who I grown up in this area and I read some books about the history of Macedonia.--Vagrand (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not say anywhere that the author is an extremist, then, in what context you put these long quotations above for "sources .... widely acknowledged as extremist"? Maybe I should not comment them? I think if we start to express our personal opinion so extensively, there will be no a big progress i this conversation.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I told clearly that is my personal opinion and that's it, I kept the layout clear.--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your personal opinion. --AKeckarov (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For those how can read Greek or Bulgarian, (for Greek the translation of Bulgarian wiki in this blog [10], for the text in the bulgarian wiki bg:Черешница (дем Костур)) the teacher of Polykerasos was Vasilef Traptsef and the name of Gligor Zisov is not mentionned.--Vagrand (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is another mistake: It is pointed clearly that Kuzman Vasilev Traptsef was a member of Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Volunteer Corps, killed in March 1913. Not teacher. How long will we continue with this kind of "arguments"? --AKeckarov (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the name, my false, other person. "Αυτοί είναι ο Αριστιντ Νταμιάνοφ, Βούλγαρος παιδαγωγός.." "(Menbers) were Aristid Damianof (could be translitered in Greek as Aristides Damianos), Bulgarian educator..."--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The important here is to know that after the Ilinden Uprising Aristide Damyanov (bg:Аристид Дамянов)) emigrated to Bulgaria. At the outbreak of the First Balkan War he was in Bulgaria and joined as a volunteer in the Macedonian-Adrianople volunteers. I.e. he was not in Chereshnitsa and teaching position was vacant.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

All the evidence that we have so far is that there was a Greek military section in the village. We have also some oral testimonies about the beating of the teacher (which is original research by the author of the book), and there is no information about his death that can be verified from other sources. He is not an historical figure because he was a victim (witch is not verified from other sources) as some other who where killed in accrosities of all parts (Greek-Bulgarian-Muslim, accordind to the Report of the International Commission), and nothing something more. He is simly a case of Non-notable.

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
  • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.(WP:Notability (people)#Basic criteria)

Ref [4]: Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject.(Ref.4, WP:Notability (people))

I think is clear to all of as that this person (Gligor Zisov) was not a notable figure. Gligor Zisov was not mentionned anywhere (Глигор Зисов Глигор Зисов Gligor Zisov Zisov Gligor)The are not in the internet or Goolge Books reference [11] any other reference besides the book of Blagoy Shklifov (Благой Шклифов), witch AKeckarov told that he has access to it.--Vagrand (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither in the University of Montreal (Université de Montréal) database where I can access to many online puplications.--Vagrand (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Zisos (Γρηγόριος Ζήσου ή Γρηγόριος Ζήσωφ) if we could ascribe his name in Greek, is not encyclopedic (notable) because he was killed by Greek soldiers, but because there are no sources that mention him as a person who participate in an event and because of this is notable. A injustice death of a person do not make him notable.--Vagrand (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What that means: "which is original research by the author of the book"? The author of the book (who uses this interviews) was a professor, academic scientist who had worked in Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, University of Szeged (Hungary), Sofia University etc.
Regarding the place of the teachers in Macedonia in the beginning of XX century, there is a MA thesis by Julian Allan Brooks with the significant title "Shoot the Teacher!" Education and the Roots of the Macedonian Struggle" ([summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/10178/etd1944.pdf]). The place of teachers in uneducated peasant part of Macedonia is not the same with the place of the teachers in contemporary England, France etc. As Julian Allan Brooks state "In the villages of Macedonia the teacher was all there was for an intelligentsia. Thus the teacher symbolized the modernity of peasants cherished..." (p.175). "Teachers were the sole intelligentsia in many places" (p. 9, note 12)... You can read there that the role of these teachers is significant not only from the POV of the education and culture, but from POV of the policy, clerical situation etc. As many other teachers Zisov was a was a leader of the residents of Chereshnitsa and the fact that you can not find additional information about him do not make the information untrustworthy.--AKeckarov (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can a linguistic make a research about the slavic language of the Kastoria (Kostour) area without knowing a single word in Greek ? [12]And to answer what you stated, I should remind you the influence of Catholic Church in many countries, like France, till the late 1960s. Teachers were affiliated and educated from the church. Should we make an article for all of them ? --Vagrand (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand how do you know that Shklifov did not knew a "single word in Greek"?!? I can argue, but here more important is that he made many Slavic researches, not researches for the Greek language itself.
Regarding the other argument, we can not compare in this way the level of education and especially the society role of the teachers in the country of "citoyen" - France in the twentieth century (and even earlier) and the situation in uneducated, peasant part of Macedonia - haunted by transnational and religious feuds. Please, read the work by Julian Allan Brooks pointed above. Of course, there are other sources, too.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up, what according to the policy (notability of people) makes him notable? And after please vote, above the comments, because is the 7th day today.--Vagrand (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that I explained my position. Of course, Gligor Zisov was not some greatest person, but he was a leader for this village in Macedonia at a time of great changes and tests. As many other educationists in comparable position - whether they were Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Aromanians or others. As I pointed, one position in different eras and geographical regions have different weight.--AKeckarov (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Of course, the article needs significant improvements.--AKeckarov (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
Greek army presence in Tseresnitsa (Polykeraso) and general mention about killing teachers and priests in Kastoria (Kesrie) Area
[edit]

Some days after Mr. Venizelos's declaration, the heir, Prince Constantine, became King of Greece (March 6/19). The effects of this change made themselves felt on the relations between the Greeks in occupation and the indigenous population. We may begin our examination of these relations with Castoria. From the beginning of the occupation, the authorities there pretended to ignore the very existence of the Bulgarian population... The Bulgarians were not "Christians" in "our sense." The Greek bishop of Castoria received the deputations sent to him from all the villages, and was in fact the center of this active assimilation. The evzones played the part of apostles in this conversion at the bayonet's point. As examples we may cite the villages of Gabreche, Drenoveni, Tchernovitsa, Tourie, Ragoritchani, Dembeni, etc. In the villages of Breznitsa, Gorno and Dolno Nestrame, all the inhabitants were thrown into prison and driven thereby to call themselves Greeks. The reply given to a man who said he was a Bulgarian was : "Wast thou born at Sofia ; there are no Bulgarians in Macedonia; the whole population is Greek."... Victory secured in the villages which were disarmed, then came the turn of the intellectuals, the Bulgarian clergy, schoolmasters and officials. A number of persons whose names and cases are cited in the documents in the possession of the Commission, were arrested, beaten, put in prison and even killed. The Bulgarian Metropolis of Castoria was, at first, ignored by the authorities so far as its legal institution went : then cut off from the population under severe penalties for any communication; and finally, about the beginning of June, formally blockaded by twenty or thirty soldiers and searched by the police... We have also sufficiently complete data on events at Vodena (now called Edessa). Our informant there, as at Castoria, remembers how the Hellenic army entered in triumph on October 18/31, amid cries of joy from the population. Each house harbored ten to twenty soldiers, freely and without asking pay, and the town distributed gratuitously 6,000 okas of bread per day. The time had not come of forced requisitions, without receipt, demanding everything without allowing any merit to the giver, who had to obey. Ten days later, the Greeks were beginning to say, "We shall cut your tongues to teach you to speak Greek." They began confiscating private property, and sending things they liked to Greece; furniture, cattle, etc. The churches and schools were immediately taken, the Slav inscriptions destroyed, the offices burned, the priests beaten and driven out. Then began the arrest of influential persons in the different villages, such as Vestchitsa, Tsarmarinovi, Piskopia, Arsene, St. Elvas, Vettecope. The soldiers said to the notables in prison in Vestchitsa, "If you want to be free, be Greeks."

(bold text is mine, two type mistakes: Wast thou born at Sofia to be read as Was you born at Sofia and Ragoritchani - Zagorichani; text taken from "Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan War" (1914) by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, p.197-199 [13]). --Подпоручикъ (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment -- The Balkan wars were commonly a nasty business. I am quite prepared to believe that the Greeks were not kind to a Bulgarian minority (and probably vice versa). One result of the conflicts of the 20th century and the rise of the nation state in Europe has been to gather people of a single ethnicity in one country. The collection of eye-witness statements by academics is a legitimate variety of research, commonly known as oral history. Sometimes the results of such research do not make pleant reading for the perpetrators and theri descendants, but that does not make them untrue. Personally, I would have preferred to see a more general article dealing with the subject as a whole, before we got down to the biographies of individual victims, however heroic. Here we have an issue about propaganda, as I am sure that the Bulgsarian authorties particualrly in the Communist era would ahve made the best they could of anything to the credit of theri own and the denigration of a capitlaist neighbour. WP requires reliable sources. Self-published works are frowned upon as close to WP:OR. On the other hand, peer-reviewed works, whether books or articles, are normally good sources. Since I do not read Bulgarian (or even the Cyrllic alphabet). I am not qualified to judge. This article does cite a source. Until some one can discredit that source, I would suggest that he article should be kept, but I know lilte of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you thing that Gligor Zisov is notable according to notability of people; Because here in this wikipedia discussion, we examine the notability of the person.--Vagrand (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that my intent in putting up this article was to translate an existing one from Bulgarian wiki, because I thought it was worthy of preservation for an English-speaking audience, not simply a Bulgarian one, whose language, I confess, is rather obscure to the rest of the world. I would like to keep regional propaganda debates out of it, for as Peterkingiron has stated, the Balkan Wars were a nasty business. What is important to note is that as far as we know, Gligor Zisov existed, and the accounts given describe true events. For this reason, I would like to see this article kept, until a broader article of the events following the First Balkan War can be produced, which will contextualize the article I did my best to translate. --C3august (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.Sub (band)

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

A band that I don't see passing the requirements of WP:NBAND. I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing them, just personal sites such as Myspace and mirrors of this article. The only claim the article makes about media exposure is that NME mentioned them, but not only is a singular source not sufficient to pass WP:NBAND, but the reference linked to that quote in the article is to a CD seller's site, not to anything that verifies coverage in NME. Rorshacma (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Gamers

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

An article about an unnotable fan-site about Star Trek video games. I'm not finding a single reliable source that discusses the site in any meaningful way. Their only actual claim to fame that they make in this article is that another Star Trek fansite gave them an award, and that is hardly notable. This could almost qualify as a straight out Speedy Deletion under criteria A7, but as this article has been here for about five years, I figured it was better to take this to AFD for a consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Disick

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Subject is claimed to be a "model, TV personality, and businessman." What is supportable is that he appeared on the Kardashian shows (because he is married to one of them). Other than that, there seems to be neither coverage nor any other body of work that would confer independent notability. (After posting this, it appears this article was nominated and deleted a few years ago for the same reasons, and then recreated). MSJapan (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Begrudging weak keep - bad things will likely happen to me for defending this one, but... he probably does meet WP:GNG on the basis of the media coverage which has focussed on him (and thus have given him, personally, "significant coverage") rather than articles which have focussed on her, with him as an "also, ...". Including:
  • This painful article about a party with the Pussycat Dolls.
  • This article about how he is allegedly a drunk who allegedly can't be trusted around children.
  • This article about how he allegedly doesn't have a real job.
  • This article about how he allegedly didn't want to answer questions about all of the above.
I will apply a general caveat to all of these by saying most are from "gossip columns", even those from otherwise reliable news sources like NineMSN. Some are just straight-up gossip. While I'm conscious of WP:NOTGOSSIP, this is "entertainment news" type gossip which has come from various sources. Would be interested in the general consensus on sources like TMZ, PerezHilton.com and others of their ilk. There is plenty of "coverage" of him, but none of it is in the New York Times or Chicago Tribune (unless you count their gossip columns too).
My only other concern would be that given the tone of almost every article about the guy, writing the article from a NPOV is going to be almost impossible and we are talking about a BLP. Allegedly, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • - This painful article about a party with the Pussycat Dolls.
  • - This article about how he is allegedly a drunk who allegedly can't be trusted around children.
  • - This article about how he allegedly doesn't have a real job.
  • - This article about how he allegedly didn't want to answer questions about all of the above.
None of the italisized items are notable whatsoever. Being at a party with even Gene Simmons (much less The Pussycat Dolls) wouldn't make you notable - even if he (or they) autographed Scott's boobs. Being an alledgedly untrustworthy drunk is not notable as half our politicians probably are too. 50% of America doesn't have a job, so that's not notable for him either. And not wanting to answer questions about why you are not notable is probably a prudent thing for him to do so people don't realize it quite so much. If we make an article of it, everyone will know he is WP:NN. So let's be bold and delete this. :Яεñ99 (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than happy for that to happen and if the consensus is that the sources might provide "significant coverage" but not of any activities which would make him "notable" then I'm all for that. I would almost suggest that regardless of the length of the articles or the depth of "coverage", articles like this could reasonably be considered "trivial mentions" as they effectively flesh-out what would otherwise be one-line mentions of the subject into gossip. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Threw Up

