Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 16

Guide to deletion

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

The result was speedy redirect and withdrawal. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

3648 Raffinetti

3648 Raffinetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I was only able to find directories of asteroids for this. An asteroid just existing does not make it notable in itself. Fails WP:NASTRO. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I ended up redirecting the article to a list where this is located at. I withdraw this nomination, but I forgot how to close nominations. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Diverspections

Diverspections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem to meet wiki notability guidelines and has multiple issues. Tyros1972 Talk 12:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism and original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete per Cullen. Ansh666 02:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NOTNEO, both Google Scholar and Google Books turn up zero hits for the term. Both of the first two sources listed are connected to the individual Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries who appears to have coined the term (can't really tell as neither of those two sources is searchable online) and so are not independent, nobody else appears to have picked up on the term. The third source listed is searchable online and does not appear to contain the term. WP:42 is not met. Zad68 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Steven Hirschfeld

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Steven Hirschfeld
• Articles for deletion/Steven Hirschfeld (2nd nomination)

Steven Hirschfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable minor league pitcher whose career seems to now be done with. Wizardman 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete.. Former minor league baseball player.. nothing noteworthy about him. Spanneraol (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Not a first-round pick or anything, just a regular old MiLB player who never played in the majors... i see no reason to keep it Mpejkrm (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Mars sample return mission. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns for an early Mars sample return

Concerns for an early Mars sample return (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Topic not notable enough to warrant separate article and represents an unnecessary POV content fork Warren Platts (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the article as it was at the time of nomination has been blanked out and replaced by Robert the Inventor's 12,000 14,000 word apologia. The text that has been proposed to be merged into the main Mars sample return mission article may be seen here: MSR Merge Text Warren Platts (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge. The article is an unsalvageable mess of POV, irrelevant information and WP:SYN from a single user Robertinventor. He admits the article was originally invented in order to raise awareness of the purported existential threat of Mars sample return mission. In addition, the very word "early" as used in the title and throughout the article is an unsourced neologism invented by Robertinventor and given special definition(s) just for use in this article; that in itself is justification for deletion. Moreover, the only source he can provide that MSR ought not to be undertaken or postponed indefinitely because of back contamination worries stems from a very small group, known as the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return, a fringe group populated by scientists notable only for their fringe scientific theories. There is already a Wikipedia article on this group. Moreover, the mainstream view is that MSR will be safe, and that any potential back contamination risks can certainly be managed. Therefore, the very existence of the article gives undue weight to an extreme, virtually fringe, POV. However, there remains some useful content in the article. My recommendation is that prior to deletion, the useful content of the page (< 5% and may be found at MSR Merge Text) be merged with the main MSR article. This would result in a vast improvement in the back contamination section of the main MSR article. Warren Platts (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is notable by the criteria of Wikipedia with many papers in notable peer reviewed journals. The mainstream view as represented in the official ESF and NRC reports conclude that the probability of Environmental disruption can be reduced to a level that is considered acceptable, but not to zero. They acknowledge it as a valid concern. They also say that since in worse case the effects could be experienced more widely than the nation that launches the mission, it requires international debate for both legal and ethical reasons. The view that it is safe without qualification is held only by Zubrin in the published literature. This is as much a minority view in the published literature as the ICAMSR, who indeed, have published more on it. In my view a scientific article type "Objective NPOV" is inappropriate here. Ethical debates require many different POVs to be presented exactly as they are held by their proponents. I believe this may be partly why it comes over as such a mess to editors who are used mainly to scientific articles with a single unifying "Objective NPOV", but this is how it has to be done here. See Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent: "Editors must either create edits for the opposing point of view themselves, or at least allow it. Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's point of view." I have presented Zubrin's view in the article. I have given the other POVs their own sections too. I feel that this is the only way such things can be treated in an encyclopedia. Robert Walker (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

All the studies by NASA and ESA etc acknowledge that though the probability of this happening is judged by informed scientists to be very low, the worst case scenario is destruction of entire ecosystems on Earth by replicating biological entities returned from Mars. This is not a fringe view. It is the mainstream view. As Carl Sagan wrote so eloquently: There may be no micromartians. If they exist, perhaps we can eat a kilogram of them with no ill effects. But we are not sure, and the stakes are high. If we wish to return unsterilized Martian samples to Earth, we must have a containment procedure that is stupefyingly reliable. There are nations that develop and stockpile bacteriological weapons. They seem to have an occasional accident, but they have not yet, so far as I know, produced global pandemics. Perhaps Martian samples can be safely returned to Earth. But I would want to be very sure before considering a returned-sample mission.” The official studies deal with this issue by reducing the probability of this happening to low numbers such as one chance in a million of a release, so reducing the originally low probability a further million fold. These studies by the ESA and NASA are extensive and cover many issues and risks that need to be studied and mitigated, including detailed discussion of whether and how such risks can be contained. Those issues by themselves deserve a separate article. There is a requirement for public debate, as for any policy that has a potential environmental impact. Then, since the potential impact could affect all countries internationally the ESA report concluded that a world wide international debate is required. This is both a legal and also an ethical requirement. Yes it is true that only three notable scientists (notable in sense of wikipedia) belong to the ICAMSR which is opposed to return of MSR to Earth at an early stage before in situ studies. Yet, they have interesting minority views on the subject and the ICAMSR is quoted in science news reports on MSR, and Barry DiGregorio has published in notable sources - all this is notable enough for inclusion in the article. Historically Carl Sagan was first to raise it as a matter of concern, and inspired all those writing on this subject. His conclusion that there is a low probability existential risk is accepted by all the experts who study it to this day, and so that is another aspect of the subject that is notable enough for coverage in the article. There are papers on the subject also on the legal, theological and philosophical aspects of the debate. These papers also are easily notable enough for mention in the article. There are also many intermediate views published such as those of specialists from the recent Telerobotics conference, who advocate preliminary study of the samples by humans orbiting telerobitics on the surface from Mars orbit as a way to reduce contamination risks both ways. Also some micro-biologist have the POV that the MSR is an inefficient way to study Mars for life since they consider location of biologically interesting samples a tough problem requiring advanced instruments in situ to solve, and so feel that it is almost certain that the samples will be biologically uninteresting if returned before in situ dtudies. These published views are all relevant to the public debate that will be needed. Those in favour of an early MSR (including the official reports) balance the science value against the low probability of existential risk of a MSR to justify the return. You can't discuss the risks adequately without also discussing the science return. In short it is a subject of a sufficiently extensive literature of notable peer reviewed articles, and statements by notable people to require an article. Though indeed of low importance, as such things are rated in wikipedia, still, is itself a subject notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. If someone comes across this subject in the literature and turns to wikipedia to find out more, then there should be an article covering it for them to read. I do not claim that it is of high importance, but IMO with all these cited sources, it easily crosses the threshold of notability for low importance notable wikipedia articles. Also because wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia, theere is no requirement for low importance articles to be short. The guidelines make it clear that they should be as long as is needed to present the subject clearly. You can see the extent of the subject matter from this version in my user space. User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks The current version in the main space needs work because I have just reverted it to the way it was before the edit war with Warren. I first need to be sure it won't be reverted back again. If it is okay to work on it, then I can begin to deal with some of the issues that have already been discovered and fixed in the version of the article in my user space. Robert Walker (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

*Delete. The article in Robert's sandbox is an unsalvageable mess of POV, irrelevant information and WP:SYN from a single user (Robert). The ESA and NASA (and National Academy of sciences, etc.) are cited in the live article. The risk mitigation measures are adequately discussed. There are about two notable scientists who are against MSR because of back contamination worries--and they are notable mainly for their (other) fringe ideas. And Sagan, writing in 1985, was for MSR. There is not an extensive literature by lawyers, theologians, and philosophers. There is but one study by a lawyer and it is cited. The theologian in question merely makes the redundant claim that there be a public review of MSR--something NASA already has in place. There are no so-called intermediate views: proposals to do more in situ research because of back contamination worries are the fringe view of ICASMR itself--no one else (besides Robert in his published opinion piece http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor039s_column/need_caution_early_mars_sample_return_opinion_piece-113913 ) argues that we should do more robotic research because of BC worries. The thousand words on the subject in the live article is plenty and arguably gives to much weight to the minority, fear-mongering view that the world faces an existential risk because of MSR. The (live) article should be deleted and merged IMHO. Warren Platts (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Warren I don't think you can put your POV twice as a bulleted point in an AfD Robert Walker (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Robert, the second vote was referring specifically to your sandbox monograph. Surely you're not voting to keep the live article as it is are you? You might want to change it to "Delete and Replace w/ ..." Warren Platts (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Warren, this is where your idea to have an AfD discussion of your stub after removing most of the content first is just SO CONFUSING. There is no such option as "Delete and replace" in an AfD discussion. I propose to keep this as a stub, if it is a choice of delete or keep only - but it is much clearer if I replace it with my version first before the AfD, as that is what you really want to delete after all. You have just gone about it in a complicated way by first removing most of the content before starting an AfD. Robert Walker (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Sure there is. There is no law in Wikipedia that says an article can't be deleted and replaced by another, radically different version of the article. To the admins: I have no objection to "Delete and Replace w/ User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks" as being an option on the table for discussion (although of course I would disagree with that option). Warren Platts (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC) As I have just said on the talk page for the article, what you have done gives me, the original editor, no way to improve the article in response to the AfD debate. It is bizarre for the proposor of the AfD to also be the main editor of the article in its current form, and for the proposor to first remove most of the content until it only a stub is left and then propse that stub for deletion. You must give me the opportunity during the discussion to fix the article as best I can. As a first step I have restored the original version which is also fixed with many subsequent edits made only by myself (and so causing no attribution issues in the article history). I can then continue to work on it during hte deletion discussion to fix any issues raised, as can any other editors who are in favour of keeping the article. Robert Walker (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC) In our discussion just now on the talk page I suggested either a merge discussion, or let me put my version in place of yours and do an AfD. It is your idea to do an AfD for your version, which doesn't make any sense to me as a way to proceed in the circumstances. Robert Walker (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC) No, my idea was to merge the live article into the "Back contamination" section of the main MSR article. You vetoed that option. Therefore, deletion is the only other available option that I can see my friend.... Warren Platts (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line. Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. Seems as the nominator you shouldn't put a bulleted POV at all. The operative phrase is "(unless indicated otherwise)". Yes, I nominated the article for deletion. However, I believe that what useful content remains should be merged with the main MSR article. Thanks. Warren Platts (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I have just replaced it with my version. I suggest we debate that as an AfD, not your version, as I suggested on the talk page before you did the AfD, as it is you who want to delete the article and I'm the one who wants to keep it. Surely therefore my version is the one that should be discussed for deletion, not yours, which has most of the article removed already. Robert Walker (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted! Warren Platts (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I've reverted it to the way it was before you deleted most of it. VQuaker has an issue with me working on it in my user space, which is why I have done a revert this time instead. But - I must be permitted to work on the article to prevent its deletion. You can't propose it for deletion and simultaneously through edit warring, ban me from editing it to improve it to help it to survive AfD. That's totally unfair! Robert Walker (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Note that the live article that was nominated for deletion has been blanked out, and unilaterally replaced by Robert's 12,000 word monograph... Warren Platts (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, and merge key info on Back contamination. —As a professional working in astrobiology, my assessment is that this article is little more than a slanted alarmist editorial rant. The fact that biologists plan to play it safe, is not a synonym of impending doom. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would urge you to take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample_return#Back_contamination ; the "Back contamination" section is in bad shape and would be improved by a merge. A version of what the main MSR article would look like in that case is preserved in the history before Robert reverted it.Warren Platts (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable request; as long as only the main points are presented and referenced in Back contamination], not Walker's interpretations. (I changed my comment/vote above accordingly). BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

I believe that the way Warren has handled this AfD may be a criterion for a Speedy Keep See: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" Basically as you can see from the history of the article, he rewrote and deleted most of my content. The history is: 1. He did a bold edit that removed most of the article. 2. I reverted the edit, pointed out that the material he deleted was backed up with citations, and should be discussed first on the talk page 3. He deleted it again. 4. I then gave up working on the article as you are recommended to do in an edit war and attempted discussion in the talk page. He joined in the discussion but continued to work on it in the main space during the edit war. 5. The discussion was unproductive. No other editor apart from Warren has worked on it except one editor who suggested a sentence for the lead section in the talk page, and bots and editors correcting typos, and other editors adding pov and editorial comment tags. As a result I consider it as still in the middle of an edit war. I am unable to work on it in the main space because Warren would immediately delete or revert my edits. For that reason I worked on it in my user space instead. Whether that is right or not, it can't be denied that it is still an edit war situation and that I am unable to work on the article to improve its chances for survival of AfD. I have just now tried a reversion to the state it was in before the edit war began so I can work on it, but Warren has already said on the talk page that he will revert and keep reverting my edits, so I don't expect this to last long. See his comment in Revert Robert's reversion : " I will re-revert again to the point where I'm banned from Wikipedia. That's how much I strongly feel that "your" article is way over the top. ". That has also been the general tone of the entire discussion to date, and the reason I feel I can't work on the article in main space myself, and why I consider it to be still in the middle of an extended edit war. In those circumstances I believe a speedy keep may be appropriate. An AfD would be appropriate if I am permitted to work on the article first without edit warring. Especially since the warring editor is the one proposing deletion. Robert Walker (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Robert, I did you a favor by editing down your 12,000 word (5 times the length of the main MSR article) POV-laden editorial. You were invited multiple times to help work on it. You chose not to. Vote remains DELETE the 12,000 word editorial; MERGE the 1,000 word distillation into the main MSR article. Warren Platts (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Warren you know very well that if I were to edit it as I wish, then you would immediately revert my edits as you did when I attempted to undo your massive deletions during the initial stages of the edit war. My version was POV laden, yes, but not with my own POV. My own POV didn't occur in it. You seem to miss the point in an article on a debate on a controversial topic, which is to present all the POVs and so it should be POV laden with many different POVs. You would delete any attempt to include sections on POVs that differ from the editorial tone of the current article, which basically is that back contamination is a non issue. That is why you make it so short, because you have removed all the interesting content and will remove it if I attempt to put it back in again. I can't edit this article if prohibited from including any of the material that I consider to be the main substance of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC) WARREN HAS JUST DELETED MY MOST RECENT REPLY WHICH WAS HERE. Robert Walker (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC) The original version of the article should have been deleted because it violates the WP:UNDUE policy. That's why I say I did you a favor by editing it down. I could have nominated it for deletion back then, but I tried to work with you instead first. Here is what Jimbo Wales says on the subject: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. The fact is that the mainstream scientific view is that back contamination IS a non-issue, or rather, it is a technical issue of engineering the sample return container and receiving facility. The POV that MSR could cause the extinction of Homo sapiens is a fringe view supported by a tiny and lonely minority of scientists notable mainly for their other fringe views, such as that influenza outbreaks are caused by spores from space (Wickramasinghe), or that the Viking probe actually detected life (Levin). Richard Hoagland territory in other words. This does not warrant a separate article. A section in the main MSR article that briefly discusses is possibly appropriate, but even that is debatable. Warren Platts (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC) It is totally not a fringe view. The ESA and NASA reports both acknowledge the possibility of large scale negative effects on Earth's inhabitants or environment due to replicating biological entities returned from Mars. Both concur with Carl Sagan that it can't be ruled out. That much is mainstream, and not a fringe "loony fringe" idea. That much is agreed by all the published sources that I found. The only ones disagreeing with those are some space enthusiasts posting to forums such as the nasaspaceflight.com forum you frequent. Their views are not published anywhere as far as I can tell. If I had a published source for them, I would include it. In the published literature, differing POVs depend mainly on how you react to that risk. The maintream view is that since the existential risk is of low probability already, if you can reduce it further by another million fold reductio, then it is low enough in probability to be not a matter of concern. But there is room for debate on whether that is a sufficient reduction for something so severe as an existential risk, and about how confident one can be that such a reduction is achieved using novel technology. It is also all tied up with questions of science value, since it would be absurd to engage in a policy with even a tiny probability of existential risk, unless you had something else in its favour which you considered was able to balance that existential risk. And interesting minority views do have their place in Wikipedia in subsidiary articles. This is a subsidiary article so it is exactly the sort of place where such views can be included. Robert Walker (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC) There you just said it yourself: "The maintream view is that since the existential risk is of low probability already, if you can reduce it further by another million fold reductio, then it is low enough in probability to be not a matter of concern." Exactly. The "debate" stems from ICASMR. They are a fringe group populated by fringe scientists. Their minority POV doesn't warrant a separate article that's 5 times the length of the main MSR article.Warren Platts (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC) The debate as I see it is a much larger thing than the ICAMSR. It stems from Carl Sagan. It continues within the mainstream view as a detailed review of all the possibilities for backward contamination and existential risk, and ways of mitigating them. I see the ICAMSR as one POV within this larger debate that also includes the other articles I cited such as the legal situation and the theological article, and the debate about science return. If it was just the ICAMSR it might not be interesting enough for a separate article indeed. But in the context of all that other material, together with the legal requirement for international public debate, and the amount of published material, I think it is easily notable enough for a specialist article in wikipedia. Comparing the article length with the main MSR article is beside the point because since wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia there is no requirement that lower profile articles should be shorter than higher profile articles. There are many articles in wikipedia that are specialist, low importance in the context of the whole encyclopedia, yet notable enough to be included, and can be as long or longer than far more "important" articles. You just use as much text as is needed to say what needs to be said. I have never said this is a high importance article. Maybe in the future it might become so but at present, hardly anyone has even heard of the issues in the general public or even in the space community it is barely discussed. But there is a lot of research of that nature deserving of inclusion in wikipedia. My Hexany article would be an example, of low importance generally, but of high importance to a small community of microtonal musicians. There are articles on the hexany musical structure within peer reviewed notable musical journals, and it is used by composers in compositions, and that was enough so that the conclusion of the AfD discussion was a clear consensus that it was notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Similarly here. All I am saying is that there is enough material on it for it to be a significant low importance article in wikipedia. Also, I have absolutely no wish to do POV pushing in wikipedia, or to put forward my own views on the matter. When I want to do that I write blog posts, contribute to forums, or write journalistic articles. My space20.com article might well get more views than this article, and it is also much more likely to get people thinking about the issues which is what I wanted to do, and to stimulate discussion, which it did on the page and also elsewhere on the web. It would be unprofessional to use wikipedia in that way and I would never do it intentionally. This article here I just want it to be here as a useful reference for those who want to find out about the various POVs on MSR and as a first stage pointing towards the primary sources so they can find out more if they so wish. My objection to your editing is that your version was no longer useful in that way IMO. Yes you did include many of the original references but without them clearly explained in the article itself. A long list of references is no substitute for a proper article on the subject. Robert Walker (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC) The Sagan quote you keep spamming all over the internet comes from 1973--before even the first Viking lander. His source is a 19th century science fiction novel. Since then there have been 20 successful missions to Mars and much preliminary engineering on potential MSR missions. Not surprisingly, writing in 1985, Sagan was for MSR, saying "we want to bring 'em back alive!"--if there is any life at all. ICASMR is the /only/ group agitating against MSR due to BC worries. Also, there is already a section on the scientific value of MSR in the main article. And yes, the length is important: an article that emphasizes a fringe, minority POV that's 5 times longer than the article on the mainstream POV is WP:UNDUE.Warren Platts (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC) NOTE ABOVE Warren just deleted a comment where I said that we both know that if I were to include material on the POVS that to my mind are the main body of the debate, or were to delete his editorial synthesis, then my work would immediately be deleted / reverted. This is not mind reading. Just go and read through the talk page on the article and judge for yourself from his comments if it is at all likely that he would leave such edits in place for any length of time, or discuss them before deleting them. Does his attitude towards me reflect the attitude of an editor who encourages others with another POV to join in editing the article? Robert Walker (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Warren, sorry, I see you have left the reverted version in place for now. Does this mean that we can have an AfD for the original reverted version? If that's okay and if I can continue to work on it to deal with any issues that arise during the dispute, or that I notice myself, then I withdraw what I just said about speedy delete, and we can have a civilized AfD discussion about whether the article in its original form should be deleted. Robert Walker (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC) If that is agreed I suggest that we both rewrite our Delete and Keep sections above so that they refer to the original version of the article as the subject of the AfD. Also I think it will help for clarity to refrain from commenting on each other's posts here, to start with anyway, to help others coming to the debate can see what we both are saying and add separate keeps and deletes of their own. If you want to keep the thread of comments you and I made on my statement above for future reference, it could be copied to the talk page perhaps. Just a suggestion, I think will help to make things easier for other editors.Robert Walker (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I have edited my "keep" statement. I suggest you edit yours too, to add in any extra points that you feel need to be made, and we could do that iteratively improve our two statements until we are sure they are okay, a bit like in the dispute resolution process . And remove the long thread of comments on my statement, or just move it down here if you prefer. Do you agree? Robert Walker (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC) OK, struck out "in Robert's sandbox".... Warren Platts (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Warren you need to merge that entire comment on my Keep proposal with your own Delete proposal. I will remove it along with the entire discussion thread later today. It is a bit like the opening statements in a debate where each participant is given an opportunity to state their case without comment.Robert Walker (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC) It seems (from article talk page) that Warren has accepted that I have the right to work on the article to improve it to help it survive AfD, and don't have to use the version of the article provided by the proposer of deletion. In these circumstances I withdraw my "Speedy Keep" objection and for simplicity and clarity will move this entire discussion to the talk page later today. Robert Walker (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny. Gentlemen, there's no fighting in the war room. AfD is not the place for you to hash out your dispute. Each of you should make your point concisely and without bickering. Criminy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Warren, I plan to edit this page to remove all the comments on the posts later today (someone has to do it), perhaps they could be copied over to the talk page for this page? Sometimes participants comment on other posts in an AfD discussion but just as a simple response e.g. if the delete proposal says that there are no citations it is reasonable to comment and say that you have just added some citations to the article to fix the issue mentioned. Robert Walker (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No, please do not delete threaded edits. Just quit arguing in the AfD. If someone uninvolved wants to collapse the extended discussion fine. VQuakr (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, collapsing is fine by me. What about what I just said to Warren, that a second Delete suggestion by the proposer of deletion for the article as a reply to a Keep is inappropriate in AfD? Robert Walker (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed accordingly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, guys, but we don't need more metadiscussion. We have asked for 3rd party comments in the past--no one took much interest (which ought to says something about the notability of the topic). So here we are. What we need is a rough concensus on whether to keep or delete this article. A vote followed by a substantive comment would be more helpful than comments about comments IMHO. Moreover, there are two completely different versions of the article floating out there: if you vote "Keep", be sure to specify which version you are referring to. Presumably if there is a merge, it won't be the 12,000 worder.... Warren Platts (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Must... resist... urge... to use a tu quoque. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• 'Comment' Just to say, I am in the process of working on the article to deal with some of the issues mentioned in the delete proposals above. Particularly am working to make sure that every paragraph that says anything that could be regarded as controversial is properly attributed so I say that "xyz says that abc" throughout, so it is clear that my own POV is not present in the article, to deal with the objection that it is slanted. Also checking the citations for accuracy and making it easy for the reader to verify them. Also taking care to make it clear that all the way through it is thought by all those concerned to be a low probability existential risk to deal with criticism that it gives an alarmist impression. Also adding extra sections to express all the POVs I know about (published or notable ones) and with particular care to include POVs that are in favour of an early MSR prominently visible, to make sure the full range is included. Plus improving the overall structure of it and avoiding repetition. This is going to take a few days to complete, so it is somewhat mid-edit right now, any suggestions or recommendations welcomed! Robert Walker (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment To explain the length, Warren has continually asked me to prove that my paraphrases are accurate and keeps accusing me of cherry picking. I have made the sections longer with extensive paraphrasing and quotes in order to show that they report the original sources accurately. He still accuses me of cherry picking requiring inclusion of yet more material from the original sources which is why it has grown so long. I have just suggested on the talk page that I could put all this extra material into references "to assist editors in verifying my paraphrases" and this could reduce the size of the article considerably. I can write well and succintly when needed, but am finding it impossible to do so, in view of the need to have so much included in the body of the text to withstand his criticisms.Robert Walker (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

