Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 January	17 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan cramer[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable author, without references. Unable to find any independent sources. - Mr X 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find reviews. He self-publishes through Bronx Village Publishers as the article admits. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews as well as present best seller ranks for all his works can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Alan-Cramer/e/B004J63XLE/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1

WP:CREATIVE requires reviews in reliable sources, not on sites like Amazon that publish anything that anybody writes without checking the author's credentials or the accuracy of the review. I'm not necessarily saying Cramer has reviewed his own books on Amazon, but other authors have done it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to add that the opinions of average Joes and Janes don't really amount to much on Wikipedia when it comes to reviews of products. I think that the only way a review on Amazon would really count is if it was written by an Amazon account that was 100% guaranteed to be a notable person, such as if Anne Rice had reviewed one of Cramer's books under her Amazon persona. Even then it'd be suspect because you'd have to ensure 100% that it's her and not an assistant or someone else that wrote a review under her name. Essentially, reviews under Amazon, Goodreads, or any of the "anyone can review" sites are unusable to show notability. Reviews that are considered usable are almost always the type posted in reputable newspapers such as the Village Voice, New York Times, and such. Trade reviews from places such as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews aren't the greatest, but so far they haven't been completely ruled out as reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm fully aware that most of the authors in the urban fiction field are largely ignored by the mainstream press, but this doesn't mean that authors aren't held to the same standards of notability for authors. I found one sole review from Black Issues Book Review, but that seems to be where his recognition largely ended. He's not exactly Nikki Turner and while authors don't have to reach her level of notice to pass notability guidelines, we need more than Amazon reviews and one BI book review to show notability for Cramer.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there are a number sources see here at prlog.org but not sure if it's considered an RS. His really name is Mikaeel Abdul-Malik it may help with finding sources. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're not. Press releases are always considered WP:PRIMARY sources when it comes to showing notability, so they're unusable as far as showing notability goes. They, like other primary sources, are discouraged when it comes to sourcing stuff in general because unless the info in them can be backed up with RS, there's no way to determine if the claims are accurate or not. I'll try searching under his real name, though.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search and brought up nothing of use under his real name.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability other than "it's popular among local students." Good catch! NawlinWiki (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Pepper[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable, tagged for notability for over 4 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riviera Theatre[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep It's a historic building in one of the US's biggest cities and while it's not as legendary as the Uptown Theatre (Chicago), there must be coverage going back many years in the Chicago press. There's also coverage e.g. in The Chicago Movie Palaces of Balaban And Katz by David Balaban and Joseph Ducibella[1]. There's paragraphs in various guides e.g. Rough Guide to Chicago, Chicago For Dummies, and CBS Local. CinemaTreasures.org has info[2]; I'm not sure if it's a reliable source but the site gets high praise from Roger Ebert. And there's various live albums recorded there.[3][4] --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Colapeninsula above. The Balaban And Katz book provides some good citable background, my only concern is that it's published by someone of the same last name. Obviously not the original 1920s owners but likely a descendent. Not a deal-killer but it would be good to have a few more reliable sources just to back it up. Stalwart111 23:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be beefed up, not deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. A significant building. Per the Chicago Sun-Times: "This is the site where Rapp & Rapp started their empire of movie palaces that eventually spanned the country."[5]. Also worth adding to the article, a notable Obama campaign appearance in 2007, covered in The New York Times[6].--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This building is also a contributing structure of the Uptown Square National Historic District. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 02:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T. V. S. R. Appa Rao[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this does survive AfD, I will be interested in someone reminding me what our policy is vis-a-vis reflecting lists such as this one, of 125 publications.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a difficult one. Technically many in the list do not meet the definition of a publication as many of them are talks or lectures. Mkdw ^talk 07:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. While TSVR Appa Rao has a seemingly large body of work, no reliable and independent sources he is the subject of the publication has been brought forth to suggest these are leading publications in the academic community. Furthermore, many of the 'publications' are talks and not studies or papers published in scientific journals. Lastly, the India Express source trivially mentioned Rao. A scholar and news search do not reveal any independent sources. Mkdw ^talk 07:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that {{BLP}} directs, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page". This page has for five years been hosted with no improvement. Unless this changes in seven days I can't see any basis that it could be kept. Mkdw ^talk 17:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:RS, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, WP:GOOGLE. Not notable to Wikipedia. --Bharathiya (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DElete. Can't manage a GS h-index greater than 7. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per the above deletes.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of 125 "papers" (most of which aren't even papers) isn't enough for notability. I've looked them up on Google Scholar; they're good papers with reasonable numbers of citations, but there's no evidence of anything significant enough to keep under WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. We need independent reliable sources to keep, and I'm not finding any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imareaver (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable organization. A search of Google News Archive found a few passing mentions ("so-and-so from the group Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure said...") but no significant coverage or information ABOUT the organization. Article is written in a chatty, nonencyclopedic, POV style, but that could be fixed. Lack of notability can't. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search of biomedical literature yields no coverage, either. -- Scray (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to U.S. Bombs. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put Strength in the Final Blow[edit]

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

tagged for notability and unref for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably redirect to U.S. Bombs as non-notable album (although maybe check the band are notable first). Note to proposer: you are free to redirect yourself (or merge yourself) in cases such as this where it's unlikely to prove controversial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. The best I could find in terms of coverage was a one-sentence Allmusic review; the album does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 19:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait Professional[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, how hard did you look? A quick search yields lots of secondary sources for this software:

CNet staff review
PCWorld review
New York Times article
Digital Photo News review
Think Camera review
a page in Joe Farace's Glamour Photography book

These are all in depth secondary sources by independent organizations. The New York Times, PCWorld, and CNet organizations are well-known and reliable. The BBC reference in that article looks fine, too. Digital Photo News and Think Camera are more specialized, but seem reliable. Multiple reliable secondary in-depth independent sources lead to this topic being notable; the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Above, Duckispeanutbutter lists six sources, saying These are all in depth secondary sources by independent organizations. Oh really? The NYT article -- at least in the (seemingly complete) form in which I view it on my computer -- doesn't even mention this program. The page (79) in the Glamour Photography book (mildly NSFW, and IMHO tacky) is not "in depth" according to my understanding of depth. However, the other four sources seem good. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER--all those references were my doing :-) Thanks for critiquing my list of references. The NYT reference does in fact mention the product; look about halfway down the article for the paragraph starting "Some companies are trying to automate the process. Among them is Anthropics Technology, which makes a software program called PortraitProfessional..." There are four short paragraphs on the product and company, which seemed enough to classify as in-depth. I can see where you'd consider the GP ref not in-depth, it is mostly pictures. That the reference is tacky says something about the state of glamour photography these days. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry DPB, I blame Mark V instead. Except that I don't. Actually I blame caffeine deficiency. I glanced at the NYT article, which seemed to be about other software. Then I searched within it for Portrait space Professional and of course found nothing. Duh. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plugrá[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can find references to it in secondary sources, albeit foodie ones. — Kaz (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a distinctive and well-known butter brand, many chefs and home cooks swear by it. See e.g. [7][8][9][10].--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in multiple sources - sufficient to establish notability. I added a book cite to the article from a book published in 2007 which has a short discussion of the butter as the sole type used at the Culinary Institute of America: [11] Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Peridon (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Piesse[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not seem to be sufficiently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't even bother claiming any kind of notability, this is A7 material tagged as such. Secret ^account 05:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Deleted as A7. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure, closed by nominator). Article improved by creator and notability established in this discussion. Thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonello Picco[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His large beetle (and other insect) collections and entomological notes are an important contribution to the development of this science in late 19th and early 20th century Italy. His name appears in contemporary works and in directories. He is not in the first rank but would easily make the second. Deletion of this article would remove a start point for further research. Please keep. Notafly (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable scientist. Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs work and it seems the most valuable sources might be in Italian. That's fine, of course, but I can understand where the nomination came from. I think it would help to have verification that his collection is/was considered to be an important contribution to science (I mean beyond the opinion of editors here, as valid as those opinions might be). I think his notability is established anyway, but it might help avoid a return to AFD in the future. Stalwart111 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peabody (band)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not entirely sure what Boleyn means by "I couldn't prove notability" but given that he/she is AfDing one article every 2 minutes I don't think much effort went into it. It took a little more than 2 minutes to find these[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] which go some way towards establishing notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a few more and there are several pieces of coverage from reliable sources reproduced here. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band appears to be notable as per the sources brought up here. Mungo Kitsch 08:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep Querulous nomination - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are numerous reliable sources that clealry establish the band's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non-admin closure. Notability demonstrated in discussion and new sources found. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patent Lens[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's certainly some sources.[22][23][24][25] It might be possible to merge to CAMBIA, but deletion would be wrong. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parochial and technology Schools in Lucas County, Ohio[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although only the high schools are notable, it's a legitimate list and possibly too long to merge to Lucas County, Ohio, though if you want to merge that would be better than deleting. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a worthwhile list. While only the high schools have been deemed notable enough for their own articles, I haven't seen anyone proclaim that we should pretend lower schools don't exist. Also, these mass deletion nominations are profoundly unhelpful. If you're going to nominate an article, please take the time to examine the article and craft a non-generic rationale. - Eureka Lott 15:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unnecessary over-tagging e.g. duplicate orphan tags by nominator. This is a useful list that is akin to a school district and provides a useful repository of information about otherwise nn schools. Absolutely no benefit to be gained from deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 and G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vidar Nilsen[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 16. Snotbot t • c » 21:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How did this survived over 5 years, A7/G11 garbage, quick glance of google translate of those Norwegian sources indicates a soccer player and a runner with that name, tagged as such. Secret ^account 05:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure - notability established in discussion. Thanks for your contribution. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Mozart Players[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, but honestly, if you were not able to prove notability you need to adjust your methods. Click on the "news" link above and there are at least 11 pages of articles on this group. Article needs help, but we don't delete or use AfD for clean-up. We only delete if the topic is not notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Doss[edit]

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

Non-notable living biography

(1) Using the criteria: (quoting from Wikipedia Notability page) "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.... In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."

(2) WP:RS The only reliable source cited is a New York Times article. The RV site is advertising and the gadget site is a fan-site compilation, similar to roadgeek sites; both are unreliable sources. I searched google news, book, scholar and web but have found only one other reliable source, apparently written from the same press release as used by the New York Times writer as it contains essentially the same information. This article uses the same photo and youtube link as elsewhere showing that the pictures were circulated to the media, not taken individually by the media themselves. On the NYT page, the photo is sourced to "Doyle Doss". The North Coast Journal story is merely that the invention was featured in the NYT article, it contributes nothing new.

(3) WP:N Although the article in the NYT is a thorough article about him and his work, there is a lack of significant coverage in the media. He was a 15-minute-wonder 2 years ago, not of lasting notability. He has no awards, I find no patents or patent applications at the US Government patent office, nor do these articles say he has any, and his company name shows in no local business or telephone directories. The topic is not important enough to merge with any other article. I have read the article's talk page and history pages. There are no interlanguage links, although the page appears in Russian Wiki it is identical to the English version. I do not believe the article can be fixed instead of deleting because the subject is non-notable. The only non-user talk pages in Wiki to which the page links are:

(a) a redirect page and

(b) Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 03 ‎ (links) where it appears as "not yet reviewed" from 2011 "N Doyle Doss: (4 edits, 4 major, +824) (+227)(+172)(+329)(+824)"

Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Mildly Oppose Notable enough to be written up in the New York Times. I would admit he's no Ron Popeil or Thomas Edison, but he achieved some level of notability. The NY Times article does not appear to be a press release to me. He may be a fifteen minute wonder, and WP:Crystal. But I see no evidence of self promotion. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

The NYT article says "“Innovation and invention in America are not dead,” wrote Mr. Doss, 62, in an e-mail that included links to YouTube videos that he said proved his point. In them, hummingbirds hovered two inches above people’s nostrils, sticking their beaks into the red, vaguely frightening masks."" Hence the article was written because of material sent by Mr. Doss, thereby failing the filter " and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity," above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the NYT and the Home and Garden articles are virtually identical, and the picture on the NYT article is credited to the subject of the article, I highly suspect these articles were written off a press release and hence not WP:RS. And there seems to be nothing else to be found, so it fails WP:GNG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 16. Snotbot t • c » 21:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are pointing to. I think that anybody who makes it into the pages of the NY Times has more notability than me. He didn't pay for the space. Whether that is enough or not I leave to you or others. Good luck.

Somebody says he "doesn't have any patents". That should be verifiable, and the proponent of that affirmative statement should be able to tell us a check has been made. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that there are now at least ~~five~~ seven independent sources. Perhaps you don't like the Seattle Post or the Los Angeles Times. Your google search seems to have missed some items. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Post Intelligencer or the Los Angeles Times are the same story, the Post picked it up from the Times. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does, however, indicate a wider geographic interest than if it had simply appeared in the Times. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the new sources are about the hummingbird feeder gizmo. I can see where that gizmo might be notable, but I still don't see it for the guy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The news stories span 7 years so I don't see how you can claim this guy is a flash in the pan. Here's more coverage of the candle heater.[26][27] The AOL News and Los Angeles Times articles are similar but not identical, and there's more[28][29]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable biography. Not enough coverage in reliable sources, the same story was picked up by the papers. As a biography it doesn't appear notable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe sufficent sourcing has been included to pass the relevant notability guidelines. That said, it might be worth considering renaming/rescoping the article to Doss Products, but that can be done through the normal processes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to later renaming to Doss Products, I believe the existing sources evidence notability under [{WP:GNG]]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Notability established in discussion, thanks for your contribution. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Voice[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets a lot of coverage in BC, but I found some from elsewhere too.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Notability demonstrated in disucssion. Thanks for your contribution. Boleyn (talk)

Bob Norberg[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you search Google Books (per WP:BEFORE) you'll find quite a few refs in the vast literature on the Beach Boys. Heroes and Villains: The True Story of the Beach Boys by Steven S. Gaines[40] has a bit; Inside the music of Brian Wilson: the songs, sounds, and influences of the Beach Boys' founding genius by Philip Lambert has a few mentions; there's stuff in Billboard, which is searchable through Google Books. Notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niña Amada Mía (telenovela)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News finds loads of reliable sources. Due to the flood of AfD nominations with boilerplate rationales I don't have the time time to improve the article as I usually would. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately, all telenovelas are inherently notable because they represent so much of the TV content broadcast in countries like Mexico. A cursory search on google.com.mx serves up a ton of sources for this. Think of them as notable in the way any major program broadcast by the BBC or CBS is essentially notable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Saturday Morning[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet more Nickcruft; 'block' never existed and was just a loose bunch of new shows airing on Saturday morning and was a complete fan/crufter branding. No information would be lost through a deletion. Nate • (chatter) 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No relevant sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friedia Niimura[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – article has plenty of sources, I see no reason to delete it. Bensci54 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've trimmed some of the BLP violations and tidied up the sourcing, and while she has received some tabloid press coverage as a minor celebrity, it's hard to find any hard evidence of her supposed modelling or acting career. --DAJF (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Limited career as a tarento. Was in a film back in 2003 as Rin Kozue [41], brief singing career with a single [42] and some exposure as a print model [43]. LinkedIn is somewhat rounded out [44] and she conducts an interview on the "Making of" episode for Black Rock Shooter, for which I do not have a direct link. As much as I wouldn't lose sleep seeing this article binned, I'm of the opinion she just barely passes WP:ENT, even if finding proof of life in her JP television appearances for the last decade might be only headache. Jun Kayama 15:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:ENTERTAINER due to sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': Passes notability. You can't just nominate a shitload of articles like this with identical descriptions.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New Jersey Churchscape[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say a revue in the New York Times denotes notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really a review: a one-paragraph blurb, really. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It didn't take me long to find a review published at library.villanova.edu. Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That review doesn't really signify much. It's a one-paragraph review that's actually from Choice, a journal of the American Library Association, which publishes 7,000 reviews a year, basically just to help acquisitions librarians. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Abigor. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nachthymnen (From the Twilight Kingdom)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Abigor per usual practice where an album isn't individually notable. --Michig (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 and G12 —Darkwind (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Asadi[edit]

