Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 May	14 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clearly to delete this rather promotional article on someone who isn't notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry louis adams

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

Seems like a local minister who had a minor role in a series but not enough to meet WP:NACTOR, has written some books but not enough to meet WP:AUTHOR, and had a trivial mention in the news but not enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. It should be noted that there are several other people including church ministers that share his name including one from 1933 when conducting WP:BEFORE. Mkdw ^talk 06:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I absolutely and most certainly admire him for being an advocate against celebratory gunfire, there just isn't anything out there to show that he passes notability guidelines. The coverage for his activism hasn't really focused on him and there isn't enough of it. None of his roles have received coverage, nor are they so overwhelmingly notable that he'd be able to pass on that front. As far as his books go, none of them have received any in-depth coverage or reviews from RS. There's just no notability here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 23:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty local item. History2007 (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's insufficient coverage of the man himself. Doesn't reach the level of notability for a bio. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxon (philosophy)

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

Does not appear to be a notable philosophy, no gbooks or scholar results. Referenced only to the creator. Spinning Spark 20:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When my Google Books search showed a bunch of books where the word "flux" just happened by coincidence to occur right before the word "on", I became quickly convinced that this topic isn't notable. WP:NEOLOGISM applies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally set up this page as a hive-off from Fluxon because someone kept posting this. Clearly has no place alongside physical particles, and because he inserted it at least twice, I thought easiest thing would be a separate page. John of Cromer in ~~Philippines~~ transit (talk) mytime= Wed 17:50, wikitime= 09:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the history of how it got created and I don't think you are to be criticised for doing that. But persistence does not dilute the need for notability. I have also now notified the IP involved: as it does not appear in the article history Twinkle would have missed it. Spinning Spark 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 23:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage of this idea in reliable sources. Sourcing in the article is to a primary source which is self-published through lulu. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mkdw ^talk 22:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khingz

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

A non notable hip hop artist. From the looks of it never made it big time. Koala15 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 22:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Artists don't need to "make it big time" to be considered notable. He received sufficient coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd judge it to be sufficient, but he did receive coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Of all the members of Abyssinian Creole that the creator is trying to show are notable, this is probably the only one I would say meets WP:GNG, and that is just barely. Assuming that the sources WP:RS, which they appear to be at first glance, then this one would make it. His website link needs fixed as it points to a website that I believe is not his??--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 23:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Took out broken website link and updated with Wandering Worx' Khingz page. I'd say the coverage he got in Seattle which is referenced on this page is notable.24.18.191.231 (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdw ^talk 22:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pittman

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

Extremely non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 21:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a musician with one namable release does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 23:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One release on Atlantic. No coverage about him in reliable sources. The allmusic review source has this to say: Atlantic's early-'90s roster was littered with competent but unassuming urban contemporary, dance-pop, and hip-hop types who could put all the ingredients in the pot, but never made anything out of them. Here was one more. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think at this point it's clear that no consensus to delete will be reached. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Tingley

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

No evidence of notability. One reference is on the web site of a company she has worked for, another merely mentions her name once in a credit, and the other is currently a dead link, but it was a page on wn.com, which is notorious for spamming itself into unrelated search engine results by various means, including giving irrelevant quotes from Wikipedia articles, so that merely knowing that they once had a page mentioning Freya Tingley, without knowing anything about what it said, is no indication at all of notability. (PROD was contested with the comment "I don't see why she is not notable", but no explanation of why she is.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I admit this is more on a borderline case. But I disagree with the nomination rationale "No evidence of notability". There is obviously some notability: staring a TV show doesn't make you notable, I don't know what actors can do to achieve notability. The question is if it is enough. Surely having a "very small" role would not do, but she got one of recurring role. To address sourcing, I have added 2 interviews. I stand with the edit summary: to me she is notable "enough". -- Taku (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links you added was to a page at www.680news.com, which is an advertising site. (There is no doubt that the content is advertising: the site's terms and conditions explicitly refer to "the person or entity contracting for broadcast time" as "the Advertiser" or "the Agency".) The other link you added was to a page at The Futon Critic. That too looks to me like essentially an advertising site, and its "about us" page is mostly about what sort of services they can provide to advertisers, though unlike in the case of 680news I can't find anything that explicitly says that advertising is all that they do. The Wikipedia article on The Futon Critic was deleted at AfD as lacking evidence of notability. All things considered, I don't think that these two links adds any significant evidence of notability for Freya Tingley. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet any criteria of WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure does. -- Taku (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Freya Tingley is an up and coming actress, currently in the Netflix Series Hemlock Grove, as well as just guest starring on Once Upon a Time as Wendy Darling. People are just now discovering her talent, this list should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardianofthemoon (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) — Guardianofthemoon (talk • contribs) has made no other edits except this post. [reply]

In Wikipedia deletion discussions, "up and coming" usually means "he/she has not yet achieved notability, but I think that he/she will do so". "People are just now discovering her talent" is much along the same lines: we don't keep an article because we think its subject may one day satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines: we need evidence that it does so now. (See WP:CRYSTAL.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The case for deletion seems logical enough but needlessly severe. She has a major role in a major series that was just released a month ago. I would guess she is already committed to a second season, and if so she's sure to eventually have the requisite number of legitimate links. I would imagine this article has been getting quite a lot of page views since the series came out. I wonder if this proposal has more to do with a zest for pruning than a broader view of the point of Wikipedia. But to be fair I have no idea what sorts of pitfalls Wiki insiders have to guard against. I write as a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.47.220 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC) — 138.210.47.220 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits apart from edits to this AfD discussion. [reply]

"She's sure to eventually have the requisite number of legitimate links" is even worse than "up and coming", above. We don't keep an article because we speculate that its subject will probably come to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the future: we need evidence that she already does so now. See WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNon-notable. Possible sock/meat puppetry above. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how I gave the impression of being the other defender of the page. My speculations were tendentious, yes, but also sincere. Why delete a serviceable page that, I'm guessing, gets a significant number of views. The newness of the actress is what makes this page needful in the first place. How does deleting this page help Wikipedia or its users? Maybe not the place to ask but I'm genuinely curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.47.220 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BARE as notable enough. I am wary, however, of the advert style of the article; it seems to be written by a PR flak or fan. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a dead horse by now but I thought of something that might explain the disagreement. It may be that the people concerned with policing the quality of Wiki articles are accessing the candidates for deletion from a list of new articles, or of articles marked as dubious? In that case I can see why you would find this thin, PR-ish page worthy of deletion.

However this approach is misleading. Users are overwhelmingly going to be coming to this actresses' page from the Hemlock Grove page, where she is listed as the 6th of 6 named cast members, all of whom seem to have wiki pages of their own. People curious about the show may start browsing the actor pages, and by deleting this page you will simply be marring the Hemlock Grove page, making Wikipedia less complete, and making the user experience less satisfying. In effect it's cutting the nose to spite the face, if not with the unworthy motive that phrase implies. Another way to put it is that if you look at the actresses page as a freestanding whole it might be delete-worthy, but the more natural way of seeing it at this time is as a part of the whole Hemlock Grove cluster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.47.220 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable point of view, but unfortunately it is not in line with current Wikipedia policy. We need evidence that she is notable in her own right, and she does not inherit notability from a programme she appears in. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 23:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tidied the article up, removing promotional claims and trying to see what her career really amounts to. It's clear that most of her roles have been very minor or in small films by unknown directors - the article mentioned "award winning" director Renee Marie but IMDb doesn't list any awards she's won[1]. Tingley's part in Hemlock Grove probably fits the criterion of a significant role in a notable work, but you need multiple roles to meet WP:NACTOR and I'm not sure if any of her other roles would make it (her parts in Cloudstreet and Once Upon A Time, both major TV shows, were too small). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research on Wiki policies I think the solution is that because this is a currently popular show the "multiple notable roles" guideline (which is not a law) should be overlooked. WP:BURO; WP:IAR. The point of anticipating that she will eventually have more notable roles is not to justify inclusion but to criticize deletion at this time as needlessly bureaucratic. Once this show has faded from public interest and if she doesn't then have any other notable roles prune away, I guess. Although I have to say I honestly don't understand the motive for pruning. One of the charms of Wikipedia is its comprehensiveness. Personally I think it would be a better site if 20 years from now I can find out biographical info about an obscure cast member of a long forgotten but once popular TV show. Is the fear that articles like this will be planted by agents or other interested parties and make Wikipedia a forum for 'product placements' rather than reliable information? If there is a preexisting discussion of these matters I would appreciate a link to it.138.210.47.220 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — 138.210.47.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete fails WP:NACTOR for the moment. I would say only one significant role, though that may change in the near future.Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Failure to meet WP:NACTOR exactly does not guarantee removal. This seems to me an opportunity to err on the side of inclusion, especially considering multiple interviews of the actress from Hemlock Grove. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 15:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she was listed way down the Hemlock Grove cast by way of not giving spoilers: she was season 1's main adversary, the vargulf or however you spell it, which is a notable role. If she doesn't land any more notable stuff within a year, fair enough, but she's only 19 & likely to become the next Summer Glau, I'd lay money on that. Sciamachy (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bondage (BDSM). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow bondage

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

This is a non-notable term bondage unsupported by reliable sources to suggest it is a notable topic . Although it is obviously possible to bind someone by the elbow, there is nothing to suggest tying someone up in this manner deserves separate coverage. Has been recreated twice (albeit with sufficient different content not to qualify for G4 speedy) after two successive AfDs with a delete outcome. I propose that the article is deleted and salted against recreation. WJBscribe (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per nom, can't really sum it up any better. Not notable in any way, shape or form, not a valid redirect term, etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Deleted in 2007. Deleted in 2008. Oh, goody, now we have pictures, that changes everything. Not. Still non-notable. Leave a redirect to Bondage (BDSM) if so desired... Carrite (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep: A cursory Google search shows at least two books with more than a trivial amount of coverage of the topic. Hence, one might posit that it satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria. It also looks uncomfortable. Praemonitus (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link them here please. Anything that's like "Bonding 101" or whatever is routine and is unusable. Also, how is it looking uncomfortable relevant in any way? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) [2] (2) WP:GNG has nothing to say about requiring non-routine sources, so your assertion seems flawed. (3) It's not, but then this isn't a court of law. Praemonitus (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bondage (BDSM) or delete. Unnotable by itself. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bondage (BDSM) as a possible search term. Cavarrone (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds weird, but apparently a real and distinct paraphilia. Wikipedia should be inclsive. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bondage (BDSM), worth mentioning but doesn't deserve its own article... --Rubyface (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Rope bondage. It has some worthwhile points. Enthusiast (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bondage (BDSM). Verifiable information, but lacking secondary source discussion required for a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Austin Mardon. and redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men of the Dawn

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I wasn't able to find anything to show that this was ultimately notable enough to merit an entry. It's not in very many libraries, it's not used very often (or really at all) as a reference to where it'd pass on that format. There are no reviews or other coverage about it either. Much of what does mention it, mentions it in a "this exists and was printed in this year" type of format. In other words, books that are more of a database of whatever book was published for a specific country and/or genre during a certain country. I'd recommend redirecting this, but given that there are two authors I'm not sure which one I'd redirect to. I do see where there are potential notability problems with both articles, so if one is ever deleted, the other is what it should redirect to. If anyone can find sources that show notability I'm willing to change my mind, as I think that this might be one of those cases where a book might have coverage that isn't on the internet, but I'm leaning towards not given the lack of any true coverage of the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect is a good option. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge and redirect to Austin Mardon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fitzgerald (author)

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

Non-notable author. A couple of books published, with little significant note. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage to establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 23:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a very interesting man but I'm afraid there just isn't enough coverage to make him notable. Book reviews? Bio? I don't see the coverage. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Wildcats

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

University team that does not meet notability requirements. There is no indication that they pass the guidelines of WP:GNG--I looked--and as a non-professional team there is no inherent notability. Other guidelines for organizations, for instance WP:NCLUB, also do not indicate that this club would be notable. There's a couple more of these, such as Birmingham Eagles, which I'd rather establish on a case-by-case basis rather than make a massive AfD; it is entirely possible that some old(er) club is in fact notable because it has generated non-trivial, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. This one hasn't. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NUIHC is the 3rd oldest club extant in UK University Ice Hockey (after Oxford and Cambridge). It was the club first to introduce mixed gender equality in to a contact sport. The club's Wiki article is currently under review such that it attempt to meet the strict guidelines flagged up by other users in the guise of officiency. We'd rather that it wasn't deleted on what appears to be a whim after it has recently been undergoing updates.

The editor who requested that the article be considered for deletion was previously content with its existence as they had heavily edited it only a number of hours beforehand. It was only when these edits were questioned/reworked that the AFD application was made.

Please bear in mind this from Newcastle Wildcat's (Talk)

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.

This article was accepted on 24 October 2008 by reviewer Oo7565 (talk · contribs)."

- IanMelb (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

Just a quick note, but neither of these are things that would absolutely keep an article. Something can still fall within the scope of a WikiProject but still fail notability guidelines. These boxes are standard for all articles and just help draw the attention of other editors to the article. As far as it being accepted through AfC, this doesn't really mean anything. It's actually fairly common for an article to be accepted by someone, only for it to be nominated a short while later and deleted because it failed one of the various notability standards. I'd like to say that it doesn't happen, but it happens far more often than I'd like to say. I don't really have an opinion on the article one way or the other, but I wanted to pop in and say that the existence of a WP box and that it got accepted through AfC are not really valid arguments for AfD. As far as the other editor making edits before bringing it to AfD, this is also standard. It just shows that the editor tried to improve it before nominating it for deletion. Does it mean that the article isn't notable? It can still be proven, but it must be through arguments that show that this group passes WP:NHOCKEY, not that the article was accepted through AfC or was edited by the same person who is currently trying to delete it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this we appreciate the guidance and are doing our best to make the article conform to policy. There may be times when an editor makes the edits before AfD but if you check the modification history and comments it does seem to have occurred after someone got 'miffed' that their destructive edits weren't fully appreciated IanMelb (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

From the opening AfD justification - "Other guidelines for organizations, for instance WP:NCLUB, also do not indicate that this club would be notable."

Whilst WP:NCLUB seems primarily designed for Soccer, it does contain:

Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)?

YES – the club can be assumed to be notable

Not only has the Club played in a National Cup, it also played a founding role^[1]^[2] in setting up the National Organisation (the British Universities Ice Hockey Association) that administrates that competition.

- IanMelb (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

Actually using NCLUBS (which really isn't relevant to the discussion here), the national cup would be British Championship. That table compares professional teams, not university teams. Ravendrop 19:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, by definition, as this is a University Club, it is unable to compete at the professional level stated. It does, however, compete at the highest level available to it and has, in fact, won that competition. There is precedent for including competitions of this type, ref US College Competitions. IanMelb (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent sources for this club sport team. TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please assist with how you would define 'independent' in this instance, or at least explain how the sport's governing body is not independent from the club? Kind regards IanMelb (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

The governing body is not independent because it governs the club, basically. Their publications etc. are going to mention the club because the club is part of it, and as such don't indicate notability. "Sources" refers to such things as books and newspapers. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The club passes, by extension, the first criteria in WP:NCLUB (which was quoted in the opening AfD statement) for notability, as such, we now need to prove the club's existence via an 'independent' source. It's a strange circumstance when, say, the word of a journalist, is taken at higher value than that of a governing body... IanMelb (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

Here are a few of independent sources from Newspapers, (now included in the article):

Chronicle 25 Nov 2009
Chronicle 18 Nov 2009
Journal 22 Oct 2009
Journal 22 Jan 2009

IanMelb (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

and some more:

Examiner Jan 28 2008
Eurohockey Club Listing
Sky TV 27 Feb 2012
Sky TV 18 Feb 2013

Two major broadcasting company references to the club, five regional newspaper articles mentioning it, and an entry in an online, major European Hockey information database. There's probably at least one more 'salacious' newspaper entry from the late 90's/early 00's regarding the time when, during one heated Stan Calvert game, a player from Northumbria University threw his stick in to the crowd injuring a spectator. We believe that this incident attracted regional, if not national, newspaper coverage, but this may require some physical research (e.g. fiche records) as the newspaper archives do not seem to be easily searchable for that period. IanMelb (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

Wikipedia's guidance on the determining the notability of organizations has this section:

Non-commercial organizations

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

IanMelb (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

Addition of citation showing the Club's involvement in founding the activity's National governing body

Times Higher Education 4Jul 2003

IanMelb (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

Notes

^ British Universities Ice Hockey Association - opening statement
^ Times Higher Education 4Jul 2003

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a major university's team in a major sport would be considered notable in the US; I've been told here a few years ago that such teams are less important in the uk, where with the exception of a few historic teams , they are not as large a part of either university life or the sports field generally. Is this still the case? DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports teams play a large part of University life but, as noted, not quite so much in the general public's view. Leeds Metropolitan University tried to buy in to professional sports with the Leeds Carnegie Rugby Club but this was not much of a success. That said, a number of professional and semi-professional players take part in University Hockey in the UK. We believe that Newcastle are a notable club, they meet the requirements of a non- commercial organisation, are the oldest existing non-Oxbridge club and were one of the founding teams of the Sport's Governing University Body. IanMelb (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 23:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On balance, I think we should relax our practice of not accepting these articles. Sourcing is always a question o fjust what we want to consider sufficiently reliable--local sourcing is always available. (FWIW, it should be obvious I have no personal interest in the subject, but that's not a criterion.) DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British Universities Ice Hockey Association. The sources given contain trivial sports coverage - match results, as opposed to in-depth information on the club, meaning that it doesn't meet the requirements for WP:ORG. Most UK university societies/clubs/teams would probably not have individual articles due to lack of coverage, let alone from a sport that is not covered by BUCS (the British version of NCAA). If university sport was as well supported in the UK as it is in the US there might've been a reason to keep but I don't see why the 3rd oldest university club of a minor sport should be kept. Funny ^Pika! 05:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Swann