He also makes many requests to add new material to the article to address what he sees as its POV slant. E.g. recently required I add a section on an allegation by Zubrin that the whole thing is just a result of doomsday phobias by the scientists concerned. I don't have the original article for these allegations or the replies, yet, am willing to add this section once I do but of course all these requests add to the length of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Pare down to four sentences and merge with Mars_sample_return_mission#Back_contamination. The article is an awful mess in its current state, but a review of the history shows that there are more approachable versions. More than a few sentences would be overcoverage. VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. After watching parts of this debate for a few weeks now, I'm going to go here with a reluctant Keep, and possibly only a temporary Keep. Two reasons: 1) It seems to me that a multiple-day and deeply-felt content dispute between two particular editors has moved to the AfD page; AfD's ought not to be decided that way, especially since in the many "tons" of phosphor that have been spilled in the verbosity of their defense of their positions, and their multiple versions and rapid changes of the article, it has been quite difficult to really figure out what a decent article might look like after editing over a longer period of time with input from more editors. 2) Although I don't personally "like" the position put forward in this article, I believe that Wikipedia is not censored and that view, especially a reasonably well-sourced representation of that view with citations to reliable sources, ought to be able to be encyclopedically covered by the Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that Wikipedia should not be censored. Therefore, since Robert is: (1) dead set on getting his POV into Wikipedia; and (2) his POV is basically a rehash of the fringe International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (ICAMSR) POV, then let him lay out the argument that MSR represents a clear and present existential risk to Planet Earth in the ICAMSR article. I am pretty sure that Robert will veto this proposal, but it could form the basis of a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS nevertheless. Warren Platts (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have just done a word count as an attempt at a way to detect any bias in the article.

Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return#Measure_of_bias_using_word_count

It is clear that the ICAMSR form just a small part of the article. Indeed most of the material on concerns comes from the official ESF and NRC reports. Robert Walker (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Comment I have just done a word count as an attempt at a way to detect any bias in the article. Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return#Measure_of_bias_using_word_count The highest word count is for the prevailing view, e.g. summary of the ESF and NRC board reports 2989 words. Most people are unaware of the details of this view as it is rarely discussed which I think is the main reason it comes over as biased. It is unusual for an article discussing criticisms of the prevailing view to give the prevailing view so much more weight than any of the criticisms but is necessary here since the prevailing view, as in prevailing view amongst the experts, is so little known. Indeed I found far far more material on concerns with a MSR to Earth amongst the official studies than the ICAMSR. The ICAMSR came in at 396 words. Zubrin's view which is aligned more or less with what Warren regards as the prevailing view comes in at 267 words. This is mainly because all I can find on it, saying that a MSR is unequivocally safe, is one transcript of an interview with Zubrin, which doesn't go into much detail on this point. There are editions of the Planetary report with a paper by Zubrin and several replies from Margaret Race of the Seti institute and others, but this is not available online even as abstracts and I am attempting to obtain access, have written to them to ask if I can buy copies of past editions but not yet had a reply. Have found no published surveys of views of the general public on this issue. The decadal report doesn't mention BC as far as I can tell. The one survey I found is a 1998 one of astrobiologists by Margaret Race (details in quote made into ref for editor verification or of course read the survey itself which is fairly short) in which many voiced concern with a MSR to Earth certainly not unanimous in support of it. In my personal experience present day astrobiologists that I talk about it to (I have several as facebook friends) are concerned, BatteryIncluded is the only exception so far of those I talked about it to. That is just anecdotal but suggests a present day repeat of the 1998 survey might well come to the same conclusions Thus in my view it is inappropriate to treat this as an exposition of the views of ICAMSR - and incidentally I am not a member of the ICAMSR and am not affiliated with it. There are several differences between my personal POV and their POV. I could be persuaded that a MSR to Earth is safe, similar to Carl Sagan's view: "Perhaps Martian samples can be safely returned to Earth. But I would want to be very sure before considering a returned-sample mission." - that accurately expresses my own POV on the matter. My main personal reason for concern is tendency to treat it as a "public relations exercise", not treating it seriously enough e.g. no plans for "dummy runs" for the sample return, and no-one gives any hard numbers on the probabilities, either the target probabilities to aim for, or what the experts judge the original probabilities (where you expect a range of views on what they are). As a mathematician this is hugely frustrating as it makes a tremendous difference to the debate whether or not e.g. the initial probability is 1 in 1000 or 1 in a trillion for existential risks. This is a criticism of both extremes plus prevailing view - Zubrin, NRC, ESF, ICAMSR, none attempt to do this (this POV and criticism of course does not appear in the article). Robert Walker (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is no way the article as is stands should be in article-space, since it's a clear POV content fork of Mars sample return mission. Additionally I see no issues here that couldn't be usefully covered in Mars sample return mission, Back-contamination or Sample return mission. I suggest userfication for the purposes of scavenging references before deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Have changed the main image for the article to one of the design proposals for a MSR Receiving facility. Hope this will help deal with perception of it as a POV fok of the main MSR article. Seems appropriate as a lot of the discussion centers on the safety of the receiving facility + whether that is the right approach at all. Robert Walker (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge to Mars sample return mission, after toning down the POV. This is pretty clearly a WP:POVFORK and belongs in the parent article. AfD is not a way of resolving content disputes. The topic is very clearly notable, and it may be that an agreed-on Mars sample return mission#Back contamination section eventually gets spun out into its own article. However, this article is not it. Some of this material should probably also go into a Mars sample return mission#Mars Receiving Facility section, which is closely related to, but logically separate from, the back-contamination concerns. -- 202.124.72.30 (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, just point of information, this article started as a section in Mars sample return mission and was split into a separate article as a result of discussion here: Talk:Mars sample return mission#Suggestion for a new article .22Back_contamination concerns for a Mars_sample_return.22 Robert Walker (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to Mars sample return mission. This lengthy essay can be easily summarized with a few sentences and references to a few neutral overview sources. There is no need for an original research screed such as this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. Agree with User:Sławomir Biały and others. JohnInDC (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Rough Consensus

Extended content

Well, it's been over a week now. The tally is 70% in favor of VASTLY paring down the article, and merging what's left into the main MSR article. The argument is that the article as it currently exists is a WP:POVFORK, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority, virtually fringe POV. Of the votes to keep, one is from the author and sole editor of the article: he argues that (1) the topic is notable enough to warrant a nearly 16,000 word article containing 109 references; (2) an "Objective NPOV" is not appropriate for the article because it contains an ethical dimension; (3) the article is NPOV because all of the many POVs are presented. The other (reluctant) keep argues that (1) the article should be kept at least temporarily because the AfD is an inappropriate attempt to settle a dispute between two editors; and (2) deleting the article would amount to WP:CENSORSHIP. To these good faith arguments, the majority view would respond that (1) the mere fact of a long-standing editorial dispute does entail that the AfD was not made in good faith for good reasons; (2) there are only 2 relevant POVs here: (a) the mainstream view that MSR as proposed by NASA is safe because appropriate precautions will be undertaken; (b) a minority POV that MSR as proposed by NASA represents a potential existential threat to Planet Earth; (3) the proposed merge is not censorship because the main MSR article still mentions the minority POV. Whereas we note that the only notable proponents of the latter POV are the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (whose members are notable mainly for their fringe scientific views) and the author of the article. Therefore, we feel that a 16,000 word explication gives undue weight to what is, in our opinion, a virtually fringe POV, and that a brief mention in the main MSR article is more than adequate. In addition, we note that there already exists an ancillary article on ICAMSR. The minority POV is probably best explored in that article; as an analogy, an article on the dispute over Flat Earth theory would give undue weight to a minority POV, whereas an article on the Flat Earth Society is appropriate. Therefore, IMHO the WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS seems to be that: (1) a vastly pared down version of the article be merged with the Mars sample return mission main article; (2) more detailed content on the minority POV expressed by ICAMSR be merged with the ICAMSR ancillary article; and (3) that the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return be deleted with a redirect to International Committee Against Mars Sample Return. Warren Platts (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Comment The view that there is a potential for environmental disruption is the official view by NASA, ESA and the PPO. The official reason given for the mission is that the high potential for science value of a MSR can offset a sufficiently low probability of environmental disruption. This makes the science value debate of great importance as this perception of its value is strongly contested by a minority of scientists. The main views (with some distinctions within them) are: * POV that there is no BC risk (Zubrin) * POV that thee is a BC risk but it is manageable (NASA / ESA / Planetary Protection Office) * POV that there is a BC risk but that it is too risky to return to Earth until we can do biohazard testing on Mars or in space (ICAMSR) * POV that a MSR is of great science value (official view and decadal survey) * POV that a MSR is of little science value at this stage and that in situ observation is of much more value (Bada, Page, Dirk Schulze-Makuch and indeed, Zubrin too for the early exploration stage we are in now). The official NASA / ESA / PPO view also holds that the whole mission requires full and open world wide international debate - in view of the potential for environmental disruption to impact on a wider group of countries than the country that launched the mission. The official view from the ESF report is that as the original probability for environmental disruption is thought by experts to be low, then a million fold reduction in this probability makes it low enough to be acceptable. It does not state that the original low probability is totally eliminated by the proposals and indeed agrees that there is still a tiny probability of it happening The mainstream view on BC has not been surveyed. A survey of astrobiologists in 1998 showed considerable variation with many concerned about a MSR and back contamination, and there was no consensus then. I know several astrobiologists and biologists who are concerned so it is certainly not unanimously accepted now (one of them, a friend who is a wikipedean, jokingly offered to intervene in this debate - just a joke to cheer me up, as he knows the wikipedia policy on WP:CANVAS and he heard about the debate through me) The official NASA POV requires extensive treatment as it is not widely known or understood - the official reports found many potential concerns with the proposed MSR and advanced ways of mitigating the risk for most of the concerns. This is in fact the view given most treatment in the article. This needs to be examined in an open public way as part of the international debate that will be needed. The need for an international debate and the legal liabilities and implications I believe is also an important element that needs to be described in separate sections in the article. My own POV on the matter is irrelevant so long as I act responsibly as an editor. I have presented each POV exactly as it is in the source including many I don't personally like. My own POV is of course covered in my column at science20 but is nowhere mentioned in the article as it is a new POV as far as I know, especially what I regard as my own main contribution to the debate in my column - a request for clarity in the probabilities used by all the authors in the debate - is nowhere mentioned in the article. I wonder if it is possible somehow to bring this debate to a wider audience e.g. to the AfD debates on social issues? It is an ethical issue after all, one strongly informed by science, and ethical and social issues typically have no "scientific objective NPOV". My science20 article was filed under Social Sciences >> Science Education and Policy. Robert Walker (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Believe 3D

Believe 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources, no official release date, all I find is a bunch of fan blog sites with rumours, has been repeatably vandalized so bad with people just changing the cast. I say WP:SALT and delete until information comes out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. I couldn't find any reliable sources that would show the notability of the subject. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I tried WP:PRODing this but two minutes later this was opened, so yeah, delete unless and until some actual reliable sources can be found. Salting isn't a bad idea either, Bieber fever and all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see the PROD. Someone probably would have took it down anyways. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete The movie appears to exist, as when I did some Googling I found that some verified people like Scooter Braun and Jon M. Chu are Tweeting about it. But even those were reliable, the film is far too early in development to have a page. Beerest355 Talk 22:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per TOO SOON. While there is a trailer shared,[1] and the film is being mentioned in various unreliable sources as having been shooting last December,[2][3] its not being released and not having coverage in reliable sources, means this article stub is premature at best. We can consider recreation only when this thing gets proper coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, TOO SOON applies. Cavarrone 06:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter Price (film editor)

Peter Price (film editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is just a list of his three credits with nothing else. There is nothing that suggests this man is notable. Beerest355 Talk 20:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A very small body of work and no awards. This Price is not right for Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tagged with {{db-g7}} by page creator. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deborah louise robinson

Deborah louise robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be a recreation of Deborah Louise Robinson, which was speedily deleted 3 times since August 2009. Page creator (ZombieAddiction (talk · contribs)) is a single-purpose account apparently dedicated to promoting Deborah. This woman may be notable but the article would need a major rewrite. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Last Will and Embezzlement, her documentary featuring Mickey Rooney. I just wrote this article. I believe that this film is notable, but the director isn't yet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. No problems with the suggested and sensible redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Cologne Business School

Cologne Business School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In my opinion this article is one big advertisement, written by the school itself in order to get more students. Especially the lead is quite promotional telling you what is possible and can be reached. The Banner talk 19:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't quite work out whether this is part of Cologne University or an independent institution. If the latter, then as a degree-awarding institution it should be kept. If the former then there is more of a case for deletion as being only a department of a larger institution. Can anyone clarify? However, as ever, being badly written is not a good reason for deletion. It's a reason for cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Changing my opinion to keep given Userkriskj24's comment below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not about being written poorly, it is about being an advertisement and the recommended use of some WP:TNT. The Banner talk 11:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No need. If the subject is notable then just cut out the advertising and leave what's left. Destruction is unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Then you are left with the title, the location, the infobox and a frustrated spammer who will start edit warring over it... The Banner talk 14:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Not really a problem. If the spammer gets going then we can protect. After all, nobody deletes the article on Hitler because of the endless vandalism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
          • But at the same time nobody is keeping that articles because H. is a mass murderer, while every school is kept because it is a school. And there is no policy for that... The Banner talk 16:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Just a general consensus... -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
              • No, a strictly and harshly enforced opinion of a vocal minority misusing Common Outcomes as a policy. The Banner talk 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Opposed by an even more vocal and even smaller minority, however! Everything on Wikipedia is obviously going to be done by a minority, as only interested parties contribute to discussions. Consensus across every single editor is obviously never going to exist. Consensus can only possibly exist within the small minority who take part in discussions, and within that minority a consensus clearly does exist. It doesn't matter how much you complain that it's unfair, you are still among the minority within the minority who take part in such discussions. Claiming misuse is frankly an insult to the editors who support the consensus, many of whom are highly experienced, and indicates nothing more than a sense of bitterness that you are in the minority. A "yes, I know I'm in the minority, but you're still wrong and I'm right and therefore your opinions should be ignored" attitude that goes against the non-bureaucratic, "rules"-free and discussion-based spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Hammering everybody who has a different opinion and every time when speaking out, is also not very civil. That is chasing away people to get it your way. The Banner talk 12:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • Nobody here is hammering anyone who has a different opinion. I am just expressing my opinion, as do others who agree that all secondary and tertiary school articles should be kept. Why would that be chasing people away? It's not like we're forcing anything through. We just happen to be in the majority of those who comment on AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi i can clarify: Cologne Business School is a independent organisation. It has nothing to do with Cologne University. I made it myself as a information article since it is repressented in wiki in German but not English.(Userkriskj24) 13:05, 20 June 2013
    • It looks like a big advertisement... The Banner talk 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Does it, all school wikis look like that, its just facts about the school??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriskj24 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy Delete as a copyvio. The current version copies material from [4], and prior to that, material was copied from [5]. The topic is very probably notable, but a copyvio is not the base to build upon. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now, but as a recognized degree granting institution, I lean towards keep. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • My bad people, didnt know the way to put together a article, my first time. I hope everybody is still alive and i have learned after reading wiki instruction more how to create an article. Sorry for the inconveniance, veil spass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.31.84 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. In its present cast there is nothing promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Admir Adrović

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Admir Adrović
• Articles for deletion/Admir Adrović (2nd nomination)

Admir Adrović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning that the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

He played I think in the Albanian Superliga at KS Vllaznia Shkodër. He might have also played in the Iran Pro League with S.C. Damash. Bollfooot (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

His appearances in Iran were in the second division, which is not fully pro. Appearances in Albania are not supported by reliable sources, without which they do not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik, what about the Champions League and Europa League qualifying rounds? 3 seasons in International Cups. Or Montenegro U-21? Bollfooot (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth international caps as a source of notability, and that playing in the qualifying rounds of European cup competition does not confer notability is a long-standing consensus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

He played for Montenegro U21. Bollfooot (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've already stated, WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth international caps as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 22:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 22:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. If the article was still created by Narcis, please keep it. He has signed Pandurii 3 years. Pandurii will play in Europe, second place from the Romanian Liga I. He is two times golgeter in Montenegro, so he will surely play here. Bollfooot (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Saying he will play is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, which is never grounds for notability. The article can be restored at the click of a button, if and when he makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Chidi and Chika Nwaogu

Chidi and Chika Nwaogu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article - and that of LAGbook, a website developed by the Nwaogu brothers - were both deleted in April after they were revealed to have been based almost entirely on credulous reprints of exaggerated press releases written by the Nwaogus (press releases which were later retracted by the PR site that originally published them). There was some history of the Nwaogu's putting out exaggerated press release statements (such as describing a simple affiliate programme for Etisalat as a "partnership" with that company, a claim which they were forced to publicly retract), and it appears that this new version of the article may be doing the same thing again, with "defunct MTV social-network domain name bought by someone and replaced with a GROU.PS site" being talked up as "Nigerian Programmers Contracted To Redesign MTV’s TagWorld" in an article which only quotes the brothers and "an engineer". The article is also claiming that the Lagbook website, which the brothers sold at auction in January announcing they were abandoning it, has actually just had its name changed - but this is only sourced to a (somewhat fawning) brief-question-lengthy-answer "interview" with the brothers, written by the same journalist.