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

The whole page is an advert, also this may not meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Should have been speedied.--Dmol (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Dmol. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Ramsay[edit]

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

Not sure if this meets the WP:NOTABILITY guideline It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability.--Dmol (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no souces about him Dishv80 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Already deleted.--Auric talk 22:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rody Mirri[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The italian wikipedia version was deleted in 2008, it:Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Rody_Mirri as being a vanity page, but a review of italian newspaper sources shows he appears to be notable for questionable conduct in part, e.g., [45], [46]. He is the "Italian TV producer" referenced in Michelle Hunziker.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Dawes Melville[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The position of Commissioner in this context is enough to presume notability. St Anselm (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed: see Commissioners of Sind and Commissioner#British_and_Commonwealth_overseas_possessions; Sindh is one of 4 provinces of what is now Pakistan and hence a significant geographical entity. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Henry Havelock who was Acting Commissioner of Sind for a while. Mcewan (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily a senior enough position for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: commissioner was the administrative head in British India for regions such as Sindh, till a position of a Governor was made in 1936. See also, William Henry Havelock.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his position is notable enough to have notability. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would suggest that those governing Inidan provinces, even on an acting basis are notable. The problem with this article is that it is a mere stub, and tells us nothing of what he did as Commissioner. Most Commissioners of Sind have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with above opinions on inherent notability. Mcewan (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per StAnselm et al. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 01:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Courcelles 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mastropiero que nunca[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and unref; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, one of the better plays by utterly famous Argentinian group Les Luthiers. It might be difficult to find online sources in English, but that's because of recentism and a different language. I've added a book reference in Spanish that was captured by Google as proof that deep in depth coverage exists. A quick visit to an hemeroteca (newspaper archive) should show lots of reviews from that period, as everything this group makes has been followed by mass media for 40 years (no kidding). See also this Google search - several reviews and books. Many are just catalog entries, but many others have some commentary that could be added to the article with time. Diego (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn thanks for your hard work on this, Diego. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation when notability is established. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lamb (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, the article currently have one borderline good source; an interview with the Oxford Mail. Other than that I haven't found any non-trivial independent sources.

The original article author also states that he is best known for an upcoming series, but none of the sources listed in The_White_Queen_(TV_series) appear to feature him as a central character, he doesn't appear on the cast photo and isn't mentioned in this article from the BBC about the series. Bjelleklang - talk 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. How can he be "best known for his portrayal of Anthony Rivers" when the television series hasn't, as far as I can tell, even aired yet? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- still NN, but he might be notable one day. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "22:31, 22 January 2013 Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Hadis Fooladvand (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) , from the deletion log Courcelles 01:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadis Fooladvand[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ACTOR. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per nom, notability not established, has been deleted before with A7. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Notability demonstrated in discussion. Thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lunicus[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect notability but can't prove it without a pile of old magazines. It was "named 1993 CD-ROM game of the year by the magazine MacWorld" (Newsweek[47]) The Macintosh Bible Guide to Games by Bart Farkas and Christopher Breen on Google Books snippet view seems to have a review, Software Reviews on File, Volume 9 (Facts on File, Incorporated, 1993) has one from MACUSER, and there's a few other results on Google Books that can't be read (e.g. The business of multimedia by Nina Schuyler). --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mobygames lists four publications which reviewed the game. Allgame, listed as a WP:VG/RS, published a game review on its website. Even if one or another of the sources mentioned thus far turns out to be little more than a numerical rating, it still seems to me that there are more than enough reliable sources out there with reasonably significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This site also shows a review in another German magazine. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also discovered that Computer Gaming World (Issue 109, August 1993, pg. 90) published a fairly in-depth review. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If in the lead paragraph, it cites a reliable source describing the subject being awarded with a MacWorld Game of the Year award - remove the notability tag instead of spree-nomming it. - hahnch e n 23:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Posse[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They toured with The Clash, recorded a radio session for BBC Radio 1, released an album on Mango Records and another on Worldplay Records, received coverage from Hip-Hop Connection and Blues & Soul magazines, appeared on TV ([48]). At least one of the members is individually notable. This group were one of the pioneering UK hip hop acts, and Sipho was a pioneering UK beatboxer. This is an important group and we should have an article. --Michig (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Billboard describes them as "one of London's most influential rap acts"[49]; The Telegraph says they "finally gave British rap an identity of its own"[50]. NME review[51]. They have multiple mentions in Global Noise: Rap and Hip Hop Outside the USA edited by Tony Mitchell[52]. The article already has cites from The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music and Indie Hits 1980-1989 (Cherry Red Books). The article badly needs tidied, but this is an act of evident historical importance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crucially important to the development of British hip-hop, and they easily meet WP:MUSICBIO per the many reliable sources currently referenced in the article and those mentioned above. — sparklism ^hey! 13:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lencioni[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's some coverage beyond the refs in the article.[53][54][55][56][57] All business books are more or less worthless but he plainly has coverage in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF #1 - The five dysfunctions of a team has 484 cites on Google Scholar. St Anselm (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in the !votes above demonstrates GNG, PROF #1. Article could use a little less fluffery, though. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cleaned up the article some and cited the references better. He does appear to be have sufficient coverage for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient coverage, and his book is highly notable, from a reputable business book publisher, well known in business training programs.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Tigers[edit]

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

Unref and tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously, folks? An article for a community youth basketball team? Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Oy vey. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it does appear to be a potential candidate for A7 speedy deletion: no credible assertion of the organization's significance or importance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Clearly. Though the quality of play is probably only slightly worse than the British Basketball League ;-) Rikster2 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is far from clear what league the adult team plays in. This is not a major sport in UK, but the senior league clubs ought to have articles. Local ones probably not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mindf+[edit]

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

This was apparently first published this year. I have serious doubts this is notable yet. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Looks like a fork of Brainfuck. There are no secondary sources attached to the article and nothing crops on a web search. The source code was uploaded an hour ago, roughly around the same time the article was created. The user that created the article also seems to be the same person who wrote the code, so there's a potential WP:COI. Funny ^Pika 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT at this time. Gong show 20:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 —Darkwind (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Laudat[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and unref for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Art[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable art genre. I was unable to find any news or book articles on the subject. - Mr X 18:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable if not WP:MADEUP. Just students being students.TheLongTone (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage. It would only be relevant to those studying at VCU or walking through Compass Plaza. Funny ^Pika 19:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utter non-notable nonsense. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Characters of the Mass Effect universe. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring squad members of the Mass Effect universe[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic in-universe essay. Despite the included references, this appears to be largely based on original research and personal opinion. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The reason this article exists is because someone split it out from Characters of the Mass Effect universe which is itself a mess. I would suggest that both articles be slashed down and then reincorporated back into the Characters article. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wow, what a mess. A highly selective merge back into the main article on the game seems reasonable. Let's see if we can gain consensus on that as an outcome here.--RadioFan (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. I don't think the answer to the issues at the Characters article was to fork, I think it should have been to trim and cut and clean. I think that cleanup should happen before we try to stuff another article back into the mess, but I do agree that it should be the end result, if and when. Can it get done in 7 days? Doubt it. But worth discussing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it doesn't have to happen in 7 days, if the outcome here is merge, a reasonable amount of time will be available to complete the merge.--RadioFan (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split or delete - I split this article from Characters of the Mass Effect universe due to size. Perhaps these articles should be trimmed before they are merged. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This was not supposed to be split due to size, the main article should have been seriously trimmed instead. The AfD of Characters article was very indicativethe issues have to be dealt with in manner of trimming trivia and gamecruft. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be renamed to List of recurring characters in the Mass Effect universe. Some information might be trimmed, I don't know, haven't read through it all. Shouldn't just be destroyed do to size reasons alone though. Some of the characters might be notable enough to have their own articles, if someone finds enough references to prove that. Major characters that appear throughout a significant series like this, deserve their own character list. Dream Focus 10:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which already exists at Characters of the Mass Effect universe. This page was split from that. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikia Mass Effect or some other similar dedicated wiki (is there a standard procedure to do that?) and Keep as a stub per WP:STUBBING. There are reliable sources that should be kept per WP:PRESERVE, but most of the content should be trimmed down to the bare minimum that is referenced, and the rest moved to the wiki that accepts and welcomes this kind of content. Diego (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Characters of the Mass Effect universe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete or EXTREMELY trimmed merge WP:GAMECRUFT. Also, highly likely to be crossing into Wikipedia:Plot-only_description_of_fictional_works#Avoiding_violating_copyright issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and massive trim to Characters of Mass Effect, the latter of which should get a trim as well. It looks like the character list currently consists of a play-by-play of what each character did in the plot, which should not be the case. Rather, it should talk about them as characters (i.e. characteristics, etc.) and if there isn't enough to say about them without regurgitating their role in the plot, then remove that character entry outright. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per my initial comment. I will also echo Axem's recommendation. I might take it upon myself to take a first cut. --Izno (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Notability has been demonstrated; thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laser integration line[edit]

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

Tagged as unref and non-notable for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article has now been improved so that it is a legitimate stub and is satisfactorily referenced. As an editorial opinion, I think it could be merged with Laser Mégajoule leaving a redirect (there is already some LIL mention at this target). However, I think this should not be stipulated at AFD because a satisfactory merge requires someone with subject matter knowledge and it is not merely an administrative action. I think the notability of large scale scientific facilities is best considered under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and LIL is notable in its own right, the references being published by independent scientific journals. Thincat (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the good work of Uncle G and improvements of Thincat, this article has good references and the topic was shown to be notable, based in multiple peer-reviewed papers in reliable journals and per Thincat's reasoning above. Mark viking (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Tee hee Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamit Zübeyir Koşay[edit]

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

Tagged for poor sourcing and notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Online sourcing for someone who retired over forty years ago, has been dead for nearly thirty, seems in his lifetime to have been as important an administrator as a scholar (in several different, if loosely related, fields), and mostly wrote in Turkish, is not likely to be entirely easy. However, one would generally assume that someone who the Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia describes as "arguably the most important figure in the development of Turkish archaeology in the twentieth century, apart from Ataturk" [58] would be notable, and searches using a slightly different version of his middle name (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) or omitting it altogether (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) seem to get results which searching on the article title misses. PWilkinson (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You touch the "books" button and you find many of his books. It is our fault that we have not been able to write more and better on this notable scholar. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Notability demonstrated in discussion. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pina Kollars[edit]

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

Tagged for poor sourcing and notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her album Quick Look has been reviewed in Billboard, Les Inrockuptibles, and Classic Rock Magazine - see article. She's also released 2 albums on Real World Records (the latter through EMI), thus meeting WP:MUSBIO #5. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable via both coverage and album releases per WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Messengers (Quran)[edit]

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

No search for this term (in either English, transliterated Arabic, or original Arabic) finds any references to this story other than this article. Clearly (based on earlier versions of the article) the story exists in the Quran, but it is not clear that the story is considered significant in any manner. Even the fact that the messengers were in Antakya (Antioch) may or may not be significant, or even true. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very first search that I just tried finds plenty of references to this story other than this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Duly noted, and duly chastised. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kirkland[edit]

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

Tagged for poor sourcing and notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the list of accomplishments seems to be impressive, but I am seeing no significant coverage of the person out there. Fails WP:ENT. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After multiple detailed searches such as adding "Madonna", "dancer", "music video" and "Duets choreographer" (a TV dance show in which he is a choreographer) provided nothing but a search with Christina Aguilera provided two results although brief mentions here and here. At best, it's too soon for an article and, yes, he has several music videos but dancers or actors in music videos won't always receive attention. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Rein[edit]

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

A request was sent to OTRS from an email address listed on Cal Rein's website requesting that the article be removed as "self promotion" and non-notable and referencing this edit request, which probably should have been filed as an AfD to begin with. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive769#Cal Rein is be relevant here, though since the request came through what appears to be an official email address, I thought a full AfD couldn't hurt. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to spoof outgoing email addresses. Has anyone attempted to contact him to confirm it is him, not a stalker/impersonator? Marginal notability on the article at the moment, but keep if it isn't actually him wanting the deletion, delete if it is actually him. The-Pope (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my default vote when a BLP subject of low, marginal, or unclear notability requests deletion of their own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bunch of minor credits, but no sizable roles in significant films or TV series means he fails WP:NACTOR. When the article talks about his casting in the not-in-general-release, low-budget The Eagle Path as "a turning point in his career", then you know he isn't notable yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial sources, no basic notability; fails WP:ACTOR on a good day. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Ka Ghar[edit]

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

An article that does not look like it could be salvaged and is not much more than a plot summary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ascendancy (album). Courcelles 02:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Gunshot to the Head of Trepidation[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not clear that it meets notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 05:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ascendancy (album) as non-notable album track. I see zero coverage outside lyric and tab sites, YouTube, and social networks. I first read this as A Gunshot to the Head of Trepanation, which IMHO would be a much better title. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Ascendancy (album); fails WP:NSONGS for standalone articles. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ascendancy (album), parent album. Song has no stand-alone notability (I couldn't find anything other than lyric sites, and the likes). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Curse_of_Blackmoor_Manor#The_Penvellyn_legacy. Salvidrim! ✉ 19:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penvellyn[edit]

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

Non-Notable and based as a background off one game in a larger series Delete/Speedy Delete Jamesbuc (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 10. Snotbot t • c » 13:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redirect to Curse_of_Blackmoor_Manor#The_Penvellyn_legacy - It seems this family is important to the game's story but because it is only relevant to this game and there wouldn't be much else to add to the article, redirecting may be appropriate. A Google News search provided several news articles for Curse of Lackmoor Manor which I plan to add to the game's own article. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is that some of this is more of a walkthrough than any actual information. For example it openly reveals the culprit and reads more like a fanpage. Moving it would basically be more excessive synopsis when wiki isnt really a place for that. See WP:DISCRIMINATE Jamesbuc (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Curse of Blackmoor Manor as a plausible search term. I do agree that there's nothing there that merits a standalone article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dock to dish[edit]

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

Article about a supposed certification program for seafood. There are no third-party references to this at all, other than self-generated Facebook and Twitter accounts. No established notability, either for the program or whichever entity is promoting it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's some sort of fresh-caught seafood subscription service out of Montauk, Long Island. Other than a single sentence in Food & Wine, I could find nothing outside of social media. Not close to being notable, at least for now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Whichever it is, it's not notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Bessler[edit]

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

Mostly unreferenced, only notable thing is that he's married to US Senator. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No standalone notability, would fail WP:ACADEMIC, no particularly large coverage on Google. One of his books is fairly popular according to WorldCat but that's about it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few reviews of his books (note that he's commonly called John D Bessler). American Criminal Law Review[59], Kirkus[60], Publishers' Weekly[61], Law & Society Review[62], Michigan Historical Review[63], Journal of American History[64], Baltimore Sun[65] --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colapeninsula's links are sufficient evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR. Ray^Talk 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue of the book being notable while the author is not is a common one - my !vote is based solely on the notability of the latter. If anything this AFD makes a case for moving the article to the book's title instead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't see WP:AUTHOR applying here as he is a professor by occupation, and just happened to write a book or two. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? Our notability guidelines apply based on whether you meet criteria; your primary occupation has nothing to do with it. There are, for example, quite a lot of politicians whose primary occupation is "farmer", but who still meet WP:POLITICIAN. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, WP:ACADEMIC explicitly says that meeting another area (such as WP:AUTHOR) is sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC as well. See the ninth criterion. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Practically all professors write a book or two on their subject, and Mr. Bessler did just that. That doesn't make him a notable author by any standard, that just makes him a professor who authored a book or two. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR criterion 4. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognition of his work in GS contributes to WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Basalisk under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nizar alkhatib[edit]