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

A street art campaign that does not seem to have ever become notable. The only two sources that are indicated in the article itself are both non-secondary (one is the campaign's official site, the other is their official Flickr album). I tried searching for additional sources, both under the "I Threw Up" title used on the article, as well as the "Implied Regurgitation" title currently used on their official site, with no success. Despite their claims that the campaign was written about in various publiciations, I have found no evidence to support this information, and most of the books and magazines that supposidly did write ups on it are unnotable themselves. Rorshacma (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this art project. The project also goes by the name of "implied regurgitation" which also failed to turn up any coverage. The article makes claims for press coverage without providing actual references, however, looking in the news section of the project web site finds that news &observer printed a picture where the sticker had been placed; ditto for Found; the PEEL book is a sticker collection; THRILL provides a short writeup. Of the lot, only the THRILL piece would be considered coverage in a reliable source and it is very brief. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honour Betrayed

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

A short, unnotable documentary that was made straight to DVD in 2004. I'm not finding a single reliable source that discusses this film. The only review I'm finding is the one that is linked to in the article, but that appears to be a very minor review from a site that I would hesitate to call reliable. The only other hits I'm finding about this movie are from books that merely reprint this exact article, and other mirrors of wiki. It does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NFILM Rorshacma (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. The closest I could find is this brief note at ABC News: "American Family Voices/Veterans for Common Sense have produced a documentary, 'Honor Betrayed,' and a report aimed at veteran voters. The report highlights 'morale' and 'readiness' problems in the military." I do not think this is enough to sustain an article, though I would be fine with putting mention of it in a broader article that covers similar documentaries. If anyone can find more coverage than that, let me know, and I will reassess. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Erik. GregJackP Boomer! 00:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kunwar Mohinder Singh Bedi Sahar

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

Non-notable poet. Two references are confirm published works. External link points to a site that does not appear to be about the subject but the article doesn't give the subjects name in their native script, so that's hard to confirm. The best I can find in google is this, which doesn't amount to indepth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 September 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) 19:30, 10 September 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) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article: "An international, recorded, event to celebrate his poetry, Jashan-e-Sahar (A celebration for Sahar),[4] was held in the U.A.E., in 1992." This is sourced to the Library of Congress, a reliable source.
  • Feature video of the poet in the UrduLife publication.
  • this appearance at a major conference on Urdu poetry.
  • film producer.
  • Times of India paper called him a "noted Urdu poet" [16] (hard to link direct due to pay wall but this Google search string will show it: "Mohinder Singh Bedi Sahar site:timesofindia.com" ).
  • He has been the subject a book-length biography titled Yadon Ka Jashn by Krishan Lal Sarang.[17] (note: Google books has the author field wrong, verified in this source: [18]).
Also, please remember WP:SYSTEMIC when considering quality of sources and our ability to find/verify additional Urdu-language sources. -- (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"..simply because he is a poet who was active in the pre-internet days and writes in a language whose script is not easily transcribed to webpages does not mean that he is a 'non-notable' poet. Little information about his biography is easily found on the web... This is therefore a work in progress and will require 'conventional' research which is underway."
In terms of rules, the already mentioned WP:SYSTEMIC, and WP:AFD which says under WP:BEGIN C2: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." The article was created August 24, 2012.
--Green Cardamom (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm going to assume that arguement is directed towards me, if not ignore the following.) I do New Page Patrol ten days into the backlog, use a WP:PROD with a standard seven day timer and don't PROD articles with native-language articles (unless the references in the two appear to be direct 1:1 translations). In this case the PROD was removed pretty much instantly with an edit summary that gave no hint that there was biographical coverage out there, so the second timer didn't run down, which is how we got here so quickly. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know the specifics on school notability but a cursory check suggests it is well known in India by respected institutions and people. Already mentioned in two other Wikipedia articles (3 including this one). Just rough estimate, would need to do the search but it probably would yield good sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Dhia

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

Roles to date do not appear to satisfy WP:ENT Anglerfishing (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 September 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) 19:35, 10 September 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) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 London Broncos season

[edit]
2013 London Broncos season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just empty tables; fails WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps userfy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page needs to be reworked but is notable. Mattlore (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfication would not prevent Migitgem2009 from preparing the framework ready for when content is available. Neither of your makes a case why this route is not appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Userfication would hinder others contributing to the season page. I see s/he is starting all 14 SL club season pages - which is probably misguided. I see the problem here as he has chosen the wrong template to do this, not that the page should be userfied. I will have a go at clearing it up. Mattlore (talk) 20:35, 12 September 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) 22:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 20:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shahina Siddiqui

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Although she does garner mention in press, it's generally passing mention (not substantial coverage), and it's almost never substantially about the subject. In coverage, she's usually talking about a controversy; the controversial topic itself may or may not be notable, but the topic is never this person. At any rate, speaking in the role of spokesperson is not notable at all. Even most things relating to the Winnipeg Islamic Social Services Association do not directly relate to this subject; whether that organization is notable is another matter. This person seems to talk about anti-Islamism, 9-11, movies, Muslim marriages, local news, and the Jewish community in Manitoba. I did find a letter to the opinion editor that's substantially about her, but this isn't exactly reliable coverage. Less reliable coverage, including press by and associated with Siddiqui's own organizations, waxes more biographical, but is neither of a quality nor a quantity to base a encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 23:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not notable as per nomination-- Bharathiya (talk) 05:29, 13 September 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) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being quoted a lot does not denote notability. I can find no coverage about this person. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This unfortunately seems to be a case where Wikipedia notability rules almost force us into systemic bias. Unless they get involved in terrorism, lay Muslim community leaders in western countries seem to get distinctly less significant coverage in reliable sources (or at least what Wikipedia consensus recognizes as such) than do comparable Jewish leaders or ones connected with major Christian denominations. In this case, Siddiqui gets a number of mentions as executive director of and spokesperson for the Islamic Social Services Association (Canada) - and as a founding member and former executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association as a whole (it also operates in the United States) - and a few for some publications apparently aimed primarily at Muslim women living in North America. A dedicated researcher might just be able to add to this to construct a genuine case for notability - though I currently can't. However, even if Siddiqui is not notable, Google searches suggest that the Islamic Social Services Association is - however, we don't have an article on the Association, so I am not in a position to suggest redirecting this article there. PWilkinson (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cash Cash. -Scottywong| gab _ 21:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Beat Goes On (Cash Cash album)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Beat Goes On (Cash Cash album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article hasn't received any significant change since the first nomination. Google News, Google News archives, Google Books and Billboard provided zero results. Billboard's albums list for Cash Cash shows one album from 2008. Despite that the group's Tumblr account announces the release of the album three days ago, there is no evidence of third-party sources to confirm the release. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 11 September 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) 22:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Houck

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

Puff piece, autobiography by self-identified "social media consultant and branding consultant". Lots of non-RS. Author removed PROD tag without explanation and attempted to remove autobio tag until warned not to do so. Google lookups do not show much outside of her website and company (440 Artist Alignment). Alexf(talk) 22:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn Open Networker

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

An IP, Special:Contributions/70.31.11.216, tried to nominate the article for deletion using the wrong template. The IP's rationale is on the talk page: "This is at best an ad of a LinkedIn.com sub group. I reads like the founder wrote it. All the sources are pretty fluffy as well. Also goes as far as to claim other similar linkedin sub groups are copying or possibly infringing." I offer no opinion on the deletion. John of Reading (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a vanity page for a linked in group. There are hundreds/thousands of linked in groups and they can't all have a page on wikipedia if we create a precedent by keeping this. There is also a non-notability argument - outside of a few hardcore linked in users, this term means precisely nothing. ChrisUK (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the subject at hand does not merit its own encyclopedia article (and in addition, the current article is written like an advertisement). 88.113.185.91 (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The reasoning provided by JFHJr and DGG pushes the consensus to delete as they offer the most compelling and policy-based argument, even though the keep/delete votes are numerically similar. It has not been convincingly demonstrated that this individual passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF, despite the walls of text provided here by various SPA's. -Scottywong| babble _ 21:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klemen Jaklic

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and more importantly WP:PROF

Criteria for inclusion from WP:PROF

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Support as nominator The subject in question seems to fail each of these criteria. So far there is nothing to indicate that any sources have found this subject's academic work to be notable. The fact that the subject holds multiple degrees from prestigious universities does also not confer notability unless we have RS reporting on this facet.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1.) Venice Commission members are "senior academics, particularly in the fields of constitutional or international law, supreme or constitutional court judges or members of national parliaments". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Commission Klemen Jaklic also referenced there. The Venice Commission and the European Court of Human Rights are two two highest institutions of the Council of Europe. Membership in those requires mention and is one of the highest honors in academia. See membership list (Deans, former Supreme Court Judges, etc).

2.) Harvard Law School, Faculty member http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/handbook-faculty/2011-12/2011-2012-faculty.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

3.) Author of notable opinions/decisions by this leading body (The Venice Commission) on common european standards in electoral law. See eg http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2008/CDL-AD(2008)037-e.pdf Mcsngrca (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Mcsngrca — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

4.) Notable public figure. National TV Interviews such as http://www.rtvslo.si/odprtikop/vecerni_gost/ddr-klemen-jaklic/ Mcsngrca (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Venice Commision members are not inheritly notable. In fact they are appointed memmbers and the membership satisfies no criteria in WP:PROF Where is the published opinion you cite referenced by a RS? That is what makes this and all academic work notable.
There is nothing notable about being on the faculty of Harvard and/or Oxford
A single (was it only one?) showing on TV does not make the case for notability. Multiple apperances (with context) would certainly help however.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His work on democracy won the Harvard 2011 Mancini Prize ("best work in the field of European Law and European legal thought"). https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/#/people/profile/jaklicMcsngrca (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Moreover, national TV interviews and appearances in debates are many and widespread. His appearances also widely discussed. See eg http://blog.kvarkadabra.net/2012/08/neizkoriscen-kapital-slovenije.html or see many more on the web Mcsngrca (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Members of the Venice Commission are no less elected than members of National Academies. In both cases an appointment is made first and, based on that appointment, a vote is taken by the body itself to either confirm or reject membership. Now you can call this either appointment or election, but the process is exactly the same. And the rank as well. There is no higher honor for a European academic in the field of constitutional law. This is well known among legal scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In addition, this is a top academic society of Europe. According to point 6 of the criteria for WP:PROF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROF) (see above) a person who is EITHER "elected or appointed" meets this requirement. Mcsngrca (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You also asked for RS regarding the study on the electoral thresholds that Jaklic authored for the Venice Commission. Here you go one RS (out of several): http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=the-venice-commission-favors-3-5-percent-election-threshold-2010-02-16 Mcsngrca (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The key is The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. of which the RS you cite makes no mention.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person is explicitly named as the author of the study of the Venice Commission's official opinion on electoral thresholds in that very opinion (see p 1 of the opinion cited above under point 3.)). The report in the media then specifically refers to, and discusses the importance of, this same opinion by the Commission authored by this person. Therefore, it is this person's research (as the very author of the opinion) that has made that significant impact. Mcsngrca (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Besides, I gave you the example of Mancini Prize ("best work in the field of European law") that was awarded to this person by Harvard University. Cited above. An award by Harvard for the "best work in the field of European Law and Legal thought" in and of itself constitutes proof of "significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline". And the Harvard Center for European studies, where this is mentioned (cited above), is a reliable sourceMcsngrca (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The last I checked an award from Harvard is not an an national or international academic award.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Harvard is a global university in its reach, student body, faculty and fields covered, and is officially ranked world's number 1 university. Any award from the top university in the world that is a global player is in and of itself considered an international award of the highest rank.Mcsngrca (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC). In addition, appointment to the European Commission for Democracy Through Law (The Venice Commission) is likewise itself "a highly prestigious academic honor" at the "international level". The Commission is, again, not a national body but a Europe-wide body, actually one of the two highest bodies of the Council of Europe comprising of the most notable academics, former Supreme court judges, Deans, and the like. If this does not qualify then nothing does. Mcsngrca (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There might be a case for the Venice Commission, however it is not an academic society, but an advisory council of a political nature. And once again an award from Harvard, no matter what their standing or global reach does not meet the criteria under WP:PROF