Wikipedia was alerted to previous sourcing problems by a user who claimed to have bought the Lagbook website at auction, and was disappointed that both Wikipedia and Nigerian news sources had been taken in by bad faith press releases that exaggerated the significance of the website. I won't try and quote from memory, but it may be worth resurrecting Talk:LAGbook for context, if an admin could do that? McGeddon (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note - Talk:LAGbook temporarily restored for reference during this AfD. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am aware that the articles to LAGbook and the brothers were deleted earlier. You said that 'they were based almost entirely on credulous reprints of exaggerated press releases writen by the Nwaogus', and I beg to differ. I took the time to look at the articles that are based on releases and those that weren't. One of the articles from Vanguard is written by Victor Gotevbe (who through my research is the Administration & HR Manager at Vanguard. Victor has a column on Vanguard called Youthful Vibes where he talks about young Nigerians making a difference, and on September 1, the brothers was featured on his column. The article came in form of an interview, in which Victor was the interviewer. This means that it is exclusive, and not based on press releases, and thus reliable. Before the interview started on the article, Victor said some personal words of his own, which included his description of the brothers as 'human set of twins making a difference, 'attacking' issues and proffering solutions'.

Looking at the National Mirror article, we can see that it is also an interview with one of the National Mirror reporters. The writer of the National Mirror article is ONUKWUBE OFOELUE and according to my research he worked as a correspondent for the newspaper for two years, and now writes for Daily Newswatch. The writer interview the brothers after they 'gathered that LAGbook recently signed a contract with Blackberry…'. This was written in the lede of the article. ONUKWUBE had a column on National Mirror called Youth and Next Generation that writes about young Nigerians making a difference just as the Youthful Vibe column on Vanguard. This means that it is also exclusive, and not based on press release, and thus reliable.

You said that the brothers claimed to have gone into partnership with Etisalat; a claim they were forced to retract. Please can you tell me where their retraction statement is? According to the National Mirror article, the brothers said that they 'did go into partnership with Etisalat, but it wasn’t monetary. It was a sponsorship on airtime; they provided airtime for our users. Etisalat's deal lasted from August 2011 March 2012.' Do you think they will publicly say that if it didn't happen, when National Mirror has a daily circulation of over 100,000? That's as much as I know about that.

You got it all wrong on the Tagworld story. If you look at this report on Techcrunch dated 2010, you will notice that GROU.PS bought TagWorld and its users from MTV: http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/13/grou-ps-buys-social-project-from-mtv-networks/ - so I dont think it ever went defunct, and bought by a random person, and replaced with a GROU.PS site.

Personally, I had signed up for a LAGbook account some months ago, and I got a message on April that the new LAGbook is now PicRate, so I think there was a name change. If they sold the site to anyone, that doesn't make it no longer LAGbook, and in fact, LAGbook did change name to PicRate (whether or not the brothers are still engage in it). lagbook.com now redirects to picrate.me, and if you need me to forward the message I received from LAGbook that their name is now PicRate, I will gladly do so.

The buyer of the site may have said things about the site that brought up some concerns, but these are claims, and not facts. Maybe things went badly between him and the brothers, and he decided to get to them that way. I can't say because I wasn't there, and neither can you.

The fact is that the Vanguard and National Mirror articles termed as press release extracts are actually interviews by writers that talk about young Nigerians impacting positive values on the nation. I am a Nigerian, and I know how popular and respected they are here. They were invited to the IT leaders West Africa Summit to speak; if they aren't reputable, will they be invited to speak at a summit where a minister spoke as well?

It's your call. I'm of the belief that no amount of facts is enough of someone who has stamped his belief on something without constructive reasons. A fact is enough of an unbiased mind. That's everything I'll say. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babajide.O (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Babajide.O (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• A press release is an official statement issued to newspapers giving information on a particular matter. This definition tells us that an interview is not a press release, because the interviewee only answers questions asked by the interviewer and doesn't just give information on whatever he/she wants. As pointed out by Babajide; the vanguard article that reads 'Let your dream run wild - Nwaogu twins' and the national mirror article that reads 'We sold our laptops to build LAGbook -Twins' doesn't count as press releases. In fact they are one of many series of articles published under a column dedicated for creative young people as Babajide also pointed out. If two column writers focused on creative youths from two unrelated national newspapers interviewed the same people (the twin brothers), doesn't that count as notable? Look at this, the questions the both columnists asked are totally different and unrelated. The vanguard columnist was focused on what inspired the creation of the social network while the national mirror columnist was focused on the blackberry advertising deal the brothers had recently struck. I look at the vanguard, theGuardian and national mirror articles and there is no similar article that exists like them. This should tell you that they are exclusive stories written by their respective writers else something similar should have sprung up with identical quotes from the Nwaogu twins. How can you call a young person whose social network grew to a million members in three years 'not notable'?

Tagworld never went defunct. It was acquired by GROU.PS and this was reported by popular and respected sources. So how can someone buy it and replace it with another site? Tagworld.com goes to tagworld.grou.ps, and since GROU.PS acquired it - the rest is self explanatory. Since LAGbook was created using GROU.PS, is it impossible for the owner(s) of GROU.PS to contact the twins to redesign Tagworld for them?

I heard about LAGbook back in August 2011 through a Techcrunch piece written by Sarah Perez. When I signed up, I discovered that they gave free airtime from Etisalat to their users for sharing photos and other multimedia. If a social network gives free airtime to its members for using it courtesy the telecommunication company that provides it, I don't see why that couldn't be looked upon as a form of partnership since both parties benefit in some way.

An announcement doesn't mean that, that is what happened on the run. I could announce that I will be abandoning my studies at school and end up finishing it for some reason. The person who bought the site might have persuaded the twins to stay a little while and give him and/or his team/partners an orientation around the workings of the site. Some sort of involvement pattern might have been created, and this doesn't change anything about a name change. Let's imagine I buy Company X from its owner and change its name to Company Y after the founders have left the project, is it wrong for a paper to report that 'Company X changes name to Company Y'? No it isn't.

Was the buyer a Nigerian or someone who lives in Nigeria? From what I have learnt, the buyer is Canadian. Does a Canadian know about the Nigerian news source? I am a Ghanaian living in Nigeria and I know the Nigerian news source and no reporter writes about something that isn't noteworthy, that is why it is called newspaper and not talkpaper. --PBaahD (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)— PBaahD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Press interviews are regarded as primary sources. I'm not convinced that the "Nigerian Programmers Contracted To Redesign MTV’s TagWorld" story at the same site (by the same writer) is any better - it primarily just quotes the brothers' claims about their new job, and an engineer from Grou.ps, and uses quotes which are repeated on several other news/blog sites, suggesting that these may be from a press release. Given that the previous version of this article was built on dubious, later-rescinded press releases reprinted by low-oversight news blogs and then published as fact at Wikipedia, I'm concerned that this might be happening again. Have any stronger sources covered the same story? --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

i think you make erroneous conclusions most-a-times. if a story appears on several news/blog sites with similar quotes/content, that doesn't make it culled up from a press release. i have seen techcrunch and ventures beat article printed on many news/blog sites with the same/similar title and content. this doesn't make it a press release. many bloggers write their stories from other sources.--PBaahD (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Dude, a notable source Techcrunch reported that GROU.PS bought Tagworld. Didn't it? Now tagworld.com directs you to tagworld.grou.ps (which is intuitive since GROU.PS bought the site to increase their traffic as stated in the Techcrunch report). Now on the footer of tagworld.grou.ps, it is written 'Designed by Chidi and Chika Nwaogu', doesn't that tell without doubt that the twin brothers designed this Tagworld? Please grow up and state things based on constructive facts not speculative thoughts.--Babajide.O (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

All I'm questioning is whether the available sources show them to be notable people. WP:PRIMARY sources such as interviews and website footer credits are not relevant to this; every website has designers, but Wikipedia does not publish biographies for all of these people. --McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Mc, have you read the title of The Guardian article 'UNILAG Programmers Blaze Trail In Social Networking'? What does that tell you? Doesn't that tell that they are notable in the Nigerian social networking space? Look at the Vanguard title 'UNILAG twins host over 71,000 users on Lagbook' and the content of the article that reads '...have blazed the trail in the Nigerian social network'. Doesn't that show notability again in the Nigerian social networking space? Look again at the Vanguard title 'Let your dreams run wild – Nwaogu twins' and the contents 'Youthful Vibes brings to us the story of a dynamic Nigerian identical twins' and 'we have similarly seen human set of twins making a difference, ‘attacking’ issues and proffering solutions…', doesn't that show notability again? Now you finally have come to agree that they are the designers of Tagworld in contrast to what you said earlier "defunct MTV social-network domain name bought by someone and replaced with a GROU.PS site" being talked up as "Nigerian Programmers Contracted To Redesign MTV’s TagWorld". You may need to read more and consider things more carefully.--Babajide.O (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly an impressive article title, but appears to have been derived from a press release written by the Nwaogus themselves. I see no reason to doubt that they're now working on a website at a URL that used to belong to MTV, but we need a reliable secondary source to put it into context and confirm it as significant, rather than quoting their own perspective that they have been employed to "redesign the look and feel of TagWorld from scratch". Wikipedia does not judge a person's notability by their interviews and press releases. --McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You choose to call all sources provided press releases which are not to me. To me, the Vanguard, The Guardian, and National Mirror Newspaper articles are all reliable sources because the sources in question are all reliable news sources in Nigeria. But if you choose to call it a primary source with close connection to the twin brothers, I will not argue about it. I have discovered that argument on the internet doesn't solve a problem, rather it creates noise, so I will stop here.--PBaahD (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, what remains of this article is undisputed and is cited to relevant secondary reliable sources. What's the point deleting it? Aren't the brothers computer programmers and twin brothers and best known for creating LAGbook? We have five sources here that backed just two sentences that doesn't contain exceptional claims, and you want to delete it?--Babajide.O (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm, so you guys are still on this. I got tired of arguing last time on the talk page as it felt all I said fell on deaf eyes. Please turn your attention to this page, the author of that article was talking about Top 10 Social Media Sites in Africa. On Number 4 is LAGbook with 1,000,000 registered users; how isn't this notability. So I will ask that the Admin that will preside over this debate use his/her good office to investigate if this is wikipedia worthy or not. That's all I will say on this.--Socialnerd (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Socialnerd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's not the "Top 10 Social Media Sites in Africa", it's the "Top 10 Social Media Sites You Haven't Heard of in Africa", in no particular order. And it's a self-published blog. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I knew you will read meaning to that title: Top 10 Social Media Sites you Haven't Heard of in Africa, Let me bring you to the fact that the No.1 on that list Mxit is on Wikipedia (i.e Noteworthy). So that title didn't really mean that you haven't heard of it, but rather that they are top social media sites in Africa that not all around the world are familiar with. Like I said "that all I have to say". I don't really care if this page gets deleted; as I never did for the first I created. I just felt like I should contribute a little. Ciao--Socialnerd (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Same problem as last time, just a few new SPAs this time around. Like last time, editors are throwing in primary sources and other unreliable sources about the brothers mixed with reliable sources that are not about the subjects. The extremely poor press standards for what we have on the brothers prevents us from saying anything about them, per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, the press releases about the brothers and LAGbook were retracted in April 2013. No references were to be found that were not based upon those press releases. The brothers sold LAGbook in 2012 and are not affiliated with Picrate.Me, the site created in part from LAGbook. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  We have reference from three reliable Nigerian news source: Vanguard, National Mirror and The Guardian. Show me how any of these were culled from a press release. All these things you say about the brothers and the sources, is there any reliable source that covers it and show that they are facts? --Babajide.O (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Those specific references, and all others that could be found, are not reliable sources, and were based upon press releases that were retracted. Talk:LAGbook has been made available for review of the discussions and problems found. We simply cannot use material based upon retracted press releases as sources. Likely we won't be able to use anything from the brothers either, given that they were responsible for the press releases. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  The Vanguard, The Guardian and National Mirror articles are not based on any press release man. They have titles that have never appeared anywhere else and content that if you search are not anywhere else. If they were from press releases, there will be a similar article online that could have culled up from the same press release making them have similar or the same title and/or content. And how will you take the words of someone similar because he bought the site? Wikipedia is based on facts and not words from someone. I could have a personal problem with someone and come up and say lots of things that are untrue just to get back to him and you will accept it simply because he is a Nigerian and I am a Canadian? Let us imagine if I who is a Nigerian buy a site from a Canadian, if I come on Wikipedia and say bad stuffs about him simply because I bought his site, will you decide to take the page down? This is prejudice to me and I am not surprised either.--Babajide.O (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, but all the pre-May 2013 articles are based upon press releases. The one published since is also based upon them - Ventures Africa must have a slow press time or the article was delayed for some reason.

  I don't see what nationalities have to do with anything. Please focus on the relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Please can you show me any similar articles to these articles below:

  http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=114474:unilag-programmers-blaze-trail-in-social-networking&Itemid=486

  http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/05/unilag-twins-host-over-71000-users-on-lagbook/

  http://nationalmirroronline.net/index.php/young-and-next-generation/45116.html

  http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/let-your-dreams-run-wild-nwaogu-twins/

  If they are culled from a press release, at least some other source would have culled from the same press release too and have similar content or title with any of these. You keep saying they are from press releases and you don't have any fact. Prove it and I will rest my case. Show me where these articles have appeared similarly and then I will agree they are not exclusive stories from the papers. But if you can't, I'll see you as...--Babajide.O (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, but we reviewed them as you can see on the talk page and no one disputed that they were not reliable sources.

  The issue was also brought to NPOVN, where the information and references were undisputed as fraudulent.

  Once again, please focus on policy and content per WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  It not being disputed in the past doesn't mean that it is true. Maybe the previous editor who wrote the article was fed up arguing this with you. I am fed up myself arguing this with you. You already have your thoughts focused that the sources are not reliable and are fraudulent, and I think nothing will change your mind on this, so I will stop here.--PBaahD (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  We resolve issues by focusing on content and relevant policies. We don't decide on article content based upon appeals to emotional issues. Sounds like we're done here. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done where? Because PBaahD said he is fed up arguing this with you, doesn't mean we are done. The sources on this article are secondary reliable sources. They are from reputable sources. You have cut down the article to indisputable facts about the brothers that are properly cited to relevant sources. Such a short article with relevant five sources is only crazy to delete such article. What is documented on this article as of typing this is indisputable and has relevant sources to back it up. What's the point deleting it here?--Babajide.O (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  No, what's left is not indisputable. We have no reliable sources. They are most definitely not reputable. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  Four of the articles are online versions of actual printed newspaper articles with circulation running into 100,000. How isn't that reputation? Okay, look at this. If these articles are based on releases issued by the brothers, how will newspaper print articles based on releases from a non-reputable person? I still stand on the fact that you should show me where any of these articles have appeared similarly online. If it is a press release, it should have been simultaneously reported by other sources. These are exclusive reports from these newspapers; these are reliable sources. You're trying so hard to twist them as culled from press releases.--Babajide.O (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  They are not reliable sources. They've been discussed at length. Ignoring those discussions and simply disagreeing with the conclusions will not sway anyone. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as BLPs need reliable independent sources, and this doesn't appear to have any. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sayed Mostafa Fasihi

Sayed Mostafa Fasihi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Can't find sources showing he meets our criteria for notability. Nothing in Google news, not much in a general search on his name in quotes. There could be a spelling or language problem, but the sources in the article don't show notability either. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kabirat (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom, could not find RS in Farsi too, notability not established. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and Spada II ♪♫.Farhikht (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to ZOEgirl. SarahStierch (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Open Mic Karaoke, Volume 2

Open Mic Karaoke, Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable release Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Delete Definitely not notable. Adabow (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 18:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Redirect to ZOEgirl - Non-notable release of 4 instrumentalized versions of songs. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. Given the lack of sourcing for this release, it's perfectly reasonable to redirect up to the artist. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be a consensus here that this does not meet the community's expectations for list articles or coverage of living people. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

List of cancer victim hoaxes

List of cancer victim hoaxes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:N. List of cancer hoaxes, really? AldezD (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Seriously? I know someone who pretended to have cancer. Her hair grew back while she was supposedly still having chemotherapy. Does that mean that she qualifies for a Wikipedia article? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Was there lots of newspaper coverage of the person you mention? That can be a distinguishing difference between those who should be included and those who should not. Edison (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Note: I've alerted WP:MED to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as WP:BLP1E violation etc. I've just removed Craig Shergold from the list on the grounds that (as the article makes clear) Shergold had cancer. I've also removed Shona Holmes on the basis that there is nothing in the sources cited, or in the article about her, to support the assertion that she ever specifically claimed to have cancer. This leaves us with a list of individuals with no Wikipedia article - and established policy is that lists of people only include individuals meeting notability guidelines. I've not looked into the sourcing for these individuals yet, but give the piss-poor sourcing for the two I have looked into, but will now do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I accept that the three excisions you made were in good faith, but I disagree with them, as I explained on the talk page, and I suggest that there are strong reasons why those reading an {{afd}} discussion should choose to either voice an opinion -- or edit the article -- but not both.
  1. You wrote in this edit summary: "Removed Craig Shergold - what part of Wikipedia policy justifies putting a genuine cancer sufferer in a list of hoaxes? Utterly insane"... While Shergold is a genuine cancer survivor, elements of his compelling story have been incorporated into many hoaxes. The many other hoaxes based on Shergold's story, supported by RS justify retaining this entry in the list.
  2. You wrote in this edit summary: "delete Shona Holmes - none of the sources cited state that she specifically claimed to have cancer". That simply isn't true, the most prominent part of Holmes story is that she appeared in US ads claiming the Canadian health care system was going to leave her potentially fatal "brain cancer" untreated. Holmes falsely claimed to have cancer, and was caught in that false claim, strongly supported by RS, which I suggest justifies retaining this entry.
  3. You wrote in this edit summary: "remove Jessica Vega per WP:BLP - 'allegations', but no conviction. In fact the existing references confirm Vega had been convicted and sentenced.