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

No real indication of notability that I can see. Co-founder of a website whose name is currently on offer at go-daddy. Prod has been declined, otherwise I'd have put a CSD tag on this. Peridon (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the website has now been changed in the article, and is 'coming soon'. WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. NickCT (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. (Can a CSD A7 really not be used because of a prior Prod removed by the article creator?) AllyD (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't actually know. It's stuck in my mind from somewhere. I seem to remember getting told off about it some time in the distant past. They won't shout at you much if you try it and find it's not allowed. Peridon (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability for the subject and his website and/or projects. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability to justify retaining the article. Ducknish (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 02:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masahiro Kawasaki[edit]

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

unref article; tagged for notability for 5 years. May be info in Japanese WP article, but I can't verify that. Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll do some more searching later, but the JP wikipedia page says that he won "awards of excellence" for his music for Rampo (film) and for Kin'yu fushoku retto Jubaku at the Japan Academy Prize (film). Apparently, by their system, all the nominees in a category receive the award, and only one gets the main award. I will add these to the article, with citations. I also found an obituary. Michitaro (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Winning an award, even a second-rate award as described above, is still enough to make him notable, especially with all the sources that have been found. Bensci54 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I searched some more and while there are not a lot of articles on the net about him (there may be more in print), I was able to confirm one more award nomination. I added that and some other information to the article. I think it is now sufficient to pass notability requirements. Michitaro (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references added by Michitaro now show that the subject satisfies the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kumiko Kato[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk)

Delete The (unreferenced) article text itself admits that the subject was aspiring rather than established. Nothing on Allmusic. There is this item on her as an opening act, but it falls far short of WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:AllyD. Article fails to identify notability. Could even qualify for Speedy:A7. Plus, its a WP:BLP, and its been unsourced for far longer than 10 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensci54 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was able to find another article like this, but otherwise her website is dead, her MySpace page shows nothing other than the one single from 2005. I can't even confirm the kanji of her name so as to search for her in Japan. I think she just tried to establish herself around 2005-2006, but failed. No trace of activity since then. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. --DAJF (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete per all the above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 88[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. The event did not include an type of championship fight that might have helped contribute to proving lasting significance. The vast majority of sources that I was able to locate are MMA-centric sites and do not help establish notability. Ish dar ian 13:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these are sometimes mentioned in coverage of subsequent events, and there seems to be as much as for some of the motor racing or Olympic Games events. It's also part of a series, and this seems to be the most useful way of organising the articles; start merging or deleting and it results in a mess such as 2012 in UFC (which is a combination of separate event articles and links, not a summary, and should be split into separate articles). Peter James (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Liddell is one of the most important mma fighters ever. I also count four former UFC champs on that card. What;s wrong with them being mma centric? I saw a nightmare before christmas gameboy game not get deleted because it had reviews from 20 or so game magazine.Other stuff, but there is someone out there who will agree. Don't vote keep because of that. Just think about for later. To the stalkers, now is your time and turn to respond. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - I diagree with the assessment by Ish dar ian that "MMA-Centric" websites are not notable. If it's a secondary sources from a reputable source which supports the material in the article, shouldn't that be all that matters to pass WP:SOURCES The Yahoo source falls under that catagory, as well as MMA Junkie (part of USA Today). The other two aren't great, but half are solid. It needs better sourcing and more context, but I feel it passes WP:GNG with what's currently on the page. Worst-case scenerio, merge it into a omnibus for 2008 in UFC so the article's content isn't lost. Luchuslu (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that the sources are unreliable, just that they don't have a large mention of the fight. The only info used from the Yahoo! article is the Pay-Per-View buy rate for the fight. MMAjunkie is a great site to pull fight info from, but the info taken from there and bloodyelbow is the fighters' payouts. The UFC site can't really be used to establish notability since they are hosting the event. If there are more secondary sources out there that talk about the fight, such as what led up to it and what came after, then they could be added to the article to solidify it; I have no objections to withdrawing my nom if they can be found. Ish dar ian 20:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. http://www.sherdog.com/events/UFC-88-Breakthrough-7837 Will including Sherdog as a reference for all the fight information be helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.7.220 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha (film)[edit]

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

A film (with no intext citations) that fails both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Peace be with Gautama Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I'm unable to find sources that would confirm this film's notability. That said, there might be some non-english sources out there that would prove me wrong, and I'd be happy to Keep if that ends up being the case. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with the new sourcing. There's still work to do, but it's clearly notable now. Good work. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator and Ultraexactzz. Keep since sources have been added and article has been improved. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep and let's improve it. Sorry Bonkers... this unsourced article is not unsourcable, as shortening the title and including the director's name has given us a few articles and reviews.[66] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC) (STRUCK my "weak" per ongoing improvements) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}[reply]
Its okay,now I'm starting to see the "notable" aspect of this film. It needs some cleanup and decent sourcing still. Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Sandesh[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actor who has become more and more popular in south Indian film industry lately. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upcoming actor becoming highly popular of late. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy might not be famous in the West, but he is a household name in India. His first film, Happy Days was a hit Telugu film. Hope this helps. Yours faithfully, Kotak kasut. 18:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - worked a little bit on the article. Should be enough to solve this debate. Johannes003 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is an established actor in Telugu cinema.--Dravidianhero (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Nomination withdrawn Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isaak James[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work, but he probably meets WP:CREATIVE as the creator of probably notable film Special Needs (film). Also has some other press coverage for his other films. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colapeninsula; there's some good coverage here focusing on the subject (as well as some that doesn't). Cleanup would be useful, but that's not cause for deletion as such. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find sources out there, makes it a notable article. Wiki4 Blog 06:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Ishikawa[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. WP:USUAL might apply if this actor gets more roles, and more prominent roles at that. But there is no coverage that I can find to suggest any real notability here. Caveat - I don't speak or read any Japanese at all, so if there are sources in that language I wouldn't have any way to know. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any significant third-party coverage to indicate that this person is sufficiently notable to justify a self-standing biographical article here. --DAJF (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jasser Haj Youssef[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable ad. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google News searches provided this (French news article), this (talks about a new album), this, this, this (both brief mentions), this (brief review) and this (more in-depth than the other links). I'm not fluent with French but he certainly has not been ignored and it's possible additional sources may be Arabic. Curious if he received attention from British media, I searched at The Guardian, The Telegraph and BBC News but found nothing relevant but a search at La Presse de Tunisie provided this (brief mention for a 2011 event). If additional sources are found, I think this article would be a keeper but I'll establish my vote when other users have spoken. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there's a bucket full of notable & substantial references at fr:Jasser Haj Youssef. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the :fr: article has some broken references, the RFI and New Morning references there seem substantial enough to meet WP:GNG by a bit, and I would be surprised to find that the other links, if corrected, didn't provide additional evidence. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep main article, and Merge the others into it. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With permission from Boleyn, here, I'm expanding this nomination to include all articles listed at {{IFC Awards Chron}} (closer, this should be treated as the new "start" time). The articles are pretty much the same and so if one's deleted, they should probably all be deleted and vice versa. They are:

– Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, delete. Nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Only coverage is purely local: Sioux City Journal, Ames Tribune. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:ORGDEPTH, there needs to be in-depth coverage about an organization like the Iowa Film Critics Association. Apparently one of the co-founders is Jeffrey Bruner, but I cannot find any mention of him beyond him being identified as such. However, it is worth noting that Variety reported on the association's selections as seen here and here. The problem is that neither is in-depth coverage. I'm leaning toward delete, but it seems like we have quite a few similar organizations on Wikipedia whose selected winners and nominees are reported by larger publications like the aforementioned Variety. Should the criteria for awards be different from organizations in general? Is it worth discussing more specific notability guidelines in this regard? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was able to easily find lots of significant coverage across multiple different types of secondary sources going back over time in the past and present and hopefully there will be in the future as well. — Cirt (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources report more than what the association selected as the winners? I'm looking for more in-depth coverage than just that kind of routine announcement, per the guidelines for organizations. Is there a sample source you can quote? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iowa Film Critics. Merge the rest of these articles into the main one. Obviously the Iowa Film Critics awards are less well-known than the Oscars, but they reported regularly in reliable sources and are reported by reliable-source databases (see e.g. [67]) I don't think this article has to have information beyond the awards to survive; the New York Film Critics Circle doesn't do anything besides give out awards, and we're not about to delete them. Given the level of coverage, I don't think we need to have a separate article for every year, but a single article collecting the awards is appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A topic on Wikipedia needs significant coverage, so why do you say that this topic does not need "information beyond the awards to survive"? I did a search engine test for New York Film Critics Circle, and there appears to be significant coverage about that organization, unlike for this one. WP:ORGDEPTH says, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The "keep" arguments seem to be misinterpreting the notability guidelines. The essay at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions points out that:

Notability is not inherited (see WP:NOTINHERITED)
Lots of sources are not indicative of significant coverage (see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES)

While these awards are namechecked in several high profile souces they are usually in relation to someone having won one. The fact that The Hollywood Reporter may have reported that Bill Murray won an Iowa Film Critics award for Lost in Translation is a WP:WEIGHT argument for covering the award on his article, it doesn't necessarily bestow notability on the award itself i.e. Bill Murray is the notable subject of the article, not the award. Just like Suri Cruise is mentioned in numerous reliable sources, this doesn't necessarily substantiate her notability: she is only written about in the context of her parentage. If these awards are only written about in the context of who have won them, then this does not establish their notability. For this we would perhaps need a list of nominees or winners from Variety, or a substantial piece on the history of the awards in The New York Times, or some variant along those lines i.e. the awards themselves should be the subject of the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the Variety articles cited above actually reports on the awards for that year, not just on one winner. As do the multiple Iowa newspaper articles reporting the awards each year. Where another editor sees only "local" coverage, I see repeated state-wide coverage, as well as some national coverage over a number of years, which is enough to meet the GNG test for coverage of the awards.-Arxiloxos (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Iowa Film Critics per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Merge the rest of these articles into the main one, and tag for more sourcing. Even though ostensibly an Iowa group of film critics judging mostly non-Iowa films, they have had wide enough coverage to merit inclusion. Point being, Variety (magazine) is not some local neighborhood gazette and WP:GNG is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge, more or less in agreement with MichaelQSchmidt's reading of the sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Medical Student Journal[edit]

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

Article dePRODded by creator without stated reason. PROD reason was "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals". This is still the case, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 2 years old - University of New South Wales (2010), AMSJ : Australian medical student journal, Australian Medical Student Journal, ISSN 1837-171X - would tend to disagree not indexed - Trove shows it exists as a hard copy and an e copy - and the issn number itself verifies it is a legit publication Satu Suro 15:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not say "not indexed", but "not indexed in any selective database" (emphasis added). Having an ISSN is meaningless, this is easy to obtain and many utterly non-notable publications have one. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with information about sister publication a year older - ANU eView (2009), Medical student journal of Australia, ANU eView, ISSN 1837-350X - clearly the faculties at rival universities are claiming Australian context - that is notable - that 2 unis are trying to publish such journals - perhaps otherwise can be subsumed into Medical Journals in Australia Satu Suro 15:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot find any sources commenting on such a rivalry. In their absense, this would fail WP:V. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (If you read the ref that has been added to the AMSJ stub, the last line of the text implies as such) cripes veterinary and other medicines have similar situations over the last 90 years + where a faculty at on institution will claim national this and another will try the same and then you check publication history and one or other abosrobs the other down the line... - the simple publication info itself implies competition - otherwise there would have been a broad professional AMA (Australian Medical Association) centralised single periodical - they are generated by the larger competing universities - separately they might seem non notable - I still think the info about the mags (and their recent currency) is sufficient for a stub that doesnt have to be prodded or have afd attention.. . Satu Suro 15:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two references that you added to the stub is independent or even substantial. The first is simply the home page of the AMSJ, the second is simply the home page of the other journal. Any speculation about an implied competition is WP:SYNTH at its worst. And even if this were not synthesis, who says that this purported rivalry is notable? Again: sources are lacking! --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Unfortunately, I don't see anything at this journal's web site that shows me this journal merits inclusion on Wikipedia. This journal does not appear to meet the notability standards on Wikipedia. I am sure this journal is informative and it does have a peer review process, but I don't think it has the level of editing and peer review that professional academic journals have. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Economies of scale. Courcelles 02:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internal economies of scale[edit]

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

unref essay, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, even a cursory Google search will verify that "internal economy of scale" is an extant concept; but for my money the article would be better merged to Economy of scale. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as ~~suggested by Duck=PB~~. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Abigor. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Memory...[edit]

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

Unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abigor, the band that released this album. It's not a great sign, though, when the band's members are all redlinks. But the album title is a reasonable search term, I think. Would be better if it were at In Memory... (album) or some such, though. But then that wouldn't be a good redirect... and oh I've gone cross-eyed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A V George[edit]

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

Sources do not meet WP:GNG. Originally I thought this should be kept due to George's role as Vice-Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi University, (which would pass WP:ACADEMIC); however it doesn't look as though the "VC" in front of his name on the MGU website refers to that role (the site lists Rajan Gurukkal as Vice Chancellor ^(verify)). As such, there's nothing here to render him notable by Wikipedia standards. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn; looks as though his appointment was very recent and parts of the site haven't been properly updated yet. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Rasmus discography#Singles. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ice (song)[edit]

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

Unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Rasmus discography#Singles. There's really nothing here other than that tracks, which can be merged. --Michig (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I Got No Kick Against) Modern Jazz[edit]

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

unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It took some effort but I found a fair bit of coverage in Billboard, plus 3 other reviews across a range of sources, and some other bits and pieces, which I added to the article. There were suggestions of additional reviews in jazz publications, but very few jazz mags from 1995 are online even in the paid-for databases. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the added refs from Colapeninsula. The title bugs me, honestly, but I'm not sure what can be done there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the fact that one of the songs on the album was nominated for a Grammy award shows a certain amount of notability in my eyes. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hunt (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; seems to be self-promotion Boleyn (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was easy to find sources about him and his films, which I've added to the article. He's not Steven Spielberg but he's been covered in various indie film media (Film Threat, CineSource), and in news media in the US West, and a bit in Christian media. He prefers to tour his films and show them free to interested groups, rather than going for box office, so notability will primarily be through WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent work improving the article by Cola. WP:HEY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fatmess[edit]

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

Notability questionable. Unreferenced BLP. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 09:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any related sources on this, save a few brief mentions on WoW forums. There's nothing on the Virgin Media claim either. I'd say it fails WP:GNG, WP:HOAX at worst. Funny ^Pika 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything in reliable sources. Looks like somebody bragging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ss the person who originally PROD'd the article. I was also unable to find any credible reference to the claims made, particularly the Virgin claim, and the article only exists because of those (extraordinary) claims. InShaneee (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Altered copy of the Warv0x article.--Auric talk 15:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only seems to possess limited internet notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KingSize(band)[edit]

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

Declined Speedy because notability asserted. However I think it's still of questionable notability, so AfDing. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their 'claim to fame' appears to be that they played at a high school music fest, twice. I was unable to find anything about their one supposed EP on google. InShaneee (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also probably worth noting here is the other article by this author, KingSize (Discography). InShaneee (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. I can't find anything to meet WP:GNG either. — sparklism ^hey! 13:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cannabis dependence. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana abuse[edit]