More accurately: "The Venice Commission is composed of “independent experts who have achieved eminence through their experience in democratic institutions or by their contribution to the enhancement of law and political science” (article 2 of the revised Statute)." Mcsngrca (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Regardless if the VC is comprised of little green men from Mars, it is not an academic society under WP:PROF, and even if it were, there still needs to be sourcing specfically about this subject's acumen/  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While appointment to the Venice Commission may not meet the letter of WP:PROF criterion 3, it meets its spirit in that it constitutes recognition that the appointee is considered to have achieved eminence in this field, and also meets criterion 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their [sic] academic capacity." Remember that this is not a bureaucracy, so we follow the spirit, not the letter, of policies and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I think the subject falls short of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:PROF. As to the latter, I agree with the reasoning put forth by both Rosetta and GregJack. WP:PROF can't ride on claims in a CV, or WP:INHERIT notability from the Venice Commission alone. I don't see any non-academic impact that's actually significant, either. JFHJr (㊟) 06:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete academic in early stage of a career. Awards are fellowship awards, not senior awards, indicating promise, not accomplishment. The most eminent Slovenian legal scholar would be accomplishment, the most eminent Slovenian legal scholar abroad is not, especially when he has gone abroad for advanced training. The award asserted, the Mancini prized,is an award for student writing. [23]. The emphasis on this is the proof of non-notability. Similarly being an Affiliate of the Harvard University Center for European Studies is not notability, in contrast to being a Member of the center. The claimed status as a Harvard faculty member is a lectureship for one term, the lowest of the academic ranks, a temporary position, not tenure track or even with any expectation of an eventual tenure tack appointment. Being awarded two law degrees is not notability; it's being a diligent student. Rereading the arguments above, I am beginning to wonder about a possible speedy deletion for G11, promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice CV, but does not meet WP:PROF. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe Venice Commission reports that Jaklic was a Fellow of the Justice, Welfare and Economics branch of the Weatherhead center for International Affairs at Harvard University during 2003-2004. This is a highly notable academic group of carefully selected Fellows that was, during that year, lead by its founding director, Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen. Membership in the academic society led by the Nobel Laureate, the Venice Commission membership, the Fulbright (national) award, the fact of holding two PhDs from both top ranked universities (itself a rarity in academic world, and discussed by several RS), and the like, make him, it seems, known by other academics (RS) as “the most prominent Slovenian jurist abroad” http://www.delo.si/mnenja/blog/ne-racunajte-na-nas.html. In my view it is the cumulative effect of the multitude of factors that makes the case for his notability stronger than just a narrow focus on this or that single factor alone, or the focus on non-seniority criterion (though note that the Venice Commission confirms its members are selected from “senior academics” who have gained “eminence”. It might be easy to dispute one criterion, but hard to do away with the cumulative picture for notability. So agree with Phil Bridger (talk): "Remember that this is not a bureaucracy, so we follow the spirit, not the letter, of policies and guidelines". Also, I would feel uncomfortable replacing the Commission's judgment ("emminence", "senior academics") with my own.140.247.225.129 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — 140.247.225.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient participation. No prejudice against speedy renomination. -Scottywong| gossip _ 21:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers

[edit]
List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 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, BusterD (talk) 15:01, 10 September 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) 18:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heart in Hand (band)

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

Notability asserted through release on Ferret Music, but I can't find anything on Google News when searching for "Heart in Hand" + various key words. Fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having a release on a label is a good start, but there do not appear to be any reliable sources that would help this band reach the notability needed to sustain an article. Doing various searches have given me results for other bands that have the same name, but not for this particular version. Rorshacma (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Queen Elizabeth's corgis. Opinion is split roughly equally between delete, keep and merge. After discounting the opinions that do not make an understandable argument, such as the "delete" opinion by 31.123.217.150 or the "keep" opinion by Justice007, it appears to me that a merger reflects consensus insofar as (a) it's acceptable as a second preference to several people who have advocated keeping or deleting, and (b) numerically the distribution of opinions among the three options mentioned initially reflects a consensus to retain the material but also a consensus not to do so in a separate article.  Sandstein  15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monty (Queen Elizabeth's Dog)

[edit]
Monty (Queen Elizabeth's Dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable dog. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the British royls didn't bring me out in arash i'd look for an article what little thr is here could be merged to.31.123.217.150 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few dogs belonging to famous people have an article. But this dog is only famous for two things; being a queen's dog (hey dyk that there are a couple more queen regnants) and appearing for a few seconds in the Olympics opening beside her. And now he is dead so I am not expecting anymore appearances (hopefully). The article at max will always be a stub. If it has to be inducted in wikidogi hall of fame, it should be here. And while we are at it, who the hell is Don Cherry and why is his dog here? Samar Talk 07:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BITE :). The article was nominated for deletion within one minute of its creation. The article contained a source demonstrating international coverage by Time magazine and the nominator states above that he is quite familiar with the topic. The claim that this topic is not notable is therefore absurdly false. Warden (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy or guideline to back up your !vote? (WP:BITE isn't a keep reason (and doesn't seem to apply). One mention in Time doesn't cut it. Your interpretation of what the nominator stated is immaterial as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BITE is a relevant guideline as it specifically says that articles by new editors should not be nominated for deletion "within seconds of creation" and that's what was done here. Notice that this new editor has not edited Wikipedia since this unpleasant incident. Patrolling new articles from the front of the queue and not following WP:BEFORE are also frowned upon. If you want a policy-based reason to keep then that would be our standard editing policy. What we're lacking here is a policy-based reason to delete. Warden (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The effect is the same: the new editor has been scared off by hostile templating and no longer contributes. See WP:NPP which spells out correct behaviour in more detail: "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Users will often start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the following hours or days.". Warden (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in newspapers doesn't necessarily imply notability (as you are well aware), per WP:NOT#NEWS, and pretty much all the sources that are dedicated to the topic are human interest stories after the dog died. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All news is designed to be human interest stories, since humans are their target audience and they want keep them interested. Honestly now. The WP:GNG would be meaningless if you declared that nothing in the news mattered. They interview and talk about famous people in the news, and that's used to prove the person is notable, even though most of these people are just entertainers. Does the fact that this is a dog and not a human make any difference? Dream Focus 10:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, there are notable dogs: They have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, meeting GNG. A string of passing mentions is not substantial coverage. I see no other guideline that seems to fit here, nor do I see any that the dog would pass as a human. Nothing but trivial coverage = not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge' Reliable sources say he was notable. He is more important than a lot of the competitors. We have a number of articles on various White House dogs. At the very worst merge into an article on Corgis of Queen Elizabeth II. What's the difference? This is an example of a particular kind of bias in articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources may say he was "notable", but they are not in a position to say he was notable. I don't know what "particular kidn of bias" you are seeing. While it may or may not require attention on Wikipedia, the question here is notability. If reliable sources aren't discussing a particular variety of topics, those topics are not notable. If reliable sources discuss the pebble I just found in my shoe, hey presto! - it's notable. If reliable sources didn't discuss Pluto, Pluto would not be notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I do not dispute that Pluto is notable. He (and it are the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. As I have already said, there are notable dogs. Monty is halfway there: we've nailed the "dog" part. The "notable" part is still wanting. (True story that you'll never believe: When I said "Pluto", I was referring to the (former) planet, not the cartoon dog.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I supposed that you meant the planet and thought it amusing to introduce the dog (which was named after the planet). The article in question has as many sources as the article about Pluto (dog) and they are of better quality - the Pluto article has weak sources such as IMDB and the cartoons themselves. The actual evidence is therefore that Monty is more notable than Pluto. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd encourage you to think a bit more deeply about this. Monty's been at AfD with the Article Rescue Squad working on it and that's all we have. Pluto has been languishing in obscurity -- in the shadow of Goofy, no doubt, as Wikipedia is biased in favor of more "human" dogs. When the wealthy take over Wikipedia, this will be corrected. In any case, even the more bureaucratically inclined must admit that Pluto is clearly notable and easily expanded. Sorry to kick a dog when he's down, but Monty? Not so much. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monty's performance in the recent Olympics was watched by about a billion people. His death was widely covered in the international press. His upbringing is detailed in various books about the royals and their dogs. Monty's notability could hardly be clearer while Pluto is just another cartoon animal. I prefer Deputy Dawg, myself, and it's amusing to see that that article has no sources at all. It's quite silly to be arguing about topics for which sources are abundant when there's so much weaker material about. Warden (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were lots of non-notable people on that field, seen by those same billion people. Each and every one of them would be notable if there were substantial coverage in independent reliable sources about them. There isn't. Ditto this dog. As usual, if there is much weaker material out there, feel free to put it up for deletion, Colonel. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability for animals in my opinion but my fellow good doctor has a point about individual right to an article. At the very worst merge into an article on Corgis of Queen Elizabeth II. The material shouldn't be deleted but could potentially be merged into a general article. I'd probably favour a general article in which more information can be gathered to produce a full length article, but I'm fine with this as an individual entry too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two notable articles I'm spotting here are Corgis of Queen Elizabeth II and Corgi Room, an article on that room of Buckingham Palace. Perhaps I'll see later...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr., Colonel, 7&6=thirteen, I gotta hand it to you: great work on the article. I haven't changed my mind, of course, since I'm a rock of Gibraltar. Colonel, you don't mind if I take issue with your word choice--but I won't hold your love of rhetoric against you (and you know as well as I do, though in your position you must conveniently forget this, that being written up doesn't mean "notable"). 7&6=thirteen, you really need a title to add to your user name, otherwise you can't really hang with the evil doctor and the colonel. Since you're going with the numbers, maybe something academic? or engineering-related? Drmies (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about Corgis of Queen Elizabeth II instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without you, Dr., this place would be a lot more boring (and we'd only have half the articles). Drmies (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Priapus worship, Water dancing in the Solomon Islands or Eggplant production in China any takers?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest "Agent 13". Then they would need henchmen... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like that! User:Agent_13 can probably be usurped. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, Agent 13 is a cool sounding name. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "bandwidth" we are talking about, that would be an admission that users were looking at the article, which a fortiori demonstrates the need and interest. If there is interest and need then Q.E.D. it is not a waste. Thus, you have admitted yourself out of a claim.
If it is space on a hard drive or server we are talking about, what is the value of that?
Respectfully, I think we can err on the side of being too inclusive (too much of the irrelevant) rather than too exclusive (too little of the relevant).
My bias argument was not directed at anyone here personally. Rather, I was talking about unconscious systemic bias, which excludes matters that are off the beaten path. I think that including this particular article as part of a larger article should assuage any legitimate concern.
That some of us don't like a 'fixation on the Royals' does not mean that all of our other readers are of the same mind. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't space; it's notability. My point was the applying IAR to deletion discussions is silly; it's basically saying "create an article about anything you want, no matter how trivial." OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that Poncho is not notable but we have its picture and this is linked to many pages, including this one now. Editors seem quite happy to generate endless amounts of non-notable material such as that picture and this discussion and they are rarely deleted. Why should we exert ourselves to delete material which is far more notable and of far more interest to our general readership? Our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE, is to keep material which is of potential use in articles. The material about Monty clearly qualifies. Warden (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One could just reverse the argument and say "Delete: assuming good faith and ignore all rules" IRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just good and well-executed reply and it can be.Justice007 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense would surely indicate that, as we have articles about the dogs of other English monarchs (e.g. Caesar and Dash); the dogs of other heads-of-state (e.g. Bo and Koni); and even other corgis owned by the Queen (e.g. Susan); then it would be fine to have another such article about a similar canine who had also starred in an event watched by a significant portion of the world's population. But I'm not seeing the common sense case for this discussion - it seems to be yet another blatant example of WP:LIGHTBULB contrary to WP:NOTFORUM - an excuse for any idle passerby to vent their personal opinions about dogs, royalty, planets, &c. Why is that we never delete these discussions but instead just delete the stuff that people might actually want to read? Warden (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree. Although I wonder why the dorgi who died didn't get as much attention and an article too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The deceased dorgi as essentially only a footnote in the press coverage of the James Bond/Olympic coverage/Queen's dog. But merging this into an omnibus Queen's dogs (not just the Corgis) article makes a lot of sense to me. The queen has had a lot of dogs during her many years of service. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that I cannot imagine a similar page in whatsoever encyclopedia. "he enjoyed a privileged life at Buckingham Palace, with an extensive menu and his own gourmet chef, shared with the other corgis.", "He was given by Queen Elizabeth to her mother but was subsequently returned after fears that she would trip over the frisky puppy.", "Monty, like the other corgis enjoyed a privileged life in Buckingham Palace." "He resided in the Corgi Room with his siblings, sleeping in elevated wicker baskets to avoid the draughts of the palace.", "At Christmas, Her Majesty would make stockings for Monty and her other pets full of toys and delicacies such as biscuits." IMHO an article entirely made of such stuff is NOT encyclopedic, plain and simple. Cavarrone (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on where it was, that could involve a violation of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, which probably should be updated! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Monty (Queen Elizabeth's Dog)#Controversy - SummerPhD (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Super Bitch.jpg (non-free image removed)
  • Warden, if you retain several of the hundreds of articles I created are eligible for deletion you are free to nominate them for deletion, but making so that I look as just a creator of porn-related articles is firstly clearly bad-faith, as, even if I have no problem to create similar contents, they are an extreme minority of my work (see list of my articles), secondly that has nothing to do with the current topic or with my arguments and it sounds as a personal attack, thirdly the first two articles are about two film series that have won some significant awards in their field and the third, despite its title, instead is a British-Italian crime film (sign that you probably have not even checked the articles). They would probably/surely have an entry in an encyclopedia about adult cinema or about Italian poliziottesco cinema, with similar/more detailed contents, instead, as I said above, I cannot imagine a printed encyclopedia with an entry about Monty and that have similar contents. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Cavarrone has an 'Italian pornograph' in his tool chest doesn't seem to be particular relevant. If you have been here a while, you wind up editing (or creating) some strange articles. It is relevant only in that it supports the notion that he encyclopedia is big enough to house articles that are for varied readers. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starsha Davis