  I restored that material, and added some additional references. Geo Swan (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed Craig Shergold again. There are no circumstances whatsoever where it would be appropriate to add the name of a cancer victim to a 'list of cancer victim hoaxes'. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. It is utterly irrelevant whether there have been hoaxes using Shergold's name - he doesn't belong on the list, as he has not perpetrated a cancer hoax. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Shona Holmes, I note that the only place in our article on her that the word 'cancer' occurs is amongst the references - in an alternate name for a medical centre. If, as Geo Swan suggests, Holmes claimed to have cancer, why doesn't our article state this? Where is the source for this assertion? And where is the source for an assertion that this was 'a hoax'? Holmes certainly had a medical condition with potentially-serious consequences, and nothing I've seen suggests that she was attempting to profit from her claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If there are proper refs keep otherwise don't. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Why not List of real estate hoaxes or List of inheritance hoaxes or List of academic hoaxes? Artificial assembly of unrelated events as if they are a single coherent and interrelated social phenomenon. Carrite (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • When RS cover a new hoax they draw parallels and comparisons to earlier hoaxes. There are RS that speak about the general phenomenon of cancer victim hoaxes. If there are RS that cover the general phenomenon inheritance hoaxes and academic hoaxes, then I would support an article listing them. The Wall Street crisis of 2008 was a giant real estate hoax, where shifty brokers "commodatized" bad mortgages. Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like an encyclopedic list. There have been numerous widely covered cases of someone claiming to have cancer, either as a con game or because they had mental issues, who were subsequently exposed as frauds. Some of those cases had widespread news coverage, as when large sums of money, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, were collected to treat the "cancer." The cases are hardly unrelated. A Google news archive search for "cancer hoax" reveals (in addition to some phoney cancer cures) numerous well publicized instances of such hoaxes: [6]. It seems appropriate to create a Cancer victim hoax article (edited to change "cancer hoax" to "cancer victim hoax.") describing how some people nave imitated cancer patients, shaving their heads and eyebrows and starving themselves to look like they are wasting away, and then collected thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars from kindly strangers, been the beneficiaries of fundraisers, or had collection boxes on store counters, gotten media coverage and thousands of internet posts or get-well cards, gotten off from criminal charges, gotten time off from work, or whatever benefits their scam was set up to gain them. Then a few of the most notorious cases (where there were admissions or convictions) could be included as illustrations. Cancer scares many people, so they are easily taken in by these nutters (edited to add:) mentally challenged persons or crooks. Edison (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think that it is appropriate to refer to people with mental health issues as 'nutters'? If the individuals are or were mentally ill, it is one more reason not to name them. This is not the 17th century, and Wikipedia is not intended to provide some sort of stand-in for tours of Bedlam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia persons who are annoying or mentally challenged are often called "trolls." Do you object to that? I changed the term to a more politically correct one. Do you object to having an article about the cancer victim hoax rather than a list of those who inflicted it on the public? Edison (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if one could find a way to name a hoax without naming the 'hoaxer', there is still the problem that we are compiling a list of events which individually do not meet general notability guidelines - see my reply to Garrondo below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There has been reliable secondary coverage of cancer victim hoaxes, such as [7] fake cancer victim email hoaxes. There appears to be the basis for a general article on cancer victim hoaxes. Some are attempts to con people out of money, some just seek to get emails forwarded to many people, others are sad but annoying attempts to get attention. This would be better than a mere listing of some cases. Edison (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find sufficient sources to establish that 'cancer victim hoaxes' as a specific subject merit an article, there is nothing to prevent you writing one. Note though that sources that discuss e-mail hoaxes in general, and merely cite 'cancer victim' ones as instances without suggesting that they are in any way distinctive, are unlikely to be sufficient to meet notability guidelines. If you do find the sources, WP:BLP1E policy etc will of course still apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Edison, I have a mental illness, and would prefer not to be called a "nutter", but "mentally challenged" is worse. In the final-year undergraduate course that I am about to finish in number theory and mathematical logic I have received 100% marks in all of my assignments, and am confident of getting close to that in the exam on Friday. Hardly mentally challenged. This is a matter of basic courtesy, not political correctness. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Whist the subject itself may be notable, none of the examples have blue linked articles, they are not notable. For this article to exist it would need notability for each entry similar to that required for a full article, otherwise we are in danger of creating one huge BLPVIO that would make a lot of solicitors very happy and rich.Martin451 (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Another contributor, removed entries that wikilinked to blue-linked articles from the list. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • When the article was nominated there were two blue linked articles. One had cancer as a child, and most definitely did not hoax anyone about it. The other was someone who had a tumor. Neither deserved to be in the list.Martin451 (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't agree with your description of the original Craig Shergold entry. I don't agree it was about the individual who, thank goodness survived cancer, who had requested strangers send him get-well cards, so he could be named in the Guiness Book of World Records. That entry in the list was about hoaxes where the hoaxers took the more heart-rending elements of the real boy's story, and altered them, for nefarious purposes, like harvesting addresses for building sucker lists.

I accept, at face value, that those who voice concerns like yours, genuinely could not recognize that no one was accusing the real Craig Shergold of being affiliated with a hoax. I re-introduced the entry, where I tried to take your confusion into account, naming the entry after the variants of Shergold's name used in some of the hoax variants: Craig John, Craig Shelford, Craig Shelton Craig Sheford, Craig Sheppard, Craig Sherford, Craig Sherwood.

If Shergold is notable enough for a whole article, then how could we be violating his privacy by mentioning him in passing in a paragraph of another article? Geo Swan (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep if: if sources are notable and explicitely talk about the cancer NOT being true. The relevancy here would not be marked by an article saying they have cancer, but if there was later an article indicating that this was actually a hoax. If this condition is fullfiled I do not understand howe it can breach BLP policies.Moreover: the individuals do not have to be notable (so they do not need to have an article), notability is about the hoax. If there are refs for the hoaxes they are notable even if the person is completely unknown.--Garrondo (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a long-established Wikipedia principle that inclusion on a 'list of people' requires that the person involved meets notability guidelines. I fail to see how one can separate the 'hoax' from the person involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If I read correctly the list is titled: list of cancer victim hoaxes, so the list is not about the individuals but about the hoaxes. I would say that as a simple rule: if there is a published source on the hoax the hoax is notable, which is quite independent of finding a source for the person being involved in the hoax which may or may not be notable. As an example: we could have a list of (notable) robberies to banks, which does not mean that those that carried them out were notable (some are even unknown, and the robbery is still notable).--Garrondo (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How are you proposing to identify such hoaxes other than by the name of the individual perpetrating them? In any case, per Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, we need evidence that coverage of such hoaxes "was not a mere short-term interest" - and I've seen nothing to suggest that individual hoaxes get anything beyond short-term media coverage. And by the way, a single source is very rarely sufficient to establish notability: "Multiple sources are generally expected". Regarding your 'bank robbery' analogy, you will note that we have a List of bank robbers and robberies, which makes clear that only notable instances are included - with the exception of a few redlinks (most of which provide at least some evidence of notability - I'll check the remainder) - this is the norm for lists: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria, which makes clear that 'indiscriminate lists' are discouraged. When one takes into account WP:BLP1E policy, it seems evident that any 'List of cancer victim hoaxes' would have to establish notability on very strong grounds - enough that any living individual included as 'hoaxer' would meet notability grounds for an individual article, and the evidence for that simply isn't there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you regarding notability only being short term... I change to delete unless clear notability is shown.--Garrondo (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump wrote above: "It is a long-established Wikipedia principle that inclusion on a 'list of people' requires that the person involved meets notability guidelines". In a later comment AndyTheGrump seems to be claiming WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria is the authority for this claim. I am sorry to say I believe this is an instance where a policy or guideline is being misinterpreted. That section of the MOS refers to three different kinds of lists. (1) Lists where all entries are blue links; (2) lists where none of the entries have blue links; (3) lists that aim to include all elements of a class. AndyTheGrump's claim that

the MOS's Common selection criteria prohibits lists like this one is not supported by the MOS itself.

Without regard to what the MOS recommends, hybrid lists, where some entries have blue links, and others don't, are common here. I am not aware of any problems with lists that contain both blue links, and notable elements that have (so far) fallen short of the notability sufficient for anyone to have written standalone articles about them.

The MOS also contains a subsection devoted to lists of people, which explicitly says: "An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met." I suggest the people on this list, who don't have blue links, are people "famous for a specific event" -- being caught faking cancer. Geo Swan (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

'Famous' people are the subject of enduring interest - and the list fails to demonstrate this. The individuals named have received interest from the media for a short while, before fading back into obscurity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, but include only notable entries. If that eliminates the entire list, then delete. Lesion (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: As the article stands, there are now no cases in the list with associated articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Jessica Mydek Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I see no reason why the fact that you have just created a new article on a single hoax letter should make the slightest bit of difference - I shall of course be proposing it for deletion on the basis that it lacks notability as a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Convert to non-list article This is a notable topic. RS have commented on what cancer victim hoaxes have in common.

Note: Nominator's sole justification was to ask "really?" I'll remind nominator that, on a multinational, multicultural project, nothing is "obvious". So I strongly encourage them to explicitly state their arguments in future. Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is a 'notable topic', can you cite a source which provides an in-depth analysis of the subject? None of the sources cited in the article appear to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The following book devotes dozens of pages to analyzing what it characterizes as "sympathy hoaxes" -- most of which were cancer hoaxes. It is merely one of many fine references that provide in-depth analysis of the subject. Geo Swan (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Theresa Heyd (2008). Email Hoaxes: Form, Function, Genre Ecology. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 34, 40, 62, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93, 95, 96, 179. ISBN 9789027254184. Retrieved 2013-06-10.

• The source you cite discusses "sympathy hoaxes" as a form of e-mail hoax. It does not appear to consider 'cancer hoaxes' as a specific category. And nor does it appear to discuss non e-mail hoaxes: hence it cannot be said to cover the subject of the entire list - see my comment on synthesis below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete this is a clear WP:BLP1E violation: the living people on this list are not known for anything but being caught out while pretending to have cancer. Given that people who invent serious illnesses often are actually suffering from psychological problems (though I don't know whether this is the case for any of the people listed here) this is a major violation of their right to privacy. I note that Geo Swan, who is the article's creator and primary editor, has a long history of violating WP:BLP1E by creating articles on people held at Guantanamo Bay, and came close to being banned for creating a list of living 'alleged terrorists'. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The individuals on this list engaged in public fund-raising efforts. I suggest this puts them in the class of public figures, who are covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, not WP:BLPPRIVACY. Major Nidal Malik Hasan the shooter on that military base a few years ago, and Sergeant Robert Bales who went on an unexplained shooting spree in Afghanistan a year or so ago also may have had mental health issues. Even so, didn't they sacrifice their privacy when they committed their serious and very public crimes? Similarly, I suggest these individuals sacrificed their privacy when they made their very public acts.

Shona Holmes appeared in several television ad campaigns broadcast across the USA. She was representing herself as telling her real life story in those ads, so didn't she sacrifice her privacy -- so she is a public figure, covered by WELLKNOWN?

Did Ashley Kirilow sacrifice her privacy when she managed a mailing campaign where sent out blind letters, requesting funds, to celebrities like Tony Hawk the skateboard guy, who responded with a generous donation? Did she sacrifice her privacy when she arranged large fund-raising events where she told large groups of strangers about her life? Did she sacrifice her privacy when she did everything she could to get the account of her illness on her facebook seen by as many eyes as possible? I don't think there is any question she did.

Jessica Vega also solicited funds and other kinds of donations from strangers -- and willingly appeared on Good Morning America, after her release from jail -- in her case too I suggest this gets her covered by WELLKNOWN.

Martha Nichols? Numerous fundraising events were allegedly held in her honour and tens of thousands of dollars were raised to help pay her medical expenses.

Note, the hoaxes built around "Jessica Mydek", "Tamara Martin", "Amy Bruce" and "Jonathan Jay White", are built around fictional individuals. Hoaxsters made them up, weaving together the most heart-breaking details they could think of. You do realize that fictional characters are not covered by BLP, don't you? Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ashley Kirilow, it is clear from the sources cited that she was suffering from mental illness at the time of the cancer claims, and had been hospitalised as a result of the illness. Accordingly, I have now removed her from the list, as a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump asked, at BLPN, for opinions as to whether excising this section really was authorized by BLPN. The last comment on that thread was left yesterday, and says:

"If something is well known and widely and repeatedly sourced, privacy concerns etc. are moot. WMF says we have to take into account these kind of issues, not that we have to remove everything that vaguely sounds bad about a person. In this case, taking into account this, we can conclude that the amount of coverage of the case is such that we can't talk about privacy anymore."

I think this comment summarizes the weaknesses in the justification for this excision, and since Andy has had a day to reply, and hasn't done so, I think I should feel free to revert that excision. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not the least surprised that you 'feel free' to selectively quote only people who agree with you to justify your actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Excuse me, you went to BLPN, two days ago, and asked those who monitor that fora for confirmation that BLP authorized your excision. Are you disputing that no one there voiced support for your excision? Are you disputing you were given every opportunity to explain any policy basis behind your excision?

  I am sorry if it upsets you, but, after you had explained your justification I think I saw a serious policy misinterpretation in that justification, and I pointed it out to you. You have not chosen to try to offer any further explanation. Shouldn't the rest of us see this as a tacit acknowledgment, on your part, that you now realize you did not have a valid BLP justification for this excision, after all? Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I stand by my actions in raising the matter for comment there. Given the multiple comments regarding WP:BLP1E that have been made in this deletion discussion, I am clearly not alone in considering this of relevance. That nobody uninvolved chose to comment at WP:BLPN is perhaps unfortunate - but I see no reason to see that as an indication that my interpretation of policy is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • While you are correct that the fact that no one weighed in to support your interpretation does not mean you were incorrect, I suggest serious misinterpretations of policy were pointed out in your position, and you abandoned trying to defend your position, which I believe is a tacit acknowledgment you now recognize your position is indefensible. Indefensible == incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't give a rats arse what you believe. Given the violations of WP:BLP policy that have been identified as present in the article when this AfD started (i.e. naming people involved in 'cancer victim hoaxes' in complete disregard for the facts), your opinion as to what is 'indefensible' clearly doesn't accord with policy. Incidentally, even if you are correct regarding Kirilow (which at this point I do not accept) that doesn't alter the fact that several other living individuals are named on the list, based on a single source. Where is the evidence that these are 'well known' individuals? Nowhere. And nowhere have you provided a source which even suggests that e-mail hoaxes regarding entirely fictitious 'cancer victims' have anything to do with such individuals - this article is a cobbled-together synthesis, rather than encyclopaedic coverage of a legitimate subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Claims for the 'real' individuals being 'famous' might be more convincing were it not for the fact that of the seven individuals named, three (Dribble, Maynor and Corcoran) cite a single source, and one other Nicholas cites two - after I found a source that actually stated that she had been convicted. As it stood, the article included her on the basis of an allegation, contrary to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Shona Holmes, I have asked that a source be provided that states that she claimed to have cancer. So far, none has been given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The first paragraph of the 2nd Shona Holmes reference says: The 45-year-old divorce mediator stares into the camera and says she would have died waiting for treatment of a brain tumor in her Canadian homeland. The message: Americans will face the same peril if President Barack Obama gets away with his plan to overhaul U.S. health care.
2. The third paragraph of the 3rd Shona Holmes reference says: Holmes, a Canadian living under that country's single-payer system, has said flatly that her brain tumor would have killed her if she'd accepted her fate in Canada – a wait of four months for one specialist and six months for another.
3. The first paragraph of the 7th Shona Holmes reference says: Holmes tells viewers: "I survived a brain tumor. But if I’d relied on my government, I’d be dead. … As my brain tumor got worse, my government health care system told me I had to wait six months to see a specialist. In six months, I would have died.”
4. The third paragraph of the 4th Shona Holmes reference says: Both CNN and McConnell made a big deal out of Shona Holmes, an Ontario woman who claims she was forced by Ontario's health system to go to the United States for life-saving surgery for a brain tumour. Geo Swan (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be under the misapprehension that all tumors are cancerous - they are not. If the material you have quoted is intended to be sufficient grounds to include Holmes on the list, it seems clear that her inclusion is invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. And I knew this "brain tumor means cancer" bit would likely come up...considering that it seemed to me that Geo Swan was equating "brain tumor" with "cancer." I felt that Andy would correct anyone on that, but I was ready to comment on that matter just in case. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As for 'fictional characters', I fail to see why the list should include them at all. Many fictional names are used in hoaxes and scams, but that doesn't make the name used of any significance. It is just a name, and the scammers will no doubt use another one when it suits them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Security experts felt it was useful to identify the individual hoaxes using the name to the hoaxsters used in their hoaxed chain letters. Yes, of course hoaxsters could abandoned campaigns written around one fictional character, and create a brand new hoax campaign, written around a differently named fictional character. And, when they do I think you will find security experts will identify the new hoax by the name of the new fictional character the hoaxsters create. Security experts do their best to warn the public, and have them be on the lookout for hoaxes, and one of the easiest characteristics to warn the public to look out for with campaigns like the Jessica Mydek campaign is the particular fictional character the campaign was built around. While there are other clues that can help one recognize a hoax they are more subtle and easy to miss than the name of fictional character the hoax is focused around. Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that no source for Holmes claiming to have cancer has been provided, I have again removed her from the list: see also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shona Holmes on List of cancer victim hoaxes AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This HuffPost article mentions a "brain tumor". Brain tumor usually means brain cancer.--Auric talk 03:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. Not all tumours are cancerous - and I think we'd need a better source than a Huff Post blog written three years after the event anyway. We need a source that directly states that she claimed to have cancer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Since Auric used the word usually, I don't think that he was stating that all tumors are cancerous. But either way, Andy is correct on the matter of tumors (also noted above). Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the list, I will just call attention to a saying or grim joke that is common among medical professionals: "all brain tumors are benign, and all brain tumors are malignant." This does not refer to their cellular nature; it refers to the fact that any brain tumor can kill you (thus "malignant"), but it usually does so fairly quickly, before it has a chance to metastasize to other parts of the body (thus "benign"). In other words the distinction between "cancerous" and "non-cancerous" in a brain tumor is real but pretty much academic. Also: most laypeople use the terms "tumor" and "cancer" interchangeably, so whether or not she uttered the word "cancer" I think it was clearly what she intended people to think. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If all brain tumours are malignant, even non-cancerous ones, then what she had was equivalent to cancer. It would be original research to claim she intended people to think she had cancer without a reliable source, and that will be hard to come by unless she says so herself. We cannot claim to know what she intended people to think, it would violate BLP. Martin451 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - BLP nightmare, no evidence of notable coverage of this topic as a whole, and no individual entries are deemed notable. GiantSnowman 13:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a terrible concept for an article, there isn't a collective thing about lying about cancer. If there are individuals who are otherwise notable (i.e. the article doesn't exist just because they faked having cancer, I certainly hope there's none of that shit floating around the project), then it is worth a mention in their bios. That's all. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Each hoax seem to be decently sourced (if not, well, let's remove the poorly sourced ones); while maybe none of them qualifies for an article, they justify a list of them together. It is a recurring and noteworthy phenomenon. I'd prefer an article about the phenomenon that a mere list of cases, but I see no reason to delete. --Cyclopia^talk 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Convert to an article; a list is the wrong format for this content. Few or none of the items on the list have their own article or deserve one, but they are sourced enough to be worthy of a paragraph each, in an article called "cancer victim hoaxes" or something similar. As it is, the content is crammed into a list format where it would be better rendered in prose paragraphs. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Thinking about this list further, it seems to me that it is in fact covering two entirely different topics: the first, fictitious hoax e-mails/chain sympathy letters created with the express purpose of defrauding respondents, and the second living individuals who have falsely claimed to be suffering a serious illness. What they have in common of course is that in both cases a false claim of cancer is involved. But does this common factor justify including the two different phenomena in the same list? I would argue not. E-mail hoaxes are of course a legitimate topic for an article - but surely an e-mail hoax/swindle claiming cancer has more in common with a similar e-mail swindle involving another misfortune than it does with what is quite possibly the consequence of Münchausen syndrome in an actual individual. None of the sources cited in the article appear to cover both types of 'hoax', which makes me wonder if the list is in fact effectively synthesis - the combining of two different topics into a single list, based on an assumption supported by none of the sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk)
• Keep The topic is notable. In the above comment even the nom. seems to say that it is in fact so significant it should properly be divided into two articles fro amore appropriate coverage. (I think that unnecessary--a cancer victim hoax is where someone pretends to be such, or pretends someone else, real or imaginary, to be such, for whatever purpose: money or politics or desire for notoriety or Münchausen syndrome, or the primitive desire to be a troll. Exactly as Andy says,"What they have in common ... is that a false claim of cancer is involved.") As long as there is sufficient information given in the list to indicate the exact circumstances, the list is justified. All that is necessary for an individual to be included is sufficiently unambiguous coverage. Personally, I think all the instances originally given belong here, though Shergold is a special case. With respect to BLP, we have long ago decided that to call something a fraud when it's abundantly and publicly proven is not a violation of BLP. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: Quite aside from the BLP magnet issues properly cited above, I agree it's not particularly encyclopedic. It's a list of otherwise ephemeral people who would not -- and in all but a single case, does not -- qualify for their own articles. While DGG argues above that the topic is notable, and that's a defensible argument, this is a list article divorced from any discussion of the topic of cancer hoaxing. (And that being said, what the merry hell is all the fooferaw below doing in an AfD discussion? Take the side chats to appropriate talk pages.) Ravenswing 02:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but did you notice that half the entries in this list are about fictional characters made up by hoaxsters? Fictional characters are not "BLP magnets". I don't think you noticed that hoaxes, like the hoax about fictional "Jessica Mydek", received on-going coverage -- for decades.