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

Article does not appear to meet notability or reliable sources requirements. petrarchan47 t c 06:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to substance abuse PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A ~~merge~~ redirect to Effects of cannabis or Cannabis might be better, in providing more specific information about marijuana. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited - not convinced the content's worth merging, but redirect could be discussed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems biased, and the only one about "[substance] abuse". The introduction was a copy from Cannabis (drug), one section seems like original research, and the other seems like a partial copy of Cannabis dependence. So, I see nothing to merge. --KDesk (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing here worth merging. Rehash of material found elsewhere in the encyclopedia under better titles. External links are all spam - or at least POV websites, not Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to another article since it is a term in common usage. Perhaps Cannabis dependence? Unless MelanieN has a better suggestion...Student7 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. There's nothing here of sufficient value to keep -- and the general topic of "marijuana abuse" is covered better in articles such as Cannabis, Cannabis (drug), Legality of cannabis, Legality of cannabis by country, Effects of cannabis, Cannabis dependence, and Legal history of cannabis in the United States. I lean toward deletion because I think that the user should decide whether their main history is in recreational use of marijuana (sometimes termed "abuse" and covered mostly in Cannabis (drug)), effects of marijuana (see Effects of cannabis), illicit use of marijuana (see the various legality articles), or the DSM-IV disorder known as Cannabis dependence. --Orlady (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Abuse is a form of abuse where the afflicting agent is marijuana . Marijuana use is not Marijuana abuse - Also , dependance and abuse are two different things . Abuse by definition causes affliction , whereas dependance may not always be a source of affliction . MalcolmX86 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Stars Comedy[edit]

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

Local comedy club in "a small sandwich shop". No assertion of notability in article. Created by SPA whose username suggests COI, promotional intent. A Google search for ("all stars comedy") yields many spurious hits; refining the terms to search Google, Google News, and Google News Archives for ("all stars comedy" arlington) and for ("all stars comedy" listranis) yields directory entries, Yelp reviews, and entertainment schedules, but nothing that looks like in-depth independent coverage. Ammodramus (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedily as attack. All but one of those external links seem to have attacking quotes that do not appear to be on the site linked. Having said that, certain 'comedians' might take them as compliments... There can hardly be promotional intent for a club that finished in 2010 and whose founder died in 2011. Looks non-notable, anyway. Peridon (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that delete-as-attack is a valid conclusion; the attack aspects could be remedied by removing the external links in question (which were all added at once by an IP editor: see diff). The article was apparently created as a promotional piece, then attacked by someone else. The real issue, however, seems to be notability or lack thereof. Ammodramus (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say it's quite fun as it is... The one review in there does back up the point of view of the attacker. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for reliable sources doesn't bring up anything that would show that this now defunct comedy club would pass notability guidelines. I was also unable to find anything to show notability for its founder. I've removed the Yelp type reviews from the article. Although they do have a train wreck hilarity to them, these aren't considered to be reliable sources that would show notability for the club. Some of the other links were ones that were about the place the club was set in rather than about the comedy club itself. This is a pretty easy delete decision.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. NAC—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

List of universities in North America[edit]

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

The article is redundant. See the lists listed in Lists of universities and colleges by country#Americas Professorjohnas (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - higher education and Universities are not the same thing necessarily (there are other types of higher education). Outright deletion is definitely wrong; at the very least, this is a valid redirect link. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have List of universities in Canada, List of universities in Mexico and List of universities in the United States. Do we still need a list of universities in North America? It is definitely redundant.Professorjohnas (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's redundant, which I would probably agree it is, then Redirect to Lists of universities and colleges by country#Americas is the right course of action, not outright deletion. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is not redundant as it provides a reasonable survey of these institutions at continental level and links to sublists to avoid duplication. Warden (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of universities and colleges by country#Americas provides links to sublists, that's why we don't need this page. I mean to redirect this page at the very first. I'm sorry that I didn't clarify my meaning. Professorjohnas (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, the list is excessive given that we have per-country lists--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or simply Delete. This is a list of lists of lists. The lists by country are entirely adequate. Dingo1729 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Obvious. (Why weren't these listed together?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:SNOW close. If you look at the listed articles like List of universities in Canada it provides all the same articles and a North American listing already exists. Mkdw ^talk 07:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schola Latina Universalis[edit]

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

I don't think this web-based school passes WP:WEB or WP:ORG. I can't find any reliable sources online, and the reference given in the article - the journal Melissa - doesn't seem to be reliable. I found what I think is the journal's website here, but I am not sure that it would pass WP:RS. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I could find no secondary sources and only a handful of primary ones (advertising the school). The journal Melissa cited on the page appears to be self-published and therefore less reliable. Furthermore, if this is the article cited (the date and author match, but not the title), it does not appear to mention the school. Cnilep (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Describes itself as a school but is really just a website, and doesn't come close to meeting the relevant standard. Chick Bowen 04:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An online learning course falls under the auspices of WP:WEB, which this doesn't satisfy in the slightest. Can't locate any independent sources, even in Latin... Yunshui 雲‍水 15:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Originalfemaletenor (talk · contribs) has posted a possible source at a help desk thread: "the recent reference in the UK journal 'Current Archaeology' for December 2012 (in the section called 'Odd socs' which appears on the final page - I think it's page 50". -- John of Reading (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. The single possible reference mentioned above won't be enough on its own. This looks like an advert masquerading as an article, IMO. ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable online course; the Current Archaeology mention is a mere squib about an oddity, not the requisite substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above evidence that it is not notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American_Idol_(season_10)#Finalists. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Lusk[edit]

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

This person is not notable at all besides AI. He is not signed to a label and has not released any songs. Babar Suhail (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It has been English Wikipedia's consensus regarding American Idol at least, that all 12 finalists of all seasons get their own pages regardless of what success they have later on. I don't know how fair this is, as this is not applied to other country Idol competitions, or to other reality TV competitions like X Factor, The Voice etc. but this is the way it is. I am ready for someone initiating a general discussion on all American Idol contestant articles. Once our present consensus is changed after a general discussion, individual articles deletions may be contemplated. But nominating just Jacob Lusk out of all American Idol contestants seems unfair and unwaranted to me. Keep this article for now and initiate a general discussion if you will. werldwayd (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - could you point me to the policy / guidleine / discussion in which this consensus is codified? -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 10)#finalist. I see no coverage aoutside his appearance on American Idol. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article about an American Idol finalist that has multiple, reliable sources passes WP:MUSICBIO #1 & 9 and passes WP:GNG. I find it sad that as the article's creator I was not notified of this AfD. Aspects (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The current edition of WP:MUSICBIO includes the admonsihment at the end: Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jacob Lusk satisfies the criteria under WP:MUSBIO under #4 and 9. He finished fifth in Season 10 and it is considered placed to have finished within the top 10 in American Idol, and he participated in a national tour in th US (tour dates also included Canada and the Philippines) which is ranked #38 in the Top 200 North American Tour of 2011] . Hzh (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSBIO #1 and #4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol (season 10)#finalist. There is no standalone notability here; to the editors quoting WP:MUSICBIO, I'd remind them that there is a specific exception for reality show contestants. Lusk is not known for anything outside of his participation in American Idol - and he didn't even finish in the top three. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A great article! It must be saved. Sources are independent and reliable sources... Samuel petan (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you explain how those sources identify him as indpendently notable from Idol? -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 04:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American_Idol_(season_10)#Finalists. In nearly two years, Jacob Lusk has not achieved anything notable aside from American Idol and the only recent evidence of him is this which is a minor mention. The "Keep" votes have failed to clarify how he is notable aside from American Idol. Although one user mentioned he participated in a 2011 tour, this wouldn't be enough (and it was during his American Idol time) and several non-notable musicians have participated in tours. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the above to Redirect to American_Idol_(season_10)#Finalists. He is never cited outside of that context. Alfy32 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be recreated or undeleted when there's a little bit more solidity about the album. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daley's debut studio album[edit]

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

Mostly per WP:HAMMER. Only information about what happened before the album, a list of "confirmed" tracks; e.g. this could fit better on his biographical article. — Ṟ Ṉ 04:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically a copy of the Daley article with some tracks listed at the end. There's very little here about the album. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album's title has now be confirmed, with the tracklist and artwork due to be released in a few days' time. There is plenty of information in the article about the album. --IWannaABillionaire (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What the source says: "The singer revealed the name of his first LP as Days and Nights; but suggested he could change it before its release later this year." So, he can change the name anytime soon; also, the text says later this year, which usually means Fall '13. — Ṟ Ṉ 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! WP:HAMMER — Statυs (talk, contribs) 11:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need You Now (Plumb album)[edit]

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

Forthcoming album with very weak sourcing. Per WP:MUSIC, "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it.... However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects — generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." We currently have one reliable source mentioning anything about this album, a tweet that gives the title and the reason for the title. We do not have reliable sources for anything else about this album: not the release date, track list, etc. There are two singles, but sources on them do not mention this album. Prod removed with the explanation "Two singles. Album will chart and have more exposure when released. Removing prod." SummerPhD (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting singles. Future release. I have had several future release albums that I nominated be kept for this sole reason. Release is less than six weeks away. Reviews should be appearing shortly. The fact this this was deleted and then moved to my user space on 2011-10-03 means that some of the references are dead. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two reliable sources: Jesus Freak Hideout lists its original title and there is a trivial article for the new album: http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/NeedYouNow.asp and will likely be covered extensively by that source among others. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Jesus Freak Hideout is a reliable source, that gives us one paragraph from an independent source and a tweet from the artist. That is not substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. Yes, many of your sources were dead links. Moreover, as sources from nearly two years ago they did not confirm the material they were being used as cites for (the album title and release date, for instance). I see no indication that this album is one of "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects" (with WP:MUSIC citing Chinese Democracy as an example. Roughly 6 weeks before that album was released, its sources were far more extensive than the brief article and tweet here. Billboard, MTV, The New York Times, VH1, USA Today, The New York Post, Rolling Stone, Los Angeles Times, AMG... That is substantial coverage. A webzine and a tweet are not.

(Charting singles (which none of the reliable sources place on this album) would make this album notable upon its release (as will the fact that Plumb is notable). This album has not been released.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources place it on the album before the name change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the article showing this. Now we have a reliable source placing the singles on the album. When the album is released it will pass WP:MUSIC. At the moment, it doesn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I got two more to add to this discussion going on AllMusic and New Releasee Tuesday that have pages on it. This passes SummerPhD's requirements, which are quite arduous, so it must be kept.HotHat (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Curb Records confirmed it in the rundown currently at No. 2.HotHat (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "my" requirements, these are the consensus requirements laid out at WP:MUSIC. They are quite arduous and for good reason. Future albums have a way of being changed, rescheduled and even cancelled, as has been the case with this very album.

The allmusic source is helpful. It actually gives the title, release date and track list. The newreleasetuesday site is user edited and, therefore, not a reliable source. The curb.com homepage's coverage (such as it is) gives the album title and the current release date. Searching the rest of the site, I can find no other mention of the album. Again, the standard is Wikipedia:Music#Recordings: "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it....However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects." - SummerPhD (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I got this from the label source.HotHat (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Release Tuesday is not user edited. It allows for feedback, but the content is staff-created. That rule you state does not apply to the three albums I nominated well in advance so it doesn't apply here either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Curb info is in the article. If New Release Tuesday is not user edited, it's news to them. The page linked gives a link to "edit" which asks me to create a free "NRTeam" account... What happened with your other forthcoming album article that allowed it to avoid the community consensus? I haven't a clue. Other stuff exists. That some other article slipped through the cracks does not mean this one should. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has both professional staff and a public source that is reviewed by the staff. I would not have a problem removing that source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG, and it's certainly beyond violating TenPoundHammer's Law. [68] [69] original title [70] --No unique names 15:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an "exceptionally high-profile projects"? Meh. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an album where the name and track order are known. This meets GNG requirements (see my links, for instance). --No unique names 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the TenPoundHammer's Law for reference.HotHat (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with that essay. There are two reasons that essay is irrelevant here. 1) It is an essay. While I have a good bit of respect for Ten, an essay is not a guideline or policy. WP:MUSIC is a guideline. That guideline, to repeat, says, "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it....However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects." If this is an "exceptionally high-profile" project, I'm the King of Spain in a skirt. 2) The essay does not say what you think it says. It says that articles without certain qualifications are likely to be deleted. This does not mean that articles with those qualifications should not be deleted. People without lungs will die therefore ~~people with lungs will live forever~~. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just posting it after the reference was made by another user, you did not have to go on a diatribe about the posting of the essay.HotHat (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about this album provided here and in the article. I also see that WP:GNG is met. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not (per WP:GNG). Whether or not that makes it high profile is not for me to decide, but it currently meets guideline requirements for inclusion. --No unique names 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystic Travelogues[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember endorsing the PROD, not realizing that it was a second attempt at PRODing the same article. I did a quick search to see if any new sources had been put out since I endorsed the PROD and sure enough, there aren't any that would show it passes WP:NBOOK. This just isn't notable at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOKS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Jara[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA with only 1 top tier MMA fight. Article also lacks good sources, the only one given is his fight record at sherdog. Papaursa (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles shouldn't be deleted just because they lack citations that are obviously out there.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has fought on Showtime. See here and here for more Showtime info. Also read about his ten fight win streak here. [[71]] is another article on him about being on Showtime. I think he has been on TV enough to pass WP:GNG. EliteXC should be top tier anyhow. Here is another. I'll dig a little deeper tommorow. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a second source citing his second Showtime appearance.I'm pretty sure all of his showXC cites were on Showtime because SHOxs was Elitexc(Proelite) except on Showtime rather than whatever basic channel they were using to peddle Kimbo Slice. So there are 2 refs above for that. I'll find the third (if I didn't inadvertantly find it already). How many fights on Showtime do you need plus a bellator fight to be notable? There isn't an MMA notability guideline that answers this question. If you notice on the athlete guide for WP:NBOX they only require 1. Yet Jara has multiple. That, along with his Bellator fight, should make him notable under the WP:GNG. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PortlandOregon97217 comment, how EliteXC is not a defunct top tier promotion further proves the essay known as WP:MMATIER is too flawed to be sole basis of consensus. Sepulwiki (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might I add that an elitexc card on showtime featureing Gina Carano was the first televised womens mma fight? Pro Elite was a pioneer when it came to promoting mma. ]The only difference between EliteXC and SHoxc is that the former was put on by CBS, the latter Showtime. But Pro Elite is still putting on fights. I think that the umbrella company Pro Elite, and all of its incarnations should be top tier. However, I'd liken that change being made to getting the mmaproject to swallowing a horse pill. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NMMA. Although Portland wants to always use his own criteria, I prefer to stick with the existing ones. Mdtemp (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Md2020~~ Mdtemp I am flattered that you follow me around so much. I prefer WP:GNG, as Sepulwiki pointed out the WP:NMMA is critically flawed (as I have also pointed out above). So, I don't place much stock in it. Especially when something passes WP:V easily. So yeah, I'm going by the WP:GNG so I don't see the problem.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA with too few top-tier fights, not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Lots of unsourced claims in the article. Wasn't even fighting at the highest level of EliteXC. ShoXC was different as it was used to "promote up-and-coming fighters." As for WP:NBOX, each sport has its own requirements. Boxing is not MMA. Luchuslu (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even if that was the case, it doesn't discount him fighting on Showtime multiple times. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Although he does fail WP:NMMA, with 3 ShoXC fights on Showtime, multiple KOTC fights, Bellator, and a total of 46 professional fights, I would argue that he has achieved enough media exposure to pass WP:GNG. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Willdawg111 is currently banned from MMA discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then get rid of his comment.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why was Willdawg111's Keep striked out? Sepulwiki (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2013