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

No WP:reliable sources to back up claim to WP:notability. Only sources are court records that do not back up the major claim. noq (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soa mc

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

There are literally no sources for this. None, zero. Why? Because it's obviously made up by the author.

Made up probably, if phrases like "data codes" are any indication (the correct term is "data formats"), by someone who doesn't speak English very well. This doesn't give you any information which cannot be gleaned from existing articles like Service-oriented architecture, web service along with a lot of the other stuff in Category:Web services. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOA-MC is a special denomination of SOA, placing emphasis on the existence of clients of different technologies, that is, multiple clients. There are many ways to use SOA. In many of them, the clients use one same technology. For example: the clients are web servers. When SOA is used knowingly for simultaneous use with clients of different technologies - e.g. computers and mobile devices - it is referred as SOA-MC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbvb (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 September 2012‎

The only person on the planet who uses "SOA-MC" to refer to anything computer-related is you. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not establish notability or significance in the article; if someone can come up with references which establish this as being important I would change my mind. I don't see any real significance here, just a really unclear way of explaining a server which implements a protocol and different clients implement the protocol. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use the term "SOA-MC" to refer to my software projects (both Academically and for professional outsourcing activity). That term is simple and elegant to make it clear that it is expected that clients have different technologies. This article should remain in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelols83 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Marcelols83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just because you use the term does not mean that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please see WP:ILIKEIT. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "multiple clients" is used often to refer the same as in this article. See [[33]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelols83 (talk • contribs)

The phrases "service-oriented architecture" and "multiple clients" are very common and easy to verify. However, the combined phrase is the subject of the article and, thus, this deletion debate. As an aside, please sign your comments here by typing "~~~~" after them. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Freiberg

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

Non-notable actor. Only a few minor roles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced BLP. Going with IMDb, there is not enough right now to establish notability. CityOfSilver 16:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G7 (author blanked) by CactusWriter (talk · contribs) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio College Personnel Association

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

Local chapters of larger organizations are not individually notable unless they have individually achieved something of note separate from their parent organizations. (Prod removed by article author.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Newton (footballer)

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

Non-notable footballer, has not received significant coverage, never played for Sheffield Wednesday in a fully-professional game and has only managed at a semi-professional level at Truro City. Fails WP:NFOOTY and more importantly WP:GNG. BigDom (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per A7 (housekeeping NAC). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Environment segments

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

A certain je ne sais quoi; I'm having a little trouble putting it into words. It seems to be a loose gathering of bits of information and ideas, but there's no really coherent, overarching topic. (How can the biosphere be one of the four segments if it's made up of the other three?) Also directly copied from here; the site says it's released under "a Creative Commons license", so that's probably okay, though the lack of attribution is still a problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Todd

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

COI fluff, not notable, more SPAs creating pages with lots of weak refs that fail WP:RS, aren't SigCov, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Museum of Fred. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Beshid

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

COI fluff, the good sources aren't about him per se, fails GNG. Not notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arohana Marthoma Church, Anicadu. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arohana_Marthoma_Yuvajana_Sakhyam

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

The article is not backed up by any reliable sources, and a Google search returned no such sources. The article seems only to serve a promotional purpose to the subject. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 07:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:57, 10 September 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) 14:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems the concerns about original research in this article cannot be overcome. -Scottywong| talk _ 21:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population

[edit]
List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's main source does not state that it is a source for the population of Settlements it is meant to show urban areas some of which are subdivided. Original research is used to brush over anomalies such as the lack of inclusion of London and subdivisions with the name of two settlements in the name. There is quite a long discussion about this here Eopsid (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole article is just wilful misinterpretation of the source material which makes no claim to being a list of settlements. The source is a list of urban areas some of which are subdivided and the article lists the subdivisions (apart from the ones they dont like). So the article needs a new source but there is no source with a consistent definition of a settlement out there. Eopsid (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Could redirect to List of localities in England by population which contains similar entities but with a better source.--Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've already got List of localities in England by population and similar for Wales, Scotland etc. Do we need one for the UK as a whole as well? Polequant (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The UK, being the sovereign state, is surely the most important division to be represented? I don't see much problem with them all coexisting, but if they shouldn't it's probably the sub-national ones that should be deleted, not this one. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three different sources here one for england and wales, one for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. A list combining all this could come under Wikipedia:Synthesis. Eopsid (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point - they are measured differently in Scotland to England and Wales at least. While this is true of urban areas too the ONS does publish documents combining them for Urban areas, so that presumably doesn't count as synthesis, while to my knowledge they don't for localities. On that basis the separate articles for England, Scotland etc should take precedence as you say, so I've changed my vote for this article to delete. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the danger with this article - it looks temptingly simple and appealing, but it does this by being grossly misleading. If you want to compare London and Manchester then what measure of Manchester you should use is pretty much open to debate - some people might argue for the strictly defined city, some for the urban area, some for something in between. Pretty much nobody would argue for "the urban area subdivided by pre-1974 county-borough borders" though - which is the measure that this article is implying is definitive. This is the most bizarre, counter-intuitive and overbearingly technical measure of the lot, which is why it is covered up with layers of original research to patch it up. The article as it is is completely unsupportable. Although I've voted keep and rename above, deleting it would definitely be better than leaving it as it is. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another article that lists UK urban areas without overbearing technical jargon and bizarre anomalies like not counting London . Eopsid (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have perhaps been clearer... what I like about the article is that it gives me a (to my knowledge reasonably accurate) middle path between the urban areas list (wherein London includes Watford and Birmingham and Wolverhampton are a single place) and the localities list (wherein London is the City and there's zero integration between the UK countries). I understand that those are supported by official sources while this article isn't and that the boundaries used in it are totally arbitrary, But I think ditching something presented this simply without replicating it's positive aspects elsewhere would be a loss for the project. --MichiganCharms (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no middle path without resorting to POV. We either use the only reliable source, the ONS classifications, or we make up something that fits some individuals fancy - or POV as its called in Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that adding a note with the population of Greater London on the localities in England list really constitutes "POV", nor do I think an inclusive UK list is that much of a big deal as long as the differences are noted. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is because the items in the list are not necessarily settlements. The ONS does not define them as settlements so neither should we. And I don't care if we have a note that explains it, as the title and the data is what people will pay attention to. What the ONS call a 'locality' or 'sub-urban area' may or may not be a settlement but we do not have sources which tell us what each item is, and the ONS certainly do not define them as settlements. It is highly misleading to characterise these things as settlements when they may bear little relation to either administrative divisions or common perception of what a place is. If you want to find out the population of a place then go to the article on that place, where hopefully the data will be explained in a sensitive way that a list cannot manage. If you want to know a 'ranking' of a place look at the other population lists and draw your own conclusions. That this is an 'easy' or 'useful' article is not a reason to gloss over POV and OR. Polequant (talk) 12:51, 20 September 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) 14:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • POtential Keep -- This appears to be based on a classification by the Office for National Statistics, according to its lead. If so, it will be based on a definition system devised by them. If that were not the case, I would regard the question of settlement boundaires as depending on the compiler's POV, which would make it WP:OR, and would need to be deleted. However, if it is not based on an ONS survey (as others have suggested, deletion would be the only option. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is exactly the point - it is NOT based on a classification by the Office for National Statistics. Or to be more precise, sometimes it is based on one classification (urban areas), sometimes another (urban sub-areas), and sometimes something in between - devoid of any logic other the POV of some editors. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changed my opinion from Keep and rename to as per point made by User:Eopsid above. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we take it as read that whatever happens to this article should happen to Template:25 largest settlements in the UK by urban core population too? JimmyGuano (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix and keep: The primary argument seems to be that the article is broken, not that that topic (or a similarly-titled article that, as of yet, does not exist) is notable. Topic pretty clearly meets GNG pbp 18:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you suggest fixing it? Because if one changes (well, supplies at all) a definition of 'settlement' to mean either Urban Area or Urban Sub-area, then we already have articles that do that. You need to justify which unique characteristic would fix this article.
  • Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. The way that this list is created is original research. Note that the source for Scotland uses the word "settlement" to mean "urban area", and it uses quotes around "settlement" and "locality" because the General Register Office realises that they are using them as jargon words that need to be explained. Personally, I think that there is no point in having rankings based on arbitrary subdivisions of urban areas, so I would delete the "lists of localities" as well. JonH (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chintaman Rao Gautam

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:POLITICIAN Harsh (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has been an MP no doubt, but hasn't received significant press coverage. Harsh (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Its a good thing that he hasn't received significant press coverage. That means there is a possibility that he is not corrupt That means, you believe he hasn't received significant press coverage. Hence, failing WP:GNG. possibility that he is not corrupt, PLEASE EXPLAIN how does not being corrupt justify that the article be kept? Harsh (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POLITICIAN, he satisfies the condition of "member of a national, state or provincial legislature". Thats all that is needed for a politician to be to have an article on Wikipedia. He need not have huge press coverages of any sorts. And the whole small-font-bracketed statement was for humour. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 11:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:POLITICIAN (why this nomination?) state/national level elected legislature / representative. Rayabhari (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doxa Arvanitochoriou

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

Per my comment on Kassos Local League's AfD, neither are affiliated with HFF's regional associations and there is no indication of significant coverage in journalistic publications. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. – Kosm1fent 13:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1fent 13:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krista and Tatiana Hogan