As for whether the real life individuals in this article are "otherwise ephemeral people who would not ... qualify for their own articles." I've emboldened part of this quote from WP:Lists of people:

A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met...

Your comment seems to imply that you seem to think every list entry has to be for someone notable enough to merit a separate article. I think your position contradicts our policy, and I point out to you that afd discussions are full of suggestions that while some individuals have notable elements in their life, their notability does not rise to the level of meriting a separate article -- so those notable elements should be incorporated into a more broadly focused article. Geo Swan (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but did you notice the phrase "famous for a specific event" in the policy quote? Those aren't words that lend themselves to "hoaxer who got bagged by the local newspaper." (We'll leave aside, for the nonce, the "an exception ... may be made" phrasing, which assuredly doesn't compel us to do anything.) The very clear implication is that this addresses BLP1E and NOTNEWS concerns; it's not interpretable as a free pass to any conceivable entry.

That being said, I'm sorry that you feel that in order for an article to be a BLP magnet, each and every entry has to be liable. Judging from this AfD discussion, I'm not the only person who rejects such a definition. Ravenswing 11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• If people think there are individual hoaxes or hoaxers on the list that are not sufficiently notable to merit an entry in the list I suggest the appropriate thing to do would be to suggest removing those specific entries on the talk page, or, if they are really sure everyone will agree with their explanation, they could go ahead and remove those entries, and leave an explanation on the talk page afterwards. So, can we assume you agree that individual hoaxes or hoaxsters who were covered on other continents do belong in this article? Can we assume that you agree that individual hoaxes or hoaxsters whose coverage is spread across years, or decades, do belong on this list? Since many entry's coverage was worldwide, or spanned years, or both, doesn't that address your objection to the article? Geo Swan (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I honestly reject the whole concept of "BLP magnet" as a reason to delete. BLP doesn't ask us to preemptively delete articles on otherwise notable topics because it is conceivable that they can be misused. BLP only asks us to react to such misuse and to minimize the risk of them happening. This is moral panic. --Cyclopia^talk 12:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that the article has previously included people who haven't participated in 'cancer hoaxes' (Craig Shergold, Shona Holmes), I think that there is nothing 'preemptive' involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, yet my reasoning still stands. I'm sure the article on Barack Obama attracts a lot of people who want to defame him, yet we don't delete it because it is a "BLP magnet". That we need editors watching, putting pending changes or even semiprotection by default etc. on these articles is true. That we need to slash and burn them all because sometimes bad things happen, is not. --Cyclopia^talk 15:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice straw-man there, but the fact happens to be -- unfortunately for your premise -- that Barack Obama meets every applicable notability standard by leaps and bounds. Almost no item on this list does. Ravenswing 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if you addressed my point, where I asserted that your "delete" opinion seems to be based on a misunderstanding of policy. While policy requires individuals who are the subject of a separate article meet the criteria in the General Notability Guideline, or that they meet the criteria of one of the supplementary notability guidelines, both policy and long-standing tradition support covering the notable elements of individuals or topics that are insufficiently notable for their own individual article into more broadly focused articles. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• So, Ravenswing, you just acknowledged that "being a BLP magnet" is in no way a good reason to delete. Good. Now we can discuss notability, and the amount of collective sourcing of these cases seems to demonstrate it "by leaps and bounds". --Cyclopia^talk 14:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This is a list of people and events that would fail WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS on a good day. The fact that they're in list form makes no difference whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP1E specifically covers whole article subjects, not content within an article. WP:NOTNEWS is also not relevant, given that continuous coverage is demonstrated above. --Cyclopia^talk 20:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Hoaxes. Perhaps a single sentence entry could be made under types of hoaxes at Hoaxes#Types of hoaxes using the citations in the lead here. --Bejnar (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete This is a list of people most of whom are not notable enough to have their own articles. It serves no other purpose than naming and shaming, and should be deleted both because Wikipedia is not a directory and because of BLP. The combination of non-notable or low notability individuals and a stigmatizing list is a very bad combination, and the protection of the licing individuals should take precedent, leading to deletion of the list. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: Per WP:BLP1E and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Transient newsworthiness does not equal lasting notability. None of the individuals listed are notable for anything else other than their alleged hoaxes. Agree with Maunus that this amounts to nothing more than "naming and shaming". I fail to see any encyclopedic value in that. Not to mention the attendant WP:BLP issues. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as a BLP violation, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, per WP:NOTNEWS, etc. - it's basically an attack page against all the people listed there. Also, looking at the article, I see one bluelinked person, and that's it (possibly two if the person being talked about above isn't currently in the article). Regardless of all this, there isn't even an article on "cancer victim hoax", so this is definitely not required. There is probably a justification for an article on "cancer victim hoaxes", but NOT for this list. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I relisted this as there is a thorough conversation going on, and it doesn't look like there's yet a clear consensus on what to do with this article. Dusti^*poke* 18:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Shona Holmes and "brain cancer" vs. "brain tumor"

• Today, AndyTheGrump and Flyer22, questioned whether I understood that, technically, the term "tumor" is applied to growths that aren't malignant cancer. Actually, I do know this. I had it confirmed when I took the time to re-read various things when this article was nominated for deletion.

I researched Holmes case extensively. I don't remember coming across a single instance in the written record where anyone wrote "Holmes never claimed to have "cancer", she merely claimed to have had a "brain tumor"". Rather I found much of the coverage of her story, from both those using her case to oppose reform of the US health care system, and those challenging her credibility, conflated these two terms as if they were synonymous.

I don't normally do YouTube, due to its insecurity, and usually rely solely on written references. I did not, until today, listen to the YouTube links to interviews with her. When I listened to one of her interviews on Fox, it starts with the handsome interviewer correcting himself, for a teaser he had made before a commercial break, where he referred to Holmes having "brain cancer". Apparently, during the commercial break, someone, maybe Holmes, or her agents, or maybe his producers, had corrected him, so he corrected himself and said her story was that she had had a "brain tumor", not "brain cancer".

I listened to half a dozen YouTube clips, where she stayed on message, and described her condition as a "brain tumor".

However, if you look into her case, you will find lots of medical experts who go on record that what Holmes actually had -- the Rathke's cleft cyst -- is not only not a malignant cancer, it is not a tumor either. A cleft lip has in common with the Rathke's cleft cyst that it is a result of a mistake in fetal development, in utero. People who have one have had it all their lives. Asymptomatic cysts are, apparently extremely common. Asymptomatic cysts are found during autopsies are typically 2mm in diameter or less -- the size of a poppy seed. Doctors don't know why some individual cysts fill with ordinary cerebrospinal fluid. No expert describes these sacs as "tumors". I suggest that Holmes, her agents, and those opponents of health care reform who spent millions to produce and broadcast the advertizement that Holmes appeared in should be treated with skepticism -- even if they were disciplined enough to not refer to her condition as a form of cancer. It wasn't cancer, and it wasn't a tumor either.

Should this case be listed as a cancer hoax? Holmes, and her handlers were careful to refrain from referring to her case as a cancer case. On the other hand coverage of the case was handled in a way so practically all listeners and readers assumed she had claimed to have cancer.

My inclusion of her in this list was a good faith mistake, was not due to my not understanding that tumor doesn't always mean cancer, and was based on the good faith confusion of reporters who misunderstood her story and reported she said she had cancer. Having listened to her being interviews, where she was careful to only use the term "brain tumor" I won't argue she should be on this list -- even though her claim to have had a tumor is also at odds with the proper use of medical terms.

Another contributor wrote above that Holmes wasn't participating in a hoax, if she didn't make any money. For what it is worth Holmes has gone on record that neither the specific group who spent millions on the advertizements built around her account of her experience with Canadian health care, or any elements of the US health insurance sector, ever paid her any money. However, I disagree that someone has to make money to be part of a hoax. Some hoaxster are motivated by other motives, like revenge, or to cause chaos, or to achieve a political goal. Geo Swan (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Medical "hoaxers" are rare, and many are actually suffering from a serious mental illness: [8] [9] [10]. Falsifying illness itself is classed as a mental disorder (see Factitious disorder and the references at the top such as [11]). There are major BLP issues with this article as a result: we shouldn't be publicizing the identities of people who's only reason for fame is due to mental illness. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Nick-D is right - the list as it stands is 'naming and shaming' individuals who may well have been mentally ill. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware (I have not researched it well) Holmes cannot go on this list because she never claimed to have cancer. She was not a cancer victim hoaxer. She had a medical condition for which she could not get treatment in Canada, and got publicity for that. To claim she is a hoaxer, and then say "Some hoaxster(s) are motivated by other motives, like revenge, or to cause chaos, or to achieve a political goal." implies she was acting dishonestly, and has BLP issues.Martin451 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If she had a cleft cyst, but made a huge public point of claiming she had a tumor, she was a hoaxer. That is not "implying" she was acting dishonestly, it is SAYING that she was making untrue statements... for whatever reason. (If she had said "I can't get medical treatment for my cleft cyst," it would not have been a hoax - but she didn't, she said "tumor".) However, per the hair-splitting here she was a medical hoaxer but not a CANCER hoaxer. Apparently she was well coached by her political handlers to use the (incorrect) "T" word but avoid the "C" word. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump, the concern you voice here for those who may have mental health issues is wildly inconsistent with the disrespectful way you voice challenges to the mental health of those who disagree with you in wiki discussions. On User talk:AndyTheGrump I asked you to reconcile the claims you have made here, that we have to respect the difficulties faced by those with mental health issues, with your characterization that those you disagree with are utterly insane or out of their f*cking minds. If we take seriously your claims here that you respect the difficulties faced by those with mental health issues then those derisive comments are intolerable. If we don't take your claims that you really respect the difficulties faced by those with mental health issues seriously then how seriously do you want us to take the rest of your arguments?. Geo Swan (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please confine comments to the topic at hand - whether this list should be deleted or kept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nick-D, you are a big participant in the military wikiproject, aren't you? I suggested above that speculation about the cancer hoaxers mental health, and deciding they shouldn't be covered due to that speculation, would be equivalent to deciding not to cover Major Nidal Malik Hasan and Sergeant Robert Bales, due to speculation they had mental health issues. Personally I have sympathy for the speculation about the mental health of that Anders guy, in Scandinavia, who killed almost 100, and about several recent killers in the USA. But should our personal speculation that subject's have mental health issues play any role in whether we cover them? If I am following your reasoning here, isn't your apparent desire to protect the reputation of these hoaxers, based on speculation, largely, well WP:Original research? Isn't it at odds with our decisions to cover those killers, even if RS have speculated about their mental health?

This is NOR-abuse.

NOR applies to making statements as part of articles. We couldn't add a line to the article saying "this person has a mental health issue". It doesn't apply to editorial decisions; taking something out of the article because the person has a mental health issue is legitimate. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRIMINAL says: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." No one is trying to start a separate article about any of those individuals today. The general principle of BLP1E is that people associated with a single event or phenomenon, who are not notable enough for a separate article, should be covered in an article on the event or phenomenon -- which is what we have here. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The 'event or phenomenon' described in each of the instances in the list lacks sufficient notability to merit an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In this comment, left an hour after the comment immediately above, you seem to be acknowledging that a list of "fictitious hoax e-mails/chain sympathy letters created with the express purpose of defrauding respondents" did merit an article. Well -- hoaxsters creating a e-mail/chain letter to defraud people -- that would be a phenomenon. Geo Swan (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is entirely possible for a general topic to merit an article, and none of the individual instances contained in a list to do so. Which is what I argued. And note that the 'topic' I suggested merited an article was e-mail hoaxes in general - not e-mail hoaxes involving supposed cancer victims. You have failed to provide a source that demonstrates that these are in any way more than a particular instance of a more general phenomenon, meriting special coverage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• In regards to Geoswan's above comment, I don't think that's a legitimate comparison at all. Both those two people have caused events which had substantial political effects (including on the international relations of the United States in the case of Robert Bales) and attracted long-lasting and substantial coverage in reliable sources around the world. You can't compare such prominent cases to short-lived and largely insubstancial media attention provided to unfortunate people who pretended to have cancer for whatever reason, and such people shouldn't be named and shamed in Wikipedia articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • With regard to "substantial", isn't this determination a judgment call? No offense, but isn't your determination coverage of individuals like Kirilow is not substantial a determination that someone else could challenge, and call an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part? Kirilow is the adult hoaxster with whom I am most familiar, and I strongly disagree that she did not attract "long-lasting and substantial coverage in reliable sources around the world." Kirilow's case did trigger world-wide coverage. Below you'll find 10 links to RS coverage of Kirilow's case in the non-English press. Kirilow's case did trigger long-lasting coverage. Below you will find 12 links to RS coverage of Kirilow's case more than a year after she was outed. Jessica Vega, another living hoaxster I spent some time looking into this week, appeared on Good Morning America, and this google search may show coverage of her story was both world-wide and continuing, not a flash-in-the-pan. Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    1. "Ganó miles de dólares tras fingir cáncer"
    2. "Løj sig kræftsyg og scorede kassen: Canadisk kvinde, der lod som om, hun havde kræft, snød folk for over 100.000 kroner"
    3. "Apgavikų arsenale – ir mirties šešėlis"
    4. "Na Facebooku vylákala z lidí tisíce: Lhala, že má rakovinu!"
    5. "末期がん偽る募金詐欺、頭剃ってフェースブックに カナダ"
    6. "Facebook-Schwindlerin verhaftet: Ashley (23) hatte gar keinen Krebs"
    7. "A strâns mii de dolari după ce s-a ras pe cap şi şi-a smuls genele"
    8. "Păcălea oamenii spunând că are cancer"
    9. "Les femmes de la semaine"
    10. "Acusada de fraude una joven que ganó miles de dólares tras fingir que padecía cáncer"
  • Kirilow's fraud was exposed in August 2010, the references in this list show her crime was considered sufficiently substantial that she continued to receive on-going coverage.
    1. 2011-08-03 Both the Crown and the defence took more than an hour to argue reasons behind their recommendation for no jail time, citing Kirilow's mental state and her increasing need to seek attention after a troubled upbringing where she was shuffled between the homes of her separated parents and her grandparents for years.
    2. 2011-10-13 Ashley Kirilow to face shoplifting charges
    3. 2011-10-14 But Ashley is more psychiatric patient than criminal. And like so many others with mental health issues, she has firmly wedged herself into a system where it is quicker and easier to get inside a jail cell than a psychiatrist’s office.
    4. 2011-10-14 Maybe Kirilow didn't get the help she needs
    5. 2011-10-22 Ashley Kirilow, the 24-year-old Burlington woman who received a 15-month conditional sentence in April for a fraud involving her faking cancer, was sentenced to one day of jail after pleading guilty Friday to theft under $5,000.
    6. 2011-11-10 Judge firm but gentle with Kirilow: Convicted fraud artist gets 30 more days in jail
    7. 2012-02-08 Kirilow appears in court for breach
    8. 2012-02-08 Cancer faker Ashley Kirilow appeared briefly in a Milton courthouse Monday for allegedly breaching her probation a second time.
    9. 2011-12-06 Canada saw a wave of cancer fraudsters this year, including their photogenic queen, Ashley Kirilow of Burlington, Ont., who was convicted of raising $12,000 from unsuspecting marks.
    10. 2011-12-11 Nicholas isn't the only person to have allegedly faked cancer for financial gain. In 2010, Ashley Kirilow, a Canadian woman, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud after she lied about having cancer to raise money, according to CBC News.
    11. 2012-01-05 There is always the possibility of abuse of Internet fundraising, as evidenced by the case of Ashley Kirilow of Burlington, Ontario, who in 2010 faked having cancer and used a Facebook page to help raise thousands of dollars.
    12. 2012-03-01 Cancer faker Ashley Kirilow jailed for latest breach

Removal of sections based on assertions of lapses from BLP

Another contributor left a comment, above, that they removed the article's coverage of Ashley Kirilow's case, on BLP grounds. While that contributor informed us here, that heads-up is buried in the middle of this discussion, where it could easily be overlooked.

Another contributor started an article on Ashley Kirilow, back in August 2010, when her story first came to light. That article was nominated for deletion a couple of weeks later. I am going to quote User:Sandstein's delete comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Kirilow quoted {{blp1e}} and went on to say: "This means that this event can be covered in the context of an article about scams against charities, even if that article has yet to be written, but not as a BLP."

The contributor who made the excision did leave a comment on Talk:List of cancer victim hoaxes#Ashley Kirilow, and I asked them to quote the passage from BLP whose authority they were calling upon.

The phrase "naming and shaming" has been used to justify removing coverage of cases like that of Kirilow. That characterization overlooks key reasons why coverage of Kirilow's case is not just beating up on someone who appears to have mental health issues.

I am sure other hoaxsters used facebook and other computer tools in their hoaxes, prior to Kirilow, but, for various reasons, it was Kirilow's that really captured the attention of the Canadian public, the Canadian press, and the legitimate Canadian charity sector. There was considerable speculation that Canadian's strong revulsion over Kirilow's use of computer tools like facebook and mailing lists in her fraud would frighten potential donors to legitimate Canadian charities from making online donations. Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that Sandstein's comment in particular merits discussion here? As for the remainder of your comments, once again you are making assertions without the necessary citations to back them up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Because Sandstein, an experienced administrator, endorsed the position that while Kirilow wasn't notable enough to merit a separate article, notable elements of her story could be incorporated into relevant articles. You haven't really explained why you think you were justified in deleting this section. And I quoted an uninvolved third party recognized, three years ago, that it made sense to incorporate elements of Kirilow's story into other relevant articles.

Please bear in mind that the extra protections we give to private individual, who end up participating in a notable single event by accident don't apply to WP:WELLKNOWN people. Kirilow, and the other people on this list, made every effort they could to become WP:WELLKNOWN. Geo Swan (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the lack of sources, regardless of whether Kirilow is 'well known' or not, the others clearly aren't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 18:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was merge to Underground Gamer. The consensus is that the article Underground Gamer needs to be created with a subsection about BitGamer, where this will then be merged. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

BitGamer

BitGamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "BitGamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable as per WP:GNG (possibly also WP:NRVE and WP:WEB).

Out of the provided sources, only one may be anywhere close to reliable - the TorrentFreak article covering the website's termination. The remaining three consist of a link to a third-party mirror of the site's torrents - which I'm not sure is even allowed under Wikipedia's copyright policy - and two Reddit discussions which automatically fail WP:RS and WP:NEWSBLOG by the fact of being forum discussions. The Fifth Horseman (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Keep BG was a pretty successful tracker for current-gen systems, until they closed it. I think it's notable, even if the sources used are less than adequate. -Kai445 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 10:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough substantial coverage to meet GNG by my reckoning. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk)
• Merge to the uncreated Underground Gamer page which also is defunct according to recent Torrentfreak postings. As a side-project the true GNG and N claims will be made by Underground Gamer and this would be a perfect sub-section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be okay with a merge to a UG sub-section with BitGamer redirecting there. Sounds like a good idea. -Kai445 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 17:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Shooter Hunt

Shooter Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. I don't see enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Yankees10 16:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Was shocked that the article existed after going through his stats and the (lack of) good sources. Wizardman 22:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Spanneraol (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete from a few searches there isn't much out there on him at all, he was a 1st-rd pick but hardly even toiled in the MiLB... no reason to keep him Mpejkrm (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Races of The Elder Scrolls. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Races in The Elder Scrolls

Races in The Elder Scrolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page covers exactly the same topic as Races of The Elder Scrolls article, only less objectively - all of the content is rewritten from one printed source, and covers the scope of one game, not the whole series. HÆDO_reply 15:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Races of The Elder Scrolls per WP:REDUNDANTFORK --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Ansh666 17:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also merge per Mark and Jclemens below. Ansh666 02:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect and possibly merge to Races of The Elder Scrolls. While the topics are redundant, Races of The Elder Scrolls makes heavy use of in-game books as sources, which I would consider primary. This article is dependent on the Prima guide to Skyrim, although "official", is probably more secondary than the in-game books. If there is any new info in this article it could be merged into Races of The Elder Scrolls along with the Prima citations. --Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Merge the two articles appropriately, using the best from both as noted above, and keeping arributions appropriately intact by picking one to become a redirect when all is said and done. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

S.M.B.S.