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

I nominate Ben Swann for deletion because he lacks notability. Swann is a journalist, or a "creative professional," and therefore the six relevant notability criteria can be found at WP:Creative. He doesn't meet any of these. In failing to meet criterion 1), he is not "widely cited by" notable peer journalists; in failing to meet 2), is not used as "an expert source by major news sources or publications" (and in fact, doesn't appear to be cited by virtually any reliable (much less notable) news sources apart from the local Fox Affiliate where he works); failing to meet 3), has not "originated a new concept/theory/technique"; failing to meet 4/5), has not been featured in a well known book/film/monument/exhibition; and has not won significant critical attention from notable sources for his work. (Criterion 6 does not apply to him, as it specifically relates to academics) Also, everything on his Wikipedia page appears to be primary source/OR. He seems to be a reliable and skillful local journalist (hence his winning some state of Texas journalist awards), but he's nowhere near notable. Indeed, the vast majority of his Internet/Facebook mentions appear to be from libertarians who appreciate the fact that he used his platform as a newscaster to attempt to defend 2012 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, in the heat of his President bid, from allegations related to Ron Paul newsletters. (Interestingly, Swan's Wikipedia page was created one and a half weeks after his January 4th story defending Ron Paul.) Deletion is, in my judgment, an easy call Steeletrap (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was suspicious of this nomination because it seeks to gain credibility by checking off the list from WP:CREATIVE as the measure for "Creative professionals". The list is not meant to be used in this way, and, in fact, most journalists who have been included in Wikipedia would fail to meet most of those points. If he truly failed to meet ALL criteria then that would be grounds for speedy delete. This is what the list is used for, but that is not done here. More important, the basic notability requirements found in WP:Notability still applies. Crtew (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yintan 20:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anchor in Cincinnati whose achievements are far from Jerry Springer or basically any local news anchor. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [by OP] I found one RS from the Washington Post that talks about Swann and the discussion is not flattering. It confirms my suspicion that Swann's Internet fame arose from his deciding to defend Ron Paul on the newsletters thing. It says that "Swann allows his affection for constitutionalist politics to corrupt his judgment" which led to his giving biased covering of the newsletters story. It also notes that his purported original "reporting" in the newsletters scandal (of the author who wrote one of the newsletters) wasn't original at all, and was indeed documented by Kirchick in his original work on the scandal. Steeletrap (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that his WP:SIGCOV is about one event. He's made a number of controversial reports, such as on Sandy Hook. The comment above is making a value judgment about his reporting, which is not the purpose of an AfD.Crtew (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. I do not make a "value judgment" above. I paraphrase one of the only RS ever written on Swann, which accuses him of bias (and contains the value judgment that bias is bad). Please re-read the above to see your mistake. Steeletrap (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – First, article has WP:POTENTIAL. Second, criteria 1 is met by Erik Wemple's Washington Post commentary (thank you, OP), the Murrow Award, and the Texas Media Emmy's. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [by OP] Moderately prestigious State journalists awards show reliability but not notability, as evidenced by the fact that most people with those awards should/do not have Wikipedia pages. As to the RS/Swann's fame generally, it fits perfectly with WP:1E. Those guidelines tell us that people who are only famous or one event (as Swann seems to be; there are no RS of him I can find other than the WP one related to his coverage on Ron Paul Newsletters) should generally be deleted. The exception is "that if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one" (e.g., Monica Lewinsky's role in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton). It is dubious that the Ron Paul newsletters thing is "highly significant" and obviously false that Swann's role in the story was large, given that his commentary received virtually (literally?) no coverage in RS other than the Post article, and given that the Post article says that Swann's "reporting" contributed nothing that was not previously covered by Kirchick. Steeletrap (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the inappropriate comment above for an AfD, I would add that it not this is not the place for the nominator be judging Swann's reporting to be "biased".Crtew (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reporting that one of the only RS that has ever discussed him calls him biased is not the same as me personally calling him bias. Please re-read my comments and acknowledge your mistake, so you can withdraw your inappropriate remarks about me acting "inappropriate[ly". Steeletrap (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – various changes have been made recently to improve the article. Commenting editors are invited to take a look. (More changes are very possible in the near future.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not very compelling changes, in my judgment. Writing an article for the Christian Broadcasting Network does not make one notable. The 2012 Presidential third party debate event hosted by Larry King, which the Washington Times piece briefly notes Swann served as a "panel member" at, was not televised by CNN (or any TV network) and ended up garnering little publicity; should every journalist who participated as a "panel member" in this be deemed notable? The other claims you make about "national attention" Swann drew in 2012 (a misleading characterization, since that implies broad-based media attention rather than one article along with a lot of Ron Paul people liking him on Facebook/promoting him on non-notable websites) are poorly source (from non-notable sources or from Swann's local Affiliate itself) or else are not new (Above I cover the WaPo article that talks about Swann's internet fame deriving from (in their judgment) biased, pro-Paul coverage of the Ron Paul Newsletters scandal during the 2012 GOP Primaries.)Steeletrap (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Swann passes WP:SIGCOV for his more controversial reporting. Despite what the nominator says above, Swann's journalism has been referred to in multiple reports and from reliable sources. It should be noted that receiving widespread coverage is not typical for local TV journalists. He also has won top awards multiple times that do satisfy WP:ANYBIO. I found the arguments to dismiss his awards above not to be persuasive as those awards are themselves found in Wikipedia and pass notability. Additionally, he has repeatedly won awards. Local TV journalists are included throughout Wikipedia, which seems to be forgotten in many of the comments made so far.Crtew (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fresh Content. I too have added additional sources to the article, as well as organized and cleaned it up. The article is not in the state the nominator found it in when this process began.Crtew (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I endorse Crtew's comments, and complement him on the article improvement. Moreover, given his expertise in journalism and well established editing history, I expect (and hope) that his views will have much greater weight when the decision must be made. (Is this fair, or even nice? Well, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) (And was the WP:Creative guidance well written? Indeed, not. Its' scope included academics, etc., who have their own criteria in a section just above. (That problem has been remedied.) Perhaps, Crtew, you can improve the criteria for journalists notability? ) – S. Rich (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think journalistic expertise holds much sway in a discussion about WP rules/regulations (it would be another story if we were being asked to asses Swann's credibility/competence as a journalist, but we are being asked to assess his notability as defined by Wikipedia rules). His arguments should, in nay case, be evaluated in their own right rather than uncritically accepted based on an appeal to authority. As it stands, his arguments don't seem to work. Whether or not we like how the rules are written, Swann fails WP:Creative. He also fails WP:ANYBIO, as there is no evidence that he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." (What reporting is part of the "enduring historical record"? What reporting is "widely recognized" by RS as being so important?) Steeletrap (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator himself admits that the subject has recived coverage in reliable third party sources. We do not limit articles to those who meet some vague requirement of being "truly unbiased journalist". The nomination seems to be tained by a desire to withhold recognition from those who the nominator has political disagreements with. This person's works are followed and of note, we should have an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People are really having issues reading my actual comments. I never said Swann was "biased" (quite the opposite, I praised him as a "reliable and skillful" local jouranlist). I only reported that one of the few RS on him (from the Washington Post) said he was (should I have claimed that the RS said something it didn't say?). The argument is about notability, not reliability, and discussion about Swann in one or two RS (on one issue) does not make him notable. Steeletrap (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:CREATIVE; sources are almost entirely self-published (by Swann's employers), WP:ROUTINE or non-independent (local industry). Miniapolis 14:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edward R. Murrow Award establishes notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Awards (from 2002; none of the awards is reliably sourced) is a national one; the other two (2003 and 2004) are regional awards so it's debatable whether this constitutes "significant critical attention" (there are a lot of RTNDA Murrow awards, just at the national level). All the best, Miniapolis 00:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BARE and WP:HEY. He's been shown to be notable enough. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 23:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: he left Fox to start something else: let's see what he does and if that's enough to earn him an article on Wikipedia... --Rubyface (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have to decide something for now, and what he has already done has made him a national figure. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Journalism awards are how the journalism community recognises its members and gives them "critical attention". has won significant critical attention is thus pertinent here. Collect (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klee Irwin

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

Delete - Subject is too obscure to write more than a stub. The few primary sources available present an unbalanced view of the subject's life, focusing on problems, omitting accomplishments and providing no context. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are no RS in this article. However the above argument claims the subject is "too obscure to write more than a stub". Well, look at the bottom, the article is indeed but a stub :) And that is okay. Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia. And a search for more sources reveals the subject could have some RS. More than that, if the argument is that it should be deleted because the sources show a positive or negative point of view, and that it might not grow, there is no basis for deletion here within Wikipedia policy. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said "more than" a stub. There aren't enough Reliable Sources to write MORE THAN A STUB. That's the criteria to delete an article. You've just said the article is (1) a stub, and (2) that it has no reliable sources. You've just proved my point. Wikipedia is not a platform for slandering people. This article looks like an attack piece. I don't believe there are sufficient reliable sources, but if you want to convince me otherwise, you'd need to list some of them, not just wave your hands and say "could have some". Jehochman ^Talk 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is waving their hands :) I'm just saying there is no actual Wikipedia policy argument here. Please provide links to it if you have one. Other than that, try these: [3] and [4], or something like this [5]. Most articles are fairly negative towards Irwin, but they do exist.Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your 1st reference is just a passing mention, literally one sentence of fact, and a bunch of "he said" allegations from a litigation adversary. The 2nd and 3rd links reveal zero content about the subject! I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on the idea that Irwin Naturals, the company he founded, has a great deal of RS on it? Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out some links? If so, move the article. This bio is abnormal. There nothing about his early life, education, honors, etc that one normally finds in a bio. Jehochman ^Talk 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I find time, not a huge priority for me. I like your view on bios though--I think there are thousands of bios on Wikipedia that would likely get deleted if we went according to your view, and I don't think that would be an entirely bad thing.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is a fine thing to want to keep and improve articles. However, sometimes the task is too hard to do properly. With an impersonal topic, such as a species of mushroom, it doesn't matter if the article is weak or lopsided (as long as it doesn't misrepresent a poisonous mushroom to be edible). However, with an article about a person, a bad one can have a real impact on that person's life, so we have to aim for higher standards and follow the principle of "first, do no harm". Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've got press releases and other primary sources -- nothing that would establish this person's notability. The one reference that looked like it might be reliable failed verification -- due to dead links. Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Wayback machine; a deadlink does not cause failed verification.Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it did. The Wayback machine link did not work. I don't know if the reference was fabricated, or erroneous, or what, but the burden is on people seeking to include negative BLP info to provide a good reference. Jehochman ^Talk 00:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I still highly disagree that a person should be deleted from Wikipedia through an argument that the balance of their sources is negative.Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is non notable. Apparently an enemy or detractor gathered some primary source info and created this hatchet job bio. That is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Jehochman ^Talk 11:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t see this as a hatchet job, though as I said, I believe this is a weak keep, not an incredibly notable individual.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sourcing in the article is usable for notability. From the above links we have a bare passing mention (is it even the same guy a this article?). The other two are paywalled. I lost my highbeam access, but somebody who does have access could check [6] which I suspect based on the summary is just a passing mention, and [7]. I found [8], and [9] in my own searches. Adding this all up, I don't see that the notability bar has been cleared. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep " Subject is too obscure to write more than a stub." is not an argument for deletion. It's an argument for keeping, as a stub. The material is adequately sourced, even for negative BLP. When there is more to say, it can be added. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dgg, it's all primary source stuff, a real hit job. Did you read the article and look at the sources? Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming jelly babies

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

Article has only one reference ~ to a very unreferenced video on Youtube; search so far has only revealed further videos and copies from this page or previous incarnations thereof. More importantly, though, article, while fascinating, and rather amusing, does not seem to fit the definition of "encyclopaedic"; we don't carry recipes, and this seems quite similar. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 20:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, integral part of Category:Chemistry classroom experiments, highly relevant V8rik (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Delete unless sourced~~ - This might very well be relevant, but it needs a source much better than a YouTube video. The fact that it's an "integral part" of a category is of no consequence. If it's as common as suggested, then it should be relatively trivial to find sources. And sources have been found, so keep. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the video was produced by University Radio Nottingham, so it counts as a reliable source. I have also added two newspaper articles and two books. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Screaming Keep [10] [11] [12] [13] http://www.aboutmyarea dot co.uk/Lancashire/Rossendale/BB4/News/Local-News/184217-Bright-future-ahead-for-Lancashire%E2%80%99s-Flashbang-Science. That's the RSC, BBC and others. Meets notability etc. note last website edited as its on the blacklistMartin451 (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in BBC News, The Daily Advertiser and University Radio Nottingham. Passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners (Canada)

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

This is original research about a thing that doesn't actually exist. The Potato Hose ↘ 20:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it almost exists, and for most practical purposes it does exist (it has an obelisk for example); the fact that it's technically not quite there makes it more interesting and notable. Bazonka (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The obelisk was placed decades before Nunavut even existed. For Wikipedia's purposes, this place just doesn't exist; the vast majority of Google results are blogs, WP mirrors, etc. The Potato Hose ↘ 20:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added reliable sources of which at least two and probably three establish notability. I have removed WP:SYNTH. Because I cannot access the reference to the exact position of the obelisk I can't be sure whether this is effectively OR. I see quite a bit of evidence in sources that the "four corners" is not exact but out by a few hundred metres. See Talk:Four Corners (Canada)#Manitoba Saskatchewan border. Even if this part of the article needs to be changed, as a whole it is not OR and there is no reason for deletion. The place is notable whether it is a quadripoint or not. Thincat (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the obelisk was not placed there to mark a 'four corners' that does not for all practical purposes exist. Especially since the actual surveyed lines don't meet where and how you claim they do--by your own admission! The Potato Hose ↘ 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and the article says that it was not placed to mark four corners. I have clarified the wording however. When the article refers to "four corners" it is quoting what the sources say (which may, of course, be wrong). Placenames can sometimes be misnomers. Please improve the article further yourself but if you want to add that the boundaries do not exactly cross this should be done by referring to reliable sources. At present I do not know of a source claiming this, which is why the article does not claim it either. Thincat (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to echo that. The Potato Hose please stop saying that the place doesn't exist, when really you mean to say that you believe a quadripoint doesn't exist. 117Avenue (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if it's legally ambiguous for the time being as to it separating four provinces/territories, it's notable even in that ambiguous regard. And it most certainly exits, but possibly not representing "Four Corners." Deleting this article simply because it might represent three corners as opposed to four is not constructive editing and throwing out the baby with the bath water. At most extreme, this could be renamed Three Corners, Possibly Four. Just kidding.--Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable spot. I cleaned up most of the OR in July 2012, thanks Thincat for reassuring that fact. 117Avenue (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Potato Hose ↘ 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, it is a sixteen sentence article with eleven references. 117Avenue (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The creation of Nunavut created Canada's only "four corners", at the intersection of the boundaries of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, at 60°00' north, 102°00' west, on the southern shore of Kasba Lake." Canadian Tourism Development Corporation. The Interior (Talk) 22:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete "Four corners", especially with caps, is entirely a neologism, and in this case it's not even true as a so-called "Quadripoint" (an article which is entirely OR and should be deleted, but as someone noted we let it be so it gives the trivia-minded something to do....and they do way too much with it). The NT-NU and MB-SK borders don't meet. The MB-SK boundary's survey does not match up, for various technical and historical reasons. This with both-caps as a proper name is just "now way jose" and should never have existed. Period. Completely original research and also a conflation/confabulation of the real facts about that "place".Skookum1 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of an article is not a reason for deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although well referenced, this is a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The synthesis of what? That the Nunavut border commences at "the intersection of the Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan borders"? It's in the act. 117Avenue (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the information in the article is accurate, but no reliable sources have ever connected the pieces in this way before. Nobody else has assigned this arbitrary point a name. Nobody else has noted the (coincidental) presence of a survey obelisk. Nobody else has commented on its tourist potential. Nobody else has characterized the terrain at this point. Pburka (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think this is the reference you have been looking for speaking of the tourist potential ("This is not the tourist spot it might be, as it is extremely remote and inaccessible, although there is a marker (albeit an out of date one) at the point, and some have made the trek") and the terrain ("Arctic tundra covers virtually all of Nunavut, the only exceptions being a tiny area in the extreme southwest near the 'four corners' alluded to above"). Thincat (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you. I had thought the reference was referring to a much broader area. I withdraw my !vote. Pburka (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since a decision on whether the NT-NU boundary will use the existing MT-SK monument or not has not been made (to my knowledge), it isn't known yet whether the boundaries will "almost" or "perfectly" intersect. Also, there are normally reliable sources that say there is a perfect intersection. I don't think it is OR to recognize where otherwise reliable sources are in error. This page is useful for explaining the actual situation—for pointing out something that is commonly misunderstood and incorrectly stated as established fact. Pfly (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I seem to remember that when GPS came out there was a big issue at the Abbotsford/Sumas border and a bunch of land had to be given back to Canada that they thought was south of the 49th on eariler surveys. Could be an urban myth though. They probably won't remove the obelisk but they may place a new one. My dad was a surveyor and he said that there should be a marker at every square mile in Canada. He doesn't know for sure if they were all placed or placed accurately but the government may claim they were because they paid people to do it. This obelisk may have been placed wrong. The governments may declare it as a true quadripoint eventually if the borders need to be adjusted like Abbotsford/Sumas possibly was. Synth and OR should be the only issues discussed in this case. Last I looked the best source used "four corners" with quotes and no caps. The bloggish site I looked had it as caps but we can't rely on that. File:Four Corners monument (Canada).jpg is used in other language wikis that have caps and these may need changing if we do. We may wish to join surveyor's forums for input. http://landsurveyorsunited.com/forum , http://surveyorconnect.com/ , http://www.profsurv.com/forum/ , and http://surveyorsforum.com/ are Four I found with a quick google search. If we link this AfD to those then they may show up and help us decide even. I don't think this AfD should be treated lightly in case it isn't OR and synth. If we delete or keep it wrongly then we may be back in media again if not in a few survey forums.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm going to repost your comment from March 2010 on the Talk:Quadripoint#removed_material and have to ask what's changed your mind about this non-border between SK-NU that you observe here:

<quote>One final note on this. Check out the ACME Mapper topo map link above. At the Manitoba-Saskatchewan-NWT border there's a square symbol labeled "157". This is the northern terminal boundary monument, No. 157, placed by the Manitoba-Saskatchewan Boundary Commission in 1962. The commission's monuments, whatever their precise coordinate locations, were proclaimed as the boundary in force in 1968. You can see boundary monument 156 (unlabeled but shown) on an island to the south. To the west there's a boundary monument labeled "190". This is one of the monuments placed by the Saskatchewan-Northwest Territories Boundary Commission in 1957-58 or 1962. The triangle monument symbol is the same commission's monument No. 191. The left edge of the gap in the topo map coverage coincides with 102° east longitude, which is what Nunavut's boundary in this area was defined to be. So you can see that boundary monument 157 is about a half a degree minute (30 seconds), 400 meters or so, west of Nunavut's defined boundary. All of this can be confirmed by reading the many many dry dry survey reports at Canada Lands Survey System, linked above. In short, Manitoba shares a 400 meter or so boundary with the NWT, and Saskatchewan does not touch Nunavut at all, even at a point.</quote>

That section goes on from there, of course, with more of the amazing detailed sourcing that you're so good at finding/understanding.....I went there looking for the map link I'm talking about, but as noted Atlas of Canada links are mostly dead/relocated and I'm not in the mood to search there today; suffice to say that there is no proper name in CGNDB or any other source, and I have my doubts about where BC Tourism got its "four corners" usage from ..... I think that's from here, as I've never seen this term until it emerged here on Wikipedia.....Skookum1 (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is addressed to me (quoting me). As to what changed my mind—you say "the section goes on from there", and in it you can read about how I kinda went one way and the other about it, as I learned more. Near the end of that section thread I wrote: "We figured it out better. It's better referenced now, plus a note about the not-quite-resolved nature of the point, due to the lack of a Nunavut boundary survey to date. I didn't think it was a "real quadripoint" myself, but further research changed my mind. It is real "by decree" even if not "by survey"..." Where "by decree" means as defined by the Nunavut Act and Lands Act. However, today I would not even say it is "real by decree", since the law contradicts itself. Pfly (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just got bunch of pictures emailed of 'both' markers? One marker looks like it is on the ground from 1959. The bent one on the obelisk is from someone trying to take it years ago. We can probably ask him to take pictures of any section you wish when he returns there. The article has been here since 2004 so should we wait until we have a man on the ground there to help us? Can we just suspend this AfD as inconclusive until then? What should I call the five images? I won't use four corners in the names. Is oblelisk the proper name or just survey marker?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article is notable Qwh (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swakopmund Skydiving Club

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

Minor club club, not established for a significant length of time, no achievements, no assertion of notability. All the article does (badly) is say "it exists". Biker Biker (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only found this which is routine news coverage of a skydiving accident. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cant honestly see why this article should be identified for deletion. The club has existed since 1974, is active, and very much an attraction in Swakopmund.Quadtripplea (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is in question. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources need to be presented to show that general notability guidelines, or organisation-specific guidelines are met. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 23:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VoucherCodes.co.uk

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

Delete - Not notable, and reads like an advertorial. Phatwa (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:RS, Also there no different from Groupon. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore above - Was clearly in a world of my own!, DELETE - It's just promotional BS, -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADS , dubiously someone has added non-notable PR log/junk as references. Possibly being used as marketing. Slickmick1212 (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS. Groupon have IPOd and are global leader etc. No different to having articles for the plethora of Groupon clones. Vereingingen →Talk page→ 15:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Econversions, which appears to be notable only for launching the Vouchercodes site, could have been bundled here for deletion on the same grounds. On the other hand, WhaleShark Media, which now owns both Econversions and VoucherCodes.co.uk among other things, appears to be notable enough for an article. Captain Conundrum (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it needs to be deleted, just re-edited. Its a big website in the UK, if you take this page down you might as well take down most website pages down. davidmorgans (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you created the Wiki page. But now you want to delete it... Can you clarify? Phatwa (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the page Phatwa. Wikipedia suggests an edit before deletion, so I'm just following their guidelines davidmorgans (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Gang controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for deletion before, but the discussion was primarily about whether the subject was notable or not. I posit that this article violates WP:BLP.That policy has evolved significantly in the 5 years since this article was primarily written, and it clearly violates its current form. To quote WP:BLP: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages." Further, the article violates WP:NPF, and WP:BLPCRIME (the article is about one non-public figure accusing another of theft of $70,000 via his blog, and the aftermath/repercussions), and the article is rife with WP:GRAPEVINE issues and conjectural interpretations of sources WP:OR. For example the line "The blog raised questions about the extent of Philippine and Australian libel laws, with jurisdiction being the key issue," isn't found in any source. No source reported it "raised questions." That was the conjectural interpretation of the Wikipedia editor, and was likely done to strengthen the case for notability. While there were quite a number of stories about the event at the time, most came in op. ed. columns or entertainment gossip columns, not hard news reporting. I just don't think this entry is encyclopedic and meets current community standards for inclusion. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 18:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:NOTNEWS, and is about a trivial tabloid-style dispute so the subjects presumption to privacy under WP:BLP needs to be taken into account - there's no need for an article on this matter. The fact that this article is essentially an orphan says it all really about the significance of this topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. After further consideration, I have speedy deleted the article as a blatant hoax. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khanjabir