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

as per WP:BLP1E . Simply being the only conjoined twins of their type in Canada is not encyclopaedic for WP. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that being the only craniopagous conjoined twins in Canada would not, in itself, justify an article. What justifies an article is all the sources. There are some in the article already, and others I found with a quick search here, here and here. The encyclopaedic interest here seems to be that there's an extent to which the two girls share a brain (tickle one and the other smiles; scientists will test to see if they can see through each other's eyes). That's unique, and has important implications for the study of identity and consciousness.—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, what exactly is the one "event" here that would possibly make BLP1E apply? postdlf (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
they are only known for 1 thing. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not BLP1THING. The policy specifies "event" for a reason. postdlf (talk) 01:18, 11 September 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) 13:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless their birth is counted as one event, BLP1E doesn't apply so far as I can see. BLP1E is for people who have been involved in one event (that of itself is often of doubtful notability...) but otherwise have led quite unremarkable lives. I can see continuing interest in this case as more research is done by the doctors. Peridon (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources, including articles by the Toronto Star, Maclean's, the Globe and Mail, a ten-page piece in the NY Times Magazine, and a paper in UBC's Undergraduate Journal of Psychology which states "Krista and Tatiana’s thalamic bridge will provide significant insight into the study of cognition and behaviour, and may even have significant implications to the philosophy of mind". S Marshall has already mentioned the interview with Anderson Cooper. I'd call that notable and encyclopaedic. Braincricket (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's with the second nomination thing in the box? Has this been nominated before, and if so why does that link to here? Peridon (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's going on with the box, but here is the first nomination. Braincricket (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, they were called 'Simms' then not 'Hogan'. Very inconsiderate... :) Peridon (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; the first AFD now displays above. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nedaphadrimeru

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

A non-notable concept that I can only find in a single book: Nedaphadrimeru. No indication that this has received any significant coverage by secondary sources. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Moké

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

PROD removed as the article has previously been deleted by PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has not "appeared... in a fully professional league" and WP:GNG as the article shows no evidence of the subject receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TrekAmerica

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

Non-distinctive adventure holiday company. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

-->

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There clearly is not support for a stand-alone article. There was also not much to merge, but if anyone wants to look in the page history and pull anything out to merge it they may do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust and Perversion

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

subject cannot be established as Wikipedia-notable/featured in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 13 September 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) 12:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're Going to Hell for This

[edit]
We're Going to Hell for This (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

can't be found to be featured in any publications from reliable, notable sources. also being a mere compilation album, article is unlikely to ever grow bigger than a stub, if that also counts as a reason Lachlan Foley (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks notability and can be included in the artist's article. Does not merit having its own article. 21:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 13 September 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) 12:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Through Chasm, Caves and Titan Woods, Black Shining Leather, Strange Old Brew, Morbid Fascination of Death, Defending the Throne of Evil, Fuck You All!!!!, We're Going to Hell for This, Skjend Hans Lik and Bloodlust and Perversion into List of Carpathian Forest music or something similar. The Template:Carpathian Forest then can also be deleted. This way we remove 9 articles for the price of 1 and achieve some clean up. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ziptask

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

Well written spam. Not notable, in spite of the many unreliable sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and salt. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Bond Technologies

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

I am having the greatest trouble seeing that this is a notable corporation. It has 44 staff, so it is a little bigger than a 'small business', but it is by no means a significant corporation by size. It is was once stated to have been a gold Microsoft certified partner (the link was checked on 17 September 2012 but is now a dead link), but so are more other corporations than you can shake a stick at. It has an award from 2006 for being a fast growing corporation in Houston, Texas, but nothing since then. Otherwise it simply has a software product. The article history will show that I have pruned out what I believe is POV and advertorial, though I have no objection to it being reinstated in some form by consensus. Having deleted it I found I could see the wood form the trees, and that the wood was sparse. One contributor to this article is self revealed in the history as the VP of Sales and Marketing, so there has been some limited COI here. So my view is that this should be deleted as non notable (yet). When and if it becomes notable it may have an article here with pleasure. In terms of coverage and potential references, Businesswire and PRWeb (and similar entities), being places where this corporation shows up in news searches, are places where one issues one's own press releases. There are not, of themselves, WP:RS since they are primary sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional, fails WP:CORP. FurrySings (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I just followed the link to confirm the Gold Microsoft status, and it is a dead link (flagged it thus). Searching for Stone Bond Technologies there reveals nothing. If the article survives this discussion then this needs to be addressed for the future. The current citations show now one to a trivial award and the other to Bloomberg's 'yes this exists' page. The remainder are not really appropriate as WP:RS references Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville–West Virginia rivalry

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

Non-notable college football series. The supposed rivalry has attracted only routine coverage of the games, no coverage indicating a "rivalry." Not named or branded, has no trophy, hasn't even been played very much, for the moment is no longer played. Not every football series is a "rivalry". GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it is a series, not a rivalry. A non-notable series that is not even active. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - agree the article needs work (mostly in the form of sources that reference this rivalry specifically) but I think it could be saved. Worth having a look at:
Don't get me wrong, we're not talking about a single-sport rivalry which has a name and a significant history like The F3 Derby (in Australia; ironically, that article needs serious work too) but I do think with a bit of effort the article could be fixed up. It might be worth noting, in the article, that the rivalry is a historical one (no longer in play after the realignment of the division) but notability is not temporary so that should not change the validity of the article itself if that can be substantiated. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these satisfy the "significant coverage in reliable sources" requirements of WP:GNG. References 2 and 3 are blogs (not "reliable sources") and the 1st reference is about the Pitt v. WVU rivalry, saying only that "Louisville-West Virginia burned bright but then faded." (not significant coverage). Really, that ESPN article is actually evidence that this is not a notable rivalry.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree entirely and you'll note I didn't suggest those links made for good references. It was more about noting that the rivalry had been talked about and that I could understand where the article originated. It is considered, by some, to have been a standalone rivalry (historical, not current) but that doesn't mean it meets WP:GNG. If it doesn't, it should go. My suggestion was that given I could find a couple of mentions with a very quick google search, it might be worth trying to find some more with a proper search. I also thought it would be worth pointing out that it is considered a historical rivalry, not a current one. So people searching for contemporary references to a current rivalry would find nothing. Again, if it doesn't meet WP:GNG then it should go. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Ha ha, that is certainly the question. I was on the fence, did a quick google search, found some mentions and so (being on the side of caution) I fell to weak keep. I'm happy to accept that what I found might be the only mentions, ever. I am also happy to accept that these alone don't constitute coverage that meets WP:GNG. I suppose I'm mostly an advocate for the "fix over frag" philosophy (and believe problems are often surmountable) but am happy to accept some articles cannot be fixed. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:52, 10 September 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) 11:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing anything here to establish a true "rivalry". They've played each other, and have coexisted in the Big East for a time, seem to have fought each other to get into the Big 12, and that's it. There's no indication that this meets the level of actual recognized rivalries. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any time two teams play in the same conference, some claims of a rivalry will exist. So we have to treat a rivalry article like a regular season game article, is the rivalry historically notable or not. I don't see the GNG to suggest that it is the case here, thus Delete Secret account 06:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Muboshgu, Secret, GrapedApe and Crazy Paco. This article had already been identified by WP:CFB for internal review on the WikiProject talk page. WP:CFB's position is not to create articles for mere game series, no matter how notable, but to incorporate such material into the specific season articles of the two teams. "Rivalry" articles should only be created for series that are notable for being "rivalries." Following that understanding, project editors recently found consensus to delete the former Alabama–Florida football rivalry article because notwithstanding its notability as a series, it was not notable as a significant rivalry. I believe the same to be true in this case, and the closing administrator should give any concerned editor the opportunity to transfer relevant material to the main West Virginia Mountaineers and Louisville Cardinals football articles and their related season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was a series, not a rivalry. AutomaticStrikeout 19:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not sure why this was relisted after the nominator attempted to withdraw it. No one currently supports deletion. (non-admin closure) Monty845 15:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Energy

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

Does not follow Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines  Dr meetsingh  Talk  03:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Adding additional sources to comply with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines  Greenbeanstew  Talk  03:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Added a link to a US News & World Reports article on the company's partnership with Sempra Energy. And, added a section regarding the company's position as the first third-party application developer on the White House's Green Button format. Please suggest additional changes to bring into compliance with the guidelines. Greenbeanstew  Talk  03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Added citations to the Inc Magazine story and the Denver Post story. Please advise if further references are required to comply with the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. I am confident the article is now compliant. Greenbeanstew  Talk  04:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Having reviewed the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines at length, it is now clear that this article is compliant with the guidelines. Below are examples of each of the major elements outlined in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

I thereby propose that this AfD discussion be closed and the notice be removed from the article. Greenbeanstew  Talk  06:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 11 September 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) 11:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Having read through this AfD multiple times, pondered long and hard, and considered the policy involved, I believe there is consensus enough to WP:SNOW close this as keep. General consensus is that the protests are notable and will be in the long term. I will also point out that if we applied WP:CRYSTAL against assuming long term importance of every current event then we could never create articles over "current" events; we would have to wait until "long term" had arrived to see if the event had lasting importance before creating an article. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations

[edit]
2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article violates WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, these protests seem like big news right now--because we're living through the events. But at the moment, we have no way of knowing if they will be of lasting historical significance, which is what is required by WP:EVENT. Creating it now on the assumption that it will be of long term importance is WP:CRYSTAL. Wikinews is the proper place for covering ongoing events of indeterminate importance. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to rebutt this. The demonstrations are part of the bigger Senkaku Islands dispute that started all the way back from April 15 this year,(Channel NewsAsia) when the Governor of Tokyo called to buy the islands. Throughout the duration, it has involved protests from Chinese in and out of Mainland China, increased military action from both countries and tensions between the governments.
The incident has been reported through major Western news sources (see CNN and BBC), meets WP:GNG. It has been on the front page on major Chinese news sources (such as Sina News) for all these months. I don't see why, when it has received much more attention than the Xiaoyueyue incident last year (and across the globe too), that it does not deserve an article on its own when the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks does. NoNews! 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's part of the bigger Senkaku Islands dispute, then it belongs there. As I stated, you must overcome the very big WP:NOTNEWS requirement. The easiest way to do this is the 10 year test--will these protests be notable ten years from now? I sincerely doubt it, and I don't see any evidence that they will be. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not merely a few breaking news, it is a specific escalation of the dispute, a current series of events that has significantly affected the relations between the governments and the peoples of the two countries involved, possibly leading to consequences such as economic sanctions by China on Japan ([41]). It might even bring in the USA as well, because of the defense treaty the USA signed with Japan with regards to these islands ([42]), so it shows the importance of this incident in geopolitical terms. NoNews! 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All speculation. All WP:CRYSTAL. Not at all encyclopedic. And, I should clarify what I said above--just because some of this information belongs in the Senkaku Islands dispute, most of it does not. Most of it simply does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. We are not a newspaper. Period. We are most certainly not a propaganda site for the Chinese government. If the article should, God forbid, be kept, it must be trimmed. We do not give day by day breakdowns of current events. It is simply out of our remit. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, this protest will certainly pass the so called "10 year test", as least in my hometown Guangzhou. It is the first time that The Garden Hotel is damaged by mobs, and I'm sure that it is one of the worst mob violence so far in this city.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with User:Newfraferz87--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any time you can get (possibly) over a hundred thousand people protesting (and rioting) in several cities at the same time as part of the same event, it's notable. Doesn't matter what the country is or who the target is, the numbers speak. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jilemnice Occultist

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

not mentioned in several notable publications. not Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Master's Hammer. Barring the main article for the band getting deleted or put up for AfD, this would be best served by being a redirect to the band's article. I'm aware that there might be sources out there for the album that might not be on the internet due to the album getting released in the early 90s, but unless someone can find and post those sources I'm going to have to say that this album has no notability outside of the band. There are some issues with the band's article, as it currently lacks reliable sources to show notability so if the current band article gets deleted then this should ultimately be deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect; Master’s Hammer and the band’s first two albums are definitely notable, but this is not an article. --217/83 09:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC) See below. --217/83 16:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HARE Motorsport

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

WP:Notability. Fails WP:Athlete by a considerable margin. Amateur motor racing team that has never competed in a motor race that has been considered notable to Wikipedia and the article itself makes it unclear if the team even has competed at all. --Falcadore (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this pretty much says it all: "HARE Motorsport is a semi-professional racing team that is competing at Club level to gain experience and eventually will be entering the ranks of the GT Production Series (GTP)" (emphasis added). Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON but I doubt it; more likely just a clear-cut case of something that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nonnotable team, though unless it enters a major racing league and participates in a race, it's not notable. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 01:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added some more information to the article, so you should now be able to tell that the team is notable 08:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC) 124.171.86.166 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power of the Leaders