Will is topic banned. Look WP:GS/MMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The timestamp predates his topic ban by a few hours actually, as posted on his talkpage. I will remove the strike. I assume in good faith this was merely an oversight. It is funny tho, I made a mental note to myself about that yesterday, and what do you know? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NMMA. Entity of the Void (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NMMA. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deck railing[edit]

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

This appears to be a thinly disguised advertisement for the company linked in the External links section. Eeekster (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trim down the mydecklrailings links and you'd have a decent article; it's substantially better than deletion, and easier too. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote this article and feel that this was a very well researched article with multiple resources. I have removed the external links section. It was a remnant of the citation lists. Thank you.Connieb8745 (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eekster Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 09:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Eekster wants to delete. What do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant per you. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 05:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plentiful sources including websites, TV programs, and several books on decking.[72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] The article doesn't look like an advert. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Flaherty[edit]

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

This doesn't need a long, drawn-out discussion. This is an open and shut vanity article case. I tried to salvage it but, after removing all content that was cited by the subject's own website and blogs there is so little left to this entry that it doesn't seem to merit a place. BlueSalix (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 9. Snotbot t • c » 10:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, self published author, no backup to any notabilty as a journalist or broadcaster.TheLongTone (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 16. Snotbot t • c » 04:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-publishing author, no significant coverage; "mentioned in passing" hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement. Chick Bowen 04:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist College[edit]

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

This is not an article about "Baptist College," but is simply a list of unrelated and undefined organizations that have the word "Baptist" and "College." Some, listed like Saker Baptist College, is actually a high school and other Baptist colleges, like Lynchburg Baptist College, aren't listed. As a undefined and unsourced list, it fails WP:LIST. In contrast, List of Independent Fundamental Baptist higher education institutions is a properly defined list of Baptist colleges. As a disambiguation, it is unhelpful and even confusing. SalHamton (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 8. Snotbot t • c » 04:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, it does seem useful as a disambiguation—why do you find it unhelpful? הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of Baptist colleges and exclude those that are non-religious or not colleges. This is not a proper dab page; see WP:Partial title match. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as SalHamton has pointed out there is a better list. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Clarityfiend. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redo as a list --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Already a List of Baptist colleges and universities in the United States article. SalHamton (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Baptist colleges and universities in the United States per SalHamton. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this dab page: I'm sure that any of these colleges is likely to be refered to locally, and in biographies etc, as "Baptist College", so although technically "partial matches" they seem to make up a useful disambiguation page. They may or may not be "baptist" "colleges" at present (could have evolved into high schools or even housing developments), but that's nothing to do with the validity of the disambiguation page. The contrasting list is quite different, and rightly includes places like Crown College (Tennessee), which is a baptist college but has no place in the disambiguation page. The dab page and the list serve different purposes and both are valid and needed. Lynchburg should be added ... done so, though it's a redirect to Liberty University which is perhaps why it wasn't included before. The dab page could also usefully have some annotations as to which country (all USA? or not?) they are in. PamD 13:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that these are known locally as just "Baptist College" (usually they are abbreviated as "Clear Creek" instead of Clear Creek Baptist Bible College). But let's pretend you are right. Having a dab of places that use a partial title match, violates WP:Partial title match. See the example for Zoo (disambiguation), where it doesn't list every single place that has zoo in its title. (Even though, local people refer to their zoo as simply "the zoo.")

Also if you keep the article as a dab you'll need to add many, many more. Such as: California Baptist University, Clear Creek Baptist Bible College, Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary, Heartland Baptist Bible College, Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, Northland Baptist Bible College, Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Mountain States Baptist College, Tabernacle Baptist College, Texas Baptist College, Trinity Valley Baptist Seminary and College and so on. At that point, you'll notice major and near total overlap with List of Baptist colleges and universities in the United States, List of Baptist schools in the United States and Category:Baptist universities and colleges in the United States, not to mention the sublists like List of Independent Fundamental Baptist higher education institutions. SalHamton (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a very subjective AfD, as this isn't about notability or even plausibility - its more than plausible that people do searches on "baptist college". As a dab page, then, its useful, so there's no good reason to delete. This page is not an outlier, see, e.g., Methodist College, First United Methodist Church, First Baptist Church.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a disambiguation page, and a good one, from what I can tell. The only thing that actually links to it is the redirect Baptist College (disambiguation). [81] Having a disambiguation page for common search terms is much better than having a redlink. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a perfectly valid dab page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of comparison articles[edit]

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

Unnecessary list, does nothing that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, in response to the prodding of List of fastest-selling products, and many other articles simultaneously, I responded: "[This article should be AFD'd instead] because I think...this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions". I deprodded the article as that action had not been taken, and I did not want to see the article prematurely deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles for further discussion on these types of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful for navigation (it may be easier to find a comparison here than find the exact wording to search for the title), and will help people seeking to develop new comparison articles by providing an indication of what's available. Policy is clear that you shouldn't delete a list just because there's a matching category: some people prefer to use lists to navigate and others prefer categories, and the policy reflects this. This could be made more useful by better division/ordering and explaining some of the less clear entries. How exactly does TPH know this was "deprodded for no reason"? Most people who deprod something have a reason even if they don't state it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles (2nd nomination) - Nabla (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator, and as per pretty much what Colapeninsula said.--Coin945 (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need indices of loosely-connected articles. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst Colapeninsula is entirely correct that lists can live alongside categories, ~~this article should be Deleted per~~ WP:GNG~~, which~~ applies to navigation lists every bit as much as it does other articles in the main space. Wikipedia's comparison articles, and groupings of such, have not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It would better serve the project as a portal, there it could perform any useful navigation functions where such notability and self-referencing issues don't apply. Rubiscous (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said Move to Portal:Comparisons, see discussion below. Rubiscous (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Rubiscous and fail to see the relevance of this list, based on the creator's personal POV in choosing the material for inclusion.--Zananiri (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no POV involved in this list. I looked up every single Wikipedia article that was about a comparison, and then added them all to the article. I did not pick & choose, or have any agenda, or anything like that.--Coin945 (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, it's obvious that you are fond of creating such lists, irrespective of whether or not they serve any purpose. That itself is a POV. Going by Wiki traffic, they can hardly be accepted as au fait or au courant.--Zananiri (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me.... I find it offensive that you accuse me of creating lists "irrespective of whether or not they serve any purpose". I created those lists because I think the entire concept is extraordinarily useful and found no such lists on Wikipedia, and so proceeded to create them myself. I did not go out of my way to disrupt Wikipedia or anything. I did what I thought was right. And FYI, still hold onto my view that these can be extremely helpful. If not for readers, than for the behind-the-scenes people. It's a shame that all these deletion discussions have been about the articles themselves, not what we can learn from them. In every single one of those lists I made, there are *still* huge discrepancies in regard to naming...... I wonder how long it will take us to finally sort all that mess up..... :/ P.S. I don't speak French. You'll have to clarify what you mean. :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you have taken umbrage at what I said. In fact, if anything, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I do not object to the existence of 'lists' per se. Some are more useful than others. Perhaps you are not aware that Wiki has a list of French words and phrases used by English speakers.--Zananiri (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course these lists can be helpful. However, not everything has to reside within the main space. My !vote in a hypothetical WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Comparisons would be a resounding keep. It would make a very good basis for a portal IMO, as would your other articles I've !voted delete on. Your talents are misdirected. Rubiscous (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misunderstanding you. One again, it seems that a little thing called subtext has gotten terribly lost in translation due to having to rely on text, which by itself can be easy to misinterpret... If what you are saying is accurate, then shouldn't the outcome of these AFD's be rename rather than deletion?--Coin945 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I was labouring under the misapprehension that articles couldn't just be changed into portals automatically, I see now it's easy as pie using the move function, which would of course be the correct course of action regarding page history, authorship etc etc. Dunno if I'd call it a rename if it's exiting the article space though... portalise? portalify? :D I'll just call it a move. !vote changed accordingly, see above ^^^. I plan to do similar at WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_awards_and_nominations_articles, and for the record would also have done so at WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_criticism_and_critique_articles_(2nd_nomination) had it not closed. Rubiscous (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Rubiscous and nom. I can't see how this article is any better than having a category, and is unnecessary. Jucchan (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what categories are for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With opinions about equally divided, I must examine the weight of the arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The argument for retention is that the conspiracy theories are notable through coverage in reliable sources, and the principal argument for deletion is that the existence of the article gives undue weight to these fringe theories. These are both valid arguments, and determining which one is more convincing under the present circumstances is not my job as closer, but the job of the community by way of this discussion. There being no consensus in this matter, the article is kept by default for lack of a consensus to delete it. Sandstein 11:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories[edit]

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

This probably passes WP:GNG, but it totally fails WP:NOT. It's an unnecessary, non-neutral content fork that gives undue weight to conspiracy theories of dubious accuracy. p b p 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment on nominator Per this diff it seems even the nominator agrees this should not be deleted due to sourcing. A merge was specifically rejected by consensus of the article editors as THAT would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and WP:ONEWAY seems to advocate for exactly the solution we are in right now. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misinterpreted what I said. I said that I was unsure of the outcome of an AfD, not the necessity of the AfD. The comment you link is a comment on how I expected you/Dream et. al to vote, not a comment on whether I personally believed that it should be deleted. I have never (on my talk page, in this AfD or anywhere else) asserted that this was non-notable. This nomination is based on considerations other than notability; as are every single one of the delete votes. Had I not believed that this should be deleted, I would not have nominated it. And while we're questioning my nominating rationale, I'd like to add WP:NOTNEWS as another important guideline to consider. p b p 07:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep the theories themselves are reprehensible, but they pass WP:GNG beyond a doubt. The conspiracies are being discussed and debunked internationally, by very reliable sources. Discussing a notable fringe theory is not a POV or UNDUE problem. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be enough notability here to draw a keep !vote. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind people that GNG isn't the only policy to consider here. Passing GNG ≠ auto keep p b p 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct, that is not the only policy in play. Here are items from WP:FRINGE that would seem to indicate this article is appropriate.

if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play.
To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)

Delete- virtually every major story out there is going to attract a conspiracy theorist or twenty. One aviation disaster wants to blame coronal mass ejections and Bermuda Triangle but it's really fringe stuff. If this stays, we're going to wind up with a bunch of fringe shadow articles for every major story on wikipedia. I'm sorry but at the moment, there is little real merit. Some initial confusion perhaps and some rush by journalists. I say delete and if we get a grassy knoll level or Roswell level interest or discrepancies later we can recreate.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct as to the likely origin of a number of the conspiracy theories. But once they began, they have become notable and commented on by many sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually anything passes WP:GNG these days. There is more to consider than just the GNG, though (see the "presumed" part of GNG), and this very clearly falls under WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE and, I dare say, the usage of common sense. --Conti|✉ 02:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per result of equivalent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Aurora shooting conspiracy theories; suggesting the government and Israel wanted to make a point, or some commentator in Cincinnati, a bunch of stuff involving LIBOR (really?) and Zionists think these hold water is just beyond WP:FRINGE. It's a tragedy that happened with real deaths, not an excuse to make up fairy tales. These articles just need to be taken to the trash on sight at this point. And just because they get commented on under the rumor effect doesn't equal notability, but an echo chamber. Nate • (chatter) 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:FRINGE. This is crap despite passing WP:GNG. We don't need this nonsense. Toddst1 (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about using Fringe: Can you please explain why as to "Per WP:FRINGE?" While the article is just a bunch of false theories, Fringe does state: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." Considering the publications used in the references, I think that Fringe would be more towards support of keeping the article than deleting it. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If articles like this one are allowed to remain, then Wikipedia will lose credibility as a source for information. These conspiracy theories have not become notable enough to warrant consideration and this article should be deleted. Andrew³²⁷ 04:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I agree with PurpleBackpack on this one as this article seems very bias in nature and as stated above it fails WP:NOT.TJD2 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it gets to the same level as JFK assassination conspiracies or 9/11 Conspiracies, sure. But every big event in America, especially if it has any political consequences will generate fringe conspiracy claims. We don't have to document them all, and should just document those that have become significantly prominent. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we remove the qualifier of GNG, we might as well remove all conspiracy theory portions from the Holocaust and 9/11, as we spend less time "covering" those nowadays than we do these. Agree with Hari, but unless there are rules regarding the level of coverage necessary for fringe psychos to be considered legitimate, I think we've already reached it (i.e. AC360 recent coverage) --Brinlong (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nate. This also appears to fail WP:FRINGE. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 04:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:COMMONSENSE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my delete opinion to Neutral due to new things unfolding. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - conspiracy formulation has become a cultural phenomenon to the point where they, by themselves, no longer seem all that notable. This is just another predictable rehashing of fringe crap. Against the current (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not notable as a fringe theory. Apteva (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leave the Wikipedia:Fringe theories in the asylum with the creators. WWGB (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE, these theories are so marginal that even covering them in a separate article is too much weight. Passing the GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion. Hut 8.5 12:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's better here than on the main article. Also, the merge was opposed. --Auric talk 14:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I hate conspiracy theories and generally oppose giving them unnecessary credence, but in this case these theories now appear to have moved off web pages and into actual harassment of individuals i.e. have taken on a life of their own ^[1] and are not simply wind. Mrwhoohoo (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator and per Mrwhoohoo. The topic easily passes WP:GNG. I'm not sure how editors are basing their claims that it's "marginal" or "fringe" when they're attracting significant coverage in reliable sources around the world. I've tried to avoid undue weight to these admittedly crazy theories, generally by only mentioning each in a sentence or two. The comparison with the Aurora shootings is weak—these conspiracy theories have received much more attention. Finally, I think extended coverage in the main article would be WP:UNDUE, so restricting the conspiracy theories to a standalone article is better in line with policy. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT TO CLOSER - Its pretty obvious which way consensus is leaning, but IMO its mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Everyone is linking to WP:FRINGE and WP:NOT with zero explanation of what they think applies. I have quoted FRINGE extensively in a comment above, and I think its clear that the FRINGE guideline says this article should stay. It should be incumbent on the delete !votes to say what part of FRINGE they think this article fails. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search for "Sandy Hook conspiracy" has 17,500 hits under News and 103,000,000 under Web. The subject is notable and sourced. USchick (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are to do a google search you have to take out the blogs and unreliable sources per WP:GOOGLEHITS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I don't think this sort of thing is independently notable enough to be covered in a separate article from the event, but until its contents can be merged into the article on the shooting this will suffice.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Justanonymous there are conspiracy theories for everything but that doesn't mean we should have an article about every conspiracy theory. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In looking at the references, several are not about how these theories hold water but about how they are false or "hoaxes", like:

Reference 16...Talking Points Memo, which said the LIBOR rumor was "false" and a "fiction" and that any connection alleged between the murderer's father was "100 % without evidence".
Reference 2/14...The Atlantic Wire which states that the "conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook massacre-...would be laughable if they weren't so offensive." and whose title is Newtown Conspiracy Theories, Debunked.
Reference 13...Is Conspiracy Cafe really considered a reliable source?
References 10 & 3... Consider the Press TV allegations. Washington Post calls it an "outlandish theory" and has "obvious logical fallacies" Daily Beast says about the PressTV statements that "it isn’t a real conspiracy until someone invokes Jews. Enter the anti-Semites at Press TV" and that Alex Jones is "unencumbered by facts".
Reference 1...InfoSalvo which proclaims in its masthead "Treading on the New World Order". Is this also a reliable source?
Reference 4...Salon.Com, Reference 5...Huffington Post, and Reference 6...TIME (quoting the TIME article) all talk about how the man who sheltered some children (and a bus driver who escaped the carnage) is being harassed and whose wife is worried for their safety.
Reference 28...LiveScience states in its title "Contradictions Don't Deter Conspiracy Theorists"
Reference 29...Washington Times's story has a subtitle of "Turning to bizarre theories is a way to avoid an unpleasant truth".
Reference 19 directly links to a YouTube video which is discussed in Reference

So, at least thirteen of the references have a common thread....they are either about how the conspiracy enthusiasts' arguments are false, they debunk the theories, they call them outlandish or they invoke WP:BLP concerns about how a Good Samaritan is being harassed and whose family is fearful for their safety... Perhaps if the article is kept a more-fitting title would be something like Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting fringe theories or use the Westboro Baptist Church article as a model, where the vast majority of the content consists of reactions in opposition to that organization's core beliefs and actions.