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

Declined speedy on this article as there are many (dubious) claims to importance. 16 year old film producer supposedly enjoying international success and with a fortune worth 12 million dollars. I may be missing a trick and therefore in for a trout, but I can't verify the claims made by the article (such as awards he's claimed to have received and successful films he's made) and isn't notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax page. None of the references are valid: either dead links or completely unrelated to subject. Google search yields no notable person of that name. -Zanhe (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Graziano

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

Biography of musician with no claim to notability. Created by COI editor. The article about the only song mentioned in this article was deleted a few days ago for lack of notability. bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a prime time item. History2007 (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter VIII: The Encore of a Gemstone

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

According to an interview with Toni Braxton herself here, she's temporarily retired from music. She's said she hasn't entered the studio in a while. All of the references used to create this article are not reliable sources. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I previously tried to delete this page as I believe the album project never existed. None of the sources point to it, and those that do point to an existing project do not use this name. In my mind it is an example of OR gone bad.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know nothing of Toni Braxton or her music these days, but for what its worth, several of the references in the article, like Huffington Post or Billboard are in general considered to be reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right that some publishers are RS, but how they are used is not reliable to prove what the Wikipedia article is trying to prove. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree regarding the Billboard and first HP one, though I feel the second one is borderline, it actually discusses new music/album. I'm not saying Keep or anything, I just wanted to add that correction to the nomination... Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. The major reason for deletion isn't that a Braxton album might not be imminent, but rather that the title and backstory contained in this article doesn't quite hold together. Thank you for helping in clarifying about the sources though! If a better article about a legitimate album is written, we wouldn't want these sources ignored.Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Album fails WP:HAMMER, much of the article is not quite as confirmed as it would lead you to believe. A lot of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:BOMBARD issues here, and when you peel that away, you're left with very few vague confirmed details about hypothetical future music, which can just be added to TB's main article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; bad faith nomination. Shii (tock) 23:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRS Tea Party investigation

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

Dubious notability; just another random alleged 'political scandal' driven by blogs. Herp Derp (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Bad faith nomination. Roodog2k (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 13 May 2013

Comment Nominator has a history of nominating pages concerning notable right-wing subject matter.Roodog2k (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks. Judge the article and AFD on it's merits. You are a faceless cog. I am a faceless cog. We are irrelevant. All that matters is the integrity of the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 13 May 2013

Strong keep Bad faith nomination. This is national news, covered by every major network, NYT, Washington Post, etc. TJIC (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete an page that has had extensive media coverage by respectable sources? XOttawahitech (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a significant news story. It has had tons of coverage in major news sources. Whether it is a tempest in a teakettle, as the nominator alleges, is unfortunately not particularly relevant - the scandal itself will be notable, dragging the original IRS acts to notability along the way. (We may need two articles, depending on where this goes). -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject of this AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject clearly passes WP:GNG.

The only debatable question is does this article require a standalone article, or can it be merged and redirected to the Tea Party movement article? Or is it an event and as such will this article received continued coverage as required for an event to be considered notable (if it is an event then it is too soon to tell if that is the case, if it is not an event then GNG clearly applies)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is big, and getting bigger. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article needs work and needs to remain neutral, but this topic has significant coverage and the The House Ways and Means Committee plans to hold a more hearings.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a news site. There is a news story in this, but a Wikipedia article? I'm not seeing anything that points to lasting notability at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - it appears to be more than just "Tea Party," involving a number of organizations, most of which (but not all) are politically conservative. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Huge story, massive media coverage, highly notable. Congressional investigation will start soon. Hello32020 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 23:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Awada

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Romruen

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

Contested prod. Actor, no evidence of notability. All references are catalog items, directory entries and press releases. Google News return nothing of note. - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 23:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Licky Lizard

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

Contested prod. Character in a book series. The aricle's creator claims to be the author of the series. Since there are no third-party reliable sources in existence, Wikipedia cannot have an article on this subject at this time. - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no notability - nothing on Google - and the article fails to provide basic information. Someone needs to provide evidence of reviews or other press coverage, or awards, or this will be deleted very quickly. Not to be confused with The Lucky Lizard[14]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search yielded no significant coverage either on the character or on the book.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I still stand by the views I expressed below, and it is possible that by the end of the week I would have support for that view, but I am willing to accept that, on present showing, consensus is against me. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telos Publishing

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

The article was proposed for deletion, with the reason given as "Non-notable private company in the publishing business. No significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources can be found." The PROD was removed, without any explanation. The reason given in the PROD seems perfectly correct. Of the five sources cited in the article, one is a dead link, three merely credit Telos Publishing as the publisher of books mentioned, or the company that people mentioned work for. That leaves only one that mentions Telos Publishing in its own right, and that one merely mentions it once. In a Google search, the first few hits are: www.telos.co.uk; FaceBook; this Wikipedia article; a page at www.telos.me.uk; another apge at www.telos.me.uk; a promotional page, which refers to Telos as "we"; wikia; blogspot; and so it goes on. In short, neither in the citations in the article nor anywhere else deos there seem to be any evidence at all that of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or at the very least redirect/merge to David J. Howe - in Doctor Who fandom, they are quite well known. The founder's article has passed notability on a recreation following its recent (questionably handled) AFD/deletion so a redirect would be appropriate in that case. Mabalu (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a well-known publishing company and there must be good references out there. I would have been better to have tagged it for improvements before jumping in to an AfD (and I think this should be general procedure). If I get any time I'll look to help update it, but that might not be for a few days. Stephenb (Talk) 11:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There must be good references out there"? If there are then it shouldn't be hard to find them and link to them. Merely speculating that there "must be" references, without providing them, fails Wikipedia's verifiability policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of good faith needed there, thank you. I do believe they won't be hard to find but, as I said, I don't have a lot of time right now. So the Wikilawyering really isn't necessary. Stephenb (Talk) 16:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The links which "mention Telos as the publisher of books mentioned" are sources noting awards won by the publisher. If awards won by a publisher for its books aren't evidence of notability, what is? (As an aside, the nominating editor also started an AfD, since reversed, for Telos' founder David J. Howe, suggesting that there may be an ulterior motive at play here.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, an award won by a book is not the same thing as an award won by it publisher. Secondly, in answer to your question "what is [evidence of notability]?", the answer according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines is substantial coverage in multiple sources independent of the company. Brief passing mentions are not enough, even if those brief passing mentions are about awards. If the awards are really significant then there will be substantial coverage of them in independent sources, such as newspapers; if they are not, then there probably won't be. As for your accusations of an "ulterior motive", I can assure you that I nominate articles for deletion if I can find no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. What "ulterior" motive you think I have, I don't know, but in any case, it's irrelevant, as this AfD will be closed on the basis of the arguments advanced here, not on speculations about motives. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the question amounting, in effect, to "if brief passing mentions of awards are not evidence of notability, then what is?" I assumed that it came from an inexperienced editor. Also, the unsubstantiated accusation of an "ulterior motive" is the sort of thing that commonly comes in AfD from a new editor, who is not used to Wikipedia's ways, and assumes that anyone who wants to edit an article they like must have some sort of vendetta. However, I find it is from an administrator, who has been here for 8 years, and has made over 30000 edits. I am amazed that such an editor seems not to be aware of the notability guidelines, and that passing mentions are not enough. I am also surprised that an administrator will make such unsubstantiated accusations. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the notability guidelines, thank you very much. I merely disagree with you on their interpretation. I'd say that the links given here constitute "substantial coverage in multiple sources independent of the company", since Starburst magazine, the Sydney Morning Herald, the British Fantasy Society and the World Fantasy Award are all independent of Telos, and awards are in and of themselves substantial. Finally, the WFA was given to the publishers for their publishing work — that is, for Telos Publishing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Awards show notability. And, as Josiah clarifies, one of the awards was specifically as a publisher DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this "World Fantasy Board" that provides these awards, anyway? Their website looks pretty amateurish. Doesn't necessarily mean their opinion is not respected in the field, but did you wonder at all about the origin of the award, or did you just automatically think "award=notable"? 2604:2000:FFC0:61:21FD:BEA1:28E:AE4C (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, having some familiarity with the field I knew that the World Fantasy Award is one of the most prestigious awards in the field of fantasy. Our list article World Fantasy Special Award: Non-Professional lists the award which Telos' founders were given in 2006. If you're not familiar with the WFA, perhaps this summary explanation from Locus magazine will help explain them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no evidence of notability. DGG says "Awards show notability", but he doesn't say how or why. I see no evidence that these awards are significant: if DGG does see such evidence, then he needs to tell us what that evidence is. It absolutely does not automatically follow that just because they have some "award" that they are notable. There are many "awards" that are awarded by small groups or associations to their own members, which convey no notability at all. I don't know whether this applies to these awards, but extensive searching has produced no evidence that the awards are significant. Is there any substantial coverage of these awards in independent reliable sources? is there any substantial coverage of anything to do with Telos Publishing in reliable independent sources? Nobody has produced any, either in this discussion or in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for a start, here's coverage of the WFA from Locus. The British Fantasy Award is notable enough that when a recipient returned the award after a dispute it was covered in the Guardian. If we were discussing a book, these would be exactly the sort of "major literary awards" that qualify a book in Wikipedia:Notability (books). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the "keep" reasons given so far holds up to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies: we have (1) "in Doctor Who fandom, they are quite well known" - being well known in a niche market does not feature in the notability guidelines; (2) another article on a related subject has been recreated after initially being deleted at AfD - an article does not inherit notability from another one on a related subject; (3) "there must be good references out there" - we don't keep articles on the basis of speculation that sources "must" exist that have not been found by anyone; (4) the publishers have won awards - yes, but are they significant awards? Maybe they are, but nobody has shown that they are. I cannot claim that there is strong consensus for deletion, but I can and do claim that there have been no arguments at all for keeping that have any validity at all under Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- My position is that the awards, which are indeed major literary awards, themselves constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is Wikipedia's definition of notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep under criterion 2d: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". There is absolutely zero reason to delete this article, and I don't see any justification for WP:TNT here. Without placing blame on any one party, I note that none of the editors involved in the current editing dispute has posted on the article talk page up to this point. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Racing

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

WP:TNT, better no article than an article that is reverted to nonsense and is in violation of the manual of style for dp's. The Banner talk 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has not been "reverted to nonsense" - the two entities currently listed are things that are/were called "Lotus Racing"; the other entities you keep adding in are things that aren't/weren't called "Lotus Racing". DH85868993 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ummm is this for real? What is stopping these editors from engaging in TALK or have we reached a point where their personal views have them resorting to glaring at each other across an edit war? Crazy.--82.8.226.105 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a disambiguation page for two things called "Lotus Racing". In what way is it nonsense and what exactly would you do differently if you "blew it up and started again"? Don't understand the logic behind this. — Jon C.^ॐ 14:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TNT definitely doesn't apply here, and AfD is not the way to solve a content dispute. Sideways713 (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Having a dispute over the pages content is not grounds for deletion. QueenCake (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Please take your edit war to the talk page, not to AfD. Dricherby (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and wtf are you doing, The Banner? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This decision was based on more than numbers; the keep opinions, as I read them, failed to show how this incident rose above typical street violence. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting

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

This event has officially been described as a "flare up of street violence", nobody was seriously injured let alone killed. Per the talk page that this happened on Mother's Day seems to be more coincidental than deliberate, and that was the only thing that made this newsworthy outside the city it took place in. In short I'm not seeing anything in the article or news reports to indicate why this event in encyclopedically notable Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was watching this story after the article was created to see if it was going anywhere, and while it has international attention due to Mother's Day, it doesn't have enduring coverage as effective it was unfortunate violence in a low income urban area. Given that there's been enough time to assess the story as more one of local news, it doesn't belong on WP per NOTNEWS. Editors are free to start a Wikinews article for this. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not intended to be a police blotter, nor a permanent record of every news story ever to hit the wires. While I am sure that this event was quite significant to those involved in it, there does not (as yet) seem to be any evidence that this shooting will have any particular enduring social or political import. It's one more shooting in a country where shootings are a routine news staple. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Keep for now... I think that there is enough content and RS cited to support this article at this time. I have a hard time believing that the perpetrators did not know it was mother's day and there was no connection to the shooting directed at a mother's day parade. I would like to see how this article develops and think that any decision to delete it should be stayed until either the shooters are caught and it is clear that there wasn't a specific connection to mother's day or three months have elapsed without catching the shooters or any other major development. Technical 13 (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if it was tied to Mother's Day. It has been called "street crime", which is routine unfortunately in those parts. It had a spurt of primary source coverage, but nothing enduring now compared to major crimes eg the Sandy Hook shooting or the Boston MArathon bombing. This is exactly the case NOTNEWS covers. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only factor setting this "event" apart from any other fight on the street is that it happened on Mothers' Day. This does not make the event significant. The date of Mothers' Day isn't even consistent in the English speaking world and so I can't see how it really matters that it happened at that time. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This IMO was what WP:NOTNEWS was envisioned to defend the project against; routine newswire stories. It wasn't a terrorist attack, it was spillover from gang violence, which it not all that uncommon in urban America. Sad, but true. If you look at an event and all you can say about it is a recitation of where-it-happened, who-did-it, etc... then what you have is a news article, not an encyclopedia entry. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're not a newspaper. I'm guessing that this will never become suitable for an article, but if it did, one could be (re)created then. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notnews Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is not common for a mass shooting with so many casualties to occur at a parade or a public event such as this. Even though nobody died, it is still a pretty serious incident that has gotten a lot of media coverage, nationally and internationally, and will probably receive more coverage and attention over the next days, and possibly weeks and months. There are articles for very minor school shooting incidents where only several people got injured: Pine Middle School shooting, SuccessTech Academy shooting. We also don't know the motive behind this attack, even though it could be gang-related. Cyanidethistles (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That doesn't mean it should or that this one should as well. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a joke that basically implies that precedent and consistency don't exist. AutomaticStrikeout ? 16:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I cannot see any indication of notability. As has been said, it only really made the news because of the date and the fact that it was during a parade. With only minor injuries, this is hardly a notable event. — Richard BB 14:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ideal coverage this gets in an encyclopedia is about one sentence long. Shii (tock) 15:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge - I think it deserves a mention here.--82.8.226.105 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you proposing to merge it to? Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable incident that satisfies requirements for an article on Wikipedia, in my view. Jus da fax 17:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument for retention. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as events go this is a relatively routine news story, which is not what Wikipedia is for. In addition, despite the wide range of sources presented, the majority of them are merely quotes/rehashings of other stories on the event, largely from the New Orleans-based Times-Picayune—an indicator that the event likely doesn't have any national or international impact. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we had an article for every non-lethal shooting in America we'd be swamped. This has only been given any coverage because of Mother's Day. No-one died, some morons shot at people and that happens every single day in the US. This isn't worthy of an article I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a run-of-the-mill shooting. Sorry to be frank, but that's...what it is. Theopolisme (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Are you kidding me? This has been a very well-publicized incident and plainly passes WP:GNG. I am quite aghast at the level of societal bias we have when the Boston Marathon bombings cause the shutdown of an entire city, but a mass shooting of this type arouses barely a murmur, a shrug, and a $10,000 reward. We can't counter this bias by ignoring a lack of attention, but in this case, we need merely not magnify it further by ignoring perfectly good sources. This is not "routine news coverage" on the level of the police blotter and obituaries in one local paper which is what should be what we have in mind when that is spoken of. Wnt (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I share Wnt's incredulity. Those urging deletion are unconvincing, to say the least. Can't help but wonder what the reaction will be from many of the deletion !votes should the shooters prove to be Muslims. Jus da fax 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if they're Muslims or not. This appears at the moment to be unplanned and spontaneous violence which killed no one. Shii (tock) 23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hilarious in the extreme for you to call out the entries of others as "unconvincing, when your own is boilerplate WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore the point, of course, so let me ask you directly, Tarc, if your reaction would be any different if this shooting proves to be Muslim terrorists? Jus da fax 03:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What has anybody's religion got to do with this? Thryduulf (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why answer a question with a question? It's directed to Tarc, but you may answer it as well, if you wish, with a yes or a no: Would you change your vote if the shooters prove to be Muslim terrorists? Jus da fax 04:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The religion, race and nationality of everybody involved is completely irrelevant to this incident, so my !vote will not change if the alleged perpetrators are affiliated with any or no religion. Why does it matter to you? Thryduulf (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no secondary sources, though. Everything so far is primary (news reporting) sourcing, and fails the GNG. It's got a very local range of impact. This is the epitomy of where the lines must be drawn to avoid violating NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable incident that satisfies requirements for an article on Wikipedia, in my view--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument for retention. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOTNEWS is to "protect" against articles on stories that make the news only in a small region (thus technically meet the GNG since at least 2 sources have covered it) and stories that are completely predictable (routine) in nature. An example of the second type is a (regular season) sports game that is covered in hundreds of papers merely because it was played as scheduled. When a story draws enough interest to make headlines across the globe, NOTNEWS does not apply. Mass shootings *may* be common (I'm not convinced they are), but they certainly do not normally generate headlines in foreign countries. Media sources have decided this was an extraordinary event. As individuals we may or may not agree, but once our third party sources make the decision an event is not routine (by treating it with unusual levels of coverage), then policy wise the matter is settled - the subject can have an article if someone decides to write one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if without it, a search for "mother's day shooting" on Wiki points (probably innocently) to Dick Cheney's shooting. Lots of minor injuries, no (probable) ties to a larger picture, should fade out of the news cycle quickly. Not much encyclopedic value. At least not yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NOTNEWS, the encyclopedia should not be used to record every news incident, no matter how much immediate attention they generate. The article can be recreated if and when some long-term significance is demonstrated. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not notable. Corn cheese (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New Orleans has a murder rate 30x that of my city, write an article on Crime in New Orleans if you want, but until these events stop being routine they will not separately deserve an article. Furious Style (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it had not occurred on Mother's Day, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If we reported every single flare of gang violence, we would have billions of articles, not millions. This one offers no particular encyclopedic value, does not meet any notability guideline and violates our policy against being a news source. Fortunately there was no death or serious injury; if I am missing something, please let me know, but as I see it, we should not even need to discuss this. Go Phightins! 02:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not many gang shootings have 19 people shot or injured at all in the US. Also, this was on the front page of CNN and other big news sources. An average gang-related violent crime that happens almost every minute somewhere in some bad neighborhood in the US does not ever get a mention on any website like CNN or CBS News unless it is a really serious crime where multiple people were killed or injured. Also, three of the shootings are seriously hurt, so at least one person was seriously injured during this attack. Cyanidethistles (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a burst of news, and enduring coverage, the latter which is required to have an article on WP. This happened on Mother's Day, a Sunday, and for all practical purposes a relatively slow news day. It was a very sad event, no question, and because of it happening at a Mother's Day parade seems to make it all more tragic. Of course that will generate coverage across the globe. But as has been shown, the shooting was street violence motivated, no more "routine" than other violent crimes. Mere coverage, even internataion, is not sufficient to carry an article, as we require secondary coverage. All the reporting so far have been primary sources, simply recapping events and the impact. Now, if this were like, say, the Sandy Hook shooting, which caused US to turn back to gun control debate, armed guards at schools, etc. etc. that may be something. I've not seen a peep about how the US, even New Orleans, may be impacted by this. This is exactly NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly dispute that misreading of "NOTNEWS". "Routine" news coverage happens when the local paper prints obituaries and the score from the local high school sports game. This coverage is not routine but serious. Furthermore, the coverage becomes secondary as soon as news outlets start citing multiple competitors' reports about various details of the case, which is a bar long since passed. Wnt (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is routine. You should familiarize yourself with the Mardi Gras violence that happens every year in New Orleans, their murder rate, and the amount of young children killed by stray bullets on a yearly basis in the city. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a run of the mill shooting. The date is relevant and the press coverage is significant. You can scream NOTNEWS all day, but I'm not buying it. AutomaticStrikeout ? 03:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the date relevant to the event (not the coverage of it)? What makes this not a run-on-the-mill shooting? Feel free to shout as loudly and as long as you want, but it wont make a difference. Thryduulf (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because multiple secondary sources independent of the subject are covering it. We should be humiliated enough to follow the media bias that says that attacks on some people are so much less important than attacks on others, but we certainly have no reason to ignore real coverage of an event when it exists. Wnt (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News reports simply recapping the events and followup (sampling through what's at the top of gnews) are not secondary sources - they are primary. I've not seen (doesn't mean it doesn't exist) reports that comment in depth on the event, just saying that it happened. There's not transformative nature to these sources. --MASEM (t)