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

Completely unsourced and pointless list of world leaders Mean as custard (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even after a renaming and intense editing (culminating in an edit war and page protection), opinions are divided between those who want to keep the article because they believe that there are sufficient sources to establish this as a notable topic, and those who object to its contents on WP:POV and WP:COATRACK grounds. Given the evident lack of consensus, all that remains is for me to determine whether any of the "delete" opinions are so compelling as to mandate deletion in the absence of consensus. That is not the case, because the defects that the article has been argued to have and that have been given as reasons for the article's deletion can generally be remedied by editing.  Sandstein  15:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and censorship

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

I fail to see how the article reflects the religions stance on censorship and I think this is perhaps one of it's biggest failings. It just seems to be a hodgepodge of statements about what certain fanatically religious Muslims have done. These issues have already been covered in many other articles, such as Theo van Gogh's murder and Depictions of Muhammad. The article seems more slanted in that it gives undue weight towards "Muslims and Censorship" rather than what Islam has to say (this obviously violates the neutral point of view). Having articles on Christianity and Censorship and Buddhism and Censorship would seem equally mad. Furthermore there are numerous issues with (poorly) used sources and original research. For example in the lede:

  • "Some Islamic societies have religious police, who enforce the application of Islamic Sharia law" - Violates WP:OR as only Saudi Arabia is mentioned. There are at least 50 Muslim majority countries, it seems strange only one is mentioned. [43] [44]
  • "In non-Islamic countries, Islam has often been cited as a reason for self censorship. Sometimes this self censorship is because of threats of violence" - Again it's original research as nothing is mentioned in the source. Nowhere does this appear.
  • And the section on "Censorship in Non-Islamic Countries" has little to do with Islam and more so the actions of deranged zealots, and specifically for a murder case and other related crimes.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to create an article on Islamic societies and Censorship rather than Islam and Censorship, because as far as I am aware the religion does not condone censorship save the depictions of Muhammad alone. To have an article on this statement alone seems rather silly. Granted that a religion forbidding drawing Muhammad seems rather stupid and childish, it is the only piece of censorship in Islam I can find. Furthermore it's already covered in Depictions of Muhammad. It would be far more appropriate to create Islamic societies and Censorship as a lot of the material regarding censorship can be moved there (minus the European incidences of course since these societies are not Muslim in general). NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Wasn't aware of WP:COATRACK. Seems like a good reason for deletion. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My first response was keep and clean up, largely because we have articles summarizing the history of censorship in various countries and this seemed similar. However, I think the coatrack concerns carry the day in this case. A list of crimes by extremists that follow a particular religion is certainly POV, and state-sponsored censorship can be handled with equal quality and less controversy in the country-specific articles. VQuakr (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Country specific articles seem likely the place to write about the issue of censorship with respect to Islamic beliefs. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does not deal with the religion and that's simply the biggest problem. There doesn't seem to be any censorship in the faith except for drawing Muhammad (which is already covered here). NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Islamic ethics § Freedom of expression, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Blasphemy laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Blasphemy law in Pakistan
My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither "the Western sense" nor any other sense of censorship refer to actions by individuals against content they dislike. There is no possible way in which the murder of Theo van Gogh or the reactions to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons constitute censorship. Censorship is suppression by an authority. (The Satanic Verses thing would count, but we have an article on that; without demonstration that an actual topic exists, there is no reason to copy it into a new article with the goal of demonizing Muslims.) Rather than claiming WP:ITEXISTS because of X, Y, and Z invalid things, please provide sources which concern the ostensible article topic. (News incidents of censorship by Muslims or in a Muslim country are not sufficient, as VQuakr and NarSakSasLee point out.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to disagree, but there are many books specifically about Islamic censorship (please see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) starting from book "Censorship in Islamic societies". You tell: "Censorship is suppression by an authority.". Yes, exactly. That's how it's accomplished in Islamic societies for centuries. By authorities.My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there a point at which you or the other keep voter here intend to add any of these sources to the article? WP:NOEFFORT notwithstanding, this article has no content; it just briefly summarizes an existing article. This suggests that if we should have an article on it, WP:TNT may be the best route until such point as it contains any content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • All right. As you suggested, I quickly looked a few sources. Some of them, in particular the book "Abuse your illusions: the Disinformation guide to media mirages" does claim that violent attacks and murders by Islamic activists represent Islamic censorship. But it will take some time to properly research and source. Please do not revert my edits. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that there is a related CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13#Category:Censorship_in_Islam. This main article at least has the advantage of being less problematically named (imo) with "...and...", in that it doesn't suggest that it addresses censorship within a single entity "Islam," rather than a faith is that is interpreted and applied very differently. I'd point out that there is an equally poor section on Islam in Censorship by religion. I'm also a bit concerned that much of what we are terming "censorship" by religion may often be better described as heresy, which has its own category tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be correct for societies where Church was separated from the State. Not so in Islamic societies if they are ruled by the Shariah Law. Fight with heresy conducted by the State becomes censorship, just like during Spanish Inquisition. My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment False dichotomy I'm afraid. Shariah law seems changeable since it's based on the interpretations of the Quran and other such holy texts in that particular religion. The religion has nothing to do with censorship as has been rightly pointed out by another user, more so blasphemy or heresy. Again, it's one of the reasons why I proposed "Islamic societies and Censorship" rather than having this article which can only be written about "not drawing Muhammad" (as silly as that sounds...) which isn't exactly censorship. NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is WP:N. It is more then simple governmental censorship. "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." There have been several attempts at censorship by various organization other then the government and also calls by groups to censor material. The recent film on Islam is one example of censorship, for example. Casprings (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Censorship in Islamic countries, or by extremist groups not in charge, are functions of Governments or extremists. Issues of censorship IN Islamic countries are obviously therefore best discussed in relation to the COUNTRY, rather than associating the religion IN GENERAL with censorship. The article as presented is a WP:COATRACK to paint a religion with a broad brush. Also, the issuance of a fatwah against someone in another country may have a chilling effect on speech,an effect similar to censorship, but by definition, since the issuer has no authority OVER the individual, it is not strictly defined as censorship; there is a threat, not an effect of law. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC) (user changed his vote, please see below My very best wishes (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hell, why stop there? How about generalizing Israeli censorship law into Judaism and censorship? Then there's work to be done on Buddhism and censorship... Not to mention the ever popular Zoroastrianism and censorship... And that's just the start — we can have a whole panoply of unencyclopedic original essays asserting connections between religions and censorship! Carrite (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree, but Censorship by religion is a mainstream concept. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources discussing a topic, we should cover it. It's unfortunate to see you resort to such crappy arguments, Carrite. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Recent edits to the article continue to demonstrate the inability of "keep" voters to find a topic here. Of the material added by MVBM, the vast majority is not censorship, and the rest are at present "incidents" that clearly would be better in country-based articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You suggested to actually improve the content (see above), and I started doing just that. But it takes time. Since you prefer to revert my edits without discussion at article talk page, I can only stop editing and wait until the end of this AfD discussion. I do not want to waste my time if the page is going to be deleted. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such edits would not magically become appropriate if the article were kept; instead, they would demonstrate that deletion would have been the better option. You would be better off trying to improve the article, so that more people might want to keep it, instead of making it worse by adding irrelevant coatrack content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - MVBW - the article again fails to demonstrate how ISLAM (ie the religion) censorship's anything. Blasphemy and heresy are not forms of censorship. Governments can censor things but not religions - even Fatwa's which are religious rulings can't even said to be censorship since they are not law. You've simply added the same nonsense as before more or less. It's clearly violating WP:COATRACK. A better idea is to rename the article to "Islamic societies and Censorship" since things can be added to it for individual countries. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I renamed article as you suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, you didn't. You've named it something worse. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it kind of hard for it to be coatrack when you have a series of academic articles written on the very subject? To list a few:
  1. Heroes Or Heretics: Religious Dissidents Under Islamic Law, 14 Wis. Int'l L.J. 349.
  2. Law And Religion In Israel And Iran: How The Integration Of Secular And Spiritual Laws Affects Human Rights And The Potential For Violence, 19 Mich. J. Int'l L. 109.
  3. Palestinian Christians: Equal Citizens or Oppressed Minority In a Future Palestinian State? 7 Or. Rev. Int'l L. 26.
  4. Of Prophets and Proselytes: Freedom of Religion and the Conflict of Rights in International Law, 49 Harv. Int'l L.J. 249.
  5. Universal Versus Islamic Human Rights: A Clash Of Cultures Or A Clash With A Construct?, 15 Mich. J. Int'l L. 307.
All of these were found using the search terms of "international religious censorship" on Lexis. GregJackP Boomer! 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Recent edit-warring by keep voters to put into the article non-censorship and non-Islamic censorship - in short, to create as long a list of incidents unfavorable to Muslims as possible, regardless of sources or policy - continues to demonstrate that WP:TNT is the best possible option even for users who believe that the sources will support an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - would that include "edit-warring" by delete voters who are removing sourced materials? Why don't we wait and see what the consensus is first? GregJackP Boomer! 18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree with you that most of this article is crap, coatrack, an attack page, but now that the Name has changed, there is a least a possibility of an NPOV article. It is not presently even close, but that could be changed by editing. Censorship in Islamic Societies would include moderate regimes, or non-majority countries, such as India, where the sensibilities of Muslim citizens are given deference, and how Islam INFORMS censorship law.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's improve sourcing. But the subject does exist and can be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the purported qualitative differences from other forms of censorship sufficient to justify this article are firstly overblown (I suggest that if the editors supporting this were to investigate suppression in 'western' nations with as much fervor they would find qualitatively similar cases, and an examination of Soviet suppression would perhaps highlight even greater similarities) and do not to my reading require an independent article at all, but secondly and most importantly the article in its current form is a thinly disguised attack piece editors are trying to work around and we would be better served by blowing this one up and starting over if the consensus is that it is neccessary for Wikipedia to have an article on this subject.--Talain (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good example of a blatant WP:COATRACK that this article COULD attract; the Libyan embassy attacks. No censorship has thus far happened in what the editors thus far refer to as an Islamic society, but there are threats to civil liberty (though for a stupid and insulting film) in THE USA. Whether you would presently consider the US an Islamic society.... for whatever reason.... that is where the potential censorship would happen.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete [This commenter is the nominator, whose vote is assumed to be delete –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC) - I've somewhat changed my mind again. I thought I was convinced by the user "my very best wishes" and Greg but from their edits it's more than obvious they want to include individuals who censor stuff (ie ordinary protestors) when this actually isn't censorship. I tried to work to see if the article could be relevant, and change, but we already have "censorship by religion" to cover the Muhammad drawing case (including other numerous articles on this subject that's been done to death). The religious police stuff (since there aren't that many Islamic theocracies - only Iran and Saudi Arabia would fit into article) would also contribute a small amount to the article. Sources are also unverifiable. Also what's this nonsense about inserting weird quotes such as "She was arrested by "men with big beards ... saying they wanted to kill her"" - mob justice is not censorship especially for a case as in Sudan. The article still seems a bit of a mish mash and directed towards "those nasty Muslims". In this way I suggest a reddirect to "depictions of Muhammad" since only drawing Muhammad is considered a sin within the faith. Suggesting "Islamic societies and censorship" wasn't even taken seriously. The user changed it himself to fit in a WP:POV by re-writing it as "censorship in Islamic societies" which suggests something worse that Muslims are censoring stuff within their own communities. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think you suppose to vote "delete" and two times "endorse" as an AfD nominator. There is a book with precisely same title as this article, along with other books about the same [46]. Yes, I think that some of your comments about specific sources and phrases are not unreasonable. This should be fixed if article is kept.My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nar; looking up the non-extreme examples (ie not talking about the Taliban or Iran or the KofSaud), like Nigeria, or Indonesia, or Indian law's accomodation of Islam, and their extra provisions for depiction of the Prophet, they very much resemble US hate crime laws. Am just working this up, but they have very different approaches to speech provisions; if the crap can be trimmed, that might be worthy of inclusion, and would give balance to a very stilted article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic law is obviously very different from US constitution. Yes, what Islamic law means on practice vary from country to country. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A significant part of the nominator's rationale has been dealt with: the nominator suggested that instead we should have an article on "Islamic societies and Censorship" rather than "Islam and Censorship", and indeed the article has been moved to Censorship in Islamic societies, which is exactly what the nominator wanted. Other aspects of the nomination are really reasons for editing particular details of the article, not reasons for deletion. For example, ""Some Islamic societies have religious police, who enforce the application of Islamic Sharia law" - Violates WP:OR as only Saudi Arabia is mentioned." Well then, edit that particular sentence. The essential thrusts of most of the remaining "delete" arguments seem to be (1) "this is about how particular muslims interpret islam, not about what islam really says", and (2) "this is a coatrack article, collecting together various unrelated things". In answer to (1), so what? There is certainly a good deal of censorship done, in which islam is claimed as a justification. That is a well-documented and notable fact, and whether it is the "true" interpretation of islam is a question for muslims to debate. Even if we were to accept the point of view that it is not "true" islam, that would not mean that the phenomenon does not exist in the real world, and we should not censor the fact that it does because we take the point of view that it is a wrong interpretation of islam. In answer to (2), no it isn't. There are numerous facts which are connected by the fact that they involve censorship, and by the fact that islam is cited to justify that censorship. That is a very real and genuine connection, and documenting the connection is not coatracking. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just noticed that the nominator, after suggesting "would be more appropriate to create an article on Islamic societies and Censorship rather than Islam and Censorship" and seeing that indeed the article has been moved to Censorship in Islamic societies, instead of welcoming the change, regards this as a bad move, using the words "something worse". Have I missed something? Unfortunately I fear there may be a danger that some people could see this as suggesting that the nominator is just trying to find pretexts for deletion. Is there some deep significance in the difference in wording between "Islamic societies and censorship" and "Censorship in Islamic societies"? If so, it is lost on me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current title is better, but I do not really object to moving it back or changing to something else. Except it would be a good idea to suggest exact title and discuss. But I think that would be easier to discuss as "suggested move" at article talk page, rather than during AfD.My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POVFORK. Already covered in other articles about fundamentalist Islam, specifically when it relates to depictions of Muhammad. And those articles are written using far more objective criteria, versus the tenuous links endorsed by this topic title. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure they do. The Encyclopedia of Censorship has an Index entry of "Religion (religious censorship). See also The Bible; blasphemy; heresy; specific headings, e.g. Catholicism" and then lists 18 separate entries, not counting the see also entries. As an example, the Roman church was notorious for its censorship. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see your point and corrected. But I also agree with GregJackP. If the subject was in Encyclopedia of Censorship, it should also be here.My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote change to Keep Due to change in title. Let me stipulate that I agree with almost all points Roscelese and NarSakSasLee have made. It is a terrible article. It has WP:COATRACK within it, there are multiple editors adding criticisms of Muslims or the actions of some Muslims as censorship, when they clearly aren't, plus there is a confusion between the actions of autocratic regimes (which, whether secular or religious, always censor free speech) with their religious character. The question I now ask myself is not whether it is a good article (it isn't) nor whether the article as written violates WP principles (it does), but whether an article CAN be written on the subject. I also agree that to get there, it has to be mercilessly slashed, but falls short of WP:TNT.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect the belief that there could be an article on this topic, but I think that editors like you, who think there may be a topic but that there's basically no content here worth keeping and that the behavior of users promoting the article is inappropriate, can perhaps agree that WP:TNT may be the best option. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understand the rationale behind WP:TNT, and this article is close. Might be persuaded down the line, but AfD and RfCs are actually (though painfully slow) setting some limits on the article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator. During this deletion discussion several people improved this article to this version, but it was reverted back to version existing prior to AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could also say that the article was dragged down to that version, which is even more of an irrelevant coatrack than the original. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sure that closing administrator can look himself at this version and decide if the chapter "Limits on freedom of expression in Islamic societies" was relevant to the Censorship in Islamic Countries. I have no idea why you removed this chapter. Of course this is still "wrong version" that needs improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, do note that the author there found it difficult to write about censorship proper/alone in such societies and instead chose to title it "Limits on freedom of expression". Deciding what's censorship and what not from that would be pretty much WP:OR. Note the acrimonious lack of consensus on that issue on the talk page. Using "censorship" as an euphemism for more brutal ways (including murder) in which freedom of expression can be curtailed/violated is extremely silly and a WP:NPOV/OR violation too. (Amusingly, the editors attempting to expand the article with everything under the sun don't seem to realize that they're insulting the victims of the more gruesome acts by cataloging such acts as mere censorship.) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly. If you've got to come up with some contrived "limits on freedom of expression" so you can catch-all anything Muslims did that you dislike, you are demonstrating that you do not have a topic, or at least that if there is a topic, you are incompetent to edit it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So far, it is nothing but an attractor for random Islamophobic noise. I see little chance to develop the article into something useful - religious influence on secular affairs always has to be properly contextualized (compare Matthew 5:38–5:42 with the Crusades and Gott mit uns). Concentrating on just one property of societies that censor is like having articles on topics like "murders by the Scottish" or "annoying body-odors of Christians" - by careful application of confirmation bias you can surely find plenty of sources to suggest a strong relationship between the elements of the pairs of topics, but this is not a useful approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and better work on Human rights in contemporary Islamic societies (note the lack of any section there on [limits on] freedom of expression). That is the topic that this article is creeping towards anyway. Someone being killed after saying something is not how censorship is normally defined. There's also a long list of incidents in Freedom of speech versus blasphemy#Islam (which also covers events outside Islamic societies proper), so there isn't much that's missing from Wikipedia. And look how pretty censorship by country is too... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first thing to do would be to topic ban the disruptive editors who have been edit warring. When the field has been cleared so that cooler heads can prevail, I would add sober and scholarly content from sources such as that one. I'm not holding my breath though. Wikipedia is poor at handling controversial topics of this sort but it is our policy not to exclude them. Warden (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources in the article.So its meet our requirement for notability.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC).And also like I noted there are plenty of sources out there--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This issue has become far too controversial in the last couple of days. I'll let the community decide on the outcome. I'm happy to do that. It looks like I missed lots of information in the last couple of days to become too involved in it again. My primary concerns were the small incidences of extreme behavior that were in the article and the massive amounts of irrelevant and unsourced information, that should not be in a wiki article since it blatantly violates WP:COATRACK. As far as I see it you can only talk about one thing and that's depictions of Muhammad. Honestly that's about as far as I can see it's gonna get. Someone needs to work on work consensus. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is a topic to be brought forward here, what we see today is not it. I am sympathetic to all the "keep" !voters who recognize that there should be a topic written about the kind of censorship that is found in Islamic culture. Such an article would be good. However, that article is not what we have in front of us. That article would have a different title, and different text, and different references. How much should be kept or renamed? Nothing. That is why I say the article should be deleted. Somebody who has read scholarly sources about Islamic censorship should write the article anew, under a new name. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You might want to look at the article history. Everytime a scholarly source was introduced (i.e., peer-reviewed journals, etc.), Roscelese deleted it. That's why the article is locked right now. It's kind of hard to improve the article when one person can ignore consensus and edit-war it into its present condition. GregJackP Boomer! 04:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is extremely clear from the context of the article, for example, 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 69, at 73 the article states: " It is important to protect the individuals who wish to express those truth claims in a peaceful manner, without undue burden or censorship." [emphasis added] and 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. at 76 it states: "...international law provides for occasions of incitement to violence and recognizes that it is necessary to censor certain types of speech." [emphasis added] In addition, the article is cited in other articles to support the same position, that the actions amount to censorship, such as: "There continues to be debate about what this actually means and how States can enforce laws meant to prevent giving offense to what amounts to a collection of ideas and beliefs." 2010 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 635, 663, citing Graham 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 69. I could go on, but the source does not have to state it explicitly, unless of course one cannot think beyond the explicit text. No policy states that it has to say so explicitly, and it does not come from separate sources as required by WP:SYNTH. It comes from one source. The same thing with the second source. In the second, in the same section as the Sudan case, the source states: "there is a broad range of "permissible" limitations on the freedom of expression so as to preserve the majority religion's freedom from religious injury." [emphasis added] 2010 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 635, at 674. Clearly censorship, and again, from one source, not multiple sources. Government action to suppress speech is in fact censorship, by any reliable definition of the term. See Merriam-Webster, which states that censorship is "the institution, system, or practice of censoring" and links to the following for the definition of censoring:

Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good. In the past, most governments believed it their duty to regulate the morals of their people; only with the rise in the status of the individual and individual rights did censorship come to seem objectionable. Censorship may be preemptive (preventing the publication or broadcast of undesirable information) or punitive (punishing those who publish or broadcast offending material). In Europe, both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches practiced censorship, as did the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries. Authoritarian governments such as those in China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and the former Soviet Union have employed pervasive censorship, which is generally opposed by underground movements engaged in the circulation of samizdat literature. In the U.S. in the 20th century, censorship focused largely on works of fiction deemed guilty of obscenity (e.g., James Joyce's Ulysses and D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover), though periodic acts of political censorship also occurred (e.g., the effort to purge school textbooks of possible left-wing content in the 1950s). In the late 20th century, some called for censorship of so-called hate speech, language deemed threatening (or sometimes merely offensive) to various subsections of the population. Censorship in the U.S. is usually opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union. In Germany after World War II it became a crime to deny the Holocaust or to publish pro-Nazi publications. See also Pentagon Papers.

Clearly not WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR, and definitely not misrepresenting the source. GregJackP Boomer! 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the source explicitly say it is censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly not WP:SYNT. The anti-blasphemy laws and actions is the way the Religious censorship has been accomplished through the history. This is per multiple RS that can be found even by a Google search [49]. The religious censorship is usually performed on the grounds of blasphemy, heresy, sacrilege or impiety - the censored work being viewed as obscene, challenging a dogma, or violating a religious taboo. Defending against these charges is often difficult as some religious traditions permit only the religious authorities (clergy) to interpret doctrine and the interpretation is usually dogmatic. For instance, the Catholic Church banned hundreds of books on such grounds and maintained the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of prohibited books), most of which were writings that the Church's Holy Office had deemed dangerous. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of this response is original research from other sources to justify inclusion of this source which isn't explicitly on this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's quite obvious that this is a legitimate subject for an article. There's a ton of sources that discuss Islam and censorship, from news to books to academic articles. Here's just a few quick news sources that took me a minute to find:
Islam, Censorship and `The Satanic Verses' - Los Angeles Times
Censorship and Persecution in the Name of Islam - Middle East Media Research Institute
As fundamentalist Islam expands, some artists embrace censorship as a shield from society - Los Angeles Times
Coping With Islam: Censorship in Dutch Academia - Canada Free Press
A night not at the opera; Germany and Islam (A row in Germany about censorship) - The Economist
In Egypt, artists bemoan censorship but see society as the real censors - Associated Press
It's really not that hard to find sources on this topic. SilverserenC 07:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded on the talk page about ways these sources are largely unsuitable (unreliability, irrelevance). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There have been many Islamic societies over the centuries, ranging form the most liberal and enlightened to the most tyrannical and repressive. Certainly the majority of artistic censorship in those societies, if not political and ideological censorship, was justified, rightly or wrongly, by appeal to faith. See for example LGBT rights in Afghanistan#Censorship and Mahmoud Darwish#Views on Hamas. Deleting an article that can only be a coat-rack is legitimate, deleting one that might become such is putting the cart before the horse, and indeed would denude Wikipedia of the vast majority of its articles. Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • It's not about "might become" it was a coatrack at the time it was nominated and subsequent efforts to "improve" it have only made it more of one. I'll ask you the same question I asked Warden: how would you propose fixing the article, since the only "keep" !voters (and I specify these - I think there might be a topic there, but the content is not only worthless but actively harmful such that we may as well WP:TNT) who have edited the article have made edits that exacerbated rather than assuaged the deletion rationales? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possibility of becoming a coatrack is not a legitimate reason to not have a frank and objective presentation on censorship. There is obviously a great deal of censoring of things because they offend the religious sensibilities of certain muslims. -- Frotz(talk) 06:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam OUP p16 Guardians of Faith in Modern Times: ʻulamaʼ in the Middle East Brill p272 Censorship in Islamic societies Saqi The Challenge of Pluralism: Paradigms from Muslim Contexts EUP p21 Encyclopedia of Censorship Infobase p163 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you post the material from these books on the talk page? As I've said, the problem isn't that the topic doesn't exist, but that the article is total rubbish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stipulating so, this is a content dispute, and as such is inappropriate for AfD. Make my vote Keep, for the simple fact that this is demonstrably a notable topic, discussed in significant detail in scores of works, and so passes the GNG. (You may, Roscelese, spare yourself the trouble of writing a reply to this asking for a response from me. With WP:KEEPCONCISE in mind, your attempts to filibuster through rebutting over a dozen Keep proponents is unseemly. Yes, we get that you want the article deleted, and yes, we get that you agree with no position contradicting that.) Ravenswing 06:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge discussion may be appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Undertones