S.M.B.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This AfD is being started for 86.40.181.132 (talk · contribs) who cannot make one xemself. If xe makes a statement, I will copy it here below this nomination statement. Charmlet (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as there are no reliable sources covering it. It was probably only known to its members and its inner circle before this article was posted. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - per Citrusbowler. (this is the vote, not the nomination.) Charmlet (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• DeleteAs one of the four founders can I say the info of my friend who owns this wikipedia account is wrong and can this page be removed as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ul10119485 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Former minor Irish regional political party, judging from its page history. Sourced to an inaccessible Facebook page, with otherwise no relevant Ghits. The other source is a copy of the Irish constitution, which doesn't seem to be directly related to anything in the article. Looks a bit WP:MADEUP, unless someone can verify its notability via reliable sources. Funny ^Pika! 23:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - per Citrusbowler. Snappy (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 13:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Population Control (album)

Population Control (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I had redirected this, but the author seems to think this requires an AFD to redirect. Obviously, they are mistaken. Album without charting. Sourcing isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability, itunes, amazon, etc. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly enough coverage on this album for it to warrant an article like here, here, here and here. Koala15 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment There are many hits on this on Google, but they are mostly sites that review or let you buy the album. If these are considered reliable sources, than the article should be kept, but if they're not, the article should be merged and redirected. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The album charted on the Bilboard Top Heatseekers chart at number 11 right here. Koala15 (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Has met WP:NALBUMS and been covered by reliable sources not to mention the charting mentioned above. The reviews and charting should be inserted into the article to avoid nominators from not following WP:BEFORE. STATic message me! 04:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: The album has enough significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

James Lyne

James Lyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Vanity biography for individual that fails WP:GNG. Most references are youtube.com Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. PKT(alk) 13:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO because the only reliable source I could find was the TechWeekEurope article. This person may become notable in the future, but people don't get articles until the day they are notable. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete -- Looks to me like a NN employee of a software company on which we have an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Velas Resorts

Velas Resorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article with questionable sourcing. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Article needs a lot of work and a reduction in peacockery, but a chain of four resorts is probably notable. PKT(alk) 13:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only stuff I could find are promotional stuff and reviews. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. See: WP:PROMO and WP:SPIP. — Ched :  ?  18:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 13:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Split My Taxi

Split My Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article about a start up with a few mentions but fails WP:CORP at this time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It passes WP:CORP; it is covered by a site called Metro.us, which counts as a national source (in the Boston section). Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. The provided sources are enough to establish notability and pass WP:GNG. I'm worried that it still reads like an advertisement but that's an issue for cleanup rather than deletion. §everal⇒|Times 16:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, already seeing good secondary source coverage, the cites just need some minor formatting. — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: The needed sources are already in the article. SL93 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Goldhead Group

The Goldhead Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unambiguous advertising yes, but with the advertising removed would it be notable? Unsure. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This page is based on a similar organization called Baronius Press which similarly publishes in Catholic circles. It's been around for almost a decade and deserves its own page. --Seminarian Matt (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP; there are no reliable sources. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The organization has its headquarters and storefront in State College, PA and has appeared on EWTN and in the National Catholic Register. They have valid corporation status per the Pennsylvania Corporation Database. --Seminarian Matt (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.201.255 (talk)

• Comment That proves it exists, but does it make it notable? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment They are a notable organization. They are the first online Catholic education provider founder and have been a pioneer in the field. They work closely with Bishop Vasa and the United States Catholic bishops in developing a program that’s being used world wide. They just last month joined with Catholic Distance University is offering courses. They cite over 10,000 students in their program at the moment from across the US and abroad. Seminarian Matt (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A search for reliable and independent coverage came up empty. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 21:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The article was speedied so I'm going to be bold and close this AfD, as the subject no longer exists. Beerest355 Talk 20:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Westerners kidnaps countries

Westerners kidnaps countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Maybe a list like this could, if properly written, meet the notability criteria, but this page doesn't cite sources and doesn't even define "westerner". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or Transwiki The article fails WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:IINFO. It looks like it was ripped straight from [travel.state.gov]. If not deleted, it should be tranwikied to Wikivoyage under a new name, and even there I seriously doubt that it would fit in. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment User:FunnyPika nominated for speedy deletion. Ansh666 17:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Borna (Persian given name)

Borna (Persian given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable given name, consisting of original research. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Kabirat (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to John Tomkins. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bishop

The Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The information in this article is already included in the article entitled John Tomkins. MDEVER802 (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Maybe even per WP:SNOW. Props to the nominator, who might reasonably have been put off when I screwed up his good faith WP:PROD proposal because it blanked the page. Instead of getting peeved, he sought counsel, followed policy and we wound up here.

On the merits, he's absolutely right. All the relevant data is on the Tomkins page. The Bishop should be deleted and The Bishop should become a redirect to the Tomkins page. David in DC (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to John Tomkins. It is a duplicate and should be redirected. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Stark

Aaron Stark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

On notability grounds - has not fought in top tier fights Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMMA. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Had numerous fights for the International Fight League, the first MMA promotion to appear regularly on broadcast TV in the United States. Evidently fought the championship final at one point. Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The IFL is/was not top tier so fighting for its championship does not meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In all due respect, WP:NMMA provides a guide for a presumption of notability. Even if Stark does not reach that presumption, he still easily meets WP:GNG, not only for the Sports Illustrated article mentioned below, but as one of a very small minority of all professional MMA fighters to have fought numerous times on broadcast (not cable or "pay-per-view") television. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - While Stark did receive some non-trivial national media coverage from Spots Illustrated, that was the one and only example I could find that would support a keep based on WP:GNG. His collegiate wrestling career isn't enough to pass WP:NCOLLATH and his MMA career falls short or WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Obviously doesn't meet WP:NMMA and one article at the SI website is not enough to show he meets WP:GNG. Willing to reconsider if additional significant (not routine sports) coverage can be found. Jakejr (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment: I searched the local paper of record's archives (offline/paywalled) and found that Stark was prominently discussed in this article: White, Ryan (June 23, 2008). "Comedy or tragedy?". The Oregonian. By itself, this one may or may not help the article clear the WP:GNG threshold, but it's certainly a point worth considering. -Pete (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He's also the central focus of this article: Boyle, John (June 1, 2007). "Pro fight league is a hit -- and it's coming here". The Daily Herald.

So I think if somebody wanted to keep the article, they could easily expand it citing these references. I'm too busy to do that myself, but I'd be happy to email these stories to another editor if they wish to improve the article.

• Comment - I cleaned up the page a bit and removed all the dead links (most of them were dead in fact). I gave an explanation for each removal in the edit summary if one was needed. The IFL website has been dead for years, many of the interviews were redirects and the citation for his college degree had nothing to do with Stark. It was simply a list of all the degrees offered in the 2013-14 school year at Wisconsin. But if the stories mentioned by Pete provide significant coverage, I will most likely change my vote based on WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd requested Pete provide me the stories in some fashion so that I might add them to the article for consideration, but he is, understandably, a busy man. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies: I will send those by email in the next hour or so. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Clearly fails WP:NMMA. I don't think coverage in a local paper enables him to pass GNG. As it says in WP:MMANOT--"articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations".Mdtemp (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments are stronger that this kind of character list for a franchise is appropriate and that all of the deletion arguments are instead cleanup issues. postdlf (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Skylanders characters

List of Skylanders characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Huge cruft article, written entirely in-universe, and contains only one source, used to confirm the voice actor for one of the ~139 characters listed. The list is indiscriminate. No assertion of notability for any character. Clearly violates WP:GAMECRUFT #5. Some guy (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I had considered a merge, but it would require complete rewriting that material as well as sourcing. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete The [skylanders.wikia.com Skylanders Wiki] already has this kind of stuff, so Wikipedia doesn't need it.
• Delete - super WP:CRUFT. Ansh666 17:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep but needs cleanup - I agree there's cruft here, but at the same time, major franchises with recurring characters will often get lists of characters with fundamental details. I think that if you take out most of the fictional aspects and leave this as characters + voice actors, you have something reasonable that can't otherwise fit into the main franchise or game articles. But it absolutely does need cleanup to be considered like this. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Masem, with the exception that "cruft" is a pejorative term that immediately renders any vote using it an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and should be discounted appropriately. Excessive unsourced detail should be sourced, condensed, and improved, not denigrated. Oh, and nomination is completely wrong, the list is *very* discriminate, in that it is limited to characters from one fictional franchise. No delete !vote, except maybe the first, addresses WP:ATD in any substantial way, and no one has indicated any attempt to source any of the other characters per WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: "the list is *very* discriminate, in that it is limited to characters from one fictional franchise" That is no kind of valid argument. We have a list of nearly 150 characters from a few games. They cannot all be equally notable and worthy of inclusion. This article has not even the slightest shred of encyclopedic value in its current form. The content is 100% written in-universe, and unsalvageable in its current state. It is unfeasible to find sources for such a large number of characters and much of the content is therefore inherently unsourcable. Some guy (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Are the games notable - yes, Skylanders has proven to be a huge hit for Activision (it's basically their Pokemon), and it's not going away anytime soon. Once you get to that, we don't care that the characters aren't notable, and the fact that the focus of the game is the ability to swap in and out characters means that the characters are probably important. Notability only affects the need for a standalone article, and I would actually be surprised that any of the characters meet that bar, but this doesn't mean we can't do basic documentation of them. As I noted, there are problems with how much of the fiction is presented here, but that can be fixed. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • We have complex policies of inclusion and exclusion about article content. The fact that a game is notable does not make everything in the game notable (or worthy of inclusion if you don't like the term notable), hence WP:NOTGUIDE. WP:GAMECRUFT #5 is specifically violated here. Some guy (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • GAMECRUFT (which I had a hand in writing) does not mean all lists of characters from video games are bad. If Skylanders was only a single video game, I'd be first in line to join on the deletion side, but we're talking what appears to be 6 games, actual toys, and additional media, making it a franchise and not just a single game. Spotchecking Gnews shows there's definitely interest in these toys (and subsequently in-game characters) that better sourcing could be added to show why this is more than just indiscriminately listing out the available characters. Yes, right now, there's way too much on the fiction side, and I would almost argue that has to go in favor of just the core details ala the Pokemon lists, but there's enough evidence that suggests keeping this is a reasonable step. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:GAMECRUFT. There's already consensus on keep that stuff off the game's articles too, so a merge wouldn't be a great choice either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep – character lists for video game franchises are pretty standard practice. Outside of that admittedly other stuff argument, for this particular franchise, the characters (and figurines) are really the heart of the experience, and discussion of when new toys are coming out is incredibly widespread, including in numerous reliable sources: the two most recent toy releases, Wave 4 ([12] [13] [14]) and Wave 5 ([15]) events have plenty of real world coverage, for example. There is also lots of coverage about the rarest toys being very valuable: [16]. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Almost bad enough in it's current form for WP:NUKE to apply. But topic wise, this is a reasonable spinout article. Sources like [17] seem to be on point for this type of article. Keep but clean up is really needed. Hobit (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment – I've trimmed away all the excess detail, which was more than half the total text, and I think the article is in a much more reasonable state at this point. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - at risk of falling into WP:OTHERSTUFF, take a look at List of Pokémon. That's what this should be, no more information than that. I'm not familiar with the Skylanders franchise, being a college student, so I don't know if there's any way to organize them like Pokémon, but that's what would be needed for me to want to keep it. Ansh666 17:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also note how List of Digimon, despite having a numbering system, is organized, and the amount of detail there (none!). Ansh666 02:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is more analogous to List of Pokémon (1–51) etc as someone pointed out earlier. Personally, I'm a fan of Pokémon but I don't think that list is much more encyclopedic than this one, and I would speculate it exists solely because of the sheer volume of Pokémon fans. That article, as well as this one, clearly violates GAMEGUIDE point 5, although it is better about establishing real-world facts and relevance with at least some of the characters. Apparently over the years we've reached the point where a franchise worthy of its own article may list an infinite number of characters and creatures in ancillary articles that violate numerous policies, but we can't list all of the real weapons or items that are in some of those same franchises. I don't think a list of every single Pokémon or every single Spyro character has any more encyclopedic value than a list of every potion in World of Warcraft or every spell used in the Harry Potter franchise. I think a list of the guns in the Call of Duty franchise would be more relevant, since the majority are real weapons that already have their own articles and established notability. I'm not arguing that we should start allowing weapon lists, but rather that we don't is all the more reason not to list 150, or 650, characters from a game series. Wikipedia is supposed to focus first and foremost on real-world relevance. These gargantuan lists of the in-universe characteristics of endless characters are quite far apart from real-world relevance. But, my opinion is a drop in the bucket, which is why we have AfD discussions. Some guy (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Despite some minor character crossover, this is clearly a separate franchise from the "Spyro the Dragon" setting, so sticking this massive list of characters into the middle of the already long List of Spyro the Dragon characters page seemed ludicrous. It does require some cleanup, yes, but as previously noted, it's already better than other long lists of characters that are not being considered for deletion. Master Deusoma (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You misunderstood my comment - I was stating that this needed to become like the other long lists of characters, not that it was better. Ansh666 22:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Video Messaging Service

Video Messaging Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In contrast to SMS or MMS, VMS is not a real standard but is a software application created by ironroad.com. This article 1) only deals with a product which does not seem to be highly notable and 2) frames their product as an industry standard which it is not. Joe407 (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - no sources, no assertion of notability, advertises a product. Some guy (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete It is advertising. It's not a standard and even misinforms readers to make it look like one. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable. Spam. SL93 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Borthwick Street (TV Series)

Borthwick Street (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I suggested a merge if this is kept, but no RS on this except facebook and fan pages_{now deleted by Facebook. jcc (tea and biscuits)}. Does not seem notable. Tyros1972 Talk 10:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. A blatant hoax is the description for what "Borthwick Street" is. A quick search on Google reveals nothing bar these Wikipedia pages. I've also tagged for speedy deletion the Borthwick Street (season 1) and Borthwick Street (season 2) pages as a hoax. "Borthwick Street won 3 times i a role for Best Drama Series ever". Really? Pixie Lott playing "Chloe" amongst a whole lot of red linkers of actors. Really? jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy delete As jcc says, it's a blatant hoax that lives only in the mind of its creator. Discussion should be closed per WP:SNOW. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Intan kirana

Intan kirana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable person. Tyros1972 Talk 10:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete, unquestionably. I've already speedy deleted this twice and warned the creator. I suspect a conflict of interest.Deb (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Major conflict of interest and fails WP:BIO. The only stuff I could find were blogs and Facebook pages created by the subject. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete & SALT Considering this article has been recreated and the author has been warned, when this is closed and deleted I also request it to be salted. Tyros1972 Talk 18:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree - and also Intan Kirana, just in case.Deb (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 12:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Gopal Meena

Gopal Meena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable person just because he's a politician means nothing. No RS just a resume. Tyros1972 Talk 10:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - This stub was created by a user bearing the same surname as the subject, apparently promotimg family interests, with names of spouse and children, implying WP:COI apart frm the fact that being a local politician, like so many others who are members of regional assemblies, does not mean he meets WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC). Comments below.--Zananiri (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Members of state legislative assemblies pass WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Where is the RS to prove he is a Members of state legislative assemblies? Only 2 ref and both are self created. If someone can produce the RS it may pass. Tyros1972 Talk 11:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.rajassembly.nic.in is the official website of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and this confirms that he is a MLA. He passes WP:GNG. The Legend of Zorro 21:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

* Comment - First, he is only a new member who has done nothing of note to date. Second, since when do members of regional legislative assemblies become notable politicians by virtue of being members there? And if we keep this, because being a member of a regional assembly makes him notable, shouldn't we have articles on every member of every regional assembly in every country in the world? I don't think he meets WP:GNG going by the information we have about him. Appears to be a clear case of family promotion so far.--Zananiri (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your first point is correct that he has done nothing of note to date but being a member of a state legislative assembly definitely means he passes WP:GNG. And there is nothing to panic if we have to have articles on every member of every regional assembly in every country in the world. Trust me it is no big deal. The Legend of Zorro 21:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep All members of all state legislatures, present or past, are notable. It's assumed they will meet the GNG if sufficient work is done; it does not have to be actually demonstrated DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep As per explanations provided above. The Legend of Zorro 21:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. I have added a Reliable Source reference to the article demonstrating that he is in fact a member of the state legislative assembly. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: In that case, I hope the creator of this article will also create an article on the predecessor of his namesake, whom he mentions in the infobox. Perhaps, having articles, listing all members of individual state legislatures might be a better idea than having stubs about individual members as in this case, where the list provided by MelanieN takes us to the members' details anyway, provided by themselves, as in this stub under external links, which was originally cited as a ref.--Zananiri (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 12:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

List of tourist attractions in Somerset

List of tourist attractions in Somerset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a list whose function would be better covered by Wikivoyage. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Oh, no. I do so hope this isn't the start of a raft of AFDs on places, or tourist attractions or lists of such places. Let's hope someone just pressed the wrong button in Twinkle. WP:LISTN says the topic must be notable. Is there really any serious suggestion there are not reliable, etc. sources about tourist attractions in Somerset? Wouldn't these do?[18][19] Moreover, the list is limited to places with WP articles so it is a useful navigational aid. We no not remove articles about species from here because they are in Wikispecies. We should not be doing so for places on account of Wikivoyage. Thincat (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The evidence seems to be that Wikipedia does a better job of this. In any case, we don't delete articles for this reason. For example, we have species and lists of species on Wikipedia even though there's a specialised project for it - Wikispecies. My view is that less is more and that we should close those other projects to focus upon our core competency. Warden (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia is not a tourist guide and Wikivoyage is not an encyclopaedia. Just as much as Wikipedia has crossovers with WikiSpecies, Wiktionary, etc, so it does with Wikivoyage. In the specific case this is a navigational list to encyclopaedia articles, the list on Wikivoyage would link to travel guides and so fulfil a different purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, standard navigational list of articles per WP:LISTPURP and a complement to Category:Visitor attractions in Somerset per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW, 5 Keep votes and no votes for deletion, time for closure, I think. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep -- a useful list that is doeing something more than merely listing articles. POssibly rename to match category (or vice versa). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm closing this as no consensus. Feel free to relist if need be in the future, or continue to evolve and improve the article. Thanks everyone for their input. SarahStierch (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOT. I believe this is a grave problem for Wikipedia's neutrality stance: Most of the information in the Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013), particularly the daily death tolls, are directly adopted from the partisan sources of the Local Coordination Committees of Syria (LCC) and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). These two organizations are aligned to the Syrian opposition, rendering much of the timeline to a kind of rebel newsfeed. They routinely call opposition casualities "martyrs" and we have no way of verifying the tolls from independent sources. The Syrian Army for its part has stopped reporting casualities in their ranks in mid-2012, so we could not even attempt to counterbalance the rebel LCC and SOHR with biased info from the other side, in the unlikely case somebody would advocate such an approach.