- 19 people getting injured in a single attack is not a typical run-of-the-mill shooting. Also it is receiving a lot of coverage on CNN now, and on the Associated Press. This is because this is a high-profile incident. Cyanidethistles (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you take into account that the majority of those injuries were not sustained from bullets, then yes, it is typical and run-of-the-mill, especially in New Orleans. You need to familiarize yourself with the level of gun violence in America before you start making claims like that. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: According to [15] the Mayor, City Council, chief of police and several hundred people from the community turned out the next day to rally at the site of the shootings. I say that is notable in its own right. By comparison to entertainment events that routinely receive coverage, that is a huge, nationally notable event. Why should we be embarrassed to cover the events that shape a city's historic image? Wnt (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop making this into a personal crusade, it's clouding your judgment. You know absolutely nothing about New Orleans if you think a rally against a shooting in New Orleans is an event that shapes the "city's historic image." Both this type of shooting and this type of rally happens on a very routine basis in New Orleans. This event is absolutely not noteworthy. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball playoffs also occur on a routine basis. Should we not cover them, because they're not noteworthy? (And believe you me, I find them a lot less noteworthy than this! I don't know why anybody needs to hold a new one since they have more of them on tape than they could ever watch anyway) Wnt (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the ITN nomination "According to this, 8,583 people were killed by firearms in the USA in 2011. That's about 23 people killed by firearms in the US every day. This "shooting" isn't even a glitch, it's business as usual." The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear: it's not up to us to judge why things get notable - not even baseball games. We should simply allow the documentation of reliably sourced content by those interested when they have the sources they need. Your OR is fascinating but apparently the public sees a difference between a small private shooting and a big public one. Wnt (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my OR, it's fact. Over 8,000 people were killed in a year in the US as a result of firearms. And you certainly have been clear, all over this page. And yes, sections of the US public certainly may see this as a significant public event. It appears the majority of the rest don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, of course, there is perfect unanimity that SummerSlam 2003 was something of universally valued importance. Are we playing a game of majority-rule "is it interesting to me or not" in these AfDs nowadays? Wnt (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"there is perfect unanimity" who said that? I didn't. But don't worry, there are plenty of opportunities to find you making your points all over the page now. And sorry, I meant 8,583 murders not just deaths from firearms.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be dense, baseball playoffs don't happen every day. As pointed out above, firearm deaths happen multiple times every day in America. Taking it another step further, this isn't even noteworthy from a New Orleans perspective. Last year, New Orleans had 193 murders. 0 people died in the Mother's Day shooting, that's considered good for the city. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bazillion videos on YouTube. Some get to be notable news, the vast majority don't, nobody knows why. That doesn't mean we shouldn't cover Kony 2012 anyway. It's not up to us to ask why this one shooting made the world press; it is only up to us to make sure that a Wikipedia article has enough sources to say something with a bit of reliability, which is what the GNG is about. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as amply meeting our notability guidelines. I, too, wish this had not been elevated by the media to an event of international notoriety (I just heard an update from the BBC World News radio service) but it has. ElKevbo (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"" It doesn't seem to be dieing down. (Hopefully it won't. But that is personal opinion.) Dean p foster (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That it was on Mother's Day seems incidental to the event, and now that we have flushed out all the facts, it seems short of our expectations for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? A report about this shooting that came out two hours ago is the top trending story on Fox News' national site [16] detailing new information about the shooter's criminal record, ballistic evidence, injuries to victims, police funding ... all sorts of stuff. How many days does something have to be in the top national news before people will admit "enduring" notability? (provided it isn't a WWE pay-per-view match or something important, that is) Wnt (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be crystal clear, consider SummerSlam (2003) - one of Wikipedia's Featured Articles, our best content, the kind of stuff any one of us can only hope to equal in our writing someday. According to the article's lead, "SummerSlam (2003) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event produced by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and presented by Stacker 2's YJ Stinger. It took place on August 24, 2003 at the America West Arena in Phoenix, Arizona.[2] It was the 16th annual SummerSlam event and starred wrestlers from the Raw and SmackDown! brands.". Now tell me, what makes that event so much more notable or worthwhile to include than this one?

Before anybody even starts with the "OTHERSTUFF" nonsense, bear in mind I am not referring to some accidental case of a rule violation there, but our best stuff, subject to Featured Ad Review at any time of day or night, proudly displayed on our main index of the best Wikipedia can offer. Its presence is not an accident - it is notable. And it is valid to compare this event to that one. Wnt (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources about a significant part of a notable topic (WWE). Here with have extensively duplicated coverage in multiple primary sources about an event that was not a significant part of any larger notable topic (not significant to the date, the city or even gun violence in the city). It was a significant part of the parade, but that parade is not notable (the only reason anyone not taking part, watching it or organising it were even aware of its existence was because of the shooting). Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? That wrestling article is almost all stuff from "WrestleView" and "PW Torch". You're saying forget the New York Times, forget CNN, we only WrestleView and PW Torch because those are reliable secondary sources??? And we wonder why people make fun of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You're saying forget the New York Times, forget CNN," - who said that? Many of your replies contain your own spin, probably not such a good idea. Dragging other items into this debate is fruitless, discuss this on its own merits. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as wrestling journalism goes, The Pro Wrestling Torch basically is what the New York Times is to general news. And WrestleView is roughly CNN (maybe a notch less). Also, the article has an Aftermath section, and enduring notability (I just watched it last month). Granted, I'm a wrestling fan, not a general reader, but do you really think tragedy fans will remember this shooting in a decade, if the news repeats it enough in the first few days? It might not even stick with the victims that long. SummerSlam (though fictional) was a culmination of storylines and a new beginning for others. This event (though real) suddenly happened, and then suddenly stopped. The shooters got away and most victims are basically fine. Next week, back to normal. It's the equivalent of any one WWE Velocity episode. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reason news sources picked the story up was because it happens on Mother's Day, something which had absolutely no influence on the course of events. Therefore, not worthy. These types of events happen on a routine basis in New Orleans. Massive Mardi Gras shootings happen all the time and gun violence has helped give the city one of the highest murder rates on earth. I recommend you go check out nola.com (home of the Times-Picayune) and their crime section. If Wikipedia would allow an article like this to exist, then most of what's in that crime section would be eligible. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, if you have one source you're halfway to notable, though some might quibble about secondary/independent issues. For all I know there may be an opportunity to write ten or twenty articles a year about crime in New Orleans. If somebody does it you might have a chance to suggest merging some of such smaller articles together. If there's room, it wouldn't hurt. But there's a difference between managing the information contributed to us and discarding it. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should focus your attention on an expansion of the crime section of New Orleans wikipedia page, not making a page for every multiple-victim shooting in the city Angry Lampshade (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't have a page Crime in New Orleans, and as the sourcing for this one is sufficient for an article, we could rename this one to that. I don't support that because obviously that article should be a very large one, with topics like this pushed to separate sub-articles, but at least it would not be deletion, which is just ridiculous. In any case, you've reminded me to save the present version; I can start that article with this text verbatim if this is closed as delete, and toss in a couple of other low hanging fruit to get the ball rolling. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly cannot just copy the text verbatim. That is a copyright violation. You can, however, request a copy of the article and I will be happy to provide it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think you can "start the article with this text verbatim" as that would (a) be making a point and (b) fall foul of speedy deletion criterion G4 ("A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion...."). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be free to AfD "Crime in New Orleans" if you want (indeed I expect you to). It would be up to someone else to decide who was making a point. I would have to improve it at least marginally in order that it actually be about that title. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you misread (or misrepresented) what I said. If you recreated deleted material verbatim, it wouldn't be AfD, it would be speedy deletion time. Please read my text more carefully. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I read it doesn't mean I believe it. Wnt (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to "believe it", where did I write that? If you recreate deleted material then it will be speedy deleted (see G4) and you may be blocked for deliberate disruption (indeed I wouldn't do this myself, but would expect someone else to). Just letting you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Normally I would vote keep for incidents like this, but nobody was killed and not that many injuries, if it was more like 2012 Aurora shooting I would vote yes, but it isn't. There was very mininal news coverage anyways JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A straight-forward WP:NOTNEWS case. Unless reports show up that put this in some sort of meaningful context rather than simply detailing the event, this is just routine news coverage. National or international coverage does not magically make it anything but routine.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I did put an hour or so into getting facts and citations straight and publishing which to me is good practice anyway at this point. I just saved some of this to my sandbox archive, so it can go I suppose, and I can help roll this into some other article in the future if necessary. --Phaedrx (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable incident, as defined by international media coverage over a number of days. The date is significant to people, as is the number of people wounded, even if none died. This is a turning point for politics in the city of New Orleans, and although in magnitude, the shooting does not seem as tragic as a Newtown, Aurora, or Viginis Tech, it has attracted a lot of attention worldwide, as people are seeing their way of life going down the drain, one mass shooting at a time. Future readers will indeed wish to revisit this data, and Wikipedia should help them hold it in memory. Additionally, i happen to think that the more articles Wikipedia contains, the better for all internet searchers. If bandwidth and storage are not a problem, then please keep the article on the basis that maintaining a file of data is important, especially when it is accompanied, as this one is, by an excellent reference log for future researchers. 70.36.137.19 (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in the UK, barely a sniff of it. Also wasn't Mother's Day in the UK either. With over 8,000 murders per year from shootings, why do we need articles for non-fatal shootings? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP is not here to be a replacement for google. There's also a dedicated Wikinews specifically for allowed editors to make articles on events like this that do not fit the scope of an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a front page article article today in The New York Times regarding the shootings, their aftermath and the culture of second line parades. In my view, notability and sourcing are more than confirmed. Arguments for deletion of the article don't carry an ounce of weight: this is hardly a run-of-the-mill shooting but a major sociological event of continuing interest. Suggest we close this as a keep and move on. Jusdafax 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. It's still a primary source about the event. It does support a suggestion of a merge target at Second line (parades), since that's basically what the article is really about (the potential for violence in those, and our WP article on the parades has a section about violence already). --MASEM (t) 18:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Second that suggestion, this would fit perfectly in a merge with Second line (parades), but is absolutely anything but deserving of its own article. Angry Lampshade (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event is now notable for people treating it as irrelevant, even though it's the the largest mass shooting in the United States where the shooters are still at large. [17] [18] USchick (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is notable due to its irrelevance? Congratulations, that is the first I've seen that argument used at AFD ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) USchick (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or more to a point, these types of articles point to a better larger topic like the second line parades or Crime in NO that would be a completely valid target for information about this parade. All we can say on the topic is repeating primary sources while it remains its own article, but in either of those topics, you have a way to discuss the parade not as a news event but perhaps one of the more visible examples of the problem. The shooting itself remains irrelevant in terms of "permanance" of information - most will have forgotten this by next year. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until such article is created, this one already exists and is already notable with international attention. USchick (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...the largest mass shooting in the United States where the shooters are still at large"? I'd like to see a better source for this than a piece in the 'Comment is free' section of the Guardian, written by the 'creative director at The Smoking Section'. [19] Incidentally, this would logically imply that catching the perpetrators would make it less notable... AndyTheGrump (talk)

(ec) No, Andy, then we'd need to keep it because it was #7 on the "List of longest times the perpetrators of a mass shooting in the US took to be captured", or "Previous holders of the record for longest outstanding mass-shooting perpetrator capture evasion". Get real. Begoon ^talk 18:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Notability doesn't come from "international attention". We need secondary sources on the event and such do not exist yet. And just because an article doesn't exist doesn't mean we need to keep this around. That's why I've put above that one could have a merge-redirect to the second line parade article, keep this as a search term, and be set there. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone dies, will that make it more notable? International attention is important in this case, because the US population has been desensitized, which is what makes this event notable. 19 people were shot and no one cares.USchick (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability means that we need secondary sources - straight news reporting and recapping is not that. Most of these articles just recently linked use the incident of a larger problem of crime, but not going into detail about the shooting, thus leaving them as primary sources about it. If there was an actual death, we have no idea how that would have been considered in the larger story, but I would suspect that everyone has called this "routine" street violence that these second line parades can bring about and nothing out of the ordinary, a single death wouldn't have changed the report. That's why notability is based on what the sources give us, not what actually happened nor based on body court or injury tallies. We're looking for enduring secondary coverage of the topic, not a burst of international coverage. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19 people weren't shot, 19 were injured. This is an example of the media playing up injuries and deliberately omitting how most of them were injured, which wasn't by bullets. Angry Lampshade (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it's a recent event, let's give it time to develop. USchick (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've given it time to development, it's been 3 days. Compared to other truly notable events, this is a waning tail and definitely a sign its not meeting notability or NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is this shooting less notable than the 2011 IHOP shooting? USchick (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, that's why OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the proper argument to use , particularly judging against a start-class article that's over 2 years old. I've nominated that for deletion too (and yes, even though there were deaths including police officials). It was a "routine" crime. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that cease, you may want to nominate similar articles 2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree, Frankstown Township Shooting. I think we should wait to see how this event is resolved before making a decision to delete it. USchick (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And the creation of articles like all these was brought up as an issue at ANI when this (the Mothers Day shooting) was created. People want to race to create news articles before they've understood if it is an encyclopedic topic, and most of the time they are not (as all 4 examples show). Wikinews exists for those people that want to really write breaking stories, we're here to write encyclopedic topics, which some events will merit but not all. Hence NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary source, discussion of the event [[20]] USchick (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary in discussion what the media/US calls terrorism and what it considers routine crime, but nothing secondary on the shooting itself, mostly an example/name drop due to its recentness. Now, there is a potential if this starts a huge long debate on what exactly is terrorism, but frankly that's crystal-balling the importance of this event in the larger picture. Particularly when as others have pointed out the injuries were in the resulting panic and not actual gunshot wounds. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update [21] USchick (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation is gaining momentum with secondary sources [22] ongoing daily coverage [23] and new developments [24] USchick (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That first source is not secondary coverage of the event, but of media reporting on violence in America; there's no further depth of coverage of the incident itself. And as local papers, that's not sufficient to judge for ongoing coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source uses media coverage about this event to engage the public in a bigger conversation about violent crime. That by itself makes the event notable. The event also brought international attention to violent crime in New Orleans, which is something that other similar events didn't do. It's an ongoing event with continuing coverage. Can you please clarify what kind of in-depth coverage we're looking for? Is there an example from other recent notable events? You must have something in mind that the rest of us are not aware of, and I think it would help to clarify things for future discussions. USchick (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the event were truly notable, there would be questions about motivations, discussions of the people involved, etc., etc. (using the Boston Marathon or Sandy Hook shootings as clearly notable events). Here, once the event was classified as street violence, no one really talked about motivation as it was simple "street crime". Sure the preps were still out on the lam but that's not the same as the details we had on the brothers involved in the bombing or Lanza from the shooting; they were names and faces to be ID'd on TV. You are also pointing out that this event does deserve discussion in larger context, but when you start the article from this point, its very awkward and simply doesn't fit our NOTNEWS encyclopedia very well. Again, I point to the second line parade article where there is a Violence section. The gist of this event ("On May 12, 2013, nineteen people were wounded as a result of street violence gunplay that broke out during a second line parade honoring Mother's Day in New Orleans.") can be summarized to then lead into how this has heightened the attention to street violence in NOLA and associated with second line parades. We can wikilink to news stories or to Wikinews if the reader really needs to read more on the event, but in the broader context of an encyclopedia whose focus is on permanency of topics and not just what's in the news, the event itself doesn't have sufficient internal coverage to merit a stand-alone article. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources talk about violence. That's the secondary discussion taking place. Even the Dalai Lama had something to say about it. [25] USchick (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's about the violence, not about the event itself outside of highlight the problem of violence. The reports are still primary with respect to the event itself. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes all notability tests.--Avala (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Tarc and User:Dennis Brown. Begoon ^talk 18:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - a major shooting event which has received considerable coverage, and according to the article, 'the largest mass shooting in the United States where the shooters were still at large'. What's supposed to make it run-of-the-mill - the fact that no one has died? That's not a criterion for notability, coverage is, and this passes. Ironically enough, some of the coverage has been criticising the media for not giving more attention to this story - but that factor in itself is one of the things that makes it notable. Robofish (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, I find something particularly disturbing about the argument that this is a non-notable event because shootings are common in New Orleans, implying that if it had taken place somewhere else it would deserve an article. I have to disagree - IMO, shootings on this scale deserve an article wherever they take place and whoever the victims are. If anything, that argument suggests that we have a serious systemic bias in our coverage of criminal acts, against covering events in supposedly dangerous places and in favour of those in supposedly safe ones. In any case though, that's not part of the notability criterion: significant coverage is, and that's why this event is notable. Robofish (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes - a nice bit of synthesis creeps into the lede with "in spite of" linking two different sources. Not that the source for 'the largest mass shooting in the United States where the shooters were still at large' should pass WP:RS anyway, as I've already noted: 'Comment is free' in the Guardian? Fact-checked? I doubt it very much... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, notability requires enduring secondary coverage, not just coverage. There's no question the event was reported across the world, it has just had a very short tail as most news stories end up doing. Also, I find the justification on the stat "the largest mass shooting where the perps are still at-large" an extreme form of trainspotting, particularly again that calling it a "mass shooting" is a extremely biased misnomer (the parade goers were not being shot at, there were running and were injured in the chaos). And its the media that's pointed out that this is normal "street violence", not us; they're the ones that called this routine for us, effectively. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example of the level of enduring notability, the New York Times reported that two shootings in 2006 caused the city to charge security fees of up to $7500, which came close to outlawing the second line parades,[26] but that city officials in this case had taken a different tack and were embracing them as part of the genuine New Orleans tradition. If people remember shootings from 2006, people will remember this shooting also. If the 2006 ones changed policy, this one may also have political effects. However, our standard for enduring notability should not be, and for most topics and events is not, nearly as high as what this shooting actually attains. Wnt (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's been consensus for years to require enduring notability (indeed, NEVENTS is rather recent but went though all the RFCs to get the language right and follow in NOTNEWS' and WP:N's footsteps). Also, enduring notability is not about rememberance, it is about sources. The fact there were fines before again relates to the tradition of second line parades, thus boosting the importance in that article, but doing little about this event. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is something interesting in NEVENTS: "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. " Pity nobody read that sooner. Wnt (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sentiment easily countered with "a pity the article creator did not read WP:Recentism first. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Re the point about enduring notability - I agree, but surely by the same token, it's too early to determine that this event is non-notable. I don't see the need to rush to deletion less than a week after the event. This always seems to happen with articles on current news stories: someone nominates them for deletion while events are still unfolding. The more sensible thing to do is wait a few weeks to see whether the event develops long-term notability. In this case, along those lines, I would be open to reconsidering the article for deletion after some time has passed, if it seems that it was considered to be 'just another street shooting' and doesn't receive long-term attention; but I maintain that it's too early to make that judgement now, and this article should be kept at least for the time being. It can't possibly demonstrate enduring notability when it hasn't yet had the chance to do so. Robofish (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - As Tarc points out, these articles shouldn't be created in the first place until the enduring notability has been shown. Unfortunately, it is hard to prevent that front end without restricting a lot more, but there's no reason we can be more aggressive on closing them down when they are clearly a problem. Everything about this story (even now knowing that one of the captured suspects is young adult male) is, unfortunately, what is considered routine crime and the chance of this event becoming any more significant as an event in of itself. (Discussions on such crimes with the city or these second line parades, on the other hand...). There's a slim chance this could break into something more important, but that requires crystal ball guessing on future events. Other events could go either way and in those cases I'd definitely be more patient but here, this was pretty much dismissed by the press as routine crime on day 1. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A suspect has been arrested, so that puts to rest the "largest shooting involving a suspect at large" meme. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is clearly established by widespread press coverage. Everyking (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Widespread press coverage is not equal to significant secondary coverage for notability. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Masem on this and all of their comments on this AFD. North8000 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG REDIRECT to Second line (parades)#Violence - The event did happen it is just not notable per WP:NOTNEWS for it's own article, it is however notable to the Second line parade. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; we need to discuss a proposal for a cooling-off period (Dennis Brown's 6-hour suggestion sounds reasonable) before the creation of an article. Much media coverage is attributable to the 24-hour news cycle. Miniapolis 02:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A cooling off period is an excellent plan. For anyone interested in developing the idea further I did write an essay about crime-related articles some time ago, and added something similar as a suggestion, though I thought three weeks might be more appropriate. At present it's a bit skewed towards English law and the countries using that system, but could be expanded to include other jurisdictions. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a notable incident, as defined by international media coverage over a number of days. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- International coverage lasted only a day, and in any case "a number days" is not enduring coverage required by WP:N / WP:NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By now this article easily meets the General Notability Guideline. Cardamon (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no secondary sources about the event itself, thus the GNG is failed (which required significant coverage in secondary sources). Violence in New Orleans and assorted with second ling parades, yes, but not this event. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a news report, primary sources would include eyewitness accounts, and also photos, videos, and sound recordings of events. They would also include writings that are entirely based on photographs, videos and sound recordings of events.