I do think that some editorial judgement is called-for in this situation. We make judgements every day about what to include and what not to include on these electronic pages. As the 'What Wikipedia is not' policy states:

"not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" & "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia".

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Shearonink (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming the conspiracy theories are TRUE. WP:FRINGE specifically addresses sites which are discussing the conspiracies and debunking them are a sufficient signal of notability to be covered in wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy enthusiasts themselves are certainly claiming that their theories are true. Shearonink (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources are being added.USchick (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the additional sources talking about how these theories have been rejected by what Wikipedia regards as reliable? Every single reliable source I have seen states that these various theories are either fringe, or that they are false, or that they are anti-Semitic, that they are unverified, that they are unsupported by the facts, that they are rumors and so on... If the reliable sources are stating that these theories are false/unverified/rumor, then why do unverified falsehoods get an article? And now we have the added fillip that these theories have real-life consequences to the man who sheltered survivors... he is being harassed via phone-calls & emails, his spouse is fearful for their safety, and he has talked to police about his situation. Shearonink (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources, more and more are coming online every day. USchick (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused as to what the criteria for an article are. Wikipedia is not claiming they are true. We are claiming they are notable. The fact that multiple major outlets are commenting on the conspiracy theories is itself notable and should be documented. We are actively debunking the conspiracy theories as well in our article. Many conspiracy theories have articles on wikipedia. If your worries were true, we would be one of the most lunatic fringe sites on the entire internet. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are addressing my thoughts posted above, I have no confusion about the issues or what the criteria are, neither do I have any worries, as an aside I was addressing what was previously posted, that 'Nobody is claiming the conspiracy theories are TRUE', that is all. I think it is inherently self-evident that the conspiracy enthusiasts have an almost-religious faith and fervour that their claims are indeed true. The major outlets' commentary characterizing and even proving the various theories as false/rumor/patently anti-Semitic/unverified is what makes the theories notable, not the conspiracy enthusiasts' various assertions.Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "nobody" I was referring to was "nobody commenting here", as your original comments seemed to be arguing against. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't we wait a bit anyways before creating this article? It's likely just a small spike of interest. Once the next big American tragedy hits, the conspiracy scaremonger will just flock to that one. I don't think WP should be covering every single minor little controversy or fringe theory. I think we should strengthen general notability guidelines as they might be too lax. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - We should wait until somebody can't take it any longer and commits suicide. Or someone gets arrested or sued. Or some kid gets suspended for a truther hate poem and the parents take the school district to court. We should certainly not be swayed by a think piece a reporter throws out there on a slow news day.Cybersecurityczar (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The theories themselves are notable as reactions to the shootings, and they have received media attention. I don't really see why the info can't be condensed into a section in the parent article. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the page about Australia's Port Arthur massacre has a small section about conspiracy theories, I think that is still too much. Maybe one sentence on the main article is enough, but this article up for deletion is just a page of WP:Fringe, even if it is sourced. Paris1127 (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What one person might call a conspiracy theory, someone else may call a pretext by thrill-seekers for wanton infliction of emotional distress. There is something depraved and sadistic about those on the social media who relentlessly taunt and humiliate the Sandy Hook community, and when they are criticized, they say, Oh, we have unanswered questions and therefore we can accuse the families of being fake. If you follow closely the social media, you will find that the most hurtful outcome has been that, even when so-called truther theories were debunked, there would be crowds of followers who would continue to insist that they were not debunked and they would attack the Sandy Hook families again with renewed vigor. I don't mean to get into details here, but this was just a quick example of what kind of editing this piece would require. Would you accept original research on the matter? No. And so, would you go ahead and dignify as theories these pretexts for causing deep emotional pain -- without acknowledging that online groups would spontaneously form to ambush the Sandy Hook community? The title alone of this article would be a topic of endless debate, since the FBI for example has published a 7-stage model for hate group activity, and it makes a clear distinction between the irrational rhetoric of conspiracy theorists and the irrational hatred expressed by thrill-seekers. So, would this article incorporate both of these somehow, or would this article put aside the irrational hate piece and treat the conspiracy theories as legitimate efforts at critical thinking? Remember, the basic narrative is that Obama and the media staged a fake massacre in Newtown with crisis actors and that these grieving families are faking their tears as part of an effort to deceive the nation. As we attempt to formulate this article we will find that in the eyes of the insolent, the most ludicrous accusations will never be debunked. This topic is so convoluted that just publishing it will assure long-term unresolved grief for those who have been attacked. And for what? It's an absurdity inside a delusion inside a lunacy. Cybersecurityczar (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question that might give me some intellectual clarity: The Internet is rife with taunting attacks falsely announcing that someone has died. For example, RIP Megan Fox -- retweeted thousands of times, with bystanders laughingly noting that the Twitterverse has killed more celebrities than The Hunger Games. So, would an article on this phenomenon be automatically rejected on Wikipedia? Thank you for your consideration. Cybersecurityczar (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's death hoax. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If international media covered the story over a period of several weeks, possibly. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it gives undue weight to what is (at best) a fringe theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook shooting appeared almost immediately after the event was reported. There's conspiracy media dating back to three days after the shooting, and the volume of the false information has been growing ever since. It's useful to collect and debunk all those rumors in one place. --Mr. Billion (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" It's useful to collect and debunk all those rumors in one place." That, however is not the job (or at least the primary job) of Wikipedia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This meets WP:GNG. Newsworthy, even if I totally disagree with the conspiracy theorists. Plus, this article would be able to keep some pressure off the main article with regards to conspiracies and allegations. WarwulfX (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a short term blip most likely. It's only because it was a big media event. Every tragedy has conspiracy theories, especially once it becomes politicized. It was the same with the Aurora shootings. Once the next tragedy rolls around, this will be forgotten and they will just flock to that. It's a common cycle. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at the sources, there seems to be no question that these ideas have received enough attention to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. This article is very bias and should in the least be merged with the original article covering the incident. There is no reason there should be an article dedicated to this.71.95.82.119 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article has reliable sources it should be kept. Not liking the subject matter is not a reason to delete. Portillo (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If this gets coverage in real news sources rather than wacky ones + blogosphere then it might be good to have an article which documents the fact that there are a lot of medically insane people out there. IF this is somehow kept, then it really needs to be rewritten because the current version is a simply ridiculous and glaring embarrassment to Wikipedia (let me note that whoever is responsible for the problematic text has certainly mastered looking like they are following Wikipedia's neutrality policies - this is a more general problem actually).Volunteer Marek 23:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the topic isn't being covered in "wacky" news sources and blogs, but it's definitely being covered in "real news sources." Of the 39 (!) references already on the article, there's Edmonton Journal, The Tennessean, The Globe and Mail, Time, Vancouver Sun, Newsday, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, Salon, The Huffington Post, Gawker, Calgary Herald, Daily Mail, Fox News, Sun-Sentinel, International Business Times, The Washington Post, The Vancouver Sun, Los Angeles Times, Talking Points Memo, and The Washington Times. If you support deletion based on something such as what Wikipedia is not, I can accept that, though I disagree. But if your argument is that the topic isn't being covered in real news sources, I'm incredulous. Perhaps you were so stricken by the "glaring embarrassment" of an article to look at the references section. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff in sources which could be considered reliable are either editorials (Washington Times, Atlantic) or barely related (Fox News) or related to the shooting rather than conspiracies (LA Times), or about the gun control legislation rather than conspiracies (Time) or tabloids (Daily Mail). But cobbling together a bunch of border-line-reliable-or-border-line-relevant sources does not actually add up to reliable-and-relevant. Although it's true that this does highlight to some extent a problem with Wikipedia's sourcing policy, which allows way too much leeway with questionable sources.Volunteer Marek 00:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you need a clear cut example that this article is completely wacked from a POV point of view (yes, I know that's not a criteria for notability) then note that a lot of these sources you mention - particularly the better ones - discuss the harassment that Rosen has suffered from the hands of conspiracy theorists. For example the Daily News one. Yet, the story of Rosen's harassment IS NOT EVEN IN THE ARTICLE. Rather, the article tries very hard to present the topic in a "well, some people say these are conspiracy theories, but maybe they have some truth to them" kind of voice. Ridiculous.Volunteer Marek 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are making up your own standards for what counts.Gaijin42 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now would be a good time to bring up WP:NOTNEWS. Just because something is mentioned in news outlets doesn't mean it is of the lasting importance needed to justify a Wikipedia article. p b p 06:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is Not News relevant in this case? "Lasting importance" of an event that happened a month ago? With that logic, the article about the shooting should be deleted as well. USchick (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I believe Gaijin has done a spectacular job of listing a multitude of reliable sources that have covered this phenomenon. Remember that WP:FRINGE states:

"To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia."
"A fringe subject ... is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers."
"References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

These qualifications are all satisfied given the evidence that Gaijin has provided. The Calgary Sun article he referenced is a work of over 1,000 words. It's not some blurb snippet. Everyone who has said that no "real" news organizations have covered this has not looked over the multitude of sources that are reporting on this. Remember that including the article in Wikipedia shouldn't be taken as a voice of acceptance, but rather as a recognition of coverage. -- Veggies (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, while this detailed collection of various bullshit may include some reliable sourcing, anything relevant can be just covered with few sentences in main article.--Staberinde (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Since there is a lot of comments above about what kind of sources we are using and then not meeting WP:RS, I thought I would copy the list of sources dicussing this from the refs/talk page to here.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/sandy-hook-hero-harassed-by-burgeoning-truther-movement/
(CNN Anderson Cooper story) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4-NooM8M4)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/massacre-deniers-harass-sandy-hook-grandfather-comforted-survivors-article-1.1241181

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Conspiracy+theorists+claim+Sandy+Hook+School+mass+shooting/7823304/story.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/15/a-conspiracy-culture/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262570/Sandy-Hook-conspiracy-professor-James-Tracy-NOW-concedes-people-undoubtedly-died.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/this_man_helped_save_six_children_is_now_getting_harassed_for_it/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/08/florida-professor-questions-newtown-shooting-massacre-calls-for-more/
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-01-11/news/sfl-fau-profs-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-20130111_1_sandy-hook-conspiracy-chan-lowe
http://www.ibtimes.com/newtown-conspiracy-professor-thinks-anderson-cooper-out-harm-him-1011098
http://news.yahoo.com/why-sandy-hook-massacre-spawned-conspiracy-theories-184323398.html
http://www.latinospost.com/articles/9698/20130116/sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-professor-admits-people-undoubtably-died.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/israeli-death-squads-in-usa-killed-kids-in-newtown-ct-conspiracy-theories-abound-video-87093/
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Conspiracy+theorists+claim+Sandy+Hook+tragedy+elaborate/7822502/story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-video-debunked_n_2487427.html (Not the same huffpost article already used)

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that these are either passing mentions of the conspiracy theories, relatively minor local papers, general internet crap or actually... "semi-reliable sources" which reference aspects which are not directly related to the conspiracy theories themselves but to the shooting.Volunteer Marek 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are looking at. Time, CNN, Washington times, with stories dedicated to the conspiracy theories of sandy hook. Calgary herald and edmonton journal a minor local paper? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought CNN, foxnews, and msnbc were all propaganda outlets vs reputable journalists ;-). In all seriousness, thank you for hard work on these sources. There's more out there than I initially thought. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking at sources, why are you getting them from the talk page and not from the article? USchick (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Conspiracy+theorists+claim+Sandy+Hook+tragedy+elaborate/7822502/story.html
http://www.imediaethics.org/News/3663/Media_mess-ups__whos_who_of_sandy_hook_school_shooting_reporting_errors__part_1.php
http://freebeacon.com/how-the-media-got-newtown-wrong/
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20121223/OPINION01/312230041/Misinformation-can-derail-murder-debate
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/messy-media-coverage-of-connecticut-shooting-leaves-trail-of-misinformation/article6462685/
http://nation.time.com/2013/01/15/n-y-state-lawmakers-pass-first-u-s-gun-control-bill-since-sandy-hook/
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Conspiracy+theorists+claim+Sandy+Hook+tragedy+elaborate+government/7822502/story.html
http://www.infosalvo.com/us-news/newton-connecticut-elementary-shooting-is-a-staged-false-flag/
http://www.globalnewsdesk.co.uk/north-america/conspiracy-sandy-hook-hoax-emilie-parker/03040/
http://newyork.newsday.com/westchester/westchester-now-1.3784383/sandy-hook-conspiracy-theories-spread-in-wake-of-newtown-tragedy-1.4458433
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-shooting-why-did-lanza-target-a-school/?iid=obnetwork
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/newtown-shooting-conspiracy-theories/60126/
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/sandy-hook-hero-harassed-by-burgeoning-truther-movement/
http://www.neurope.eu/article/sandy-hook-samaritan-faces-internet-harassment
http://www.ibtimes.com/newtown-conspiracy-professor-thinks-anderson-cooper-out-harm-him-1011098
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/18/irans-state-run-news-network-blames-israeli-death-squads-for-sandy-hook-shooting/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-adam-lanza-newtown-20121230,0,561090.story

Keep because there is enough coverage for WP:NOTABLE, and we do document WP:FRINGE in a WP:NPOV manner, without WP:UNDUE. If anyone doubts the seriousness of how deeply this sort of fringe theory infects the human psyche, let them consider that four of the top 8 auto-completion results on Google refer to conspiracy, actors, conspiracy video and hoax. Upgrade to strong keep because keeping this sort of stuff hived off from the main article is good for the main article. And clearly this is not a fork, as it stands right now. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Ample news coverage about various conspiracy theories, and even articles talking about why the conspiracy theories exist. Dream Focus 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absurd overcoverage of ultra-fringe theories, giving them far more weight and attention than they deserve. Not every wacky conspiracy theory that someone's suggested needs to be documented by Wikipedia. This material is already covered sufficiently by a paragraph in Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, it doesn't justify its own article. Robofish (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please actually address the sources on the subject, rather than your own opinion on how much attention the subject deserves? Silver seren^C 21:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per User:Gaijin42. Regarding User:Robofish's concerns that an article on such an absurd conspiracy theory might give it credibility, I don't believe for one second that the existence of a Wikipedia article will persuade anybody that rejects such garbage to suddenly fall for it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The closing admin should make sure to throw out all of the WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE arguments being used above because the editors clearly do not understand what those actually say. Yes, the conspiracy theories are untrue, that's why they are conspiracy theories. But their inaccuracy is irrelevant. They have received significant coverage all across the board and this makes them notable. Silver seren^C 21:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Why We Can't Ignore The Truthers - Salon

Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories Edge Toward The Mainstream - Buzzfeed

Sandy Hook massacre a 'hoax', say conspiracy theorists - News.com.au

Don’t Blame the Sandy Hook Truthers - Slate Magazine

Sandy Hook 'truthers' harass Newtown man, conspiracy theories go viral - Christian Science Monitor

This is a small sampling of the numerous sources that are entirely about the subject. Again, how does this not meet WP:N? Silver seren^C 21:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, a conspiracy theory could be true, it might be a long-shot or there might be more reasonable explanations but there is nothing out there that says that conspiracy theories are patently false, they are theories that imply a conspiracy - which could be illegal. All of the conspiracies out there are mostly garbage quite frankly and I think we're far from having a true conspiracy.....we don't have witnesses saying that they saw 3-5 armed men, black vans, helicopters....we don't have people saying that these kids never existed....in short, we don't have any RS sources that can give validity to any of the conspiracy theories out there that I've heard about. Just confusion at first and some dead ends. Certainly if the article stays it needs a lot of work, it needs to treat the various conspiracies as NPOV and be very well cited. I voted delete but there are a lot more coverage of this than there was a few days ago but just because there is more out there doesn't mean it all isn't garbage and not worthy of mention. We have to be reasonable as Wikipedians. Show men an RS that has a witness that can implicate a conspiracy - just one, one good reporter with a real witness right now (not on Dec 17th) that gives validity to any of the wild cocamamy stuff out there and I'll reverse my vote. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that conspiracy theories are only notable when there is some sort of evidence for them? JFK, fine, but there is no evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Notability has nothing to do with the truth of a subject. Yes, the article definitely needs to be presented in the NPOV way and point out that all the sources think its completely fake, but again, NPOV has nothing to do with notability either.