Although the issue was raised at the neutrality board a week ago, dispute resolution attempts through cleaning up the timeline have eventually came to nothing. Note that this timeline is part of a whole Timeline of the Syrian civil war series which are all affected to a varying degree by these issues and, therefore, may all be subjected to a reevaluation by the community. It has been proposed to move whatever reliable information is savable to Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 1. Snotbot  t • c »  15:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 17:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - The timeline introduces very little information beyond what could be found on the main page. It consists mostly of the heavily biased info from unreliable source, which openly supports one side of the conflict. --Emesik (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Only a fraction of the timeline is the death tolls, and in each sentence the death toll's origin is specifically stated. Sopher99 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This does not address the underlying problem. As of today, two thirds of the references still rely on the rebel-affiliated Local Coordination Committees of Syria (= http://www.lccsyria.org) – despite a week of trying to fix the problem on the neutrality noticeboard. And day by day still more references to them are added. It is difficult to see what raison d'etre this timeline has if its contents can (and are) only built up on the basis of biased data from opposition sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep - In my personal opinion these timeline articles shouldn't include the daily LCC claims of the number of dead at all. Because it's not encyclopedic and Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia. The timeline articles should stick to major political and military events that happen in the conflict and mention a death toll when there is a massacre or a battle with a high number of deaths. So, I am requesting to keep this timeline article and the others, BUT please remove the daily death tolls and stick to the major events of the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Question' Have we completely given up on usale sources for the people killed on the other side? DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced half of the LCC sources with reliable sources quoting the LCC - so we keep those. Sopher99 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Government has stopped reporting on the numbers of dead soldiers DGG, only one who is still documenting and reporting is SOHR. EkoGraf (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete These kind of articles are typically train wrecks of unreliable information supported by dubious sources and are basically useless. This appears to be no different. The quality of day-to-day reportage of all ongoing wars is typically poor, and in wars such as this one where journalists are being deliberately targeted by the warring factions the information is useless except when filtered by actual experts operating with the benefit of hindsight (eg, historians). Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep why should the timeline be deleted,it mentions the major events that happen in the day,timelines were done for months before may 2013 Alhanuty (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete this and most of the earlier articles in the family due to a complete breach of WP:NOT. It might just be possible to rescue them, but it would require very major surgery, starting with the removal of the daily lists. Would the remainder be worth keeping? Almost certainly not. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Jonathan, which part of WP:NOT does it break? Ansh666 04:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete These timeline articles only cite opposition propaganda sources. The LCC? That's a propaganda arm for AL Qaeda that lists all fighter casualties as civilians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dateofrebirth (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and remove all useless stuff like daily death tolls and possibly merge the timelines together if it there is too little information for how these articles are split now. The Syrian Civil War has had a timeline since the very beginning, since it is the sequence of events that made it significant. See here. It was okay when only significant events were added, but these daily death tolls are pretty useless. When these death tolls are deleted, these timelines will have significantly less content, or very little content; if so, then the different timelines should be merged together. The timeline is currently split into 8 articles; I suspect that after the useless information is removed, that we will need significantly less than 8.--98.118.56.224 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete The article looks like blatant one-sided propaganda, with a strong political bias - Antonio nn (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I edited the article to remove the daily death tolls from the page. I suggest the same thing be done to the other 7 timeline pages, and merge this article to one of the previous ones.--A (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it is flawed doesn't mean it should be deleted. SOFIXIT applies. By the time this conflict is over the pages may need to be merged as one fitting timeline, but that is for another discussion. We shouldn't delete because of flaws, fix them instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep temporarily I state this with reluctance because I do not think the information is encyclopedic. However, A has done a great job of removing what is unreliable and maintaining reliable sources. Eventually, anything that is salvageable should be merged into the Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war article. I am also uncomfortable with the existence of various other timelines from prior months. I will check to see what sort of sources have been used for the earlier timelines. Likely it's time to merge these past tallies in a condensed fashion, to the main article. In addition, there is another article Casualties of the Syrian civil war, that may be appropriate to receive this information. I have not yet reviewed it one for reliability, but I plan to do so. Finally, my vote might change depending on the number of articles relating to the Syrian civil war floating on Wikipedia. I am beginning to suspect this may just be the tip of the iceberg--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete individual timelines and merge them into a single timeline article without the death tolls. Keeping each one of those would later require massive cleanup efforts. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)p. At this state, these articles are noth attempting to build off.
• Weak Keep Also add battles not on the main page for the Syrian civil war not just death tolls.Pug6666 19:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Delete this and all other timelines of the Syrian civil war. There are usually only two sources on this timelines: SOHR and LCC, pro-terrorist organizations in every way. --Sundostund (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete this part of the timeline and delete all prior parts of it. Create a single timeline which does not offend WP:SIZERULE, modeled upon Timeline of the Irish Civil War. The single article merged of all the oversize parts will have a statement directing attention to Casualties of the Syrian Civil War. Opposition 'martyr' counts will be anonymised, aggregated and buried in the latter article. That aggregate will be aggregated within a larger one which acknowledges that people other than them were killed and were killed by them, unlike what we presently have in this timeline part.Firmgood (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• The casualty listings have been removed; the rest can be kept. (In addition, if the individual timelines are to be merged, then merged articles are redirected, not deleted.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete These require complete rewrite, not just clean up.208.54.36.230 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Incorporate what is now salvageable in another article

Here is a list of articles on Syria, Syrian human rights, and the civil war

• Casualties of the Syrian civil war
• Syrian civil war
• Human rights in Syria
• Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war
• List of massacres during the Syrian civil war
• Kofi Annan peace plan for Syria
• Arab League monitors in Syria
• Syrian conflict peace proposals

There are many others, though the first four in the list are the most relevant.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep in current state (without daily casualties). Up to standard of other Syrian civil war timeline articles; best to keep this one for consistency. Ansh666 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC) struck as out of date; article has changed. still keep, see below

Comment: The current state is in fact as bad as before the AfD. As of today 25 out of 75 footnotes are directly sourced to the rebel LCC. This is one full third flying in the face of WP:RS and WP:Neutral. And the LCC continues to be the source for most of the other casualities, only indirectly so via cited by other news outlets, but while these media at least regularly inform the reader that they don't have independent sources to confirm the LCC numbers, the WP article creates the impression to the reader that the numbers are from the unbiased news outlets themselves (unless they bother to read the cited source). In other words, the timeline in its current form is still a case of source laundering and LCC Timeline of the Syrian civil war is a more fitting name. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that we not include sources and arguments from both sides, instead finding a balance. Less than 1/3 of the sources are not reliable, less than 1/3 of the sources are neutral. I fail to see the problem. IN FACT, the LCC sources have now been removed, which means there is now no problem at all. Ansh666 23:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep' in current state, without casualties or LCC/SOHR sources. There is strong precedent for as-it-comes-in type timelines (for example, the 2011 Egyptian revolution, Libyan civil war, 2013 Korean crisis, the list goes on). Also, for consistency, it's best to have this one along with the others, whether in condensed or expanded format. Ansh666 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - but remove the casualties. We have a timeline for the Libyan civil war, don't we?--03:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes we do, and it also endured similar POV source accusations and warring. (Also, FT, you accidentally used 5 tildes ) Ansh666 03:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed, but is "POV source accusations and warring" a strong criteria for deletion?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Not that I know of. Note that my "keep" !vote is right above yours. ( again!) Ansh666 04:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh... right :)--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: can we please re-list this debate? Bearian (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: We need to get a consensus on what to do with LCC and SOHR material throughout WP.EN, therefore: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Syrian Civil War: Local Coordination Committees of Syria and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Another comment - there are no more of these non-reliable sources left in the article, so the nomination's main point (ridding the article of unreliable sourcing) is moot. Also, I feel that this was more of a content dispute than a real attempt at deletion - it can and should be fixed in another venue. Ansh666 23:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, for anyone interested, I suggest reading the Libyan civil war timeline talk pages, to see how they dealt with it. No AfDs were involved. Ansh666 06:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC) (just remembered, there was one AfD, to rid a horribly POV-forked article, IIRC Ansh666 18:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC))
• Merge appropriate content to Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war, per nom. Article violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Miniapolis 18:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge This article can be fit in to the main page for the Syrian War you can highlight main events but exclude minor things as on this list. Have some WP:COMMONSENSE, the article doesn't fit policies and frankly, the average Joe Shmo has no desire to read this. If some things become a footnote on the merge article I could see replacing it, but for now it is not proper Wikipedia material. Leoesb1032 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The only valid argument against the original version was that it wasn't neutral. This is not now the case. The dubious sources have been removed. The unreliable data also. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Relisting comment: I was about closing the discussion as no consensus, but following the request of Bearian, I am relisting it for another week.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete I am still for a full deletion, I find almost surrealistic the only june updates, there's not only a problem of cited sources and notes, it seems all the news are one-sided; the article needs a full rewrite or at least an extensive and deep editing, that is hard to achieve due to its biased foundation - Antonio nn (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Duplicate !vote.
    • You can not vote twice Antonio. EkoGraf (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The article looks considerably improved from when it was first nominated, as do the other timelines. The remaining problems are not ones that cannot be worked out through gradually modifying the existing article.--69.54.63.225 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as before. The debate over LCC and SOHR sources has distracted from the basic fact that this is not an article at all; it is just an indiscriminate collection of raw primary material per Nick-D above. Alternatively merge per Leoesb1032, which is practice somes to the same thing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Duplicate !vote.
    • You can not vote twice Jonathan. EkoGraf (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am leaning Keep for now, per WP:HEY. There are still lots of problems, but I think they can be solved through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Nonsense nomination rationale. Neutrality issues can be resolved by editing, therefore our deletion policy does not allow deletion for what can be solved by editing. AfD is not for cleanup. --Cyclopia^talk 10:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

>

• Delete it seems all the news are one' it seems to carry one-sided biased language. Sandrkam (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spa votes traditionally get much less weight and no convincing rebuttle of the delete votes' assessment of the sources has emerged Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Pet Collective

The Pet Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Of the 24 references in the article, 13 are from YouTube, two are primary sources, 1 is from the LAFD's blog, 1 is from YahooTV, 1 is from BuzzFeed, 1 from Ustream TV. None of these are reliable sources. Now, let's get to the other sources that are in the article, which may be RS. Reference 1 is from the New York Daily News, and actually mentions this channel, but is fairly routine. The TechCrunch source makes no mention whatsoever of this channel. Nor does The Atlantic Wire's source. The Bakersfield Now article does mention this channel, but it's hardly significant coverage, and is more about the parent company. As for Uproxx/Warming Glow, well, that doesn't look like a RS.

So, based on this, we're left with one reliable source that gives a decent amount of information, but is fairly routine, and another one that mentions the channel, but nothing more. As such, this channel fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Appreciate the deep attention to the article. It certainly needs improvement. Please help! The Pet Collective exists as an online video brand that was a part of a historic digital program in new media with the YouTube 100 Partner Program in 2012 converging online video with traditional Hollywood companies, and has a subscription base in excess of 160k subscribers on YouTube. The YouTube references are primary sources, the Irwin family, Sharon Osbourne, and Khloe Kardashian have participated on the channel. Not sure why this is recommended for removal though beyond needs for improvement. If anything it needs a bit of expansion. Considering this is a fairly new, new media brand, why wouldn't the online references be considered reliable sources? A RS is a bit subjective for such an object. I love The New Yorker, but an article there doesn't make something fact any more than an interview with the channel on Uproxx. The Pet Collective has been featured numerous times on Good Morning America and Today if that helps. If every YouTube channel was on Wikipedia, that would be silly, but when a new media brand is officially partnered with YouTube, produced by the world's largest independent TV company, and was birthed from the world's first $billion original video convergence between a dot.com mogul like YouTube and a traditional media company like FremantleMedia, recommendation for deletion feels a bit extreme. The challenge here seems to be with RS. But I would say that this entry is certainly more credible than 1000 smaller cable TV shows with entries that come under less attack because...well...they're on TV? Does qualification of a TV show article on Wikipedia come from a threshold of Nielsen ratings, possible celebrity affiliation, and a well known network? In 10 years, that thinking will hopefully feel silly, when historically brands like the Pet Collective were respectable early attempts to devote more than a year on the part of a traditional Hollywood company to produce for the same medium Wikipedia is on. Given that the issue is more granular with choice and use of reference sources, the hopes would be for crowdsourced improvement of the article first before highest stakes recommendation of deletion. Google/YouTube supports The Pet Collective, so Wikipedia community rejection is a bit baffling...though the thoughtful attention is appreciated. Would love your Wikipedia expertise to help clean up the article. I was also disappointed to not find any good YouTube channel templates on Wikipedia yet. This is a new area of popular entertainment...would love to help build it up. User:Tomas202020 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I applaud your enthusiasm, but YouTube channels are not particularly notable in Wikipedia terms, at least, not without significant coverage in reliable sources. If you could read WP:RS and WP:GNG, and try to reply a little more succinctly next time, then I may be more able to discuss this with you. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Ah, thanks for the direction. This is first time I've received a deletion notice, and obviously I'm relatively new to Wikipedia contribution, but am keen to play by the Wikipedia rules to keep it a clean and credible knowledge base as evidenced from inclusion of an RS at all. Did my homework as requested and am keen to not have this deleted. In WP:DEL-REASON candidates for deletion under #6 and #7 state that a candidate should have had thorough attempts to find RS & verify, and articles that cannot possibly be attributed to RS. We definitely don't meet #6, and #7 would imply that an exhaustive search uncovered no RS at all. The problem seems to be in the choice of citations as you listed above. I am assuming that citation of an RS in an article and the "existence" of RS can be distinguished, as there are definitely more likely compliant RS in the world from TV news coverage to larger news publications, and the listed citations are of a volume and moderate credibility to show evidence of notability in WP:GNG for Wikipedia inclusion.

• • So hopefully this doesn't warrant full deletion of the article altogether as in WP:RS it states, "If NO reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Completely understand this. The Pet Collective does have plenty of sources to meet that criteria with a thorough search...I just included ones that don't seem to. Newb move.  :) Given that citations and sources need to be improved according to the WP:RS, I would request that queue for deletion be lowered to 'flagged for improvement' so we can improve the article citations. For example, this Variety article (http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/fremantle-breaks-with-youtube-on-pets-channel-1200403423/) should be considered an RS, that with article inclusion should hopefully reinforce a position of non-deletion.

• • On the topic of YouTube channels on Wikipedia, inclusion at all of an article for The Pet Collective on Wikipedia does not seem to match any major point in What Wikipedia is not any more than SourceFed or MyMusic (season 1), both of which were a part of the YouTube Original Channel Initiative, which point to secondary RS themselves including lists inclusive of The Pet Collective as a peer entity. Even if TPC is not the primary subject there is enough evidence that it is not just a fleeting mention. Hopefully this can all be taken into consideration for removing the article from any deletion queues. Just need a little more time to improve the article with better RS without the ticking clock of complete expiration, which would be frustrating. Can you lower the deletion flag to a less final outcome? User:Tomas202020 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I linked RS to you to show what Reliable Sources are. Could you please read the WP:GNG link, and respond? You've got a week to sort this article, whilst this discussion is open, and if no one votes "keep" or "delete", then it will remain open longer. Thanks for your coorperation. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. WP:USERFICATION is an option if the article creator needs more time to work on the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - They do have some reliable sources such as Huffpost, CNN and ABCNews. I will go ahead and add new citations to the article to include links. -- User:kgal1298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.209.234 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• The ABC News one is from their blogs, so isn't a reliable source. The Huffington Post one is far from in-depth coverage, and is very trivial. You've not (yet) added anything from the CNN source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• I thought ABC News would be credible I also added Fox on there. I actually did have a CNN one, but realized it was only a video on their channel and didn't get in depth about The Pet Collective and left it out. I have a few more sources I can add, but The Pet Collective tends to get smaller mentions about the channel. The stories on the Corgi videos explain the rise of the channel. I'll keep editing for now I think there are also some Tubefilter and Blip TV stories that I can source as well. Those websites deal strictly with online video news for the most part. User:kgal1298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.209.234 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - There are several articles about The Pet Collective and Freemantle's new deal with Blip - also The Huffington Post should be considered a reliable source, especially since there are many articles regarding The Pet Collective, not just one. They are part of a huge entertainment company Fremantle Media who also does American Idol and many other shows. These aren't single random links. Thank you for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjarabia (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm concerned by the number of SPAs whom have popped up here to vote keep - that's usually a sign that notability is marginal at best. ABC News is credible, their blogs, not necessarily. I'm more inclined to state that the channel itself is not notable, but that the videos about the Corgis may be - but that's tight as well. There's a real lack of in-depth coverage about the channel in any of the non-primary sources, which is the problem. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm just trying to fix the sources. Not a SPA I just forget to log in. I've done editing before mainly small additions and website link corrections when doing research. Notability of the channel is accurate though as it's owned by a larger network such as Fremantle I'm not sure how the channel comes under that scrutiny. Also, I edited the Blip.TV news which is from a credible source. I will go back through the wiki article and see if I can fix the sources for the remainder of it as well are you not counting Tubefilter as a reliable source? I'm only asking because then there are other wiki's out there that use them as a source and it would be good to know if that doesn't count. Let me see if I can keep adjusting the article otherwise in the case that deletion does happen then they will just have to work on gaining more reliable sources in the future. Thank you for commentary. [[User:kgal1298] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgal1298 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Are there really a significant number of SPAs? I only see a few above, and really not all that many comments in general. I know it's not necessarily Wikipedia's place to set trend-lines for this stuff, but diversified media distribution models/digital content creation are a relatively new fad. This article may be a little over-ambitious and overly in-depth in its attempt to promote itself, but digital content platforms/internet channels are a relatively new medium, and are moving to be on-par with their television network counterparts. Not all such channels necessarily deserve a Wikipedia article, but I would suggest that, regardless of reputable sources, a channel backed by one of the largest production companies (apparently FremantleMedia, who appear to do American Idol and X Factor), and distributed as a collaborative project with Youtube (rather than just being user-uploaded content to the site) is a channel worthy of its own page. President David Palmer

• Yes, there are. Of the people here, only myself, you, kgal and Whpq (who voted delete) made their first edit in other topics, and kgal appeared from a 2 year absence to comment here. Also, off topic, but you really should do something about your sig, as it appears to lack any date, or link to your talk page. Just because a big company runs a YouTube channel does not make said channel notable - it makes it a candidate for, at best, a merger. There are no specific guidelines for internet things of this type, which means we rely on good-ol' GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• And other than the few of us, there are only a couple comments at all. That was more my point...there doesn't seem to be much SPA hijacking because there isn't much conversation at all. I hand-keyed my username at the end because my tablet wasn't letting me insert tildes, but that's fixed now (or should be?). I've always found GNG to be highly subjective (something common in the public consciousness is not always and immediately reflected in the 'reliable sources' realm of society, anyway), and I've been one to personally err on the side of over-expanding rather than under-expanding our number of articles, within reason. I see no harm in just trimming down this over-ambitious article and seeing how it grows, since I can already find mentions of the channel on HuffPo, a few late night shows, the Today Show, and some other sites. Is this really any less notable than the plethora of short-lived memes that have found homes on Wikipedia, whose primary sourcing would ALSO be from the "Buzzfeed" realms of the internet? President David Palmer (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Come on, you should've been around long enough to know the fallacies of WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A lot of those memes should go, and probably would, if anyone bothered to AfD them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I just forget to login a lot, but I have made minor edits with in the past year, but thanks for concern. I'm always on wiki and I'm use to places saving my id so it's not with in my habit to sign in all the time. Anyway I do need to fix my sig I see that. In the mean time the article can be shortened, but the fact remains as the channel grows it will most likely gain more press, which in the case of deletion will just mean eventually the page will most likely be brought back. So if the article focuses on becoming shorter to accomodate the sources that you agree with then it should be able to stay because otherwise we can just go through the entire process of having the article resubmitted once they have more profiles on it. I don't think Fremantle would put money into something without expecting to live for the long haul. kgal1298 (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep -resources are reliable, important topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCC6:AD00:5082:E310:94A:77AE (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Comment - I went through and deleted not cited portions of the wiki page. I did add in The Unaboptable's since I found the source to be genuine and well informed. However I did notice AP Press was cited often and the article did have an author and it was picked up. I added more news sites this article was posted on, but wasn't sure if we are counting that. I also am not sure if the "controversy" portion of the Corgi Explosion is cited enough to warrant the information being included. I do think the lead in has enough sources though as well as "The Growing Up Wild" portion of the article. Please advise if there are more changes needed or if there are some sources that are just not acceptable, but at this point I think all sources for this topic have been exhausted. kgal1298 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• "'Comment'" - I don't have anymore sources I can add at this time. So it looks like they will have to increase their press and then once they do try to get the article resubmitted. kgal1298 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.209.234 (talk)