Things that are written about or in reaction to primary sources (but not things that just copy primary sources) are secondary sources. For example, much of this piece in The Nation, by a reporter who was shot in the leg, is pretty clearly a primary source. On the other hand, this New York Times article, this article in the Christian Science Monitor, and this other article in the Christian Science Monitor are largely secondary sources. So, multiple secondary sources already exist for this article. Cardamon (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We consider secondary sources to be transformative, so it's not just being one step removed from the eyewitness accounts or the like. We also need to keep in mind that sources can be primary for one topic, and secondary for another. I can't see the NYTimes, but of the other articles, they still remain primary sources about the shooting - reiterating events and not discussing it further in that context. On the topic of crime in New Orleans or second line parades, they are all secondary. This is the point that needs to be made - the bulk of this can be shifted to Wikinews (where there's no NOTNEWS concerns) while an article about second line parades or crime in NO can be expanded, linking to the Wikinews article to provide that background while putting the event into the proper larger context. Most of these articles are treating the event not as a significant event (ala the Boston Marathon bombing) but as a highlight of the city's troubled history with these parades and crime. IT can be discussed on WP in that context (read : just a few sentences + a Wikinews link) in the scope of that larger topic. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

>>We consider secondary sources to be transformative ... <<. I can't say that I have ever heard that claim before. Could you link to a policy or guideline saying that? Cardamon (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS and WP:USEPRIMARY. Quoting the former: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". --MASEM (t) 14:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this? [27] and this? [28] And this? [29][30][31] This story questions how bond is set. [32] There are plenty of secondary discussions taking place about terrorism, violence, inner city crime, second line parades, police corruption, etc. Just because they're not discussing the motive, doesn't mean anything. USchick (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As PRIMARYNEWS points out, it is not the case that any newspaper article is automatically primary, so I'm not saying these sources can't be secondary. But they are secondary about the topics you list (terrorism, crime, etc.). The same articles simply state the shooting in recap, making them primary for the event itself. Again, I want to stress: a brief summary of this event to highlight the problems of NOLA crime or second line parades and violence make complete sense given all these sources, but the event is itself is just one of numerous similar events that we have otherwise undocumented -the only fact that being on Mother's Day brought these problems to international light. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is your opinion, but the sources don't support it. USchick (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Export to wikinews. There is no wikinews transwiki template. Lucy346 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is Notable (and GNG), I came to wp to get a summary and was surprised to see the AFD. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have previously suggested this should be deleted, but a better suggestion, which is to merge this minor, common, parochial event as a sentence or two into Second line (parades) seems most appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to concur that as this discussion as progressed, the merge option seems better (though wasn't apparent when it was nominated). --MASEM (t) 05:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a minor event, nor common. It did occur in a locality, as do all events. There is by far sufficient reliable documentation to justify an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article or quit calling this project an endeavor to compile the sum of human knowledge. My76Strat (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The project has never been to compile the sum of human knowledge. We're summarizing, which means not every newsworthy event gets covered per NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia My76Strat (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIME. There's an article for deletion, but it also points out that this contradicts our content guidelines pretty blatantly. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:5P, which is the principles en.wiki is build on. There's a reason we have several sister projects, including WP, to put content that doesn't fit into en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to think that mass shootings in the USA are still notable events. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are no longer calling it a mass shooting, but street violence with victims caught in the crossfire. Again, this was part of the oversensationalism of the initial reporting of the story. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A H M Khairuzzaman Liton

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

No sources and a BLP article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mayor of Rajshahi city, one of the Divisional capitals and major cities of Bangladesh, passes WP:POLITICIAN. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet WP:POLITICIAN? The 1st source is not even about him, just a comment from an official capacity. The 2nd one is just about some committee backing him, nothing in depth at all. 3rd one is his running. We have zero sources about his biography or any indepth coverage. Unsourced material can be challenged and removed, which is the entirety of the article at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went by the first criterion which states sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This is an in-depth source about the politician, from the city portal of Rajshahi.--Zayeem ^(talk) 20:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source. Are there multiple non-primary reliable sources that give significant in-depth coverage of the subject of this AfD?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, that being said none of the sources that mention the subject do not appear to give the subject significant coverage, nor do the available sources added up appear to add up to a single in-depth source about the subject; therefore, it can be well argued that the subject of this AfD has not yet received coverage from reliable sources to pass notability as defined by GNG and/or ANYBIO. Furthermore, most of the mentions of the subject appears to be routine coverage that a mayor would receive for actions that are in the normal course of the elected office the subject is verified to have.

All that being said, the subject is a mayor of Rajshahi (population 842,701 in a 2012 estimate) which would be considered a major city and thus we must look at the following from WP:POLOUTCOMES:

Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors. City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London.

Based on POLOUTCOMES and the size of the city, I am not inclined to support deletion of this biography article. The article may have issues and may appear to be a glamour resume, but AfD is not a replacement for article improvement.

Alternately, the subject maybe locally notable, but notable outside of the city, and thus one can argue per WP:LOCAL that the article be redirected to the article of Rajshahi, and a list of the city's past mayors be created with the article being specifically redirected to that list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern extends to that biography section which seems to be entirely unsourced and added by someone with a close connection to the subject because of the wording and the structure. "Free from spiteful attitude and broad minded politician Kamaruzzaman was connected with Journalism and newspaper too." If this isn't peacocking and poor/confusing grammar, I don't know what is. We can fix some of this, but what more then 5 sentences will be left when we are done? I do understand the size of the city, but I want at least a stub and not 3 sentences which would likely be merged into the article anyways. The city has huge issues as well, a large portion of our Indian coverage is like this, but that doesn't change how we apply policy. It is just not patrolled as much. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern stated above, and although a stub maybe all that is left after clean-up it's better than bad unverified promotional content. I would not oppose a redirect to a section about the city government of the Rajshahi, perhaps into a list of past mayors. If any of them receive significant coverage from reliable sources in the future, an article can always can be created from the list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately independent sources with significant coverages about the politician are difficult to find, but I can assure you that it won't be just a rephrasing of the title if the information (uncontroversial and unambiguous) based on the primary source are added.--Zayeem ^(talk) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A poor article certainly, but this man is mayor of a city of nearly 1,000,000 people. I can imagine the comments if someone tried to delete an article on the mayor of a city this size in Britain or the United States! Much of the article should be deleted, possibly leaving no more than a stub, but that's no reason to delete the whole article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP covers the world on equal terms. The mayor of a city of 860,000 in the US would certainly get an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know what Emerson said about foolish consistencies?
  If significant sources don't exist, there can't be an article. Not saying they don't exist in this case, but your comment betrays a misunderstanding of what "equal" means on Wikipedia. 66.108.176.187 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fear the misunderstanding may be yours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are misinterpreting Emerson. The type of consistency that he characterised as foolish is the type that follows the letter of the law, such as unqualified statements like "if significant sources don't exist, there can't be an article". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, it's quite foolish to suggest baselessly that every mayor of a large city should "get" an article. By contrast, my assertion was not baseless at all. How are you supposed to write a good article without significant sources? 66.108.176.187 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the mayor of a truly major city, that means he meets a notable criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this is an encyclopedia, and the mayor of such a major city is the type of subject that an encyclopedia should cover. There are plenty of sources available online in English covering various aspects of the subject's political and mayoral activities, so there's no need to worry about lack of sources, and many more sources certainly exist offline and in Bengali. Of course nearly all of the current content should be removed as non-neutral and irrelevant, but this discussion is simply delaying the addressing of that issue, the real problem with the article, rather than the issue of whether the article should exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under A7 by Yunshui (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raj kolhar

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

this page does not meet notability standards Thus Spake Lee Tru. 12:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Ambassador to Kuwait

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

Surely this fails WP:NOT - WP is not a directory. Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a directory listing, and utterly useless as a redirect to anything. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a directory listing or yellow pages. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a diplomatic page for Albania that lists their embassies and whatnot? If so, this should likely be redirected there if/when deleted. I concur that it is, at present, a directory listing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Succulent lamb

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

Misleading title. Lack of reliable sources. C 679 11:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism. Used ~~on a few blogs by one journalist (Alex Thomson)~~ by a handful of sports journalists, no evidence of widespread or notable use. At most, it should be redirected to Glossary of association football terms.Giant Snowman 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. In the citations currently in the article alone, it's in major mainstream news outlets by James Traynor, Graham Spiers and Gerry Hassan as well as Alex Thomson. I could add others, and will at some point.MrLukeDevlin (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic we should have an article on the phrase "It's unbelievable Jeff!"? Giant Snowman 08:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

heh. I was commenting on the inaccuracy of your statement, as you were incorrect on the extent of the usage. Agreed that this does not confer notability in itself, but only if the concept the usage denotes is notable for other reasons: which I argue it is. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified my first comment. Giant Snowman 09:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

slightly better, but still untrue: neither Thomson nor Hassan are sports journalists, but mainstream journalists. This takes the term out of the area of non-notable sports neologism, and into the area of GNG. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly needs some work but has four decent refs. to begin with. Dalliance (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I started the page). Needs more work, certainly. Agreed that title could be misleading: moved page to clarify. All citations are to reliable sources: major mainstream news outlets (thus meeting WP:IRS ) or, in Alex Thomson's case, the blog of the chief correspondent of Channel 4 News, part of ITN (he actually refers to 'succulent lamb' Wikipedia page in the third reference given!). Several more references of this kind could be given, and I'll improve the page when I get the time. Certainly in the Scottish/UK context, this phrase is widely-known and used in the context of football and journalism, with regard to the administration and liquidation of Rangers, a major ongoing topic with its own page. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have reverted the page move; partly because there is no need to disambiguate, and secondly because you should not really move articles while an AFD is ongoing. Giant Snowman 08:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Highly questionable that this is a notable enough subject to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a list or dictionary of neologism, especially when its barely notable in the context of an encyclopaedic context.Blethering Scot 21:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG. Has anyone read the article this comes from? It's hilarious and way beyond parody. I'm only surprised Traynor was able to file his copy, having apparently clambered into Murray's rectal cavity. The fact that the "new era" being trumpeted consisted of industrial-scale cheating and, ultimately, the death of the club, makes it even more ridiculous. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real evidence of widespread use. yes, the article has a few references, but that seems to be it in terms of significant uses of the phrase. Redirect to glossary possible, but not sure there is any real evidence that this phrase has ever actually been used outside of the articles reffed. Certainly not common football parlance. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. a google search for 'succulent lamb journalism' has over four million hits. I can't claim to have checked them all! There will be much duplication, etc. However, I have reviewed the first fifty pages of results and the vast majority refer to the subject of the page in question. one or two were about recipes, of course :) Now, many of these are blog posts etc which are not reliable sources. However, I have citations which I'll add when I have the time from the Daily Mail, The Irish Post, the Irish Examiner etc. It may not be common football parlance in your country, but it is in mine. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits mean nothing, see WP:GHITS. I've just Googled myself ("About 25,500,000 results (0.35 seconds)") - so by your notability standards am I deserving of an article? Giant Snowman 19:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood my comment. Let me explain. Look at the context: I was responding to a claim that the phrase has never "actually been used outside of the articles reffed". I have demonstrated that claim to be false. I'm glad you agree with my comment that google hits in themselves do not confer notability. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the phrase "succulent lamb" get used on fan sites, forums, blogs etc.? Yes. Does it appear in widespread use among legitimate journalists and websites? No. Is it notable? No. Giant Snowman 19:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the concept has been used by "legitimate journalists and websites" (and other major mainstream news outlets such as newspapers and UK national news broadcasts) is beyond dispute. Rather, the disagreement seems to be how widespread this usage is. I argue that the usage is widespread enough to be notable: you disagree. Perhaps it would be useful if you could quantify what 'widespread' means to you. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cracking goal" has been used by "legitimate journalists and websites" and yet does not have an article. I wonder why? C 679 13:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This could do with a repurposing (under a less derogatory title) as an article on the Scottish football media. I'm inclined to believe that at least some mention of the subject (from the point of view of Speirs's original article on it) is worthy of some encyclopedic treatment here, but not as a standalone article. And the present mess is plainly intended to be as derogatory as possible to the people in question, such as by introducing Trainor as a Rangers official when the piece in question was released fourteen years prior. If it can't be repurposed it should be deleted as ONEEVENT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be specific about what is derogatory about the title, or the content? Nothing in it is remotely derogatory. ONEEVENT is not appropriate as the usage spans from 1998-2013. Expansion as an article about Scottish football media (or the creation of a separate one under that title) may be a good idea, but deleting an article because another one should exist is bizarre. Also I refer you to Wikipedia:AGF . The claim that the text is "plainly intended to be as derogatory as possible" is incorrect: I can assure you I had no such intention. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It strongly implies that the parties in question are basically supplicants, especially when used (as is common in social media, if not in reliable sources) as a direct title. The usage is not "1998-2013": it consists of one example in 1998, along with a low level of non-notable use in the intervening years, and then a resurgence in 2012 relating entirely to the coverage of the Rangers administration. As for AGF, the current article is a flagrant coatrack; we would be better served deleting it entirely than leaving it in place while pontificating as to where it may be redirected. As such, I'd expect a closing admin to delete it unless it's substantially reworked during the AfD period; should someone subsequently wish to repurpose it they need only ask for undeletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Succulent' is not a synonym for 'supplicant', although the words sound similar. I did move the article to create a clearer title, but the move was reversed. I'm coming round to the opinion that it would be better served as part of a 'Scottish football media' page. You are incorrect to state it's a coatrack and provide no evidence to support your claim: all the content is directly related to the subject, with clear citations to reliable sources. If you are implying I have a prejudicial or biased interest in the subject, you are incorrect. You are also incorrect to expect an admin to delete it, as clearly consensus has not been reached here. Relisting or keeping is the correct course of action. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary: if the concept has been refuted or defended by a reliable source, that POV should be included to provide balance. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't confuse "succulent" with "supplicant": "lambs" (as used when the epithet is directed, as "succulent lambs", at the press corps) was the part I was referring to. But in any case, this article is primarily a reaction to the 2012 resurgence, and serves at the moment as a coatrack for the media's coverage of that event. I'd like to avoid accusations of personal bias (if there's anything to be established by the incident in question, it's that reactionary accusations of bias are inevitable when discussing the subject), but the end result is that this article doesn't have a neutral tone and that we are not obliged to retain it in its present form simply for the sake of a head-count at AfD. In the interim it can be trivially userfied if anyone wants to work on it. As for the addendum, I'm not sure that "the concept" is particularly clearly defined (close, even deferential, attention to powerful sources is endemic to many areas of the media), except for in the present intimation that Jim Traynor was all but working for Rangers in his years before becoming a member of staff, which again even if well-supported would not appear to be grounds for a standalone article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's slightly clearer, thanks. The term "lambs" or "succulent lambs" is not present anywhere in the article or title- nor should they be- so I'm not sure why you mention it though. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rich Boys

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

This article barely relies on one source, an article published in BusinessWeek. When you make a search for "the rich boys", it is pretty clear this term and the group of people that it refers to were invented by the journalist who wrote the article, and has never been used on any other verifiable source. One Wikipedia article cannot solely rely on one article to exist, this goes against the principles of verifiability, thus the removal request Importemps (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails WP:GNG, this group has been mentioned in only one Businessweek article, it merely is the fragment of one person's imagination... --Rubyface (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 23:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dunn (footballer)

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

PROD contested for no reason. Reason for PROD was that this played failed WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. As of now that still stands to be the case. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Subject has never played in a fully professional league so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; no significant media coverage so fails WP:GNG. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:ATD, this article could easily be expanded with citations so that it meets WP:GNG. Here's a few to get started: 1, 2, 3, 4 5 Hmlarson (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hmlarson comeon, you may think expanding the article with citations to meet WP:GNG is a piece of cake but it's not. He hasn't received any significant coverage or played in a fully pro league match, so it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of third-party sourcing confirms what the delete voters state; the only 'keep' is from the creator, an SPA. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Connect Magazine

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

No indication for notability. Magazine fails WP:NME. Dewritech (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The magazine has been appreciated by the state government, and has been considered one of the top innovations both by Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and by Gujarat Innovation Society via Vibrant Gujarat. It has also worked with various governmental, non-governmental not-for-profit, and private institutions and organisations for social good. Some references have been updated while some may be updated as they are cited. - User:Entrepreneur_peep —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable at all. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Malik (character)

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

This article is about a character from a movie. Despite several requests via maintenance templates and talk page messages dating back to 2009, no references establishing the character's independent notability have been provided, which leads me to believe there are none . Psychonaut (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just "a" character? How about we better describe this character contextually. He's THE MAIN character in Slumdog Millionaire . It would seem sensible that this major character in this extremely notable film has been the recipient of analysis and commentary, and that a separate article on him would also seem sensible. Is the nominator's argument that because the article has not been improved that it cannot ever be? Did he look before stating that a lack of effort (by others) leads him to believe there are none "? We do not decide to toss a notable topic because no one's working on it right now. The AFD template gives poor results, so in looking further, I offer additional Find sources:

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

Which give us (even English) results in news and book sources. It would seem prudent to believe there is coverage in Hindi and other Indian and non-English languages.