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

Not my field, but I cannot see how this group is notable: they have three recordings, 2 of which have no claim to notability & Boots and cats which has at least won a within-genre award. In such a case, do we make the article for the album or the group? DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Undertones have been one of the best collegiate a cappella groups in the Midwest over the past five years as measured by their awards at the International Collegiate Championships of A Cappella and their most recent album. But I understand if five years of regional excellence isn't significant enough to warrant a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathock (talk • contribs) 00:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a tough one, but I think if they have a couple of successful hits/albums, regardless of them being a college musical group, then I suppose they pass notability guidelines. But the page needs third party sources. I suppose anyone can be on Itunes and have chart topping hits, such as the group in question. Tinton5 (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to merge the content over to Northwestern University, including albums and such. I looked and the albums pages are stubs with just a lead and track listing. Very limited sources. Tinton5 (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I cast my vote, I'm confused. WP:MUSBIO is vague. To be eligible for a Wiki page, does an artist HAVE to be top 40 Billboard chart, no other accomplishments matter? If so I will vote delete, however if not and we choose to keep this article, we will need to revert a great deal of wrongful deletes. For example, just yesterday we deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Bhatt_(musician) who qualified a great deal more (as you can see form the discussion) but yet we determined the artist not notable Wikijustice2013 (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of college a cappella groups with Wikipedia pages. If this one goes, probably many of those should as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collegiate_a_cappella_groups Pathock talk 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[50][51]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe

[edit]
List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Nordic Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe and List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Nordic Europe are pointlessly split from the List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe. These regions don't seem to exist within the actual RC hierarchy, and the excessive lists don't do much other than duplicate Wikipedia categorization and provide a WP:OR summary. While at it, a new word ("Balkanic") was invented. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complex count with some 7 variables, so it warrants a source that does the same kind of counting. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, unless you volunteer to split the entire list by region and make things consistent, keeping just these two would still be wrong. The Nordic list is miniscule and is a subset of the list of dioceses immediately subject to the Holy See. Why not move that list into a separate article, then, isn't that method of sorting also pertinent? Then there's also the issue of the Balkans - a fluctuating geographic division of Europe, and notorious for its badly defined northern border - the only actual majority RC countries in that group are .hr and .si, and both of those could be moved to Central Europe on the basis of that same parameter. It's all pretty much pointless - if you want to make the big list's ToC more manageable, fix that problem then, e.g. by employing different syntax in the lowest-level headings to keep them out of the ToC. I'm going to try and do that now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you like the table of contents at List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and weak keep the first as suggested by Peterkingiron, and;
Weak keep the second. From a functional encyclopaedic perspective, both are marginally useful. Both are lists of Catholic dioceses (plural?) in geographic areas where they share a collective history - one in relation to the development and growth of the Russian Orthodox Church on its doorstep, the other in relation to the spread Protestantism and the subsequent wars they collectively undertook. That said, the lists without contextual explanation are not very useful. I would argue that the second could probably be merged into and redirected to Catholicism in Nordic countries which does provide some context (but needs work). There isn't the same sort of article for the Balkans so I'm a bit at a loss as to what should be done there. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both are simple navigational aids. They were used in the creation of the dioceses as a way that all the dioceses could be created at once. I say that because that's what I created them for. I agree - the lists should be expanded with further discussion - they were a simple navigational aid and there's nothing stopping the list from being more elaborate (or including a map of all the different dioceses), as seen in some of the other lists. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You probably need to review the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, weak keep. Being familiar with both Wikipedia:Categorization and WP:LIST, I think you can have both, per Benkenobi18. In this case, seeing the complex heirarchy as a list is an easy way to see the big picture. A move is in order, if we keep it. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe is not sufficient? Why should Scandinavia and the Balkans have their own little big picture outside the European big picture, but not other European regions? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucerne Open

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

Looks like a hoax. The infobox website links to the Romanian Open not the Lucern Open. I couldn't find this tournament on google. This is the second one of these I've found from editor User:Menzeliotsky Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Lucerne Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 Lucerne Open – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 Lucerne Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Lucerne Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Lucerne Open – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
...just not sure hoax is accurate. All of them are completely un-sourced and so need major work but it's a bloody complicated hoax if it is one. Someone has gone to a lot of effort, especially at 2012 Lucerne Open – Doubles. If this really is part of the ITF Women's Circuit then I would be inclined to think notability could at least be argued. That said, I can't find any sources to back this up - which is strange given the inaugural competition was held last month. Apparently. Very strange. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which was why I didn't put it up for speedy delete. I could find nothing on this tournament or the player that is a main focus of the editor who created it. That would be player Alexandra Machedoska which I also put up for afd. The ITF or WTA has no record of her. We are also talking about this at the Tennis Project and it seems there are multiple people involved or perhaps sockpuppets. Because it was elaborate I thought to myself that maybe my skills at finding sources was on the fritz when I afd this, and that maybe someone else would instantly prove me wrong. So far no one has. We have 4 editors involved right now... Menzeliotsky, Croszia, Mustafiska, and User:Anyalivictor. All but Anyalivictor are new from August-September. Ah, The interesting problems we find at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, understand entirely where you are coming from. By far the most "good faith" course of action. Just really strange... Stalwart111 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Machedoska

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

looks to be a hoax. Could not find the player name at WTA or the ITF. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article claims she was in the first round of both US and French Open , which she clearly wasn't. It also claims she won her first WTA title last year, which would mean she was only 16 in accomplishing that feat, which would have lifted her among those big names like Monica Seles, Martina Hingis who also found success in that early age (surpassing the likes of e.g. the Williams sisters). I think that would also bring media attention and coverage as well so if it doesn't than it's probably a made up thing. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lajbi and nom. I originally prodded it as a BLP-PROD -- that must have gotten removed in the shuffle. I agree this may be a faster way of handling. Theopolisme 11:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this is found to be a hoax, please note that there are other WP pages with this purported player's name inserted into the results (2011, 2012 Lucerne opens...). These need to be tracked down and eliminated. Only 53 hits in a Google search for the name, mostly WP-related, which indicates either a very, very bad misspelling or a hoax. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. Having just sorted through all the "Alexandras" on the Women's Tennis Association website, there is no such person as Alexandra Machedoska listed in the database, nor anything close. The internet footprint is microscopic for the name, with all or almost all entries either WP or WP-mirrors. The editor who started the piece is a newcomer who should be blocked for hoaxing unless I'm very, very wrong about this... Carrite (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax whatever... Remember to check all edits of this user. --Stryn (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ronald_McDonald#Actors. Redirected to Ronald_McDonald#Actors, since he does appear there. WilyD 15:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maggard

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

Not a notable person. You'll have fun looking at his IMDB biographical article. In the meantime, he may have played Ronald McDonald, but the sourcing for that on the interwebs is blogs and stuff like this. Deletion would be welcomed. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starr Sutherland

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the Silver Star is not sufficient to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Grubozaboyschikov

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

Failing WP:GNG, WP:JUSTPLOT, WP:V/WP:RS since 2007; I was not allowed to just redirect the article, was told I "should nominate them for deletion" instead. Niemti (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the other articles on Bond characters recently nominated for AfD are about individuals who do not play a role in the plot, except as people in the background or incidental victims. They should be merged and redirected . The General is different: he does play a significant though minor role. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, he isn't ant different. That's all plot/trivia with no independent sources, about a character in a single novel. --Niemti (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a couple of extra references to this particular individual, as a quick search of Google Books and Google Scholar show. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look for appearances in any other James Bond media and/or merchandise, his influence outside of the franchise (inspirations or parodies), awards, top lists, etc. If there's nothing of that, than it's not a notable character at all. --Niemti (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's what's on display in a number of the Books and Scholar references above. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed. --Niemti (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Balls are citations needed. All I've done is point out that there are other sources of information: there are quite a lot of them and a number are exactly what Wiki aims for. Other people can look through them use them if you're too lazy to do it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now you can use those other sources of information to show any proof of the character's independent notability (see above of what to look for, but I think it's unlikely, given it's a character that is only in a single novel, according to the article). Or "you're too lazy to do it" but that's not my problem. --Niemti (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mine neither. I have not supported or challenged the deletion: I have merely offered a number of third party sources which people can use and which any editor should have looked at before blithely sticking the AfD tag on the page. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All Bond-related reliable sources. One can make the same argument for virtually every character in the Bond universe. The character is unknown and non-notable outside of hardcore Bond/Fleming fans - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Russian School

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

No indication of importance or notability. This is not a "school"; it meets for three hours once a week according to their website. I could not find any independent coverage about it at all. Four weeks ago I proposed the article for deletion; prod was declined by author saying "page will be improved in the coming weeks", but the article remains unchanged. It has no independent sources and appears to be 3 or 4 years out of date. MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable group, did not see anything indicating notability from quick searches. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC) The sources provided by Jrcrin001 (talk · contribs) below do not appear to be sufficient to establish notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -sche (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have found zero reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Regarding the user's "page will be improved" message, they have had a month to improve the article including a simple edit here or there. Considering that the user has only edited twice this year and hasn't maintained a significant amount of activity since 2010, it's possible that weeks would be become years....and Wikipedia can't tolerate that. Additionally, I can't see how the article could be improved if it appears that there is zero reliable evidence such as news coverage. It is possible that reliable sources may be Russian but this may not be so, considering that the group is Russian-American. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changed to Delete - Article needs a lot of work. I found a source or two not in Russian that may help the article. The ones in Russian I have not cited.

http://www.rostoc.us/russian-schools.html
http://community-commons.com/projects/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwOzL9-6SOU - Yes, it is You-tube but it shows class work and could be used as an external link sample.
If I find more, I'll let everyone know. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I called them and other related numbers and even a Russian Friend. At this point the organization is non-accredited and with a social focus. The goal is to keep their children Russian heritage aware. Thus it is not a real school and fails notability. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 18:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)</small[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Perhaps a merge discussion should be had at the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Just Decided To

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

Unremarkable episode. references provided demonstrate the notability of the series but not this episode. Article is almost entirely a copy of the parent article on the series and is already well covered there.RadioFan (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Article is in a rough state, but seems fixable. It's a pretty notable series, with lots of coverage, even around the premiere episode. The sources that review the episode also review the show, which is typical for a first episode. Probably needs a rewrite to emphasize the episode's role in establishing the series, which is entirely possible from the reviews that comment on the episode itself. No prejudice against re-nomination if problems persist and prove to be unfixable. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The series is notable, that isn't refuted here at all, the appropriateness of an article dedicated to this one episode (the only episode with an article) is being questioned. Notability of the episode isn't established here. Additional reliable sources are not likely to pop-up as the series continues on next season. This episode can and has been well covered in the article on the series itself. A merge might be a reasonable outcome here but since the article is almost entirely a copy of the parent article, I'm having difficulty finding anything to merge.--RadioFan (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how incubation is going to help here. There likely isn't going to be anything new written about this episode. Of the links above only the indie wire offers much specific to this episode and that's a recap, the remainder are offering commentary on the series as a whole. These would make fine references for the article on the series but dont do much to establish notability of the episode. The lack of ink on subsequent episodes doesn't help change the view that these reviews of the pilot aren't much about the pilot and are mostly about the series as whole. The pilot episode, just can't support a dedicated article. --RadioFan (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the information in the article is important to both series and pilot. It is typical of a Wikipedia pilot episode article to have similarities to the main article - Conception, production, casting, ect. Look at Pilot (Boardwalk Empire) Pilot (Smash) and Pilot (American Horror Story) - All good articles. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of coverage per GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you be more specific? There are concerns about the coverage that has been discussed so far , specifically whether that coverage is about the episode or the series (see above).--RadioFan (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elance
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODesk
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_September_17&oldid=1142633583"