• [20] is trivial with regards to this channel, and is only in-depth about the dog. [21] may be a RS but it's fairly local/limited circulation again. [22] is primarily about the CorgiCam, and features two things about the channel: a promotional statement by a member of staff, and the fact that this channel happens to show the CorgiCam videos. [23] seems like a good source. [24] reads like a press release. [25] also reads like a press release. [26] makes absolutely no mention of the channel. I think we're beginning to get close to showing notability, but it's not quite there yet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Its youtube-related, so Youtube links are acceptable to a certain point. I see coverage from NY news, Huff post, Yahoo and others. While a lot of terrible ones are mixed in, this seems to have more coverage on the net and is likely to pass GNG with some effort. Don't discount the primary source youtube videos entirely though; they can serve a limited purpose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• What? Being YouTube related means the sources are automatically primary and thus cannot be used for notability! Have you actually assessed the sources, like I have? The notability is looking borderline, but there's a real lack of in-depth coverage about the channel in most of the RS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB. Ishdarian 21:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that the article's subject does not meet WP:WEB. Miniapolis 17:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Relisting comment: I hate relisting such discussions, but I am afraid we need more time with this one. Given an undue large number of SPAs in this discussion, all voting keep, I would appreciate attention of experienced editors.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was redirect to The Wanton Bishops. No consensus to delete first. (non-admin closure) czar · · 13:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Nader Mansour

Nader Mansour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The information in this article is already featured in the article for The Wanton Bishops. I'm requesting this be deleted and redirected to that article. SarahStierch (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to The Wanton Bishops per nom. No sources found, although I did not/can not check for non-English sources. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to The Wanton Bishops. Fails WP:MUSICBIO for a stand alone article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Stott Pilates

Stott Pilates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

They may actually be notable, but this is essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The advertising mess can be fixed by axing it, but the company itself has many small mentions and interviews which pushes towards GNG. Salvageable articles should not be deleted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Comment "small mentions" and interviews that amount to PR are the sort of references that do not meet substantial independent coverage. There is a time a few years back when I would have defended articles like these, but I now think that based on keeping true to the purpose of an encyclopedia, the combination of borderline references & promotionalism is a reason for rejection. I no longer thing articles worth rewriting unless the notability is more than borderline--there is simply too much promotionalism being submitted, and rejection, not rewriting, is the way to discourage it. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep The nomination provides no specific examples, contrary to WP:VAGUEWAVE, and so there is essentially no case to answer. Without specific criticisms, it would be difficult to rewrite, especially if this draft were no longer available for inspection. The main thing that strikes me when I read the article is that it doesn't explain the origin of the name Stott. Warden (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I see Stott Pilates as simply a brand (a notable brand) of the parent corporation, in the same way that, for a few examples inside and outside the fitness industries, Jeep, Lexus, Acura, Sprite, Simply Orange, Fanta, Bally Total Fitness, and Bally Technologies are brands of their respective companies. Yes, the marketing-speak needs to be removed, but, in the Pilates 'industry,' Stott Pilates is one of the "giants," as noted by at least one trade publication: IDEA World Fitness Convention Includes MindBody Crowd, "Industry giant Merrithew Health & Fitness...", Teresa Bergen, Yogi Times, 2012. In the same way as there are the 'big three' auto manufacturers in the U.S., there are only about a single handful of Pilates methods and manufacturers in the world, and Stott Pilates is one of them. I'd be happy to take a stab at reworking the text into a neutral format, but I'd appreciate comments when I try. Trevor Jacques (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Origin and History of Benfica and Sporting

Origin and History of Benfica and Sporting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is duplicate of Derby de Lisboa; any extra information should be merged into that article and this one deleted. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I totally disagree with LindsayH. How can an article with hundreds of lines be a duplicate of an article with 4 lines? The Derby de Lisboa is only an article with statitics and describing football matches between two teams. The article Origin and History of Benfica and Sporting is complex and describes the history about two rivals. If any article should be deleted should be the small article with few information!Bmpaiva (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps i should clarify/elaborate on my rationale.

Most of the article deals with the history of each of the two clubs. That material either is or belongs in S.L. Benfica and Sporting Clube de Portugal. Anything which is about the rivalry between them belongs in Derby de Lisboa. Anything left is non-encyclopeadic, fan-based, and doesn't belong here at all. Here i would put such things as History and the facts occurred shouldn’t enter into oblivion and a fair tribute should be paid to the men that participated in the birth and life..., and in the distant day of February 28, 1904, still in the monarchy age, that was founded a club known as Group Sport Lisboa..., to offer the first two that come to my notice. These are more appropriate to a popular history or a novel than an encyclopaedia. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - there are already dedicated articles on the history of each club, there is no need for an additional article combining the two histories -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - as Chris says, seperate articles already exist. GiantSnowman 10:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with GiantSnowman. --MicroX (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - We already have articles for the history of each club and the history of their rivalry. – PeeJay 10:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

2014 Gulf Cup of Nations

2014 Gulf Cup of Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe this falls under the WP:TOOSOON and perhaps GNG failure. SarahStierch (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete ~ will probably be notable, but until it actually happens the article is clearly surplus to requirement. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Weak keep - yeah, it's probably a bit WP:TOOSOON but it's only 6 months away (January 2014). The country is ready, accommodation is being built and tournament executives are visiting the country to make sure everything is going according to plan. At this point, even it it were cancelled, the cancellation itself would probably be a note-worthy event in its own right. I wouldn't object to it being userfied for couple of months but it really won't be long. Oh, and I don't think it fails WP:GNG, on the basis of the sources I listed above. Stalwart111 06:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per point 1 of WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per Stalwart (actually, I don't think it's WP:TOOSOON at all) and Lugnuts. Ansh666 17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - per Stalwart's research, CRYSTAL doesn't apply here. GiantSnowman 10:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Third Chinatown (disambiguation)

Third Chinatown (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Chinatown (disambiguation). There is no topic here beyond what can be easily covered in the Chinatown article. If there was a phenomenon called "third Chinatown" then where are the books, papers and articles about it? Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. 50% more horrible than Second Chinatown (disambiguation). Neither entry qualifies, and the Brooklyn Chinatown description appears to be a lie: nothing "official" about its "thirdness" as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedied by RHaworth. Peridon (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk Show with RJ Sheedy

Talk Show with RJ Sheedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable local show lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - No claim, sign, or likelihood of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Appears to be an advertisement/promotion. Can't find any RS on Google except YouTube, Facebook and some mentions about "RJ Sheedy by day is a high school student". (Posted by Tyros1972)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs)
• Delete 'Community' show by wannabe national chat host. Everyone has to start somewhere, but Wikipedia is not for helping them on the way. Some day RJ may be notable. We'll wait till then for an article. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Speedy keep Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Lee Yong-Cheol

Lee Yong-Cheol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Notability not asserted, seemed he competed but eliminated in first round. No independent or notable coverage. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [27].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

• Speedy keep passes WP:ATHLETE, specifically WP:NOLYMPICS Beerest355 Talk 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable per WP:ATHLETE. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Olympic competitors are notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. This isn't the first top-tier sportsperson this nominator has taken to AfD. May I suggest the nominator become more familiar with the guidelines at WP:ATHLETE? • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfDs by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the WP:FAITH. I just don't think Wikipedia should be a collection of one-sentence articles. There are different schools of thought on that point. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [28].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]
    • It is simple to assume bad faith now because your nomination only pointed to the notability of the topic. Which means that you didn't care about notability, but only about how short articles are. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It is always simple to assume bad faith, that's why you shouldn't do it. My Afd says notability not asserted, in general, if someone drops an article on wikipedia that's two sentences and it sits untouched for years, I don't think that's particularly encyclopedic. Far too many people want to write microstubs and then spend their time focusing on Pokemon or the GNAA. I simply don't think when notability isn't established that we should have hundreds of thousands of articles that are essentially one sentence lying around. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [29].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]
        • The issue here is that you don't search for reliable significant coverage before nominating articles for deletion. It makes more work for editors who do know how to follow the notability guidelines as well as WP:BEFORE. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
          • No, the issue here is that you want to assume bad faith under the "I don't like it" school of thought. First, a quick google search shows pretty much no hits for this person. Second, have you RAT'd my machine to know what I'm doing before I AFD? UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [30].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]
            • My advice is to memorize the notability guidelines for everything that you nominate for deletion. WP:ATHLETE does not need significant coverage. Athlete articles only need one of those things verified by a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• keep Olympic athletes seem to always generate enough press to pass WP:GNG among other notability thresholds already mentioned.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:ATHLETE quite handily. Nominator should have done their research first. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC).
• Snowball Keep - Meets WP:ATHLETE and based on the !votes above I do not see this leading to any other consensus other than keep. No sense in dragging it out any longer. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The nominator's assertion that they have determined that there is "No independent or notable coverage" for an athlete who competed in two consecutive Olympic Games is beyond implausible and underlines the on-target statements in other comments here that the nominator's behavior is disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Not clear from ANI discussion whether speedy keep #2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Julius Junttila

Julius Junttila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not asserted, no independent sources cited or linked coverage. Failed WP:BLP UnrepentantTaco (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [31].  Unscintillating (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Easily meets WP:NHOCKEY with 151 games played in the SM-liiga. Dolovis (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep notability actually is asserted in the article and the information is verifiable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable athlete. SL93 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator is voting inside nomination -- removed. Crtew (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Not clear from ANI discussion whether speedy keep #2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Johan Lorbeer

Johan Lorbeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is clearly not encyclopedic, borders on puffery at points and doesn't establish notability. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [32].  Unscintillating (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

• Keep - Puffery can be easily removed and notability is established through the BBC article cited in the article. Additional sources can be found on High Beam here. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Nom took this Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfD by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment PROD is not necessary before AFD. PROD is for consensus deletions, I was sure there were other schools of thought here. Thanks for the WP:FAITH. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [33].  Unscintillating (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]
    • Agreed' WP:PROD is not a requirement to start WP:AFD. I don't see any bad faith here, just someone whom I disagree with. (I disagree with a lot of people)--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep "not encyclopedic" is not an argument to delete. "Puffery" is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. I can see no reason to delete at this time, but I would like to see more editing done to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator is not allowed to vote inside nomination -- removed. Crtew (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. GedUK  13:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Trulli

Benjamin Trulli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hoax. Author acknowledges that there will be no sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This Article is in remembrance of good friend and it needs to stay. Weareunited878 (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt as a blatant hoax. This article was deleted as G3 Hoax, and was recreated moments later. I have done a number of searches and can find no indication of this person's existence, or past existence, no indication of the existence of the "memorial stadium" (except for a hoax article in another wiki), etc. The user has attempted to create other related articles which have been identified as hoaxes as well: [34], [35], [36], etc. Taroaldo ✉ 01:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete no WP:RS to establish Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Ochiwar (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete A quick Google search shows this guy probably never existed, as this page is the only link resembling a soccer-related biography. Beerest355 Talk 01:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - What Did I say above? ths isnt a hoax. Weareunited878 (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete and salt - it really doesn't matter if it is a hoax or not - the subject fails WP:GNG entirely and WP:NFOOTY as well and the article breaches WP:NOTMEMORIAL if the original author is to be believed. Stalwart111 02:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Can't get any simpler than that.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I realize that this discussion has not been up for long, but can WP:SNOW be applied? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and salt - no matter whether it is a hoax or not, many strong rationales for deletion are provided above. Ansh666 03:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Snow Delete immediately. Content here needs to be verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a reference and about the comments about me I do NOT Create Hoaxs Madam or Sir This Article was originally created in the summer of 2007 while the BT Stadium was being Built but someone deleted it so His dad created it again on last year but once again it was deleted and it had references and links and everything and now I created it in memory of him because he was a great player..... just because he wasn't like George Best,Duncan Edwards or Bobby Moore doesnt mean he weren't likedWeareunited878 (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• But being "liked" is not the same as being notable. For the article to be included, you need to demonstrate how the person was the subject of "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. Simply being well-liked or sorely-missed is, unfortunately, not enough because Wikipedia is not the place to publish memorials to you friends or loved-ones. Stalwart111 07:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I just tagged it CSDG3, without having read this AfD. It's a blatant hoax, whatever the author might say, following on from the other hoaxes they've created surrounding the non-existent football team Wycombe Boys., e.g. as per here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Not clear from ANI discussion whether speedy keep #2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fernando Saraceni

Fernando Saraceni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable. No evidence this player did much with his career. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [37].  Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Per WP:ATHLETE. Competed in a professional league. SL93 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 10:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfD by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep passes notability threshold. "not doing much with career" is not a reason to delete, and there are some athletes that are notable precisely because they did not do much with their career.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, at the very least, meets point #2 of WP:NFOOTBALL by having a management role at a team in a fully professional league. The article would benefit from the inclusion of more sources, however. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC).
• Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. He played in many Italian Football Championship's for Lazio. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator is voting inside nomination -- removed. Crtew (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Question At what point did the Serie A become fully professional? As it stands, there is little evidence of notability. Hack (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Not clear from ANI discussion whether SK#2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Anne-Marie Bănuţă

Anne-Marie Bănuţă (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is a new player who just started playing for a minor team 3 months ago. May be notable someday, but not today. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [38].  Unscintillating (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

• Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but she did appear in a FIFA sanctioned senior match as shown here, and thus meets WP:NSOCCER. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - as a Romanian international, she very clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep A professional sportwoman.User:Lucifero4
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 10:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfDs by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• keep professional athletes at this level typically generate enough press to meet WP:GNG (which is why other guidelines are developed).--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Article does need improvement and better sourcing. Google shows sources in both Romanian and French (that machine translators do a horrible job of translating) to show she is well known and involved in controversies because of playing for the Romanian National team while she's a French citizen. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 14:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator cannot vote inside nomination -- removed. Crtew (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - obviously meets WP:NFOOTBALL, verified by UEFA reference in article. Hack (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Indeed, AfD is not for cleanup, notability was never in question, and the article is sourced now anyway due to the efforts of Bejnar.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Metcalfe (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)

Thomas Metcalfe (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is an unsourced microstub left unchanged for over 4 years. No citations and no evidence of notability. Delete UnrepentantTaco (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [39].  Unscintillating (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Sir Thomas Metcalfe was an eminent man of his time, a close councilor of King Richard III. See the sources now cited in the article. The article is still a stub, but his notability should be established. --Bejnar (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Under criterion 2e of WP:SK. Also, can someone point out where we delete articles for being "microstubs?" --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Probably doesn't meet Speedy Keep criteria, but clearly makes claim of notability as member of the Council and Duchy of Lancaster court. Needs expanding, and will probably be interesting when it is, but that is no reason to delete. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep AFD Is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. ^King Jakob _C2 20:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Akihiko Saito

Akihiko Saito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This really doesnt pass notability guidelines, other than the fact that he died in Iraq he isnt notable. See also WP:BLP1E Werieth (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The third point of WP:BLP1E is that "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." Saito's role is central to the event and obviously supported by multiple online news references. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What was his role? Depending on the source you look at there are 66,000+ civilian deaths in the Iraq hostilities. This looks like a WP:MEMORIAL. As the artilcle is currently there is a complete lack notability and is severely biased. Werieth (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - There is ample WP:RS for this in Japanese and international media, to include BBC, Japan Times, CNN. Passes WP:BASIC. Jun Kayama 01:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I just did a quick search from a single USA soldier who was recently killed in the conflict. Sgt. 1st Class James Floyd Grissom has multiple news stories about his death (which are independent of each-other) However he isn't notable other than he was killed in the conflict. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event Neither of these articles should exist. Werieth (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no James Floyd Grissom article in Wikipedia because he does not meet the criteria listed for WP:MILPEOPLE. Akihiko Saito is listed under Foreign Hostages in Iraq and his capture drove heated public discourse in Japan over the deployment of the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group. The death of Akihiko Saito following that of Shosei Koda is what pushed public opinion in Japan for complete troop withdrawal from Iraq by 2006. There is sufficient WP:RS for Saito and his indirect role in the outcome of the Japanese troop deployment to Iraq passes WP:BASIC. Jun Kayama 02:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thats not covered in the article, right now it reads like a memorial page, with zero importance. Werieth (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Did you read any of the references before you made claim this fails WP:N? Did you also see at the bottom where it states this article is a stub and needs expansion? This is not a WP:MEMORIAL. I'll rewrite this myself next week when I get to it.

Also, for the record, SFC Grissom was KIA in Afghanistan; what matters for him is if he meets criteria for WP:MILPEOPLE and he does not. Foreign hostages in a conflict (as well as journalists killed in the line of duty) tend to receive elevated notice in WP:RS and qualify for WP:N much more easily because their capture becomes enmeshed in larger events (i.e. List of journalists killed during the Syrian Civil War). Jun Kayama 02:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Saito's captivity and death brought a lot of heat to Prime Minister's Koizumi's decision to have JGSDF/JASDF forces in Iraq with strong debates between the government and opposition on the legality to have Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group forces there in the first place. It's also this because Japanese troops are never deployed unless the UN or other international organizations require their presence. Ominae (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or immediately improve. This article has been waiting for someone to add notability of the subject for over five years. If larger notability of this individual (or his being taken as a hostage and subsequent death) cannot be added with support from multiple references, it should be deleted. Notability should specifically speak to larger political ramifications of his death, if any. I note that there is not (nor has there ever been) a Japanese Wikipedia article for Akihiko Saito, and I suspect that he is not truly notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or immediately improve per Bueller 007. These kind of people - whose action or accidents prompt the deployment of forces - are notable. Another example would be the Italian journalist who got killed at the checkpoint. Yet we cannot wait forever. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The subject of the article is either notable, or it is not. It matters not at all whether the article itself reflects that notability. Those commenting who suggest "delete or improve" seem not to appreciate this point. One does not !vote on the article, but rather on the article subject -- and whether it is notable. --Epeefleche (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: - Working on improving it, though I need to sleep soon. I expanded the article to include reactions in Iraq and Japan. Ominae (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but notability must be established by people who wish to retain the article. It is not enough to merely say "I think he is notable" on the AfD debate. The article was created in 2005 and marked as lacking notability in 2008. Enough time has passed for us to shit or get off the pot. We must either improve the article to demonstrate that he is indeed notable or delete the article. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

When we !vote, we !vote not on what is in the article, but what is in the RSs. It need not be established in the article itself. If you are !voting solely on what is in the article -- and not looking at the RSs (that's why you are provided with the "Find sources" links above, for a start), then you are not looking at the appropriate basis for your !vote. Anyone who says "the article has to be improved first" is simply incorrect. AfD is not for cleanup. And that is not the basis for a !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please consider reading what I wrote before you comment again. As I said, I do not think he is notable. And since the article lacked any indication of notability, the burden of proof is on those who wish to prove notability. If he is notable, his notability must be established in the article itself with references. This is common sense as well as Wikipedia policy. Therefore, the article must be improved to demonstrate his notability, otherwise we should assume that he is NOT notable and delete the article. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your are flatly incorrect. It is sufficient, to be kept, that such notability exist -- it is not necessary (though of course it would be nice) for it to be reflected in the article. You say that I am wrong, and it is WP policy that the opposite is the case -- where, in WP policy, does it state what you assert is the case .... that to survive an AfD the indication of notability need be in the article itself? You pointed not to the AfD policy, but to the Verifiability policy, which is a different matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think Bueller is quite correct here. As WP:NRVE clearly states: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Therefore the statement that "notability must be established in the article itself" is not Wikipedia policy. True, the burden is on those asserting notability to show that independent RS really do exist, but there is no requirement that the article itself must reflect those RS at the time of the AfD. Notability must be judged on the existing article and its potential for expansion, not on its current state. It can of course help any article up for AfD if someone puts the time into inserting those RS during the AfD process. Michitaro (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Rename to Capture of Akihiko Saito and redirect, the capture and death of Akihiko Saito received significant coverage from reliable sources, therefore the event was notable. The event received mention in multiple reliable sources after the immediate time which the event occured, and thus can be said to meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. That being said the subject did not receive significant coverage outside of the event (his capture which lead to his death) or at any point before his capture; therefore I would argue that the subject falls under WP:BIO1E, and as such a biography of the subject should be incorporated into an article about the event. If such an article becomes too large per WP:LIMIT, a biography article can be recreated at that time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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