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

Notability is not dependent upon sources being IN an article... it is dependent upon them being available, used or not, and AFD is not intended to "force" improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that because I have not been able to find any sources establishing any notability independent of the film itself, nor has anyone else provided them despite various people having asked in the last four years, then quite possibly such sources do not exist, and therefore the subject of this article is presumably non-notable. You've provided nothing but links to search engines; please identify the specific reliable sources you believe establish the independent importance of this character. Keep in mind that notability is not inherited; for the vast majority of films—even very popular ones—we do not, and should not, have separate articles on their characters, as it is rare for a character itself to attract a significant amount of dedicated critical analysis. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, and per guideline and your quoted essay, we are allowed instances where notability can be "inherited" if supported by proper sourcing. To quote: Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that." As this character IS the main character and focus of a majorly notable film, it is expected that discussion, analysis, and commentary about the character will naturally be in relationship to the film... as is conceded by the essay you quote. We would not expect to have discussion about this fictional character running for real-world public office or winning a real-world olympic medal. (chuckle). Fictional devices/characters may indeed be covered within Wikipedia. IE: James T. Kirk, Luke Skywalker Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a character that meets the general notability guidelines. In particular I quote, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." At the same time, the guidelines establish a presumption that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Obviously we do not create character articles for the main characters of every film just because reviews make more than trivial mentions about them. It is generally accepted that multiple characters can be covered within a film article. The question is what entails an article split in which we have a focus on the character, even if he or she only appears in one film. I think that the best gauge of that is retrospective (and usually academic) coverage because of the studied observations made. Slumdog Millionaire is most definitely a studied film (this being the latest such study). I've added an "Analysis" starter section that helps indicate that Jamal is a key character, not just one of several, in this well-studied film. There will be redundancy, to be sure. I can foresee an Analysis of Slumdog Millionaire sub-article, and Jamal will inevitably be covered in that scope. I think that in addition to that, it is also possible to have a character-centric scope with related such observations. Other examples: Tony Montana was posted for AfD but was kept with ease. Buffalo Bill (character) is a secondary character that nonetheless had worthwhile observations (that I added to rescue that article from AfD). There is also T-X, for which there was a merge discussion, but I believe I provided adequate evidence (that surprised even me) that indicated the potential of a stand-alone article. I think that potential also exists here; we can compile observations about this character, and I've added a section to indicate that. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for these very sensible observations, and for providing some evidence of the sort I had tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to uncover myself. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course the in one sense character in a film has notability because of the film, since he wouldn't exist otherwise. but it is enough that he ve discussed substantially --and he has, for most of the discussions of the film have centered around him.. The leading character in a famous film centered around him will be discussed sufficiently that they are notable. Of course the discussions will be in the context of the film, but they will be about the character. I do not think the application of the gng to such elements of fiction helpful--better is the common sense that the pricipal charaxters of a very famous films are notable . DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Some characters will be open to interpretation, analysis and discussion, and some won't and will just be mentioned in passing because they're part of the plot but won't receive significant coverage. WP:GNG is fine as it is, in that its requirements are not prohibitive for characters to have articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No subject is inherently notable, but a character can be notable for being in a notable film. Invariably you will simply end up with two notable subjects, the film and the character; it does not have to be one or the other. Furthermore, WP:BEFORE should have been the nomination rationale, not an assumption about WP:HEY or WP:MUST. I agree the burden is on the editors to provide sources, but it's also on the community to decide whether a subject has notability. Mkdw ^talk 23:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The choice is between keep and merge, and nobody agreed with delete, so may be it is time to propose merging and see what the reaction is.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Strobl

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

Altho his organization might be notable, he isn't. Most soldiers aren't. That is not to diminish their sacrifice and importance, but that isn't a factor in determining notability. Fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He had a TV movie made about him, in which he was played by Kevin Bacon (okay that might sway the deletion vote). He won one award and was nominated for another for the screenplay. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE as the co-creator of a significant work. At worst, it should be merged to Taking Chance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taking Chance - Falls short of BLP and GNG. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think overall there's enough coverage here. Lt Col. is not an insignificant rank; he got a writing award. Would be useful if he published some memoirs of the rest of his life as well. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lt. Col. is not a significant enough rank to pass WP:SOLDIER - we only assume notability based on rank if there's stars on their shoulders. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taking Chance: Patriotism aside, the story of Strobl is pretty dull, only his writings count. --Rubyface (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is enough given the movie and attention to his story. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards in addition to Taking Chance puts him easily in range of WP:ANYBIO and beyond WP:BLP1E. Mkdw ^talk 22:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Finnila's Finnish Baths. The summary of the discussion as I see it is the following. Finnila is likely notable, however, none of the available sources sufficiently and in depth describes hs activities. (Note that some of the links are dead). Better sources can be found in the libraries, and in expectation for these to be found, the best solution proposed is to redirect the article. If/when sources are found, it can be restored, the whole editing history remains intact.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Finnila

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

Non-notable civil engineer and Finnish bath owner —teb728 t c 22:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much of the article makes little mention of Finnila. I'm not sure if Finnila is notable or not but don't be drawn into making assumptions just from the article's length! There's a huge amount of WP:COATRACK in there, along the lines of "Finnila was tangentially involved in X so now I'll spend a couple of hundred words talking about X without mentioning Finnila again." I've trimmed away about half the text as completely irrelevant (for example, a very lengthy description of "Little Scandinavia" that mentioned Finnila only once and only in passing), the long WP:COPYVIO quote from a novel and the three infoboxes taken from other pages. Certainly, if the article is to be kept, it needs much more work. For example, the claim that he was the second-most important person on the Golden Gate Bridge project seems rather overblown: surely, that would be trivial to check with Google, if it were true? I suspect that, if this article were to be trimmed down to be about Finnila alone, there wouldn't be very much left that was out of the ordinary. Dricherby (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even after your deletions, most of what remains is about Finnila's Finnish Baths and Alfred Finnila's parents. Although the bath house may be notable, I can't find any indication that Alfred Finnila is notable; his article might even fail A7. —teb728 t c 02:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point: I've now deleted the section that were only about the bath houses. Dricherby (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of things he was associated with were interesting and perhaps notable in themselves, but that's not enough to make him notable, due to WP:NOTINHERITED. Qworty (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've not been able to find any real notability. In addition to the WP:COATRACKing noted above, the article also has a tendency to overstate the subject's importance: for example, the phrase "assistant civil engineer of California" sounds almost like the deputy chief civil engineer of the state; in reality, assistant civil engineer appears to be a relatively junior position like assistant professor (and you wouldn't call an assistant professor at UCLA "assistant professor of California"). We're left with somebody who worked on the Golden Gate Bridge, inherited a few bathhouses from his parents and ran a geothermal drilling company which I infer was unremarkable since the article doesn't even give its name. Dricherby (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That exactly is another aspect which makes the Alfred Finnila story even more remarkable and worthy of presentation in Wikipedia. This point indeed needs to be better emphasized in the article too: Finnila achieved all this at a very young age. What does this tell us about his skills, talent and work ethic, which led to the remarkable achievements? Just the fact alone, that he was the one chosen to design the famous Bridge Round House^[1], which was built immediately following the completion of the bridge, speaks for itself, even if we set aside all sources relating to the other issues. Undoubtedly, if there would have been anyone better available for the task, they would have been given the job. Why ruin the ambiance of the entirety of the Golden Gate Bridge project at this stage any more, when practically all eyes now were on this final topping on the cake, the completion of Bridge Round House, built adjacent to the bridge. Although Finnila had started working on the bridge construction first as a time-keeper in 1933, he was rapidly promoted to carry big responsibilities. That remarkable rise of Finnila is presented in the newspaper article, which has been used as a source in the Wikipedia article. A large size picture of Finnila is featured in the newspaper article as well.

How is it possible then that Finnila was so good in what he was doing, and at so young age too? Answer: Alfred Finnila was an extraordinary man, with an extraordinary upbringing. He had got a unique and powerful head start in his construction studies, compared to his fellow engineering students and his co-workers. Alfred was the only son in his family. He had wanted to participate in the construction projects of his father's construction business already at a very young age. Alfred Finnila's sister too started "working" at a young age, at the age of only five years already, to help out at the front counter of Finnila's Finnish Baths.^[2]

In 1932, Alfred Finnila finished the construction of his own bathhouse on San Francisco's Market Street, with a unique design and technical operating systems which he himself had designed. The new bathhouse included an elaborate embedded gas-pipeline system, designed for the heating of the hot rocks of a large number of sauna rooms. The system was one of a kind, not countered elsewhere. When Alfred Finnila began running his own businesses from his own offices at 2280 Market Street in 1932, he had just turned 19 years old. However - despite of his young age -, Alfred was already an experienced "master builder" in his own right at that point, thought by his father and the skillful working men of his father, who had helped to rebuild the City of San Francisco after the devastating 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The special skills of theirs and the special skills related to the construction of buildings and bending of metal which had ran in the Finnila family over a long time period, were transferred to Alfred Finnila. Alfred's uncle had from the late 1800s onward ran a successful baking oven manufacturing business in the City of Los Angeles in California. He too had participated in the upbringing of Alfred Finnila. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for keeping the page. Almost everything above is your personal opinion of Finnila and I am worried that this opinion is so positive that it would be very hard for you to write a balanced article on him. Your conclusions drawn from him being asked to design the Bridge Round House and that Finnila was "an extraordinary man with an extraordinary upbringing" are entirely original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. Also, what you have written about Finnila's childhood is not at all out of the ordinary: it is perfectly common for children to help out in family businesses. Every bathhouse is unique so sources would be required to show that Finnila's design was significant, rather than just the solution to the specific problems of building a bathhouse in that location. My belief remains that Finnila is a minor figure, whose importance has been dramatically and consistently overstated by a very enthusiastic editor. Dricherby (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with my personal views. If someone else would have been chosen to oversee these projects, an article about him/her would deserve to be in Wikipedia. For us to speculate why exactly Finnila was given these responsibilities, e.g. the designing of Bridge Round House is rather pointless. What counts and what needs to be revealed in Wikipedia is that it was he who was pointed for these tasks, and that it was he who built the Finnila's bathhouse on San Francisco's Market Street, and that he ran Finnila's for seven decades, etc. Like this article, the similar type of article about Adolph Sutro deserves to be in Wikipedia as well, although - unlike Alfred Finnila - Sutro did not personally build his bathhouse, nor did he oversee the main works of Golden Gate Bridge, etc. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my comments on his job title, the 1937 Yearbook of the American Society of Civil Engineers [33] describes him as just "Eng. Draftsman"; but contains many other people described as "Asst. Engr." Since "Engr." means "engineer", I infer that an "Eng. Draftsman" is an "engineering draftsman", rather than an "engineer and draftsman". This is consistent with him not having left college yet: he wouldn't be titled "engineer" without a degree. Dricherby (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are unanswered questions to us, for now:

1. Perhaps that was a state regulated job title to which one could be promoted/entitled under certain circumstances in the 1930s, even though the person might not have graduated from their engineering school as of yet.

2. Perhaps the title was given to Finnila in the end of the bridge construction in 1937, after he had just graduated in the springtime of the same year.

3. Perhaps the "yearbook" which you refer to was published in 1937 - or even in the end of 1936 - before Finnila graduated in the springtime of 1937 - etc.

What ever the case may be, I am happy with the other title which you brought up as well. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article. By deleting, we would promote criteria, based on which countless articles should be deleted. It is one of the purposes of Wikipedia to present the individuals in charge of the building and operating of various "landmark" type projects and businesses. If not presented, Wikipedia would be a much less useful tool for search of information. This article meets the criteria for what is generally accepted as notable in Wikipedia. The article was already improved. However, it can be further improved to better emphasize the significance of Alfred Finnila in relation to e.g. the following key matters:

Golden Gate Bridge - in this and other similar projects, there are those who clearly were of special importance and in charge of notably more than others. Such is the case of Alfred Finnila in the construction of the world famous Golden Gate Bridge. During the critical final years of the uplifting of the bridge's main structure, Finnila oversaw all of the bridge's ironing work and half of the bridge's roadwork. Accordingly - precisely for this reason -, The San Francisco Examiner in May of 1982 presented Alfred Finnila as the "Assistant Civil Engineer of California", who was a key contributor for the completion of the Golden Gate Bridge work. ^[3]
Bridge Round House - the Art Deco design of the famous Bridge Round House was completed by Alfred Finnila in 1938, immediately following the completion of the construction of the adjacent Golden Gate Bridge. ^[1]^[4]
Finnila's Finnish Baths - Alfred Finnila designed and built the famous bathhouse on San Francisco's Market Street, and he then oversaw its operations as general manager for seven decades. Finnila's was a popular and important element in the history of San Francisco's Castro District.^[3]^[5]^[6] Still shortly before closing its popular Market Street location in San Francisco in the 1980s, Finnila's Finnish Baths - owned and managed by Alfred Finnila - was awarded with the title "The Best" two times in row by the popular bi-weekly and free San Francisco Bay Area entertainment magazine San Francisco Bay Guardian. According to the paper, Finnila's was "The Best Sauna and Massage Parlor" in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1983 and 1984. ^[7] -- Rubert ABC (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Rubert ABC: Of your linked references only one even mentions Alfred Finnila. I don’t have access to the two non-linked references, but I would guess from the titles and how you use them that the first mentions him, and the last does not. What we are looking for is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—significant coverage, not mere mentions. Coverage of the bath house (if it is significant coverage) would qualify the bath house for an article but not its owner. Yes, many articles need to be deleted, and many are deleted every day. —teb728 t c 20:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources directly speak of Alfred Finnila by his name, whereas for instance the Auerbach book discusses the bathhouse and tells how the owner's father had brought the sauna idea with him from Finland, etc. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems unlikely that Stevanne Auerbach's work of fiction constitutes a reliable source. Dricherby (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The novel provides a description of the bathhouse. In my view, for instance brief quotes of the description can be provided, as long as it is stated that the quotes are form the novel by such and such. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The novel is a work of fiction! The descriptions inside it could be made up. Dricherby (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss the point: Although two sources mention his name, but they do not give him significant coverage. It takes significant coverage to demonstrate notability. As for the novel, (even if it were a reliable source) it describes the bathhouse—not Alfred Finnila, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. —teb728 t c 21:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article by San Francisco Examiner highlights Alfred Finnila and explains his contributions in the bridge construction. The paper provides a large picture of Alfred Finnila as well (he is alone in the picture). That is significant coverage from one source. The website of San Francisco Chronicle correctly reports that the Art Deco of Bridge Round House was designed by Alfred Finnila. Accordingly, these sources have been appropriately used, and the sources meet Wikipedia standards. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubert, Please read Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GNG); it is the standard that the closing admin will use in deciding what to do with the article. As you can see there, a source must give significant coverage in order to be counted as showing notability. And it defines, “‘Significant coverage’ means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.” The San Francisco Chronicle article makes only a trivial mention of Finnila; so (despite your repeatedly citing it) the admin will not consider it in deciding whether to keep the article. —teb728 t c 01:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finnila's Finnish Baths for now. Notable San Franciscan. Unfortunately, you aren't going to discover this from doing a Google search. This is one of those cases where print sources trump electronic records. I will be working with Rubert ABC to help solve this problem. Until then, redirect to Finnila's Finnish Baths. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree, Viriditas. Thank you for the assistance. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate This way the page can be worked on and the sourcing issues addressed outside of main space and without the specter of deletion hanging over its head. J04n(talk page) 11:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought that incubation might be helpful, but as I think about it, the problem with the article is not a lack of sources, but that even taking the article’s claims at face value, the subject is not important or significant. He is an unremarkable civil engineer and the unremarkable owner of an at best marginally notable business. —teb728 t c 21:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there would have been another engineer instead of Finnila carrying these responsibilities at the bridge construction or being in charge of designing Bridge Round House (setting aside Finnila's, etc.), we would have an article about him/her in Wikipedia - or, if there were no article for him/her already, we would need to write one. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that and it's a non-argument. If some other engineer had done these things and somebody had written an article about him, we'd be having the exact same discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Engineer's Name instead. Dricherby (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Save: Appropriately referenced and meets Wikipedia standards. ~ BjornTroms (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sources, appears marginally notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finnila's Finnish Baths (for now), per Viriditas. Miniapolis 14:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 21:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep article~~ If someone else would have been chosen to oversee these projects, an article about him/her would deserve to be in Wikipedia. For us to speculate why exactly Finnila was given these responsibilities, e.g. the designing of Bridge Round House is rather pointless. What counts and what needs to be revealed in Wikipedia is that it was he who was pointed for these tasks, and that it was he who built the Finnila's bathhouse on San Francisco's Market Street, and that he ran Finnila's for seven decades, etc. Like this article, the similar type of article about Adolph Sutro deserves to be in Wikipedia as well, although - unlike Alfred Finnila - Sutro did not personally build his bathhouse, nor did he oversee the main works of Golden Gate Bridge, etc. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) duplicate !vote struck. Dricherby (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing Finnila, not Sutro (WP:OTHERSTUFF) and, again, I remind you that the criterion is notability, not some notion of "deservingness". By the way, Sutro was mayor of San Francisco so is immediately notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Dricherby (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But since you want to compare Finnila with Sutro: If Finnila had gone on to become mayor, he would be notable. Or if the bridge had been named the Finnila Bridge in recognition of his envisioning and designing it and securing its financing (compare the Sutro Tunnel). It’s true that Sutro didn’t design the Sutro Baths, and notice that the article doesn’t even mention who the designer was, which shows how important the designer of a bathhouse is. —teb728 t c 10:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those above who see this qualifying - the information is notable enough, and the sources are "adequate". From the article:

Alfred Finnila oversaw all the ironing work and half of the road work of the Golden Gate Bridge, during the uplifting of the bridge's main structure in 1933–1937.^[3] Immediately following the completion of the bridge work, the Art Deco design of the famous Bridge Round House diner was completed by Alfred Finnila at the southeastern end of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1938. ^[1] -- Rubert ABC (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would agree that Finnila's contributions to a major birdge make him notable. However at the same time we need to cut down to coat racking and focus the article on Finnila.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comes from significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, not from judgments about whether the person's achievements were important. Dricherby (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c King, John (25 May 2012). "Golden Gate Bridge's Plaza Flawed but Workable". San Francisco Chronicle.
^ Edna Jeffrey Biography and synopsis of her novel, Till I'm with You Again.
^ ^a ^b ^c San Francisco Examiner. May 27, 1982. No. 147, p. 2. Golden Gate Bridge - 45th anniversary of completion.
^ Kligman, David (25 May 2012). "From Sea to Shining Sea: PG&E's Earley Joins Tribute to Golden Gate Bridge". Currents. PG&E.
^ Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest.
^ Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest - Finnila's-related exerts.
^ San Francisco Bay Guardian - N:o 37, 1984.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Jeffrey

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

Non-notable businessperson and author of a non-notable novel —teb728 t c 21:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, either for this person or her novel. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire article is incredibly trivial and banal, with notability not even asserted. Just a lady who worked in a real-estate sales office. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:CORP, WP:GNG, and any other relevant policy you to care to name. Qworty (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article. By deleting, we would promote criteria, based on which countless articles should be deleted. In my view, the article meets the criteria for what is generally accepted as notable in Wikipedia. The newly-established article has now been cropped and can be cropped and/or improved further, for it to more precisely focus on key matters, such as:

1. Edna Jeffrey was for decades the co-owner of the famous Finnila's Finnish Baths on San Francisco's Market Street. Finnila's was a popular and important element in the history of San Francisco's Castro District.^[1]^[2]^[3] Edna Jeffrey is also co-owner of the Noe & Market Center on San Francisco's Market Street, and she was a long-time co-owner of a part of the property of Cafe Flore in San Francisco. Both Cafe Flore and Finnila's Finnish Baths have been San Francisco's popular "landmark"^[4] type businesses for long, Finnila's operating in San Francisco's Castro District alone for over seven decades, and continuing thereafter on Taraval Street.