If you are predicating your opinion of notability on some sort of proof that the theories are real, then you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, because you have no idea what WP:N is talking about. Silver seren^C 21:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully personal attacks and marginalization are not welcome by this editor. I will keep my own counsel and the policies of wikipedia in mind in deciding when and what to edit. I am saying the fact that we now have six buckets of garbage out there versus two does not make it more notable. The longer this stays in the news, the more garbage it is going to accumulate and no, that doesn't make it any more notable. Let's be collegial, we're working hard out here. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that you are completely and utterly misunderstanding policy is not a personal attack. Notability is how much the subject is covered. Otherwise known as being "noted". As long as it is discussed to a significant extent by reliable publications of a wide variety, then it is notable. One could argue that it has to be discussed for a significant length of time, which I would grant them that that is true, but since the theories are still being discussed in the news, you can use an assumption of the future that they will stop until they actually do. So wait a month and then this article can be renominated if the coverage of such theories stops. Silver seren^C 22:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and the policy but Wikipedia is not a garbage bin. Any person with a keyboard can make up a story, that does not make it even a conspiracy theory and also does not make it notable regardless of the volume. Conspiracy theories have some meat that is real. Most of this garbage is just fiction. At the most, this would merit a one liner saying that the event sparked various spurrious made up stories NOT an article! A Conspiracy Theory needs meat and an article needs the conspiracy theory to be widely covered - witnesses saying there were three shooters on the record etc. Dear god something more than the fabrications of someone at 4am in their basement. Just because it's widespread does not make it worthy of an entire article. Especially when most of this garbage gets recycled from crime to crime. The Libor thing, not new, the Aurora thing claimed this. The claim that this guy and the aurora guy were on strong psychotic medication, also rehash. Some corroborating meat is necessary to merit an article. And yes, you were attempting to marginalize me, please desist sir, I treat you and all my fellow editors with respect. - Justanonymous (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard that one. Can you elaborate on how these aren't conspiracy theories? And I'd agree with you that this would be a bad foundation for an article if only "Any person with a keyboard" were discussing it, but it's getting extensive coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Are you seriously suggesting we can't discuss conspiracy theories without "corroborating meat"? --BDD (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone made up a story and it received a huge amount of news coverage across the board, then yes, it would be notable. Though we usually call those stories fiction. It doesn't matter at all if anything is real. You could have the fakest fake thing of all things fake (which explains most fringe science), but if it received extensive coverage, then that wouldn't matter. The truthfulness of a subject is irrelevant. Silver seren^C 22:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Silverseren fiction is fiction and might be noteworth especially if in book format. No, not seriously suggesting that we can't add fictional things as articles, we have plenty of those. However there isn't just WP:Fringe, we also have What Wikipedia is Not as well as WP:GNG and its suprising what GNG covers these days as other esteemed editors have noted. We have to make educated decisions based on all of these policies together and the intent of Wikipedia. I assume in good faith that all the voters on here have done in good faith and I will not demean them or attempt to marginalize any subset of them - they are intelligent editors and they have reached their decisions. My statement regarding conspiracy theories is that a conspiracy theory is not a work of fiction, it is something that might conceivably be true if you follow a certain train of thought logically and if criminal collusion is involved. At some point fiction does not merit conspiracy theory status and it is is just fiction and at some point it's just garbage written by some 14 year old with an over active imagination in his pjs in his basement, and laughing at us discuss this. Should we include the LIBOR conspiracy here as well as at the Aurora page and in every mass crime out there, seems ludicrous to me for us to blindly keep adding works of fiction to every newsworthy event - in that case let's just add a tab to all articles labeled conspiracy theories - I could say that the world trade center was blown up to destroy bonds or as a cover for a heist but that would just be fiction not a conspiracy theory. But yes Conspiracy Theories need something to elevate them to that level.....someone heard shots from the grassy knoll, there is no way one bullet could do that, black helicopters seen by witneses, a third shooter seen etc. Fiction is just Fiction.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

by the way I've had trouble adding books to Wikipedia, actual published books of fiction - the margin is high. A three sentence string of fictional garbage derived from the mind of a half asleep teenager should not merit stand alone articles on here particularly on multiple so called conspiracy pages. LIBOR conspiracy is UTTER JUNK. Sorry, sanity has to take over at some point No?-Justanonymous (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utter junk covered by 50+ reliable sources is wiki worthy. end of discussion. We have articles about memes, pranks, and everything else that is equally junk. "Determining notability does not depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Gaijin42 (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, nobody gets to claim end of discussion, count the votes please sir. If you will. Consensus rules here let us not forget the policies we have created. Unless, you wish you claim a different title.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the policy that everyone is voting delete with is WP:FRINGE and that policy specifically says to have articles on fringe theories which are covered in reliable sources. This topic CLEARLY surpasses that requirement by a ridiculous margin. This is not a vote, so the # does not matter. This consensus will be decided by arguments WHICH ADHERE TO POLICY. The vast majority of delete votes do not. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think someone else said it is possible to Merge the content of articles, so what I suggest is that for now some information about the conspiracy theories is included in the main article, but that this article ceases to be. My reason is that we are writing a sort of encyclopedia, which means that we have to imagine what a reader will want to know when they look up this subject in a few years. Lots of other bad things happen, and sometimes there are conspiracy theories at the time, or for a few weeks after the event, but these gradually fade away. Right now we don't know whether these theories will also die out over time. If they do, it would be nuts to give them a separate article, because they won't be a separate thing that people in the future will be looking for as an article. So I think for now we shouldn't have this article. Instead, we could review the issue in (say) a year. If, at that time, these theories still have currency, we can give them a separate article then. Right now, giving these theories an article of their own is engaging in a sort of futurology. It's a sort of Occam's Razor thing. Hope this is OK. RomanSpa (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, your argument boils down to that we should have our rules on notability only apply to things that people look up. Anything people don't look up is unnecessary. Well, that makes it easier. All that means we need to do is do a page view list for the past year and delete every article that has zero views, regardless of the subject or content. Silver seren^C 02:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Romanspa, it should be a one liner on the main article saying that this event generated significant conspiracy theory activity. If at a later time we find merit in some of those conspiracy theories like Roswell/Grassy Knoll we can create an article with appropriate adherence to policy.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the bar for article creation is not importance. It is notability. This is very clearly spelled out in the policies. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've had many esteemed editors vote. You individually Giajin42 don't get to call it. The consensus does. Let's let greater minds weigh the merits - shall we? -Justanonymous (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is voting here. AfD and other discussions on Wikipedia are decided by consensus, not by tallying the results at some arbitrary time. It might serve you and the community well to look over WP:DEM. -- Veggies (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh, well let the consensus decide. Consensus is voting. Unless you mean your decision is the consensus, but that would be tyranny? No? -Justanonymous (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to assume that you throw around terms (important ones to the function of Wikipedia) you don't fully understand. Please read WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." -- Veggies (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No please don't assume you know what they say about assumers. And don't attack my intellect please, it's unprofessional and this editor doesn't appreciate attempts at marginalization, that's not a professional way to get things done. Please, let's just go from the premise that all editors are intellectually equal - shall we - that's most respectful. Many editors have weighed in. Giajin42 said the discussion was over, I challenged saying it was most certianly not his place to "call it" and it is not your place to call it either "Veggies" as it is not my place to call it either. There is a discussion going on and it is not the role of editors to marginalize the votes or views of others. Let's keep it open for a while. Many people are weighing in and let us not marginalize them either, please.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My "end of discussion" comment was a rhetorical device. I was not trying to claim that this AFD should actually be closed at this moment, just that your line of argument had been (imo) countered by policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are swaying me, good arguments. Not quite there yet, and you don't have to convince me per se, but the discussion is helpful. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gaijin's many arguments. There are in fact far too many reliable sources covering this, but the fact is that it meets the GNG and isn't necessarily indiscriminate, in my opinion. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll reiterate my points. This is just the conspiracy theory de jure, and will be likely be forgotten about in 5 years. It will continue on in only the most fringe sources. I think there's enough RS to warrant an inclusion in the main Sandy hooks article. 9/11 Conspiracies, Holocaust Denial are much more significant conspiracy theories with much more lasting staying power, and much more coverage by reliable sources. That is why those should have full articles. I just don't think Wikipedia should be documenting every single little thing that becomes big in the media for a few days or weeks. A paragraph under Reactions in the main article is fine. I think it has enough RS for that. If this turns into a conspiracy theory with similar cultural importance as the JFK assassinations, or even chemtrails, then it should get an article. I think Wikipedia editors are too quick to want to make separate articles when it might be best to expand a current article. Just wait a little bit. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction - I think you mean du jour rather than de jure. Robofish (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page, much more laxed on punctuation, spelling etc. Seems marginalizing to comment on that. I think all of us understood what he was trying to say. Agree with the comment also. Will this article be a footnote in 5 years? -Justanonymous (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - WP:SOFIXIT. How is this not notable? Seventeen of the top 20 Sandy Hook ConspiracyTube (YouTube) videos are about a conspiracies or debunking them. Three of the top 10 Sandy Hook stories in my inbox are about conspiracies: [82] [83] [84]. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gaijin's many arguments. Also, if this article is deleted, I am sure that some editors will try to re-create it in some form or another, and merging to the main article would be detrimental to the main article. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many of the keep arguments above. There are multiple "conspiracy" theories and are widely reported in reliable publications, as referenced in the article. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if the decision is to delete, might I suggest some of the content being merged into the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? This would fit with, for example, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy or Assassination of John F. Kennedy, even if the conspiracy theories are not as "notable" as the September 11th attacks, for example. SCIAG (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily a reasonable suggestion, but the possibility of a merge was pretty soundly opposed in previous discussion. Those of us who want to keep think this is appropriate treatment per WP:FRINGE, and most people who want to delete really don't want to mention the conspiracy theories at all, so the apparent consensus against merging seems to be the one thing we can agree on. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with your assessment. There is a strong consensus AGAINST merge currently.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a number of reliable sources on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE We should not give those whackos more Attention with an article as they already gained enough attention this conspiracy theories are ludicrous also this is only mentioned in the news and so WP:NOTNEWS might Apply here also WP:NOT might apply as well! Fox2k11 (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the criteria in NOTNEWS apply. Its not original reporting, not breaking news or routine coverage, and 3 and 4 are obviously not applicable. Do you have a specific part of WP:NOT that you think applies? Its a very long policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're Right on WP:NOTNEWS I thought it might apply for WP:NOT I would say WP:SOAP Applies here because this Conspiracy is mainly Faked evidence or earlier facts from the media and has already been disproven I consider most of the conspiracy theories that have surfaced yet as Propaganda and has no place on the wiki as a standalone Article! maybe in the main Article of the shooting it can be mentioned but not in detail! just my two cents.. Fox2k11 (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did you look at WP:NOTNEWS, and its current status as a soft redirect? We do news; we just don't function as a newspaper. As Gaijin pointed out, we're not playing newspaper here. You also seem to be making a converse WP:TDLI argument. --BDD (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted delete and admittedly I am on the fence now after discussion but the quality of the article is very low right now. It hasnt really improved in the last week. Generally an article hat is seeking reason to live improves. I've done it. When I start an article, I focus on quickly getting it to a quality that nobody would dispute belongs on Wikipedia. To all of you fighting to keep, improve the article please, no quicker way to silence dissent than by having a high quality article. My 2 cents. I'm still delete but I'm watching-Justanonymous (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the creator, I'm just a bit fatigued with it. I certainly focus on quality too; I've made it my goal to have every sentence supported with at least one ref here. And it's still basically at that point. How do you find the quality to be "very low"? Even most delete votes are less about the state of the article and more about the scope. What's your Heymann standard here? --BDD (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a few responses. 1) article is in poor shape because it was nominated within hours of being created. Of course it isnt mature. 2) Tough to get motivated to put a lot of work into an article when there is a sword hanging overhead. 3) If you are in the state where you think improvement could save the article, then policy explicitly says deletion should not be done.4) too late now. we are 9 days into a 7 day AFD. The article will be kept or not on its current state. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - It is important that these be kept. Especially in this age of compartmentalization and State secret-keeping, once we start censoring ideas because a majority feel them to be outlandish or distasteful, we have begun down a slippery slope. I am not an apologist for any of the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories-- I believe them all to be stupid-- but what must also be acknowledged is that while most conspiracy theories may be crazy, some of them are believed by a majority to be more truthful than the official story, and others, while mostly wrong, still contain elements of truth that are missing from official accounts. It is only in the free exploration of conspiracy theories that people can draw their own conclusions if they are so inclined; the number and type of conspiracy theories that evolve around a subject could also be considered a litmus test for how much a citizenry distrusts its government, and in this manner their enumeration could have social study value. Who is to say what is a conspiracy theory? "Young Earth Creationism" is a conspiracy theory against science, yet its page is safe on this site. There are at least a dozen theories as to who Jack the Ripper was in the Whitechapel murders, and while most of them would have been considered conspiracy theories then, today any one of the theories, or none of them, could be valid. At least we can consider that one of them may be true; consider how lost we would be today if they had not survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.155.97 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 January 2013

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIIINES[edit]