Among recognition, the two businesses have been granted the "The Best" award by San Francisco Bay Guardian in total at least eight times. Still shortly before closing its popular Market Street location in San Francisco in the 1980s, Finnila's Finnish Baths - owned by Edna Jeffrey and his brother Alfred Finnila - was awarded with the title "The Best" two times in row by the popular bi-weekly and free San Francisco Bay Area entertainment magazine San Francisco Bay Guardian. According to the paper, Finnila's was "The Best Sauna and Massage Parlor" in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1983 and 1984. ^[5]

2. Edna Jeffrey is the author of the novel Till I'm with You Again^[6]^[7]^[8], a movie screenplay for which has recently been finished by the many times Emmy-nominated Thom Racina^[9] - and, a movie production is now under works.^[10] -- Rubert ABC (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Rubert ABC, I will not express an opinion about the notability of the businesses, but I will say that notability is not inherited. The owner of a notable business is not automatically notable, even if the business won a couple of local awards. As for the novel and the screenplay, I can find no coverage whatsoever of either in independent, reliable sources. I see discussion on a website controlled by the screenwriter, but that doesn't count, as it isn't independent. The third source, a church website, doesn't even mention her. Your statement that countless other Wikipedia articles ought to be deleted is no doubt true, and we delete many articles about non-notable topics from Wikipedia every day. The existence of such articles is no defense for this article, because the purpose of this debate is to make a decision about this article alone. So I ask you, where is the significant coverage of Edna Jeffrey in independent, reliable sources? I just don't see it so far, and without it, the article will almost certainly be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what "discussion on a website controlled by the screenwriter" you are referring to. I believe definitions about "independent" vary in these type of contexts. How do you define "independent" in your question? All websites are produced by an individual or a group of people. Do you mean to imply that the website used as a source in the Edna Jeffrey article is controlled by the screenwriter? No such indication can be detected. Thus, can we agree that the website is independent? In my view, the source is fine for what it is used for. However, I believe the church source is a relic from the section which discussed Little Scandinavia and how a lot of Finns came to rebuilt San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake. That section was removed. For me that link did not even work right now - so, I could not check what exactly is stated there. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point made above, that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Therefore it doesn't matter how notable the business may have been--the notability does not extend to the subject of this article. Qworty (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article - the Edna Jeffrey novel and movie production links on this page did not show up until now, due to misspelling. An Amazon book link was added here also.^[7] Although the novel was written for motion picture purposes and it therefore was published in limited print and with not big marketing process, it presents a remarkable story which has created interest in Hollywood experts. A movie screenplay from the novel has been produced by a notable^[9] Hollywood screenwriter, and a movie planning is far in works.^[10] Edna Jeffrey did not only inherit Finnila's Finnish Baths. Eager to help, she began assisting at the front counter of Finnila's when she was only five years old, greatly contributing to the success of the bathhouse throughout her adolescence, and later on as the co-owner for decades of both the bathhouse and the Noe & Market Center complex, which was built in place of the old bathhouse. Edna Jeffrey remains a majority owner of the new building today. ^[6] -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finnila's Finnish Baths for now until separate notability can be established. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I second the motion by Viriditas, unless others will already agree to accept enough notability having been established on the above given grounds. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment FWIW the subject is not mentioned once on the Finnila's Finnish Baths page. J04n(talk page) 11:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I included Jeffrey as owner of the bathhouse. ~ BjornTroms (talk)

Edna Jeffrey was discussed in the Finnila's Finnish Baths article earlier too - prior to the comment from J04n -, as can be seen for instance here. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: Jeffrey needs to be in Wikipedia, and her novel too. ~ BjornTroms (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC) — BjornTroms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Week Delete possibly WP:TOOSOON. Screenplays often aren't filmed, but if it is, maybe... Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears marginally notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Rubert ABC You ask what I mean by "a website controlled by the screenwriter". I am referring to the current references #1 and #4 in the article. This website is indisputably controlled by the screenwriter. If the movie is made and does well, the screenwriter and the author will benefit financially. Accordingly, these two references are not independent and are utterly useless to establish notability, as Wikipedia defines that term. Reference #2 is the Amazon.com web page for the book. Amazons makes money selling books, and sales listings are by definition not independent and are worthless for establishing notability. Reference #3 is a dead link, and even when live, was not independent. Reference #5, as already pointed out, is a church website that does not mention her. It is completely worthless. Reference #6 is a Bay Guardian article published in 1984. Although offline sources are allowed, this one is pretty much unverifiable. It lacks article title, author, date or any indication of the content of the article. It is dubious, given the utter lack of online independent sources giving significant coverage to Edna Jeffrey. Reference #7 is an author website that doesn't mention Jeffrey or her business ventures at all. Reference #8 is a Finiish Google Books link that shows that a novel was published by another author that mentions a business that Jeffrey co-owned, but does not mention her. In summary, after this lengthy debate, not a single solitary reliable, independent source has been produced by Rubert ABC, or any other editor recommending "Keep", that gives significant coverage to Edna Jeffrey. Feel free to prove me wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My response is given in the "relisted" segment below. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 21:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finnila's Finnish Baths per Viriditas.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep article.~~ Response to Cullen 328: You suggest that the website used as a reference might be "controlled" by the screenwriter. With no proof or indication of such control, this is not a valid reason for deletion of the article.

Proof of contrary: Out of billions of Google picture search results for the term "film entertainment", a majority (4/7) of the first row of results connect to websites of the publisher used as a reference in the Edna Jeffrey article (checking the search term without quote signs, 30% of the first three rows of pictures connect to that publisher). Furthermore, a search engine check shows that although that entertainment network reports about Edna Jeffrey's novel and the screenplay by Thom Racina and the movie under works, no indication of the network being in any way "controlled" by Mr. Racina can be detected. Racina appears to be no affiliate or partner of the network.

Using an issue of San Francisco Bay Guardian as a reference for "The Best" awards granted by the paper is appropriate, and the year and the number of the issue discussing "The Best" awards in question have been provided.^[5] Also, a picture of the 1984 "The Best" award granted to Finnila's by Bay Guardian was added in references.^[4] The Amazon.com link was not intended for showing of notability, but simply for additional verification of the novel having been authored by Edna Jeffrey.^[7] The broken link to the screenwriter biography was fixed.^[9] As material was deleted from the article, the church link had become poorly placed. That was fixed. The source info for Edna Jeffrey's book (incl. ISBN No.) was included as a reference.^[8] -- Rubert ABC (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote. Dricherby (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The only reliable source in the whole article is the San Francisco Bay Guardian, and that is only used to support WP:COATRACKing of the awards that newspaper gave to Finnila's Bathhouse. There's no link to an online version but, from the way that source is used, I assume that it gives no significant coverage (probably none at all) to Jeffrey. In any case, notability is not inherited by the owner of a possibly notable business. I was unable to find any reliable sources at all for Edna Jeffrey, her book or the movie that's allegedly being made of it so the subject seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The article doesn't claim she's notable in any other way, so I don't see any other notability criteria that could be applied. Her book completely fails WP:BK – I couldn't find a single review – and the movie is WP:CRYSTAL. I doubt it will ever be made, since the biography of the screenwriter cited in the article [34] mentions nothing after 2005 and the domain movieforbidden.com (also cited in the article) was registered in 2009, suggesting that this material is several years old and going nowhere. I see no reason at WP:REDIRECT to have a redirect and I disagree with a redirect since, if anyone is interested in Jeffrey, it is more likely to be because of her novel and/or the movie, than because of curiosity about a business that closed in 2000. Dricherby (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To further flog the WP:NOTINHERITED horse, I note that Jeffrey wasn't even mentioned in Finnila's Finnish Baths (created by the same editor as this article) until her absence from that article was mentioned in this AfD. Even now, she only has a trivial mention as being a co-owner of the business. Dricherby (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notable enough. Although the particular Thom Racina biography used^[9] as a reference in the Edna Jeffrey article does not reveal Racina's latest works, he has continued contributing as a significant Hollywood screenwriter up to date, e.g. as the head writer for One Life to Live (5/2013) and writer of 12 episodes^[11] of The Young and the Restless ("writer"/"written by").^[12] It is not true that "Jeffrey wasn't even mentioned in Finnila's Finnish Baths" article "until her absence from that article was mentioned in this AfD." For proof, see for instance this version of the Finnila's article. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Unbolded "notable enough", to make sure it is not confused for a duplicate keep !vote. Dricherby (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry and thank you for the correction: I see that Jeffrey's name was subsequently removed from that article so I've struck my comment about her absence. However, your comments about Thom Racina make my other point stronger. The material related to the film "Forbidden" has clearly not been updated in several years, since it doesn't mention any of the things you point out that Racina has done in the last eight years. This suggests quite strongly that the film project has been abandoned. Also, although he's a very successful writer of TV soaps, IMDB shows that Racina has never been credited as a movie screenwriter and his own website http://www.thomracina.com/ doesn't mention any movie work that I can see. So we're left with an apparently-abandoned screenplay by somebody who's never had a screenplay turned into an actual movie: that doesn't confer notability. Dricherby (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Internet's "who is" records, the movie domain name in question was registered as recently as August 28, 2009. The website in question - under that domain/address - can only have been launched after August 28, 2009. Typically - these days -, from the time of the registration of a movie domain, the actual finishing of the movie production takes several years. What comes to the Thom Racina biography provided on that website, clearly not all available information about him has been presented. Accordingly, in the Edna Jeffrey Wikipedia article, other Thom Racina biographies and/or other related information can be added. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already said that the movieforbidden.com domain was registered in 2009; the content, however, is at bravesites.com and may have been there before 2009: the fact that the bios don't mention anything after 2005 suggests that they were. I'm not saying that the Thom Racina information can't be used as sources for things in the article (though they're sef-published so not reliable for much other than information about Racina himself). I'm saying that they don't establish notability of Edna Jeffrey, which is what we're debating here. Dricherby (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You state above that the information used as a reference "may have been there before 2009". However, if that website or the domain name would have been published before August 28, 2009, some information about this would be available through search engines. Would you kindly please provide such information. If not, your theory is based on speculation which mounts to no proof of any inappropriate use of a source. With "sef-published" you must mean self-published. However, self-published by who? The source is an appropriately used independent source. As I've stated above (quoting my earlier statement):

"Out of billions of Google picture search results for the term "film entertainment", a majority (4/7) of the first row of results connect to websites of the publisher used as a reference in the Edna Jeffrey article (checking the search term without quote signs, 30% of the first three rows of pictures connect to that publisher). Furthermore, a search engine check shows that although that entertainment network reports about Edna Jeffrey's novel and the screenplay by Thom Racina and the movie under works, no indication of the network being in any way "controlled" by Mr. Racina can be detected. Racina appears to be no affiliate or partner of the network." -- Rubert ABC (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published" means "published by the person who wrote it". Once again, notability comes from "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". The website in question is not independent of the subject so it cannot be used as evidence of notability. I do not need to prove that the website was there before 2009; it is enough to note that the biography there says nothing after 2005 and that it would be very strange to write a biography in 2009 which doesn't mention the most recent things the person did. And, to be honest, if your argument that Edna Jeffrey is notable depends crucially on whether this website was written in 2005 or 2009, it is an extremely weak argument. Google image search results for "film entertainment" are completely irrelevant to the issue of Edna Jeffrey's notability. Dricherby (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly not notable for the novel, which is in a total of two libraries according to Worldcat, nor the film about the novel, which hasn't been made yet. It would be better top have the article about the Baths. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UPANDCOMING. She may yet become notable, but not she's not there now. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ San Francisco Examiner. May 27, 1982. No. 147, p. 2. Golden Gate Bridge - 45th anniversary of completion.
^ Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest.
^ Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest - Finnila's-Finnish-Baths-related exerts.
^ ^a ^b A picture of the 1984 "The Best" award certificate granted to Finnila's by the Bay Guardian
^ ^a ^b San Francisco Bay Guardian. N:o 37, 1984.
^ ^a ^b Edna Jeffrey biography and synopsis of her novel, Till I'm with You Again.
^ ^a ^b ^c Till I'm With You Again: A Novel Based on Edna Jeffrey's True Life Experience - Amazon.com.
^ ^a ^b Jeffrey, Edna (2005), Till I'm with You Again, McKinleyville, CA: Daniel & Daniel Publishers, ISBN 978-1564744524.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Thom Racina biography - author of the screenplay for the movie Forbibben.
^ ^a ^b Forbidden - synopsis of screenplay by Thom Racina, based on Edna Jeffrey's novel.
^ Filmography by TV series for Thom Racina.
^ Thom Racina on IMdB.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Problem solving. Regarding copyright: this should still be checked as students are notoriously prone to copying and pasting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common barriers to problem solving

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

It doesn't feel good to nominate an article like this, but good writing doesn't exempt from AfD any more than bad writing requires it. This appears to violate WP:SYN and WP:NOTESSAY. It was created by a WP:SPA (though a benevolent one; see this) who seems to have attempted to delete it a few months ago. BDD (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into problem solving per WP:ATD. You could drop the whole thing into that article and it would work fine there. WP:SYN and WP:NOTESSAY don't seem to be relevant. Warden (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Colonel Warden. I was seriously concerned about the copyright status of this article. I google-tested a few snippets and didn't get any matches. The article history and author strongly imply it was written via Wikipedia and for Wikipedia--as part of a school project, but not as an essay or thesis or whatever to be handed in and graded. -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Col Warden and Stillnote, which seems sensible. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JetWash Aviation Services

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

created by a single purpose editor as an WP:ADVERT. fails WP:CORP. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP in my opinion. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 Blatant hoax — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexyman

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

No hits for this on Gnews. Also no hits for the supposed publisher. completely unreferenced. Not sure it isn't a hoax, but if it isn't it sure doesn't meet any standard of notability. WP:N, WP:GNG Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And it was CSD'd while I was adding this. And it also appears that an article by the same title was CSD'd earlier today. In addition the user has a copy in his sandbox and has essentially recreated the same article at AfC under the title Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jason Brooks (Super Hero).Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3 as hoax. Mediran (t • c) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agios Ioannis Prodromos

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

Fails the general notability guideline; a search for sources only shows up passing mentions and trivial coverage. —me_and 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable church with no real references to speak of. Ducknish (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fail notability. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 20:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extra baggage. History2007 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Value (Twelve Gauge Valentine album)

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

Having searched Allmusic and Billboard, there is not enough information to expand this article beyond a stub. According to WP:NMUSIC, albums that fail to go beyond a track listing are not notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 10:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMUSIC. Nothing on Google News, LexisNexis, or other databases that I have access to. Google testing reveals a total of 164 hits. Skimming the first few pages reveals nothing reliable. This, maybe, but probably not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton's tooth

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton's tooth

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

The entire content of this stub can easily be included in the main article on Newton, and as there don't seem to be any sources beyond the New York Times article cited, it won't be possible to write a more substantial article. Cal Engime (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Isaac Newton. Ansh666 02:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, maybe just delete, WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. I don't know, need more people to pitch in to decide. Ansh666 03:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Isaac Newton. Maybe worth mentioning but certainly not notable enough for its own article. JIP | Talk 04:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After nearly 300 years, all than can be said of it is that it was sold for a tidy sum in 1816. No details, e.g. authenticating it even came from Ike's noggin. Next up: Lock of Elvis Presley's hair. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't think anyone can claim this is independently notable, but it's worth a line in Newton's article as illustrating his historical importance in the 19th century. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, specifically in preference to merge - this is too trivial to mention. -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a whole article on Albert Einstein's brain, surely Newton's tooth deserves a line somewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein was notable because of his brain - because of the amazing science he produced using it, and because later scientists seriously examined his brain to see what made him able to think the way he did. If Newton's gravity story had to do with a tooth falling out, instead of an apple falling from a tree, the tooth would matter. I guess you could make an argument that it's significant as a relic in the religious sense, but there aren't enough sources to support that. Either way, it's no big deal, I won't sweat whatever decision the closer makes. Your argument that it deserves mention to prove he was already considered important in the 19th century is a sound one, I just don't think it's a strong one. -- stillnotelf is invisible 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason in a deletion debate. Ansh666 19:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an utterly trivial thing and not worth having an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I PROD'ed the other article per the comments here. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 13:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Families 2

(Find video game sources: "Virtual Families 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Inadequately sourced article about a non-notable video game. Unable to find any reliable sources. - Mr X 01:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 01:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to bundle Virtual Families, the original game, since that does not seem much better. Unless or course more stronger sourcing can be found.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. There's a lot of websites that provide game reviews and are considered reliable sources, but these games have almost no coverage and therefore aren't notable. If one was notable, I would suggest merging the 2 articles, but neither is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to recreate the page and has a significant history of editing outside of this subject I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 01:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Success Academy Charter Schools

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

This is a hopelessly promotional article that I find it will be impossible to fix, due to opposition from the principle editor. Others have tried, and always been reverted and I have no desire to get into an edit war myself. The work that the principal ed. has done here and on the article on the founder indicates a clear COI, but that wouldn't matter if it were done properly. As is, it makes a good case against permitting COI editing.

The only rational course seems to me to have it deleted, and started over. At this point I'm too involved to use G11, but I have no objection if someone else wants to. If someone wishes to stubbify, and is willing to maintain it properly & thinks they'll be able, I have no objection either. The problems are detailed very fully with examples on the article talk p., so I summarize here very briefly :

overdetail about utter routine , such as the individual subjects taught and the individual assessments

excessive detail about demographics,growth, teaching methods, school results, schedules, and community involvement

A criticism section entirely devoted to making conclusions that the criticism is not valid

An extremely large number of quotes from the founder about purely routine matters that just need a reference--the apparent purpose is to mention her name as often as possible

using 2 or 3 or more references for individual points where one good one suffices. The sheer number of references is many times that of most articles on subject of worldwide study and importance.

insistence on discussing schools that have not yet opened and may never. These are all primary schools, and the most basic of all criteria for a school is that they have real existence.

I know, of course, that AfD is not really intended for subject conflicts, but sometimes the problem is so great that the article is unmaintainable and remains in a state that is harmful to the purpose of the encyclopedia, in this case, using WP for promotion. We delete promotional articles that can't be fixed, and this is the worst example I know of that remains undeleted. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the article as it stands is, at best, a WP:COATRACK. I suggest (a) stubifying or deleting the current article and (b) a new article called something like Politics of K12 education in New York. User:Nick Levinson is not a WP:SPA, but certainly appears to be showing sign of WP:OWN on this article and I would encourage them to broaden their editing. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stub. As one of the coordinators of the Schools Project for several years, although I have a sympathetic view for school articles, and have saved many from deletion, this is perhaps the worst case of blatant promotion I have come across among the thousands of school articles on my watchlist. I fully concur with DGG who also does not look lightly on the deletion of schools, and whether or not there is a clear case for deletion (or stubbing down to a simple lead paragraph), in its current cast it must not be allowed to stay in mainspace. Whatever happens, I will not be the one to improve this article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am its creator and most frequent editor. Its subject is highly controversial and many sources reflect that. The article needs to reflect that and needs to do so neutrally. The article tries to be comprehensive in a way that I think Wikipedia tries to encourage. If some other schools or world-topic articles are not, that is not applicable here. Excessive brevity should not be the terminating point of any article.

An article that accurately states both sides of issues is not promotional. It is NPOV. Apparently, an informative article is said to be promotional, which misunderstands promotionality as discussed earlier and I think not disputed anymore. Promotional tone is not allowed and is not present.

The SA schools group is notable and widely covered in a great many secondary sources, and many are cited in the article.

I have preserved edits with which I disagreed, I have accepted suggestions and applied them to the article even if I doubted their utility (such as with the table for specific schools), I have conformed content to sources (such as when emails were written of as having been revealed through a lawsuit when no lawsuit was mentioned in the source), I have added content I wish was not true but which was sourced even without waiting for any editor to say the specific content should be added, I have explained when I believed an edit should not be performed or kept and explained in terms of policies and guidelines, and I have solicited input via the talk page. The charge that fixes have "always been reverted" is false. The edit history and the talk page show that I have preserved edits but that I have not been a mere secretary. The nominator says he has "no desire to get into an edit war myself"; that is a charge against me and there has been no edit war.

There is no COI and COI editing is already forbidden. If anyone wants to broaden the range of what COI means, that should be brought to the COI guideline or its talk page. I appreciate the invitation to edit elsewhere, and I already do and have for years.

The article is solely about the schools group and has no content other than that, so it is not a coatrack.

The nomination says "problems are ... summarize[d]" to include items being discussed at the article talk page, to include that "a criticism section [is] entirely devoted to making conclusions that the criticism is not valid" when it draws no conclusion at all and does not invalidate reports of criticisms but reports what the sources say on both sides because the article must be neutral, to include "an extremely large number of quotes from the founder about purely routine matters that just need a reference" when references are provided for all quotations, that quotations are from the founder personally is because the school has comments usually being by her (she is the CEO) rather than by many other non-publicist officials (e.g., principals), and we may disagree on what matters are due some weight for this controversial schools group but I have explained why I think they do or deleted them in months past, to include a personal attack on my motive with the false statement that "the apparent purpose is to mention her [Moskowitz'] name as often as possible", to include "using 2 or 3 or more references for individual points" when there never is "more" than 3 and 3 are permitted and needed for controversial matters, and to include "insistence on discussing schools that have not yet opened and may never" when unopened noncontroversial schools were deleted months ago, a hatnote in the article already says they're not there, this was pointed out on the talk page before the nomination, and controversies about certain unopened schools are controversies about the schools group (e.g., on co-location) and thus belong in the article.

Collaboration has been refused by the nominator of this article, who has repeated charges despite their resolution or wrongness, which I have already pointed out. Perhaps he meant to say something else that would have warranted other responses, but he said what he said and a refusal to collaborate, when I have extensively collaborated and avoided ever being an owner, is a refusal of efforts to improve this article within policies and guidelines. I have opened several discussions on the talk page that were not answered by anyone, namely New Tags of February 11, 2013, Propose to Delete Tag For Original Research, Propose to Delete Tag For Promotional Tone, Propose to Delete Remaining Tags, Whether to Reduce Criticisms and Therefore Both Sides, School Types According to Overarching Curricula, Deleting Unopened Uncontroverted Schools, Recent Edits Not By Me, and Propose to Resubsection External Links For News Outlet Link.

Repeatedly, there have been attempts to apply non-Wikipedia standards to this article. I have explained problems with non-Wikipedia goals such as removing neutrality, attempting to restrict which audiences should find the article useful, or moving citations from what they supported to what they did not support (my request that they be moved back was not answered and I did it myself).

G11 has been discussed (see the linked post's second pararaph). It's for nonneutral articles. This article is neutral. G11 speedy deletion does not apply.

A stub would not reflect the range of criticism nor provide the context needed for NPOV except by being silent, which would not reflect the sources. There has generally been insistence that criticisms be reported, not that they be mostly omitted, as a stub would require. Only nearly-trivial criticisms should be omitted and they were, long ago, but a stub would be silent about almost evrything.

An article about K-12 education in New York is a fine idea but its existence would not replace or preclude an article on a subject as notable as this one's. I hope that other schools can be the subjects of more thorough articles, but it takes time to research and write them. Some school articles look to me like the result of either school pride, class assignment, or publicist training exercises but we don't delete them and shouldn't, since they can all be improved and that is why I have tried to work with all editors interested in this one.

Spinning off a subarticle would be a workable solution that was discussed but left open on the point of what portions would be moved into a subarticle and summarized in this one. I'm open to doing that work.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, as creator of the article, you would naturally vote to keep it. However, your TL:DR above is mostly blather, just like much of the content of the article. Just what is it actually notable for? Multiple sources alone do not necessarily accord notability to WP:ORG - they just confirm the statements in the text. I'm sorry for all the hard work you've put into this article and its 472 sources but in its present cast, the article is blatant promotion. Perhaps you could take a look at the neutrality of one of our better mainstream school articles or US School District articles to see how an encyclopedic school entry should appear. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR does not apply, partly because when accusations are made they're either right or wrong and if wrong replies are expected and should be extended the same reading as the accusations get. None of my posts are off-point or excessively redundant; I avoided copying much from the talk page although it would have shown problems with this AfD, and instead referred editors to that page. Notability is already well established from dozens of sources in the article; copying them here would be redundant of the article. Sources are supposed to let you "confirm the statements in the text", so that is not a valid criticism; some of them also establish notability.

The Malvern College is interesting, but I have not researched that subject and so do not know what it would say after that. I see it has an entire section called "Year names" and I see not a clue what that means; I first guessed it refers to the 9th, etc., year after founding but I don't know. The lead tells us how much acreage it sits on and the body tells of a variety of its traditions and much about sports, which the Success Academy article hardly goes into. The Malverne article does not mention what grades students enroll for. I don't see any criticisms; perhaps there weren't any in sourcing for the 148 years since its founding, but the Success Academy article reports many for the 7 or so years since its founding, and one result is that the Success Academies are apparently more controversial than Malverne, and, if promotionality were about wanting to go to the school, the Malverne article is the more promotional of the two (not that I would change that regarding content), so it's interesting that you suggest it as a model, although I suggest that the Success Academy article has to continue reporting criticisms because that is required by neutrality policy. I don't know enough about the College (which is apparently not a college, at least in U.S. terms) and perhaps it warrants adding a talk page topic/section there; feel free.

I've seen school district articles, but the ones I recall were mainly just lists of schools with extremely little information about any of them and no criticisms, such as list of high schools in New York City, for which I guarantee you (having seen sources not cited in it) there are criticisms, such as persistently low graduation rates for some of them. Perhaps you were not referring to a school list article I had seen, so please suggest one that you believe is a good model not needing much further development (other than new content).

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (Corrected phrasing: 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Re earlier posts:

A person's name is frequently cited, as Moskowitz' is, because statements are attributed, which is required. Many other names are in the article's body for the same reason.

Politics of charter schools in New York are partly covered in charter schools (New York). Because much of the Success Academies' political work is conducted separately from that of other schools and is substantial and controversial, it is reported in this article. If other schools do significant political work of their own, it is probably reportable in the respective articles on those schools.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stub. Initially, I was willing to help repair this article, and made several edits towards that goal. As the article's talk page should demonstrate, that path now seems like far more trouble than it's worth. The page does have extremely serious promotional problems, but its wp:synth and wp:citekill issues also seem like significant obstructions to repairing it. Grayfell (talk) 3:52 am, Today (UTC+7)

Please point to any instance of original research. Wrongful synthesis produces original research, so finding any original research will also find any synthesis that violates that policy. That was not mentioned on the article's talk page except for one mention by me of synthesis you (I assume inadvertently) had introduced and which I corrected over four months ago, but I'm happy to edit out any remaining instance of it if you know of any.

Please acknowledge that in your editorial efforts some of them were erroneous, such as moving citations from statements they supported to statements they did not, a problem I also corrected over four months ago and which was discussed on the talk page (in the paragraph "moving around citations is problematic....").

Promotionality, if it is about tone, occurred in only a few instances and all were corrected long ago, both by one or more other editors (I think including you) and by me. None remain. If promotionality is about comprehensiveness or being informative, that is permissible and is not considered promotion. Most articles may promote interest in and further pursuit of their respective subjects and we could hardly oppose that and still have Wikipedia, at least without deleting nine tenths of it.

The citation overkill essay does refer to having many citations, which this article has, but this article also has a lot of challengeable information that is not of the "sky is blue" type. While I understand the inconvenience to readers of midsentence citations, this sentence (hypothetical and with refs not clickable) is already acceptable for another purpose per a guideline: "Paris is not the capital city of England—the capital of which is London^[10]—but that of France,^[11] and is widely known as a beautiful city.^[12]" As the essay says, "citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill. This does not apply ... when multiple sources support different parts of a paragraph or passage." In this article's case, the mistaken belief above that synthesis is present generally justifies citing for each sentence or sometimes clause, lest some passages be erroneously deemed unsuppported. This article does not cite mirrors or cite more than three sources for any point. Bundling is possible but no one has offered to do it and still maintain text-to-source integrity; that has been invited and discussed on the article's talk page.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis is, as I understand it, using different sources to advance a specific viewpoint that is not found in an one individual source alone. The problems with this article are all rolled-up into a bundle. The maze of sources are smashed together to form promotional, synthetic conclusions. Since I feel that I have already made my position as clear as I am able in conversation with Nick Levinson, I'm reluctant to spend any more time in that regard. If anyone else has any questions regarding my statement, I would be happy to try to explain further. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You never even alleged synthesis on the article's talk page and I alone voted to keep, not even to stubify. You are therefore preventing discussion of your view of any alleged synthesis. You are making an unsupported charge. In WP:SYNTH, this example is offered as acceptable: "Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references." From this a reader may conclude that Smith and Jones have a dispute about the larger scope of scholarly practice even though one didn't mention the dispute and the other didn't mention the larger scope of scholarly practice; and the example is permitted in an article. The Success Academy Charter Schools article sources many statements but does not draw unsupported conclusions. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Comprehensiveness is supposed to be present. According to the criteria for featured articles, a featured article "is .... comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". While article instability due to subject controversy will likely keep this article from meeting the other criteria for years, that does not preclude the comprehensiveness objected to. Wikipedia encourages it. See also the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (Added an essay: 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Stub and start over. This is the very rare case where WP:TNT is appropriate, as DGG, Grayfell, and Kudpung have all shown. The article and AfD history show persistent bludgeoning of the editing process by the article's proponent, which may require additional remedies before any rebuilding of the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment .sp .sp NL asked me on my talk p. to "correct" my nomination,"by posting a separate and affirmative correction or substantiation consistent with my replies." Otherwise I would not have thought it necessary to come here again, for I said everything that needed to be said the first time, and he said nothing here that had not already been refuted. But since he asked:

His statements convince me of the necessity for my nomination: he is out to produce as promotional an article as possible. He has demonstrated this by the clearest sign of promotionalism, puffing up something far beyond its encyclopedic importance, and then refusing to change it, and then defending his refusal at excessive length, ignoring or flat-out denying the obvious problems. As evidence of that, I suggest matching his statements that he has not reverted efforts to fix the article with the article history, and with his comments on the article talk page. As evidence that he uses excessive citations for the same point, look at the article and compare the many citations for specific sentences to see if they add anything. As evidence that he uses the founder's name too much, attribution of material is normally none in the reference, and the quotations themselves are not necessary, for they merely give her view of the importance of her own project: one well-selected quotation where she states her motivations & intentions would have been appropriate, but using a dozen is promotional. As evidence that he misunderstand the purpose of WP, see the essay he refers to, which defends with our practice of not censoring material , such as our material on the Rorschach test or the picture of Mohammed, or plot spoilers. The sentence he quotes on featured articles mentions "major" facts, not everything possible--whether the facts included are major can be seen by inspection, and then one can judge for oneself whether the opinion they are major is a betrayal of sufficient COI to disqualify from editing the article.

I've said enough to show him I am listening; anything more would be excessive and unfair. And unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination stated I had "always ... reverted", which was false; and I did not say I had "not reverted". I reverted or restored some edits and kept other edits and, applying BRD, typically restored or reverted after posting to the talk page for discussion, which was largely ignored. There's no bludgeoning by me. I invited responses and waited, and then acted, as we should.

Following any citation will show what it adds to or supports in the article and no citation is present for which irrelevance to the article or error in providing the citation has been shown.

Attribution is often required to be in the sentences, not just in a reference.

That Moskowitz' "quotations ... merely give her view of the importance of her own project" is incorrect on the face of them; they state particulars about how the schools are run and why, relevant to understanding the subject, and are included with many statements from many other sources.

Promotionality is not the result of how many times anyone is quoted. If the article results in a reader liking or disliking the schools, that is not our concern. Both results are easily obtained by reading the article and Wikipedia does not object to that, so promotionality is being misunderstood or misapplied here, since the promotionality not permitted is that of tone, not that resulting from content. If someone buys Microsoft Windows because of Wikipedia's article, Wikipedia doesn't object.

The essay I linked to makes several points, including the point for which I linked it and it does not contradict it.

I certainly did not include "everything possible". We disagree on what content is nontrivial and on point, and that is what the talk page is for. No consensus was attempted there on many subjects except by me.

I still do not have a COI. My being interested in these schools and willing to do the work of researching, editing, and discussing for the article does not constitute a COI. Wikipedia is not limited to editors who are casual or careless about subjects. It's crucial to be editorially careful, and many of us try to be and should.

You chose not to answer, correct, or try to substantiate regarding an edit war that never existed but which you implied was already present, that I did not cite more than 3 sources for any point when you incorrectly said "3 or more", about the details in the article being relevant to controversies about the schools when editors not in the AfD have said that controversies or criticisms need to be reported (noted on the article's talk page), on the falsity in the allegation that "a criticism section [is] entirely devoted to making conclusions that the criticism is not valid" when it draws no conclusions of its own of any kind but reports from sources and "when reliable sources disagree, [we are to] present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view", which omission of one side does not do, and, of course, we can't omit criticism altogether, as the draft proposed by another editor in this AfD as a start of a stub would do unless developed, or your claim that I presented "schools that have not yet opened and may never" when I had distinguished between those controverted (reportable for NPOV) and those not controverted and had deleted the latter months ago and yet you continued to complain about all of them as if still in the article. This kind of alleging poisons the AfD from its inception.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC) (Corrected a misspelling: 16:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Nuke and start over. Per nom, there is no way this article can be "fixed". The only plausible way to deal with it is to stub it and start over. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over, as most of the content is not encyclopedic. After deletion, email the wikitext to any editor who wishes to host it on their own Wiki. Place the article on probation for at least 6 months with clear guidance of what does NOT belong at all and what CAN be added ONLY after at least an attempt to discuss it. I have created a stub that can be used as a starting point: User:Davidwr/Success Academy Charter Schools version 555262670 snapshot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT and start over. The article should not be speedy-deleted, which was incorrect, but should be started over. The length of the article is not justified by its subject matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and start again. A ridiculously bloated and grossly unencyclopaedic article, over-reliant on primary sources. Wikipedia articles are not a repository for every single vague factiod relating to a subject. If promoters of the Schools wish to impose this sort of vacuous waffle on prospective parents etc, that is their business, and they can do it on their own website. It doesn't belong here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only the length of the article, but the length of the principal proponent's comments, are too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this article is a terrible coatrack. But from my perspective, the first few lines up to and including footnote [4], excluding footnote [1], establish notability and are not overly promotional. This change will take 20 seconds, thus I don't agree at all that it is impossible to fix. Retaining the page history can be helpful to rebuild the article in appropriate language, with relevant content. Sorry to disagree with (at least) two editors that I respect highly, and that I had the pleasure to meet in person. It might only be me, but this AfD smacks of deleting an article as punishment for its creator's conduct issues---which don't belong here, but there. --Pgallert (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can live with that stubification. If there's another voice who can I'll go ahead and make these changes in parallel with the AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke, pave and rebuild, with or without deletion. This article is a mess, and certainly needs a complete rewrite. Aside from the trivia, pointless micro stub sections and random rambling, the fact that the article spends so much time discussing Eva Moskowitz's thoughts (she is mentioned 131 times by my count), certainly lends me to question POV and indicates this is a likely WP:COATRACK. Reso lute 22:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune the heck out of it I trust the author will accept that as needed under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is a lot of pretty trivial "stuff" in it, but AfD is not a substitute for editing. Collect (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Note example pruning which is not quite to "stub" levels. [35]. I suspect the article might end up at 30K perhaps in size. Collect (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and start over. This article has way, way too much detail, and the promotional message is too ingrained into the text to be addressed by editing. As such, this is the rare case where WP:TNT is the best solution. Start again, and limit it to three or four paragraphs for the time being. If this is really such a notable school, it shouldn't be hard to write a brief summary of the most notable facts about it. Only if a neutral article of that length can be maintained should we consider expanding it. Robofish (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The school is notable per many NYT mentions. Subject of a book by Stephen Brill [36] as well as a slew of other books and academic article.. [37] noted in NY Daily News, etc. Length is not intrisically a strong reason for deletion - it meets all the Wikipedia guidelines for notability imaginable. April 23 is the turning point in this emotional film about children seeking admission to the Harlem Success Academy, a prestigious charter school in New York City. Skillfully produced, The Lottery presents the disturbing tale of how the luck of a draw in a charter school lottery determines the educational options for thousands of children each year. Even a film. Collect (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think anyone is suggesting the topic is not notable (I agree, it clearly is notable). I think this discussion boils down to what is the best route to getting a good (or even a Good :) ) article out of this: Delete and start over, stub and start over, leave as is and hope for the best, put the article on probation (or not), or some other discussion outcome or combination of outcomes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm viewing this now as article consensus changing or about to, with the forum being AfD rather than the article talk page, and I'm interested in standing back and seeing what other editors do. I found a few more sources (one above and a couple or so via Google Alerts) but I don't plan to edit per them, just keeping URLs on file offline for now. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think consensus is changing, actually. The consensus remains either to reduce it to about 1/10 of the current length (the good edit in which Collect removed 9/10 of the two long paragraphs he worked on was specified by that editor as an example of what was needed thruout), or deleting it and starting over. Everyone agrees that an article is appropriate, and everyone agrees that your editing is indistinguishable from the worst PR editing we've ever seen here. I continue to prefer deleting and starting over; but a viable alternative is to use Revision Delete on the promotional edits according to criterion 5 at WP:REVDEL) "Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete". DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and start over per well-founded arguments from just about everyone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is so over the top promotional and fluffy that we are better with a red link than this article. Someone else can start from scratch then, unburdened by the reams of irrelevant and promotional material that currently buries any potentially useful information that may or may not be there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator states on the talk page, "I have no desire to argue interminably with you or anyone. I'm dealing with it at AfD, so the community can decide". No, AfD is "articles for deletion", it is not "arguments for discussion". Another quote from the nominator acknowledges to using AfD improperly, "I do not like to use AfD to force improvements, because that's not its primary purpose, but it does work sometimes." yes, AfD is not cleanup. Applicable policy for this AfD is found at WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can read English pretty well, and nowhere in the nom statement do I see an admission of using the process 'improperly'. We should guard against making such sweeping interpretions. That said, the nominator has posed a perfect example of what AfD is also for. There is no way this article can be kept in its present cast and we're here to decide what to do with it. Experienced editors will know that 'keep' and 'delete' are not the only available options for AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is a non sequitur, since the sentence I quoted was from the talk page of the article. The second sentence is based on an unfounded premise that the statement is "sweeping"; and when the nominator has used the words "use AfD to force improvements" and there is no policy provided that AfD is to be used to force improvements, there is little left to interpret. The fourth sentence is the argument of a lynch mob. Regarding the fifth sentence, experienced editors will know that there are venues on Wikipedia other than AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and restart. That's not always the case; there are (admittedly rare) examples where an article on an otherwise clearly notable subject (such has this) has so many issues with Wikipedia policy that it is simpler to start over. I did have a look at this one as someone with educational experience and the vast majority of it is hopeless. Even the criticism section isn't really one - it is of the format "Criticism A was made, but this was refuted by B, C, D and E" - where B, C, D and E often have a connection to the subject. Having said that, whilst I wouldn't object to deletion and restart, I don't see any reason why it can't be stubbed back to the lead (changing the "according to Moskowitz" something like "Success Charter Schools claim" because it isn't explained who Moskowitz is at that point) plus the opening paragraph of the "Schools" section. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference to Moskowitz did say who she is until a recent edit during this AfD deleted that, but that edit is presumably temporary (not for brevity but for cleanup like that phrasing) and I don't want to be the one to correct it now. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, her name appears in the text of the present article 129 times.(not counting the references) DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With brevity, that number will likely go down. Each naming even before recent edits was justifiable before the changing of article consensus, partly because attributions are supposed to be in the text and partly because other nonpublicist officials of the schools group tend not to appear in sources while she does, often the case with current and former politicians, this one being the CEO; perhaps a different organizational top management would have had teachers and principals speaking more often where we'd be quoting or paraphrasing them, but they weren't and that's not our responsibility. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without projudice to recreate once reliable sources are found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dawg

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

Non Notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 21:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, most likely a hoax, and no evidence of notability anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Moorlands of Halifax

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

Appears to be a hoax, from the same source as its alleged artist Séan Walsh (poet). Nothing in Grove Art Online. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable hoax. I've been unable to find any sources for this. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Séan_Walsh_(poet) suggesting, for example, that the gallery that allegedly holds this alleged painting is devoted to contemporary art. Dricherby (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the opinion I expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Séan Walsh (poet). Fails WP:V insofar as no sources are discoverable. Deor (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] British Universities Ice Hockey Association - opening statement

[2] Times Higher Education 4Jul 2003

[King-3] King, John (25 May 2012). "Golden Gate Bridge's Plaza Flawed but Workable". San Francisco Chronicle.

[Jeffrey-4] Edna Jeffrey Biography and synopsis of her novel, Till I'm with You Again.

[Examiner-5] San Francisco Examiner. May 27, 1982. No. 147, p. 2. Golden Gate Bridge - 45th anniversary of completion.

[Kligman-6] Kligman, David (25 May 2012). "From Sea to Shining Sea: PG&E's Earley Joins Tribute to Golden Gate Bridge". Currents. PG&E.

[The_Contest-7] Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest.

[Finnila-8] Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest - Finnila's-related exerts.

[Best-9] San Francisco Bay Guardian - N:o 37, 1984.

[Examiner-10] San Francisco Examiner. May 27, 1982. No. 147, p. 2. Golden Gate Bridge - 45th anniversary of completion.

[The_Contest-11] Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest.

[Finnila-12] Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest - Finnila's-Finnish-Baths-related exerts.

[award-13] A picture of the 1984 "The Best" award certificate granted to Finnila's by the Bay Guardian

[Best-14] San Francisco Bay Guardian. N:o 37, 1984.

[Jeffrey-15] Edna Jeffrey biography and synopsis of her novel, Till I'm with You Again.

[Amazon-16] Till I'm With You Again: A Novel Based on Edna Jeffrey's True Life Experience - Amazon.com.

[novel-17] Jeffrey, Edna (2005), Till I'm with You Again, McKinleyville, CA: Daniel & Daniel Publishers, ISBN 978-1564744524.

[Racina-18] Thom Racina biography - author of the screenplay for the movie Forbibben.

[Forbidden-19] Forbidden - synopsis of screenplay by Thom Racina, based on Edna Jeffrey's novel.

[Thom1-20] Filmography by TV series for Thom Racina.

[Thom2-21] Thom Racina on IMdB.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]