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

Article about a musical group that depends entirely on self-published references. Seems to lack notability per WP:BAND. Only one news reference found in Google news, providing only a trivial mention. - Mr X 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources are their website, their Facebook page, and their YouTube page. Wait, they're not sources, just external links. I also did the Google News search and found the lone article from a local newspaper where the band gets all of a half sentence dedicated to them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adjwilley. I was unable to find significant coverage for this band aside from the Edmonton Journal piece; the subject does not yet appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 04:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find good secondary sources to establish the band's notability. Andrew³²⁷ 05:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article was created based on this point "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Is that incorrect? Two of the three members are former members of the band Social Code with multiple nationally charting songs and multiple videos with airplay on MuchMusic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxrxrxrxrxrx (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally this would be true Rxr except that the ensemble does not contain two or more independently notable musicians. The two founders do not have their own articles establishing notability. They have been part of a notable band, but its being debated below whether or not one band warrants another or even a redirect. Mkdw ^talk 19:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxrxrxrxrxrx (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social Code - the band itself is not notable (two members have only been a member of one independently notable band, you need two to be inherently notable per WP:NMUSIC), but its members have notability established in another article, and that's where the content goes. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Disagree with redirect, the bands are completely separate.~~ I'm not convinced about the redirect; if Mel Gibson and Brad Pitt did a non-notable student film it would not redirect to another film they both happened to be in. Delete on grounds that notability is not inherent and the current band fails WP:BAND Mkdw ^talk 10:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is broken, because Mel Gibson and Brad Pitt are independently notable of the works they have appeared in, whereas this band is only significant because of two ex members who are only notable for being in that band. By your same logic, why have you not nominated Travis Nesbitt for deletion? --Ritchie333 [[User talk:Ritchie333|^(talk)]^(cont) 10:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Nesbit is a redirect to the band he is in where as technically not everyone in the Siines is in the Social Code. The band is seemingly more than it's two members whom not all have a relation to Social Code (1/3rd of the band). Whether they're notable individually or is not the basis of my argument. Either way the Siines has not seemingly amounted to anything significant yet and until that fact should be looked at separately. I'm not hugely opposed to the redirect as the guidelines for inclusion are in a much larger grey area but I find it unlikely that many will use the redirect over Social Code as the Siines has not released any material outside of a few mp3 files. Mkdw ^talk 17:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IAMACEO[edit]

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

Barely any attempt here to prove the notability of this new album (released last week). I can't find any non-blog reviews, or anything else to help it meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 02:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding making this album notable at present and there's nothing here that can't easily be recreated if/when it gets more attention. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Beckford[edit]

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

Article about a football who fails WP:GNG and doesn't have any proof that he played in a fully pro league. – Michael (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL (no professional appearances per Soccerway) and also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no evidence that he meets the general notability guidelines, and the assertion on his infobox that he has played 5 games for the senior squad cannot be verified; it's more likely those appearances were for the Railhawks U23 squad, which would not be enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL (nor are his appearances for Costa Rica's U17 team). It's worth noting that he has been named in their senior squad for the upcoming season so he MAY make his professional début in the near future, but that's not enough to keep the article at this point in time. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 09:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league (atleast according to soccerway) or represented his country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation when one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gunma Kokusai Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. It is described as a school and we are keen on keeping articles about schools but this one does not, arhh, make the grade. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school has received national coverage in the Japanese and English language press, which is not surprising considering its relative uniqueness. I have added a couple of references to the article, which should hopefully demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Schools are inherently notable as long as they are confirmed to exist. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having visited the site, I can safely tell you that the school has been demolished and no longer exists. Also very little evidence at the site that it ever did. 17:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.175.114 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned personal testimonies don't count here. The website for the school is still active, and major newspapers such as the Yomiuri Shinbun have articles on it as recently as last May. Judging from the talk page, the user who wrote the last comment, User:173.14.175.114, seems to be fooling around with AfDs. Michitaro (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that the fact that something no longer exists is not a reason for deleting an article about it. We have an article on Julius Caesar. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<personal attack redacted> but Google Maps gives an aerial image of the school and it seems to be in one piece. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable school. Not a university or anything to attempt to convey automatic notability. Coverage appears run of the mill. --No unique names 19:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to easily pass WP:GNG judging from references. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first, because of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and second, because of sufficient independent coverage in major media (WP:GNG). Michitaro (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent chronicled in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as a high school, per proven existence, and compliance with WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 14:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DracoBite wiki[edit]

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

Seems like an autobiography that was meant to be put in userspace It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 00:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: CSD:A7, I have tagged it now. -- Patchy1 01:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Ahmad J. Addas[edit]

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

I can't find any indication that this "economic methodologist" is notable, the article is clearly self promotional (see talk page and history). הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 17:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 17:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 17:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging by his positions, this seems a better case for WP:GNG than WP:PROF, and we have the usual difficulty finding sources with Arabic names, that the spelling and ordering is too variable and the names too common. Regardless, I don't see any evidence for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Either you delete it at once or keep it as it will not do any harm since you need to have Arabian individuals. So my advise, don't keep it hanging and take a quick decision eitherway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.217.15 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein's remarks. Ray^Talk 17:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantial sources emerge. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Please delete this article without any further delay. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Wikepedia: I suggest either you delete this page or permit to re-instate it with additional information? Pls advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talk • contribs) 05:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Williams (Magician)[edit]

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

Article created by sockpuppet of a paid editor here

WP:VANITY - on two puff sources + 1 "review" + 1 YouTube video

This was on day #7 of the prod until a SPA IP account removed the PROD. Strangely from the same country and province as the Sockmaster. PeterWesco (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there's notability here, I can't see it. Stalwart111 00:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A not notable person. Samuel petan (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, no in-depth mentions, only self-published & minor listings.TheLongTone (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- presenting on 14 shows and winning a junior prize does not amount to notability: still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Mackin[edit]

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

Seems not to satisfy the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. I could find only material associated directly with the subject; brief reviews in trade rags such as Publishers Weekly (and republications of these in minor newspapers), blogs, and sites such as Goodreads; and a profile of her in the Ithaca Times, a newspaper for which she writes. Her faculty position at Goddard College is unlikely to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. The only thing which gave me pause is the fellowship from the American Antiquarian Society, but I can't find any evidence that this is a particularly notable award. Ditto the rest of the awards. Alexrexpvt (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The American Antiquarian Society is highly notable by itself as well as for its former members which include several Presidents of the United States and highly notable Americans such as:

John Adams | Thomas Jefferson | James Madison | James Monroe | John Q. Adams | Andrew Jackson | Rutherford B. Hayes | Franklin Pierce Rice | Theodore Roosevelt | William H. Taft | Woodrow Wilson | Calvin Coolidge | Franklin D. Roosevelt | Jimmy Carter | Walter Cronkite | Henry Louis Gates | Elihu Burritt

A fellowship at the society puts Mackin at the same level of those aforementioned within the context of the organziation. This is enough merit for notability, not per WP:AUTHOR, but per WP:ACADEMIC as established by the following clause:

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).

Her fellowship at the American Antiquarian Society is considered "a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor".

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm completely convinced. A Fellowship of the Royal Society, for instance, is awarded only to "the most eminent scientists, engineers and technologists from the UK and the Commonwealth". Fellowships at the AAS, by contrast, are awarded to Ph.D. candidates, assistant professors, etc. In that sense they're more like post-doctoral fellowships or research grants, which usually aren't enough to make a person notable. That the AAS is itself notable doesn't automatically confer notability any more than being a fellow or post-doctoral researcher at an Oxbridge college. The award she received, incidentally, is given to non-academics, so again it wouldn't confer notability under WP:ACADEMIC. It's possible though that an AAS fellowship is more like a Guggenheim fellowship, in which case she would be notable, but, as I said in my nomination, I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. Perhaps someone else knows more. Obviously if it is a notable award, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if you are convinced or not. Your conviction is irrelevant. So is the fact that some fellowships are awarded to Ph.D. candidates and assistant professors. The policy does not care to whom is it given nor what profession do they hold. What is relevant here is wether a fellowship at the AAS is "a highly selective honor" within the society. If you look at the requirements for the fellowships at http://www.americanantiquarian.org/?q=node/6 the fellowship meets that criteria. It is not given to all applicants; it is a selective process. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that being the recipient of an award for non-academics makes someone a notable academic? The link you've provided says nothing about the requirements for the fellowships. This page says only that they're given to various creative professionals "whose goals are to produce imaginative, non-formulaic works dealing with pre-twentieth-century American history". It says nothing about the award being "selective", much less "highly selective". And the guidelines do not say that the award has to be a "'highly selective honour' within the society"; it's quite clear that "highly selective honour" is used in an absolute sense. The examples given, the Royal Society, National Academies of Sciences, the IEEE, are all at the very highest levels of attainment: fellows of the RS are likely also to be holders of named or distinguished professorships, highly-cited in their field, in many cases winners of the Nobel Prize, and so on. To follow your reasoning, anyone who receives anything called a fellowship that isn't simply handed out to any bypasser automatically merits a page on Wikipedia, but a full professor at Harvard or Cambridge, say, doesn't. It's especially absurd, and I feel I can't emphasize this enough, in the case of a "fellowship" that is not given in recognition of academic work. The guideline specifically says that it is "meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements". The subject of the article doesn't have any, apart from being on the faculty of Goddard College, which doesn't come close to satisfying criterion #5. (I should also point out that in the notes to criterion #1 "visiting appointments" are said to be "insufficient" for the purposes of establishing notability: the fellowship for creative and performing artists is a visiting appointment of at least four weeks' duration, with a small stipend. The other fellowships, neither of which she won, are specifically identified as post-doctoral fellowships, e. g., here and here. Post-doctoral fellowships are also excluded in the notes to criterion #1). Alexrexpvt (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. You need to understand the policy, so I'm gonna trim it down for you:

The person is or has been […] a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor.

We need to figure out if this is true for Mackin since it's self-evident that she is a scholar. So, let's look at it in parts:

Is the AAS a "major scholarly society"? We have already established that to be true per the comments above.

Now, is a fellowship at the AAS, "a highly selective honor"? There are only 47 fellows in the whole world for the 2012-2013 fiscal year per [85]. That's 1 in about 150,000,000 persons in the world. That's quite selective and quite an honor. It also seems that you missed the part where it states that the fellowship is for historical research per [86]. It is not given solely for being a creative professional with a PhD.

Furthermore, what other societies do, or what criteria is used for other scholars to establish their notability, or wether you consider this fellowship to not be an honor in comparison to others is irrelevant. We are dealing with Mackin and Mackin alone, and clause #3 of WP:ACADEMIC which she satisfies completely.

The fellowship and Mackin satisfy the whole policy: the fellowship is given for historical research, by a major scholarly society, and is considered a highly selective honor. Our opinion and feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any new arguments, so I'll give a WP:TLDR summary of my last argument:

The AAS's fellowships are either post-doctoral fellowships or fellowships awarded to non-academic creative types "for historical research" (i. e., to conduct historical research to benefit their art, not in recognition of work already done).
The former come under and are excluded by criterion #1; the latter aren't covered by WP:ACADEMIC at all.
That the society is scholarly and the awards given to few is irrelevant: this is true of all post-doc fellowships. See (2). The examples given in the guidelines (The Royal Society, etc.) are there to guard against this sort of confusion.
Even if it were an academic fellowship, it would still be excluded under criterion #1 as a visiting appointment.
Relevant guidelines: "significant academic awards and honors may include [...] highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships)"; "standard research grants [and] visiting appointments [...] are insufficient for this purpose [i. e., establishing notability]" (both from the notes to criterion #1).
To summarize: this is a visiting appointment given to conduct research, but not in recognition of research, to non-academics, and satisfies not a single criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. Alexrexpvt (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOLAR covers fellows, period. The definition of a "fellow" is pretty clear:

A fellow is often part of an elite group of learned people who are awarded fellowship to work together as peers in the pursuit of knowledge or practice.

Wether Mackin was a postdoc or whatever is irrelevant. The society considers her a fellow, period. Criterion #1 does not cover anything about being a visiting appointment, I don't even know from where you are getting that from. Furthermore, the example given in the policy about the Royal Society is just that, an example. The policy does not state that every single organization must be exactly like the Royal Society. We have already established the AAS to be notorious and considered a major scholarly society, per WP:SCHOLAR.

You are also failing to notice that our criteria establishes that only one criteria must be fullfilled to be considered notable. Here's the excerpt for you:

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.

Meckin meets at least one criteria (criteria #3) as evidenced by reliable sources and is, therefore, notable.

You are also failing to notice the use of an "or" in the criteria. Here, I'm gonna copy it for you and bold it:

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).

Which means that Meckin satisfies the statement as an or does not establish that all statements must be fulfilled.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remark:. OK i just noticed from where the confusion is striving from. You are trying to exclude Criterion #3 by applying Criterion #1's notes. But you need to understand that the criterions are independent from each other and stand by their own. In other words, the policy states that as long as the scholar satisfies at least one criterion she is considered notable. This is what happens to Meckin, which satisfies notability per Criterion #3 which is not excluded nor superseded by other criteria. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks evidence that American Antiquarian Society fellowship is highly selective. Article was created in defiance of Wikipedia core principle. Wikipedia is not a means of promotionn. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck due to Sionk's sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've no idea how or why this article was allowed through AfC in its current state. However, Mackin has clearly published many books over a substantial period and there is evidence they have been reviewed in reliable publications, for example THE SWEET BY & BY in the Baltimore Sun and Kirkus, while Dreams of Empire has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. She is likely to pass WP:AUTHOR. Sionk (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BASIC since there seems to be multiple independent sources here. I agree with the nominator on one thing though, I don't think the article meets the Criterion 3 of WP:ACADEMIC too. As an example, IEEE fellowships are offered to those "whose extraordinary accomplishments in any of the IEEE fields of interest are deemed fitting of this prestigious grade elevation" while AAS Creative and Performing Artists and Writers fellowships are given to "people who are creating works of art or non-fiction in any discipline designed for general, non-academic audiences." Criterion 3 seeks if the academic has a great record of accomplishments on her or his field, so much that they are recognized by a major scholarly society, not a simple limited-time permission for research by one. Nimuaq (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see where WP:ACADEMIC states that Criterion #3 qualifies "if the academic has a great record of accomplishments on her or his field, so much that they are recognized by a major scholarly society". Could you please point out where does the guideline state such thing? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC is there to judge the "impact of a researcher in his or her field" to answer "does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" "The impact of one's academic research" was the main concern when it was changed in 2008. The previous version did not have any mention of fellowships, but it was needed since the Mass speedy deletion of Fellows of the Royal Society. You can see on that discussion how being a fellow of those societies were seen as awards, which would establish notability in the old version. AAS Creative and Performing Artists and Writers fellowship is not an indication of "impact of one's academic research", it is a simple permission for research on their archives, and thus I don't think she really meets the spirit of that guideline. Nimuaq (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - There is ample evidence supporting Mackin's published works have been reviewed in reliable publications, indicating that she meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Another example, her mystery novels penned under the name Anna Maclean were written about by Pulitzer Prize winner Alison Laurie in The New York Review of Books.Collinjkd (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kithinji kiragu[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Not clear that the awards he has received suffice to indicate notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The two award he holds are fairly large ones. They're both in the few official State Commendations of Kenya that are given out by the president. Also, after doing a quick searhc, Princeton University published a 72 min interview, mentions in half a dozen AllAfrica articles, and Google Books reveal some authored books. He might meet WP:POLITICIAN under the first point, not in that he's elected, but appointed to an national office. Mkdw ^talk 07:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as the nomination has been withdrawn and all !vote are for 'keep', per WP:Speedy keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gills Creek[edit]

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

Non-notable geographical feature (it is "only" a stream). WP:GEOLAND is ambivalent on the matter. Note that there are numerous place called "Gills Creek" but they may all be equally non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been expanded a bit but I still stand by my AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expanded content 5 times with sources. Article now seems to pass the WP:GEOLAND provision that "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". _{Keep vote does not take position on possible merges in the future} AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Gosh! Good work! It is a shame that it will catch all searches for "Gills Creek". Almost need to link to Wikimapia or Wikimaps. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the sourcing is tangential and doesn't particularly contribute toward notability, but the existence of multiple governmental sources dedicated to this stream demonstrates that it should be covered in a general encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator. Article is now substantially changed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16529522-grandfather-who-comforted-sandy-hook-elementary-kids-says-truthers-are-targeting-him

[1] ttp://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16529522-grandfather-who-comforted-sandy-hook-elementary-kids-says-truthers-are-targeting-him

[1]